Advertisements

Roman Catholics vs. Sola Scriptura Pt.1

As mentioned in the previous post there are two major groups that attack Sola Scriptura. Liberals tend to simply dismiss it on the basis of culture change and Roman Catholics need to deny it to uphold the Pope’s authority. This post will focus on the latter. Before we dive into the first common Catholic attack I want to first define Sola Scriptura. I will be using the same definition as the previous post because some people may not read the “Liberals vs. Sola Scriptura” article. Kenneth R. Samples gives this definition of Sola Scriptura in the Christian Research Journal:

Sola Scriptura- A Definition
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says. 

Sola Scriptura- The Sufficiency of Scripture
Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith. 

Sola Scriptura- The Authority of Scripture
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible. – “What Think Ye of Rome?” from the Christian Research Journal DC170-3

With that definition fresh in our minds we will look the “oral tradition” argument against Sola Scriptura.

Oral Tradition is the “Word of God”

Oral tradition is the basis for many teachings in the Catholic church. Things like the Marian Doctrines, papal infallibility, veneration of icons, purgatory, and indulgences are all said to come from oral tradition. In order to assert this the Roman Catholic is forced to place these doctrines and dogmas on the same level as those taught in Scripture. That means that Scripture an oral tradition have the same weight of authority. In an article entitled “A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura”, Dave Armstrong writes this about oral tradition:

“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

Paul is telling the Thessalonians to hold to the traditions that he taught them. What were these traditions? Well, Rome would have you believe that what they teach is what Paul taught. This brings up many difficult questions. #1 How could the church ever know what Paul actually taught when the church has never authoritatively defined a single word of any Apostle that isn’t found in Scripture? #2 Paul wrote extensively, as we see in Scripture, so why are the doctrines and dogmas taught by Rome absent from the copious amount of Paul’s writings?

These are questions that need to get answered but I have never heard a satisfactory answer to them. Along with those questions there is a text of Scripture that the Roman Catholic needs to address. Mark 7:8-13 says:

7:8 ‘Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.’ 9 He also said to them, ‘You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.’ -NET

Here we see a very interesting interaction between Jesus and the religious authorities. The corban rule was a Jewish tradition that allowed people to give their funds to the temple instead of caring for their parents. In the Jewish culture “honoring your father and mother” meant more than simply respecting their opinions or correction. It was a life-long commitment to care for one’s parents in their old age. This meant that funds would go to caring for them when they could not earn a day’s wage. This rule was a tradition passed down and the jewish authorities claimed it was oral tradition. Well, Jesus corrects the religious teachers by telling them that they “nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.

Jesus admits that this tradition was handed down through the generations however, he gives us direction in how to test traditions. If a tradition nullifies the word of God then we are to reject it. So, if the Roman Catholic church teaches traditions no where found in Scripture or contradict Scripture then why should I be bound to their doctrines? Jesus wouldn’t have accepted them on the basis of his own teaching shown by his condemnation of the corban rule.

Follow Jesus by testing tradition by Scripture.

Thanks for reading.

Advertisements

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology. I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it! I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we have one amazing child! I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Posted on March 8, 2012, in Christianity, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. Important topic. Have you ever looked at Hans Kung’s “The Church”? He was a Catholic reformer behind many of the changes in Vatican II. I was surprised at his high view of Scripture expressed in his introduction. Even to the point of saying that anything said by the pope, church tradition, etc., that contradicts Scripture is incorrect, and limits tradition’s normative role as under Scripture and only proactive in regards to contemporary practice of Biblical principles and only reactive in regards to holding to a steady and true interpretation of Scripture. While I definitely disagree with how he ends up interpreting Scripture, he’s opened me up to listening to Catholic positions (which are by no means uniform, especially in our era). The primary difference, I think, between our position and theirs is that they view apostolic leadership as dynamic and persisting, but, actually many can say with all sincerity (regardless of actuality), bound by Scripture and not infallible in practice.

    Also, your discussion of Jesus’ and Paul’s dismissal of extra-biblical doctrines is slightly lacking as they never taught an absolute principle of dismissing anything not primarily rooted in Scripture (except in the case of the gospel, which must not be altered of course, but which Catholics would argue isn’t altered, which, of course, we would disagree with, but I would not base my disagreement on sola Scriptura but sound exegesis). After all, Paul was writing new Scripture, was he not? And the council’s decision in Acts does not seem primarily Scripture based either.

    So I see three primary issues:
    1. Is the cannon closed? How do we know that? Do we know that from the cannon or extra-cannonically, and if so, how do we trust that source?
    2. What do we mean by authoritative? Specifically, when it comes to actual, specific, real life practice, is there such a thing as authority apart from Scripture (i.e., when can someone/group excommunicate someone/group, etc.) Could a legitimate office hold interpretive authority?
    3. Could interpretation and extrapolation, even new teaching in general, be forever forbidden as authoritative to the Church? I certainly can’t find explicit Scripture that says so…

    So, while I agree that Scripture is primary (and, I’m largely arguing for nuance, not because of real, substantive disagreement), many Catholics would argue they also hold Scripture as primary and foundational to as well as in agreement with any “apostolic” teaching they hold. And, while I know you and I would agree as individual interpreters who humbly trust the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the Scripture through study would hold that the teachings of Rome do in fact contradict the Scriptures, I’m not sure that sola Scriptura is the best case against their teachings….

    • Jeff,

      I have never looked at Kung’s work but if your representation of him is correct then I know many Catholics that would say he is wrong. He also doesn’t represent historical Catholicism. For a long time the church held to the partum-partum view of Scripture and tradition which goes against Kung’s view. Not only that Catholics constantly assert that the church defines and interprets Scripture. That statement shifts authority from the Scriptures to the church and that is indefensible.

      Also you wrote, “Also, your discussion of Jesus’ and Paul’s dismissal of extra-biblical doctrines is slightly lacking as they never taught an absolute principle of dismissing anything not primarily rooted in Scripture.”

      Me: Jesus didn’t “dismiss” the corban rule. Jesus showed us how to test traditions and that is by the Scriptures. Rome has many traditions that are utterly absent from Scripture and some that contradict Scripture. Jesus would have rejected them.

      You: After all, Paul was writing new Scripture, was he not? And the council’s decision in Acts does not seem primarily Scripture based either.

      Me: This is a common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not relevant until the whole canon is normative. Sola Scriptura can’t be a fully held to unless we have a completed Scriptura. Now this doesn’t mean that we can’t take principles from Jesus about it but the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not formal until inscripturation is over.

      Jeff to answer some of your other questions. As far as the canon goes that is a different subject. It is a related subject for sure but I will be writing on this topic in the future. Time is sometimes hard to come by but I am going to try and get around to it. Until then you read this article by James Swan entitled “The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition”

      Your second question interests me: “2. What do we mean by authoritative? Specifically, when it comes to actual, specific, real life practice, is there such a thing as authority apart from Scripture (i.e., when can someone/group excommunicate someone/group, etc.) Could a legitimate office hold interpretive authority?”

      Me: What I mean by authoritative is a sufficient rule of faith and practice for the church. A group can excommunicate someone when the someone doesn’t follow Scripture. This is the authority that the local church has but that authority is derived from Scripture. Their authority does not define Scripture. That is one of the big differences between the Roman Catholic church and Protestants. Also, you asked, “Could a legitimate office hold interpretive authority?” I am not sure what you mean by this. If there is such an office then you need to give me some evidence of such an office. If there is such an office how can we test their interpretations?

      You also asked: “3. Could interpretation and extrapolation, even new teaching in general, be forever forbidden as authoritative to the Church? I certainly can’t find explicit Scripture that says so…”

      Me: The Scriptures are God-breathed. That means they are authoritative and come from the mouth of God. The “new teaching” you speak of would need to be God-breathed in order to hold authority. This is the problem with the Roman Catholic church. They claim authority but can’t prove that their traditions are God-breathed.

      Also, this is not the first time I have written against Rome so I would encourage you to search those other posts out in the search engine on the blog.

      Thanks for reading and commenting Jeff,

      Travis

  2. How do you know there are only sixty-six books (not more and not less) in (your) Bible when there is no single verse in the Bible makes that statement? Did you apply “sola scriptura” in choosing those sixty-six books?

    • Hey Vivator,

      That is a very common objection but the canon does not necessarily have a direct connection with Sola Scriptura. The canon list is not revelation. The canon list is an artifact of revelation. The canon list is self-evident from, what Paul calls, the God-breathed Scriptures. We do not need an authority above the Scriptures to tell us what Scripture is. Let’s break down what you are saying.

      I am assuming you are a Roman Catholic here. If I am wrong then please feel free to correct me. If you are a Roman Catholic then you have serious problems. For instance on Catholic websites like catholicapologetics.org you will find this:

      The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

      Now there is a very important word here that is snuck in. It is the word “similar”. The Laodicea Council didn’t include the book of Revelation. But your canon does. This does not support your position it damages it. Now let’s look at the Apocrypha. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

      St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

      St. Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. So, they didn’t believe that the canon was defined when they were around so how could anyone know what Scripture was before or during their time? I answered your questions now you need to answer mine.

      During the time of Pope Gregory the Great how could anyone know what was and was not Scripture since it’s evident that he didn’t know of an infallible list?

      Trent and Vatican I speaks of “unanimous consent of the Fathers” when it comes to tradition. In light of their claims of unanimity on what basis you you accept the book of Revelation as Scripture since the council of Laodicea rejected it?

      Thanks for reading and commenting,

      Travis

  3. Only puzzling thing is why would Jesus Christ leave us without an accurate traceable after the 1st century church just scattered scriptures to whom had them ? To whom declared what was considered Canon (The Bible 66 or 73 Orthodox) and infallible? Other religions can trace their origins.

    The claim is only the invisible spiritual church is the real church of Christ. Then why do we even keep records and grow a visible church and become members with by-laws that eventually falls into some form of tradition over time from when it first started with a supposed spiritual vision of the founder’s personal revelations based on the bible? Jesus left us with someone to shepherd his flock with spiritual authority (guided The Holy Spirit of Truth) with some sort of consistency doctrines of faith and not in chaos with many divisions that no one can totally agree on. One Lord One Faith One baptism One Body the bible states. Just wondering.

  4. Hey Dennis,

    I am completely baffled by your comment.

    You said: “Only puzzling thing is why would Jesus Christ leave us without an accurate traceable after the 1st century church just scattered scriptures to whom had them ?”

    Me: you are puzzled that Jesus would leave us without an accurate traceable what? If you are suggesting that the Scriptures were scattered well you would be right. They were scattered because Christians wanted to spread the Gospel to everyone. So people passing through would want a copy of a specific book and they would copy it. That is why we have so many manuscripts and many are not professionally done.

    You: “To whom declared what was considered Canon (The Bible 66 or 73 Orthodox) and infallible? Other religions can trace their origins.”

    Me: When you ask “who declared what was considered Canon?” what you are looking for is an authority that is above and beyond Scripture to define what Scripture is. When it comes to Rome it defines and interprets Scripture that places their authority above Scripture. Well, Scripture says that it is “breathed out of the mouth of God” Rome can’t make that claim about their tradition so why should I grant them authority above “God-breathed” Scripture?

    Thanks for reading and commenting,

    Travis

  5. Hi Travis,

    Thanks for responding to my comments. Maybe I am not being clear. Give me the historical list of when, where, and who started the whole Bible alone is our sole and ONLY authority AFTER the the 1st century onward as the ONLY measuring stick of infallible Truth that kept the church unified pure without error? Correct me if I am wrong, but The Canon – The Entire bible 66 or 73 whichever you determined to be infallible was not even put together until church councils with the Church of Rome? Were not other orthodox church councils as well defining what was sound doctrines e.g trinity etc. along with rome? The Creeds developed the summary of infallible truths since the everyday average christian did not read canon/scriptures for themselves. Correct me, if I am wrong. What form of worship and practice did the early church people and under who’s Authority were they under with Gods Favor? (after the 1st century onward). Gosh, did not mean to get so lengthy! Learning and living the Truth sets us Free!

    • Hey Dennis,

      I am not sure this comment is more clear than the last one but I will do my best to interact with your questions/comments.

      You said: “Give me the historical list of when, where, and who started the whole Bible alone is our sole and ONLY authority AFTER the the 1st century onward as the ONLY measuring stick of infallible Truth that kept the church unified pure without error?”

      Me: As far as the beginnings of Sola Scriptura we find many early church fathers talking about it. However, the Bible speaks clearly about it’s authority. According to Paul Scripture is God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says:

      All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

      Paul makes it clear that Scripture is equips the man of God for every good work. If teaching things like the marian doctrines and papal infallibility are a good work then we must find them in Scripture. If we do not find them in Scripture then you need to prove to me that all of the Catholic church’s traditions are God-breathed. If they aren’t then you have no leg to stand on.

      You: “Correct me if I am wrong, but The Canon – The Entire bible 66 or 73 whichever you determined to be infallible was not even put together until church councils with the Church of Rome?”

      Me: Well, it depends on what you mean by “determined”. It was definitely determined by God and that is what really matters. When it comes to the list of 66 books is not revelation in itself, rather, it is an artifact of revelation. We recognize Scripture because it is self evident. We do not need an infallible authority outside of Scripture to determine it. When you do this you are elevating the churches authority above Scripture. If the church defines and interprets the Bible that means it isn’t under Scriptures authority. But, as I mentioned earlier, you cannot prove to me that Catholic tradition is God-breathed so why should I trust it?

      You: “Were not other orthodox church councils as well defining what was sound doctrines e.g trinity etc. along with rome?”

      Me: Along with Rome? Like working with them? Or coming to the same conclusions? I’m struggling to understand your questions. But did you know that Pope Honorius was anathematized by following councils for agreeing with the Monothelites? If the Pope can err then why believe that the Rome has accurately identified the canon of Scripture?

      You: “Correct me, if I am wrong. What form of worship and practice did the early church people and under who’s Authority were they under with Gods Favor?”

      Me: Umm…the early church in the 1,2,3 centuries knew nothing of many of the modern doctrines Catholics hold to today. Papal infallibility is now where to be found nor is the modern view of the Eucharist.

      Travis

  6. Thanks Travis for replying, Sorry my wording is not the best of phrasing i suffer a TBI.
    (head injury). I am trying though!

    Too many variable questions I know i am asking of you to resolve at this time. Sowry! lol

    I do want to know from you, when did this Sola Scriptura start after the 1st century, who on Earth defined it and practiced it? I do not see the accurate historical evidence of it.

    Everything done according to Scripture and oral Tradition which did not contradict what was considered Inspired directly by the Holy Spirit of Truth, but through ruling church authority.

    Hey Travis, why not add Sola Ecclesia! Amen!

    Let us learn and live the Truth for it sets us Free!

    • Hey Dennis,

      Keep working hard with your TBI! I work with a client that had a TBI and he has made some great progress.

      You: “Too many variable questions I know i am asking of you to resolve at this time.”

      Me: Asking questions is a sign of maturity as long as you are also looking for answers.

      You: “I do want to know from you, when did this Sola Scriptura start after the 1st century, who on Earth defined it and practiced it? I do not see the accurate historical evidence of it.”

      Me: If you want historical evidence for people who practiced it I will give you some quotes:

      We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. -St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 193 AD

      The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. -St. Athanasius, 296-373 AD

      Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. -St. Gregory of Nyssa, 330-395 AD

      Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast. -St. John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

      As you can see there is a long line of people who taught Sola Scriptura. It may not be by name but it certainly is what they are teaching in practice.

      You: “Everything done according to Scripture and oral Tradition which did not contradict what was considered Inspired directly by the Holy Spirit of Truth, but through ruling church authority.”

      Me: You highlight the problem perfectly here. You have two choices. You either follow Scripture and allow that to be the ultimate authority or you allow the church to be your ultimate authority. There cannot be two ultimate authorities because that is an oxymoron. Also let me point out that the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and if you are a Roman Catholic you believe that. However, Rome cannot prove that their traditions are “God-breathed”. If they cannot do so then why should we follow them over the Scriptures? I would rather follow that which comes from the mouth of God than what comes from the mouth of men.

      You: “Hey Travis, why not add Sola Ecclesia! Amen!”

      Me: I pray that you do not hold to Sola Ecclesia because that means the church is above the Scriptures and that is not what God speaks of in Scripture. I pray that you come to embrace Sola Scriptura and turn from Rome (and any other external authority). The Gospel is not found in Rome Dennis it is found in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ alone.

      Thanks for writing,

      Travis

  7. God bless your efforts,

    Still Seeking Travis,

    Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleuterus concerning the heresy Montanism, and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. While Irenaeus was in Rome, a massacre took place in Lyons. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus and became the second Bishop of Lyon.

    Just one person you quoted painstaking to look up some background on him. Seems he did not go by his own authority handling scriptures alone against so called heretics who used scriptures wrongly.

    Quote from St. Irenaeus:

    “Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession.” Against Heresies, (Book IV, Chapter 26)

    So who are the Pillars of Truth after the Apostles? All those quoted from above belong to what church and ruling authority?

    just trying learn look up scriptures relating to the Issue:

    and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 3:15

    Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. Ephesians 2:20

    James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jew. Galatians 2:9

    I am slow but trying to learn and live the Truth which sets us free!

    • Dennis,

      My point in quoting Irenaeus was that this thought of Scripture alone was taught. Now I will grant that many Christians were inconsistent when it comes to Sola Scriptura but they taught it none the less. According to Irenaeus the Scriptures are the “ground and pillar of our faith”. If your faith is placed outside of Scripture then it is misplaced. We know God through his holy Word.

      You said: “All those quoted from above belong to what church and ruling authority?”

      Me: Well I think something needs to be clear. These people that I quote are not authorities. They only highlight that they believed that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for the man of God to know God, worship God, and perform good works in the name of God.

      Travis

  8. Wow, quick response Travis,

    Thanks for your input, you seem very knowlegeble!

    Something is interesting to quote different sources as reference how they resorted to Scriptures, but also we must then read the rest what they also said as credible. (like the above quotes I found and gave from which included Church Authority which they we in union with. Right? Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon part of a clergy.
    He did NOT act alone by himself with Scriptures Alone/Only correct?

    John 17:17 Jesus prayed to the Father: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth” (New testament was not written when Jesus said this, so this must be Heavenly Father’s Oral Word given To Jesus who became the Eternal Word for all to believe on. And not canon scriptures he was not referring to right?

    Sorry, if I sound simple and kind of pressing you!:(

    I am trying to learn and live out what is True! It sets us free the deeper we enter into.

    • Hey Dennis,

      You said: “Something is interesting to quote different sources as reference how they resorted to Scriptures, but also we must then read the rest what they also said as credible.”

      Me: I think it is wrong to suggest that I need to accept everything that every early church father wrote. Even Catholic apologists wouldn’t say that. The early church fathers were humans. Humans can make mistakes. Humans are not infallible so when the early church writers wrote in accordance to the Scriptures then we can accept them. When they stray from the truth of the Bible then we can reject that teaching. It is a fundamental problem when we suggest that because they said one thing correct means that everything they wrote was correct.

      You: “like the above quotes I found and gave from which included Church Authority which they we in union with. Right? Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon part of a clergy.
He did NOT act alone by himself with Scriptures Alone/Only correct?”

      Me: I am going to be honest with you and say that I have no clue about the Montanist controversy. For all I know Irenaeus could have said what you are saying. That does not affect Sola Scriptura. People act inconsistently and if that is true then Irenaeus acted inconsistently. In fact, Augustine stood against the church. Did he do that in accordance to your view of papal infallibility? I don’t think so.

      Travis

  9. Late one! Travis,
    I pray we do not Cherry pick our way is to satisfy our spiritual reasonings and justifications because it is too hard to trust and obey God working through imperfect human spiritual authority. Oddly, during the Apostle times people did. They became disciples of some of them if not all of them.

    Odd, that we hate to follow what traditional orthodoxy handed down, yet we will follow johnny come lately types, blindly believing their teachings of The Bible deemed as correct. Plus, adding their spin to make it fit in the present time we live in. BTW, all which do NOT agree on the same doctrines of Truth and Faith and practice thereof.
    How many branches of christianity are there now? Good Grief o_O

    You – In Fact, Augustine stood against the church. Did he do that in accordance to your view of papal infallibility? I don’t think so.

    Me – Since when did I even say papal infallibility? wow what assumption on your part
    Spank you with the book of Proverbs! hehe.

    Sorry, Travis couple more questions, during the whole life of Augustine which church and what leader of that church did he rebel or pose total opposition to it?

    Did he subject himself to No human Spiritual Christian Authority and belong to no one but himself & The Bible?

    Honestly I wish it was just me and the Bible way of living. With my TBI it is difficult sifting through and clearly getting the infallible truth revealed in the canon scriptures, I wind up listening to some preacher on TV/Radio 😦 ironically it becomes me cherry picking what seems right to me. I am my OWN authority, how dangerous I am being a head injury survivor then pass on what I just learned to someone else that is seeking Truth.

    Travis you are very interesting though, I am glad to have found this place. God Bless you as we learn and live the Truth which sets us free!

    • Hey Dennis,

      Sorry it has taken me a while to respond.

      You are not your own authority. The Bible is your authority but you are responsible. Even with your TBI you have the ability to think rationally and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. You are just as dangerous as anyone else who claims to have authority. I do have some questions for you though.

      Are you a Roman Catholic? If not then how would you describe yourself?

      Augustine stood opposed Pope Zosimus when the pope accepted the teachings of Pelagius. Augustine understood that the pope did not represent authority unless it was in agreement with the ultimate authority…the Bible.

      Thanks,

      Travis

      P.S. Don’t listen to preachers on TV. Instead use your computer to find more solid teaching. Sermon audio is a good place to go to.

  10. I am a seeker for the Truth! Travis was sick with mold in condo past weeks sorry I could not respond promptly.

    Travis, Who should I believe in passing down the correct interpretations of The Infallible Word of God to sit under as a mentor especially with my brain injury?

    Should I believe Oral Roberts Pat Roberston R.C Sproul Charles Stanley Jimmy Swaggert Benny Hinn Joel Osteen Kenneth Copeland Chuck Smith Billy Graham or past reformer preachers C H Spurgeon George Whitefield Charles Finney Jonathan Edwards A W Tozer Arthur W Pink Charles Wesley Calvin DL Moody Billy Sunday in giving me ALL the Truth of the Word of God which they all preach as The Bible sole rule of faith from they feel their teachings were infallible interpretations divinely inspired by The Holy Spirit of Truth?

    ARE THEY NOT ALL ACTING ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL AUTHORITY? Convinced themselves they are right? Preaching and Teaching the whole Gospel and church doctrines without error from the Written Word of God solely Alone disregarding the Orthodox established historical spiritual Authority?

    The Orthodox teachers like St. Irenaeus “Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate. and he said We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us ( who was the authority at that time after Apostles?) in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

    But you look in details of past reformers and recent preachers of beliefs they differ. They all do NOT agree what exactly what is the Truth on various teachings the Orthodox/Catholic and Apostolic Church passed down through the ages. Baptisms, Communion End times etc..
    This leads me to confusion which the devil is the author of. Put them in all the same room on a few difficult scripture passages and most likely will result in no clear unified truth. Who do I trust in teaching me the correct bible interpretations? Travis.

    I found this in The Bible..- have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father.The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15) not Scriptures alone correct? Pillars of Truth seems to be the Church Authority handing down the Pillar of faith the Divine Written Divine Word of God.It Seems Both are the balance and safe.

    Trying to learn and live all the truth which sets us free believe me!

    • Hey Dennis,

      Sorry to hear about the mold! That stuff is no good. Allow me to address some of your comments.

      You: “Travis, Who should I believe in passing down the correct interpretations of The Infallible Word of God to sit under as a mentor especially with my brain injury?”

      Me: Dennis I understand that you have a brain injury. I believe that God is a righteous judge so he will only hold you accountable to the ends of your abilities. However, that does not mean you are responsible. You seem very bright Dennis and you are accountable to what the Scriptures say. In the wide ranging people you mentioned some are more reliable than others but we have a way to test what they teach…the Scriptures. We do not need an infallible authority to interpret the Scriptures because they are clear and understandable. Look at all of the Roman Catholic writings, which some claim are authoritative, and tell me that all of those doctrines and dogmas make the Scriptures more clear. I would argue that they muddy the Scriptures not clear them up.

      You: “ARE THEY NOT ALL ACTING ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL AUTHORITY?”

