Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer; bornacatholic; adiaireton8; kawaii; Kolokotronis; Blogger; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
FK: "Rather, [Sola Scriptura] says to evaluate every teaching in light of the Spirit's leading, other relevant scripture, and the reason God gave us."

That sounds reasonable (no pun intended), but Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 )

Your quote doesn't say anything about the scripture as authority (or not), it only mentions the Church. "The Church" means different things to different people. :) IMO, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about scripture as final authority. If the Church is following the scripture, then the results should be the same. In the OT, the equivalent of "the Church" frequently did not follow the scripture.

Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.

What? :) In the same book of Matthew you quote from Jesus says this:

Matt. 5:18 : I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

"The Law" was written down, it was scripture. In addition, Jesus quoted from other scripture as AUTHORITY all the time, even to satan's face. In fact, that's all He said to satan. It sounds to me that Jesus thought scripture was pretty authoritative. Why else would He quote from it instead of using His own words as often as He did?

Also note that in the Matthew passage you cite, it says that THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD GO WITH A DISPUTE IS THE CHURCH. If one faithful man could point out a scriptural teaching, oral or written, if he had it, to another faithful man, then that was the preferred way of handling it. That tells me that the appeal was to the wisdom of local clerics. In many cases I'm sure that worked fine, but not in all cases, since there have been unworthy clergy from all time. I can't believe Christ meant for us to follow unfaithful clergy if their views contradicted scripture. That is what would result if Christ meant: "just do whatever your local priest says, under any circumstances".

Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth [per 1 Tim. 3:15], then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.

Again, it depends on who "the Church" is. But even if it was the RCC, then that puts your hierarchs ahead of scripture itself, because they would not allow scripture to interpret itself, as we contend. However, no RC has ever admitted to me to holding this view. I do not understand how a hierarchy of men can say they have 100% power over the meaning of every verse in a book, and then say that their authority is no higher than the book. That seems very contradictory to me.

Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.

I couldn't agree more. :) When we add in the entirety of scripture, this describes Sola Scriptura.

40 posted on 12/30/2006 5:13:36 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper; NYer; bornacatholic; adiaireton8; kawaii; wmfights; Blogger; HarleyD; ...

"Again, it depends on who "the Church" is."

FK, we have a definition of The Church from the 1st century, from the disciple of +John and successor of Peter as bishop of Antioch:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

FK: "But even if it was the RCC, then that puts your hierarchs ahead of scripture itself, because they would not allow scripture to interpret itself, as we contend. However, no RC has ever admitted to me to holding this view. I do not understand how a hierarchy of men can say they have 100% power over the meaning of every verse in a book, and then say that their authority is no higher than the book. That seems very contradictory to me."

If the fullness of The Church universal is found in a single diocese made up of a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, his clergy and the People of God centered on the Eucharist (which would clearly leave out Protestant ecclesial assemblies) as +Ignatius would have us believe, then it is clear that the "power" to interpret scripture properly and declare its true meaning infallibly belongs to The Church and not to any individual priest, hierarch or lay person or for that matter anything less than all of these groups together. In this sense, at least so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, the Latin Church gradually got it wrong as its ecclesiology became increasingly monarchial and less synergistic. It is interesting, both historically and theologically, to note that the Church of Rome was the great fount of Orthodoxy for the first 1000 years of The Church. It was only when this monarchial mentality reached the point where Rome presumed, in the person of the pope, to change the Creed with the addition of the filioque, something which it had refused for centuries to do, and then attempted to impose that innovation on The Church, that the rest of The Church said NO! That lead to the Great Schism where the pope's man purported to "excommunicate" the Pat. of Constantinople. Very soon thereafter, unfettered by the influence of the other Patriarchates, the Dictatus Papae appeared which speaks volumes about the mindset which had developed in the Roman Church. It was pretty much downhill from there with the Protestant Reformation being the result. The early reformers, as you know, held on to many of the Holy Traditions of The Church, as the Nativity thread demonstarted, but gradually, in an effort to be "not Roman Catholic", protestantism devolved into a confused babble of contending, very personal, very individual interpretations of what God really intended for us when He created us and how we get there. In the meantime, the Roman Church became increasingly legalistic and, dare I say the word, oppressive, though it certainly is and always has been part of The Church because it is impossible for it to ever have been otherwise. The fact that its popes or local councils may have promulgated error doesn't change that any more than from a Roman point of view, Orthodoxy's refusal to accept as dogmatic Rome's post schism (or for that matter the pre schism local council or sua sponte papal)pronouncements means the Orthodox Churches are not part of The Church.

The point of this whole screed is that, as you said, the proper definition of The Church is the sine qua non of any understanding of how we come to, as best we can, know and understand The Truth. It comes from The Church, FK, and I must say that as the various protestant ecclesial assemblies do not meet the definition of The Church (in fact, most of them very nicely fit the definition of heretical assemblies found in +Ignatius' letters), the whole idea that by a faithful adherence to sola scriptura any individual can properly and definitively interpret scripture is merely a cover for not being in The Church.

As BAC pointed out, I believe on another thread, this is not to say that the faithful average well meaning Protestant is even conscious of this. But the fact of the matter is that sola scriptura, the result of which is an ever changing idea of what God's purpose for us (all of us? some of us?) is and how that happens and when it happens, keeps Protestants from living the fullness of The Faith which is found ONLY in The Church.


44 posted on 12/30/2006 6:33:02 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper

Christ gave the aposltes authority to bind and loose its the only time anything like authority is mentioned by Christ. If hed meant that only those who correctly interpret scripture could come into the church hed have told the apostles that hed given them scripture which had the sbility to bind and loose not that they themselves possed that authority


45 posted on 12/30/2006 7:31:15 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper; NYer; bornacatholic; adiaireton8; kawaii; Kolokotronis; Blogger; HarleyD; ...
When we add in the entirety of scripture, this describes Sola Scriptura.

The answer is always in Scripture.

Col. 2:8 "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world and not according to Christ."

Any sect that believes in Sola Scriptura believes in the equality of the believers.

46 posted on 12/30/2006 9:26:55 AM PST by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson