Non-Catholic (protestant) authority

[Nicea325]

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16)

The above verse has been taken out-of-context way to long to prove Sola Scriptura. Notice the first word: ALL. Does not say: ONLY scripture is....

Likewise, ALL is not referring to a one volume book called the Bible. And why? The NT was not complete nor was their an official Christian canon. Furthermore,one can easily use the term ALL loosely and apply it to every single Gospel or letter written. So one can have Sola Matthew,Mark,etc,etc.

Sola Scriptura simply does not fly and it is not biblical at all.

[dnu]

In other words, the verse in 2 Timothy says:

"The Old Testament (the only scripture availalbe at that time) is useful for preaching about Jesus."

How Protestants can read that as "The New Testament is totally sufficient for all Christianity" is beyond me.

[Justin1982]

Catholic Answers explains the Sacrament of Confession and where we get it from here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by rev kevin

And I believe that I explained the Bible verse that you gave me. I don't know how much planer I can get for you. But incase you didn't understand it here it is again, Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission, to preach the Good News about Jesus so people's sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins.{only God can forgive sins}. You have given me one Scripture in the attempt make what you have said to be fact. I have given 4 Scriptures that means only God can forgive sin and the explination of each. I even had to correct Spencerian on Mark 2:7 when he said that the whole crowd questioned Jesus, which is not true.
How do they know what sins to forgive and what sins not to forgive?
If someone sins against you are you to forgive them?
Sorry but this physical sin thing telling a physical person seems pretty strange, What is a physical sin?
Just because you bartered with God don't mean that everyone who tells God their sins do the same.
The priest, Holy Spirit thing is how you discribed it works.
My God is the same God you have. I don't claim to fully understand God but it seem like the CC does after all they are infallible and can't be wrong in their teachings.

Nope! Not true at all.



God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

Explain how this is not referring to the Apostles to forgive sins?

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).


Explain what bind and loose meant?

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).



This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.

[Justin1982]

Originally Posted by dnu

In other words, the verse in 2 Timothy says:

"The Old Testament (the only scripture availalbe at that time) is useful for preaching about Jesus."

How Protestants can read that as "The New Testament is totally sufficient for all Christianity" is beyond me.

It is a bit hard to carry the scripture argument through a period of time when books weren't readily available until recent history and even more so is the fact that most people couldn't read. Tradition is what carried us through the early Church years, there would be no scripture without the early bishops.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16)

The above verse has been taken out-of-context way to long to prove Sola Scriptura. Notice the first word: ALL. Does not say: ONLY scripture is....

Likewise, ALL is not referring to a one volume book called the Bible. And why? The NT was not complete nor was their an official Christian canon. Furthermore,one can easily use the term ALL loosely and apply it to every single Gospel or letter written. So one can have Sola Matthew,Mark,etc,etc.

Sola Scriptura simply does not fly and it is not biblical at all.

As a practice, sola scriptura was applied by Moses at Sinai. For Moses, scripture was the 10 commandments. The practice of sola scriptura is simply the requirement that all teachers and teachings not contradict scripture.

If one were to accept the books you mention as scripture, then the practice of sola scriptura would be applied to them. When a canon of scripture is set, then sola scriptura is applied to it. SS does not determine what the canon is, since it is simply a practice of holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture.
Sola scriptura also does not exclude teachers and teachings, nor is it intended to. It only says that scripture is the final norm, to which all teachers and teachings are accountable .
So, Lutherans accept the early ecumenical councils. The three ecumenical creeds make up the very first section of the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessions.
Properly, those who practice sola scriptura embrace Tradition. Those who reject Traditions, creeds, confessions and teachings simply because they "don't appear in the Bible", are not practicing sola scriptura.

Jon

[RedBert]

Protestants have the same authority as “Priscilla and Aquila” who instructed St. Paul

In Acts 18:26 “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.’

Who gave Priscilla and Aquila the authority to teach St. Paul?
So what Pope, Council, or Magisterium did Priscilla and Aquila submit to?

Protestant even have the same authority as Polycarp and his Letter to the Philippians”
He quotes from the Book of Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

Who gave Polycarp the authority to deicide Ephesians was scripture?
So what Pope, Council, or Magisterium did Polycarp submit to?

You may not realize it, but Protestants are also part of the universal Church of Christ.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Justin1982

It is a bit hard to carry the scripture argument through a period of time when books weren't readily available until recent history and even more so is the fact that most people couldn't read. Tradition is what carried us through the early Church years, there would be no scripture without the early bishops.

Of course there was scripture in the early years of the Church. Christ often said, "it is written". He was referring to scripture. That the writings of the Gospels and epistles were not compiled yet goes unsaid. But the teachings were there.

As I said above, prpoperly, sola scriptura as a practice does not reject Tradition, but instead embraces it.

Jon

[spirit2534]

Originally Posted by dnu

There is no "conference" with the spirit who then goes and "conferences" with God.

The Priest acts "in persona Christi." That is, in the person of Christ. The Priest has the authority to forgive sins right then and there in the name of Christ through the authority of the Apostolic Succession instituted by Christ himself.

This clearly laid out in John 20:22-23. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this passage. Jesus gave the 11 the authority to act in his name, period. Then, through the laying on of hands, their successors, and the Priests the Bishops appoint (also through the laying on of hands and the "sharing" of their ordination) can also act in this capacity.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is different from the "Priesthood of all believers" in Peters book.

Is this intended to suggest that a priest is acting as Christ would have done?
Is this intended to say all Bishops & Priests are infallible in their judgements just as Christ was?

[mark a]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Of course there was scripture in the early years of the Church. Christ often said, "it is written". He was referring to scripture. That the writings of the Gospels and epistles were not compiled yet goes unsaid. But the teachings were there.

As I said above, prpoperly, sola scriptura as a practice does not reject Tradition, but instead embraces it.

Jon

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by spirit2534

Is this intended to suggest that a priest is acting as Christ would have done?
Is this intended to say all Bishops & Priests are infallible in their judgements just as Christ was?

No one is saying priests or bishops are infallible. Priests and bishops act in persona Christi to bind or loose, as scripture tells us. It is the role of the special priesthood, which is not in contradiction of, but complimentary to, the priesthood of all believers.

Jon

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by mark a

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

That is quite true, Mark, especially where you live (), but it seems appropriate to make it clear that they are not practicing ss as it was intended. I seem to spend more time making distinction with my Protestant siblings than with my Catholic siblings.

Jon

[RedBert]

Originally Posted by mark a

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

"Most" is not true

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura


From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")

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, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition 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. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants." Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. ..."

The Wesleyan perspective (Methodist)
Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions.
The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'
For Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional "sources" for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a "lens" through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience.


THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH:
CHAPTER 1
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.........



Paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,10 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

[RedBert]

Originally Posted by mark a

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

Most?


A quick search of the Methodists, Baptist's and Lutheran's statement of beliefs or perspectives show agreement in accepting traditions . We are now up to 14 million Protestants represented in just these three denominations;;


Do I need to look up look up the other 4 of the "Seven Sisters of American Protestantism" and find they are also in agreement?

[RedBert]

I am sure there many times that you came across “Joe Protestant” that tried to defend a doctrine he barely understands.
But that does not change what the doctrine actually is.

Honestly : I can ask “Joe Catholic” on the street if he believes in the Immaculate Conception (or Papal Infallibly) and the chances are I will get a yes: but if I ask him what it means…