      Me: Some certainly do. However, those from the reformed tradition look to the great minds of the past and the Bible for their understanding. Reformed people hold the church in high regard but the church is under the authority of Scripture…not the other way around.

      You: “But you look in details of past reformers and recent preachers of beliefs they differ. They all do NOT agree what exactly what is the Truth on various teachings the Orthodox/Catholic and Apostolic Church passed down through the ages. Baptisms, Communion End times etc..”

      Me: Yes, reformers differ on some issues. If having perfect doctrinal unity is the requirement you are looking for then you will be searching forever. Roman Catholics differ and tons of issues. We, as Christians, belong to a universal church. Nobody is perfect so people will differ on issues but we should strive for Truth and Truth is found in the Scriptures.

      You: “I found this in The Bible..- have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father.The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15) not Scriptures alone correct? Pillars of Truth seems to be the Church Authority handing down the Pillar of faith the Divine Written Divine Word of God.It Seems Both are the balance and safe.”

      Me: I am not certain what translation you have but a better wording of this verse is the church is the “pillar and buttress” of the truth. The church is responsible for holding up the truth and where do we find the truth? The Scriptures. So, yes it is the Scripture alone and the churches role is to advance the Gospel that is found in the Scriptures.

      Thanks for commenting Dennis.

      Travis

  11. Thanks Travis for understanding my disability, but it still bugs me about the sola thing from a historical point of view. Like the Bible Book dropped from heaven and fell on whoever was there to catch it and go it alone The Bible does not say in it go by these 66/73 books ONLY.

    The NT was not even written as Apostle Peter and Paul and James and John and others preached through their oral teaching and bringing up OT canon references to verify the truth of Jesus as The Christ who we find salvation to be believed jew and gentile alike. Again Oral and Written Truths passed down through 2nd century onward Church Authority which the fathers give credence to spiritual offices of Rome and other Patriarchs Regions to which was alluded to posts above.

    Like I said which preachers past and present are teaching All the Truth infallibly so?

    Ephesians 4:4-6 There is One body (visible and spiritual authority but who?) and One Spirit (Holy Spirit of Truth), just as you were called in One Hope (Jesus our anchor of your souls) of your calling One Lord (GodMan- Jesus), One faith (salvation through Christ), One Baptism (Spiritual Rebirth By Holy Spirit) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and is in you all.

    And He gave some as apostles,and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers ( These were carried out in succession after 1st century) Their purpose is to prepare God’s people (followers of the Jesus with the apostles and disciples) to serve and to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Ephesians 4:9-13 think ref is correct.
    If we quote early fathers can find them going to scriptures and going to references to an Visible Christian Authority as well, whether it is Rome or otherwise and not solely alone.
    .

    • Dennis,

      It is totally cool just keep learning.

      You said: “it still bugs me about the sola thing from a historical point of view. Like the Bible Book dropped from heaven and fell on whoever was there to catch it and go it alone The Bible does not say in it go by these 66/73 books ONLY.”

      Me: Yes, the Bible did not just fall from heaven. Revelation came progressively. However, what needs to be understood is that the canon list of books is not revelation…the list is an artifact of revelation. As R.C. Sproul says, “Protestants view [the canon] as a fallible collection of infallible books.” We do not decide what is and is not Scripture. Rather we simply recognize their inspiration.

      You: ” Again Oral and Written Truths passed down through 2nd century onward Church Authority which the fathers give credence to spiritual offices of Rome and other Patriarchs Regions to which was alluded to posts above.”

      Me: There was an infallible pope in the 2nd century? That would be news to me.

      You: “If we quote early fathers can find them going to scriptures and going to references to an Visible Christian Authority as well, whether it is Rome or otherwise and not solely alone.”

      Me: This only means that they did not practice Sola Scirptura consistently. It does not mean that Sola Scriptura is thrown out. You are giving early church fathers more weight than you should. There were some wild beliefs in the early church, just like today. The question is, “How do we test those teachings?” The only answer is by the Scriptures.

      Travis

  12. Reblogged this on Another Christian Blog and commented:

    #SolaScriptura Matters! #Catholicism Vs. #Bible

  1. Pingback: Papal Infallibility Cross-Examined « AnotherChristianBlog

Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: