Sola Scriptura

Adopted Daughter,

You've made some very good points! But what do we mean by AUTHORITY? Scripture IS authority - as Bro Frogman pointed out from Peter. The catholic church's position on scripture is certainly somewhat flawed but not without some merit. The RCC believes that scripture is authoritative - but that God would not leave us with NO extra guidance since NT times. Thus pastoral and papal authority. The idea is not so much that the pope is above the scripture - but that God can still lead the church through the pope's leadership.

I am a Baptist. I was at one point a catholic who was considering the priesthood. I spent a good deal of time in class with the Jesuit priests so I think I've got a pretty good idea of what the RCC really believes.

My one critique of the baptist view of scripture is that we seem to be taught to memorize lots of individual verses here and there - sometimes at the expense of seeing the whole picture. I've seen many posts here with the challenge, "Can you back that up with a scripture?" Scripture is a cohesive whole unit - not just a series of one-liners. The "scriptural authority" for something may not be spelled out in a single verse but rather in a story or a particular situation. The four gospels contain rich pictures of Jesus - but these are sometimes lost on those who only see "quotable verses". To its credit the RCC does see scripture in a bit of a broader context as such.

But back to authority. Certainly scripture is authoritative - maybe not always literally as some of us would like to think. What else really has AUTHORITY? What else really is ABSOLUTE? This is the heart of sola scriptura.

 

Because it is the only one that the text will legitimately allow. Words mean things and their meaning is interpreted in context. Meaning of a text is not a free for all; it has limitations that are rooted in the words of the text understood as the author intended them.

This issue has been way more complicated than it needs to be, simply because people believe that the Bible is treated differently than every day speech. The fact is that the Bible is communication, just like everything else. The difference between everyday speech and Scripture is that Scripture is inspired by God. THe nature of its language is not different.

So to find proper meaning, you go to the text and read it, understanding the words as the author used them and their relationships to the words around them.

Not all parts of the Bible are equally clear. There are some places where authorial intent is not explicit. In those areas, we can grant some liberty. But this is a completely different area. On this topic, the Bible is clear.

 

Agreed with Charles and Pastor Larry. Charles' comments are particularly astute, bearing in mind the old maxim of "a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext".

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Oral teaching of the GREATEST apostle was NOT valid unless it agreed with written revelation.

So you tell me that Pope XYZ's word or Church "father" ABC should be considered equal to Scripture, when Paul's wasn't? Absurd.

That deflates the tradition of "tradition" espouses by RC 'church'. </font>[/QUOTE]Equal as in inspired? Of course not. That is silly.


Adopted Daughter, I'd suggest picking up on what Charles has to say and running with it. He's about the only person here that has a lick of sense about him.

edited: I also wanted to add quickly before I have to get back to reading here, to PL's claim on 2 Tim. 3:16 that our fellow RCC brethren have no problem with it. They agree that scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. This is generally why they read more scripture in one mass than most protestants do in their services. They also have scripture readings for everday of the week for their followers. They would also likely point you to the whole passage, 3:10-16, especially noting 14-15.

 

Adam,

The point is that the RCC cannot explain what Paul actually said. They say you need to church to equip you for every good work. Paul said you need Scripture. Orthodox theology sides with Paul on this one. I have put that a bit simplistically for the sake of space and time. The context of vv. 10-16 make clear that what I am saying is the truth. I have not rejected the context in the least. What the RCC has done is add an level of authority over Scripture, namely the Pope, or as they put it, the church and her bishops, i.e., the teaching magesterium. They claim an equal authority but a closer examination reveals that equal means that the Scriptures says whatever they say it says. Their catechism clearly reveals that individuals are not permitted to disagree with the chruch and her bishops on these matters.

Furthermore, remember that reading Scripture in and of itself is not the point. A lot of people may read a lot of Scripture. The test is what you do with it. The Catholic church has rejected much of the teaching of that Scripture.

One of the great tragedies of recent times has been the blurring of lines between Catholics and evangelicals. Both sides are willing to overlook long standing, widely recognized distinctions. Issues that the two groups claim to agree on are the very issues on which the two groups split. We might argue that one or the other is wrong; we cannot argue that they are both saying the same thing.