2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Sola Scriptura

[bnapgh]

I think you may have been referencing post #12 or other figurative impositions of the word “sola” in that verse by playing with the Greek. Another example.

I read Marco’s link and this is what I got from it.

I will refer to the following paragraph from Dr. Godfrey as his preamble”

What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
‘‘ As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority… Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1

I find this paragraph unique among all Sola Scriptura arguments I have heard. This says there ARE truths other than the Bible, that the Bible is not the only way God shared His truth, that not every verse is clear to everyone, and, wonder of wonders, that ‘‘ the gift of interpretation resides only in the church’’! How refreshing! Godfrey goes on to say that the focus must be on whether the gift ‘‘is tied to any particular see or succession of men’’.

Halleluiah!

So what analysis does Godfrey use to define how differences in interpretations be settled? How does he determine who got the gift?
He first states:

There (in the Bible) they (the Reformers) learned that the Scriptures must stand as judge of all teaching.

Isn’t this like asking the Constitution itself to be the judge of what is Constitutional? Does Godfrey not see any need for a judicial or court system to settle American legal arguments either? By definition we are discussing situations in which two Christians wish to draw two different meanings from the same text. Obviously the use of supportive biblical citations should help, but what if after all relevant citations are aired the dispute is still unresolved?

How does Godfrey define ‘‘church’’ and by what authority?

1. This brings us to our third concern, the church and the canon. …Protestants …interpret … the word “church” as referring to the body of the faithful. … Let me offer …two examples from the work of Augustine…(I)n his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow….

I think it is prudent to see more detail on both the subject matter and how Augustine acted before understanding whether Augustine did or did not ‘‘bow’’ to Rome. Was this a canonical question? Too little information for any conclusion. If anything the words presented merely seem to equate the speaking of Rome with the speaking of Christ. Can that be what he meant? This ‘‘evidence’’ is dubious at best.

Godfrey goes on:

Another statement of Augustine’s, …reads: “I would not have believed had not the authority of the catholic church moved me.” That seems very strong and clear. But in another place Augustine wrote: “I would never have understood Plotinus had not the authority of my neo-Platonic teachers moved me.” This parallel shows that Augustine is not talking about some absolute, infallible authority in the church, but rather about the ministerial work of the church and about teachers who help students understand.

As the Lone Ranger used to say Silver: Whoa there, big fella!
Does Godfrey really expect any other thinking person to equate Augustine’s believing in Christ to his understanding Plotinus??
If that ‘‘parallel’’ is all he has, why does he bother?
He goes on:

Let us look at the church further by raising a related issue: the canon of Scripture. Romanists will try to make much of the issue of the canon. They will tell you that the Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible does not tell us what books are in the Bible. They will argue that the church must tell us what books are in the Bible. When they say the church tells us, they mean popes and councils must tell us. This implies that we did not have a Bible until Pope Damasus offered a list of the canon in 382, or, perhaps, until 1546 when the Council of Trent became the first “ecumenical”council to define the canon. But of course the people of God had the Bible before 1546 and before 382.

Duh! No kidding! Godrey later goes on to quote the Catholics:

We can see this basic understanding of the formation of the canon stated in The New Catholic Encyclopedia which states: “The canon, already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it.”

One would think this would answer Godfrey’s question about what the faithful had to use before 382 and 1546, wouldn’t one?

continued in next post…

 

[bnapgh]

Continued…

But no, Dr, Godfrey gores on….

In the first place, the church always had Scripture. The apostolic preaching and writing of the first century repeatedly verified its teaching by quoting from the Old Testament. The quotations from, and allusions to, the Old Testament abound in the New Testament. The New Testament does not reject the Old, but fulfills it (Romans 1:2; Luke 16:29; Ephesians 2:19, 20). The church always had a canonical foundation in the Old Testament.

A canonical foundation? Yes! The canon? Not yet!

In the second place, we can see that the apostles sensed that the new covenant inaugurated by our Lord Jesus would have a new or augmented canon. Canon and covenant are interrelated and interdependent in the Bible (see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority). Peter testifies to this emerging canon when he includes the letters of Paul as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).

newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now who does Godfrey think Peter was referring to when he says: ‘‘the unlearned and unstable’’? Is it more likely he was referring to the general brotherhood of Christians or to his hand-picked successors?

He continues….

In the third place, we must see that the canon of Scripture is, in a real sense, established by the Scripture itself, because the canonical books are self-authenticating.

Now this is what a philosophy student would correctly call ‘‘begging the question.’’ Can anyone say circular reasoning? In Godfrey’s preamble he stated: ‘‘I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader.’’

So who settles disagreements? He continues….

As God’s revelation, they {the scriptures} are recognized by the people of God as God’s own Word. As Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me. They . . . will listen to My voice” (John 10:14-16).

Is he saying that any Christian can pick any document at all and rightly call it Scripture because he or she ‘‘recognizes’’ God’s voice in it?

He continues….

In the deepest sense we cannot judge the Word, but the Word judges us. “For the word of God is living and active.

If Godfrey understands that ‘‘the word of God is living and active’’then why had he earlier criticized Pope Damasus in 382 and the Coucl of Trent in 1546 for reassessing what is formally included in Scripture? Please! Consistency of arguments if nothing else!

He continues….

Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The self-authenticating character of the canon is demonstrated by the remarkable unanimity reached by the people of God on the canon.

‘‘….remarkable unanimity’’?? What about the 1 billion Catholics who disagree? What about the Apocrypha?

He continues…

In the fourth place, we must see that historically the canon was formed not by popes and councils; these actions simply recognized the emerging consensus of the people of God as they recognized the authentic Scriptures.

I guess the Council of Trent was really the world’s first ‘‘electoral college’’ which went to Trent just to ratify the way the general populace had already cast their votes, huh? Is he serious?? We can’t even get consensus on most board threas!

He continues….

Indeed, whatever criteria were used by popes and councils to recognize the canon (authorship, style, content, witness of the Spirit, etc.), these same criteria were available to the people God as a whole.

If these ‘‘criteria’’ were so available, why does Godfrey not know what they were?

Has he ever worked on a committee?

He goes back again to Augustine – with no improvement in his understanding — as he continues….

We can also see this basic approach to the canon reflected in the words of Augustine, writing in his important treatise entitled On Christian Doctrine. This treatise was written between 396 and 427 — after the supposedly authoritative decision of Pope Damasus on the canon, and after a council held in Hippo had discussed the canon.

continued in next post…

 

[bnapgh]

Continued from above….

Augustine wrote:

In the matter of canonical Scriptures he should follow the authority of the greater number of catholic Churches, among which are those which have deserved to have apostolic seats {ed: sounds like a Council to me) and receive epistles. He will observe this rule concerning canonical Scriptures, that he will prefer those accepted by all catholic Churches to those which some do not accept; among those which are not accepted by all, he should prefer those which are accepted by the largest number of important Churches to those held by a few minor Churches of less authority. If he discovers that some are maintained by the larger number of Churches, others by the Churches of weightiest authority, although this condition is not likely, he should hold them to be of equal value.12

IMO Dr. Godfrey could certainly benefit from a good remedial reading course.

First, even when there is unanimity it is among the Churches not among the disciples. Now Godfrey might argue that the disciples are the churches, but if that were so then how can he justify some churches having ‘‘more authority’’ than others? It cannot be just the churches composed of the largest number of disciples because Augustine says the few ‘‘Churches of weightiest authority’’ cannot be outvoted even by a larger number of less authoritative churches. It is obvious that the ‘‘authority’’ comes from the rank of the Bishop and so the ‘‘church’’ cannot be the merely the disciples who make up that church’s flock.He continues….

This statement shows that Augustine did not look to popes or councils for the solution of the question of the canon.

What does Dr. Godfrey think a council is if not a confab of the bishops of these Churches? How does Dr. Godfrey think the Churches’ ‘‘vote’’ would be taken?

He recognized the variety among churches, and the appropriateness of a plurality of churches.

How does he draw this inference? Augustine said that the ‘‘Churches of weightiest authority’’ rule! Even against a majority, not just a plurality?

He continues…

He urged all students of Scripture to examine the question and to look for the emerging consensus among the people of God.

Where does Augustine use the word ‘‘students’’ or the word ‘‘people of God’’?

He continues…

Like Augustine, we do not disparage the value of the witness of the people of God to the canon. We value the ministry of the church in this as in all things. But we deny that the church in its offices or councils authoritatively establishes the Scripture on the basis of some knowledge or power not available to Christians generally. The character of the canonical books draws the people of God to them.

First, it is not disparagement to guide the people around ‘‘certain things hard to be understood,’’ so that ‘‘the unlearned and unstable’’ get twisted ‘‘to their own destruction’’, it is shepherding.

And here is the entire thesis: does any Church authority have any ‘‘knowledge or power not available to Christians generally’’. His own Augustinian citation makes only that point! That some Churches have more authority than others!

And that is the sole and only analysis of his preamble question that Dr. Godfrey presents! Remember:

“For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1

Augustine’s whole argument is that ‘’particular’’ churches have authority and particular churches do not.
Well, at least we never have to argue Sola Scriptura any more. Now all we have to discuss is which persons, sees or successions have particularly more authority.

 

[danalad]

IMO Dr. Godfrey could certainly benefit from a good remedial reading course.
.

Oh how hard the square sola scritpura is pushed into the triangle of truth. No matter how hard it’s pushed it just never seems ot fit.

Thanks for the amusing explanation and rebuttle. I enjoyed it!

 

[danalad]

These were some great points. I’ve been formulating a response for a few days…here’s my thoughts as promised

Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time.

First, I believe the apostles, including Paul, were fully aware of their apostolic authority, and aware that what they communicated was prophetic and carried divine authority. Paul knew he was writing Scripture…the thing is…you, as a Roman Catholic (as indicated in your profile), should believe this too!! You should not be asking the question, “why would Paul think he was teaching Timothy Scripture,” for its just as much the basis of your beliefs that Paul spoke/wrote revelation as it is mine. Catholics believe in apostolic authority . Catholics believe in apostolic revelation. Catholics even affirm biblical inspiration. Our difference is not inspiration, but how that revelation is transmitted down through the ages and what is authoritiative for the church today.

Peter knew!
2 Pet 3:15-16 “Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles…which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

Peter’s reference to the rest of the Scriptures indicates Paul’s epistles were already viewed as Scripture by the time Peter wrote in 67 ad. 2 Timothy was finished around the exact same time, so possibly within months we have Peter affirming Paul’s epistles as Scripture.

Ok, what I’m hearing you say is the Apostles knew which writings they wrote were inspired. Therefore, when in 2Tim 3:15 he refers to Scripture, he’s refering to the inspired NT as well.

So the logical conclusin is that the Apostles would’ve passed down those documents that were inspired and burned the rest of their writings, right? I mean, if they know that this letter is (name removed by moderator)sired and that one isn’t, why write the one that isn’t, or keep it and distribut it? Doesn’t that make sense from your argument? If Peter knows what writings of Paul’s are “Scripture” why doesn’t he warn everyone away from Paul’s writings that are not today in the Bible?

Do the Apostles do that? No. They don’t. In the second generation of Chrsitians more people belived the Sheperd of Hermes was inspired than the book of Revelation or James. There were 250+ Apostalic writings. Only 27 are inspired.

What the Apostled did give us was a tradition of writings and spoken word (2 Thess 2:15). The Catholic Church then used that Tradition to determine the inspired books. They did not look in the footnotes of the books to see if the Apostles had signed off on them as inspired or not inspired.

Please explain how the Apostles could have known what they were writing was inspired when some was and some wasn’t and none of their students really knew until hundreds of years after their death? I’m likely missing something in your explanation and I apologize for not being as thoughtful and taking as much time in my responses.

 

[Harmony1988]

This got fairly confusing quick

 

[MarcoPolo]

Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow….

I decided to do a little Google search on Dr. Godfrey’s quote here from Augustine. Amazingly, there are only 3 hits of any website that claims this quote is true. None give the context. And every one of them uses the identical sentence that Godfrey uses in his artice.

Even so, assume the quote is true and you are Dr. Godfrey for one moment. In one instance, Augustine bows to Rome. In another, Augustine (supposedly) does not bow to Rome. So which is correct? Well, to Dr. Godfrey…the 2nd one of course trumps the first (for reasons we may never know…) !!!

 

[bnapgh]

Spurred by Marco’s Google search, I found this discussion from 2005 on these same forums.

Bishopite, a poster here, not only researched these same citations, but he contacted their citor.

He shows that there was a letter sent to Augustine by Pope Zosimus, which it seems might be the cited second letter. This one was sent on the same issue of Faith, and, in fact, it was rejected by Augustine (although not using the cited words). Bishopite goes on to point out that shortly thereafter a Council (headed by that same Pope Zosimus) vindicated Augustine’s rejection on this Faith issue.

That said, HOWEVER, this discovery does NOT vindicate the original argument, because Bishopite demonstrates that Pope Zosimus had never intended his original rebuke to be binding on the Church, and so he had not been rebuking Augustine with ‘‘infallibility’’, and thus Augustine was free to reject it under Catholic teaching.

Given that the sola scriptura argument has been with us for six centuries, we should not expect a quick resolution on these boards, huh?

Also, William Webster says on p. 65 of "Church of Rome at the Bar of History:

 

[bnapgh]

I would be grateful if proponents of Sola Scriptura would participate!

Thanks

bnapgh:

I am linking a thesis from the website called ‘’The-Highway.com’’, which I understand is sponsored by the Calvinists.

The thesis is called

**‘‘What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?’’ **

LINK

And was written by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

I have copied the fifth paragraph, which I call his ‘‘Preamble’’ below.

Here is my question:

Do all supporters of Sola Scriptura subscribe to the clarifications in this preamble?

If not, please explain why.

The ‘‘Preamble’’ found in Paragrapgh 5

Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.” 1

The last quote was from William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge,: University Press, 1849) P. 411.

These are Dr. W. Robert Godfrey’s credentials

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. He is also Professor of Church History. He received the A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, and the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (both in Pennsylvania and California) for over twenty years. He is an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. Dr. Godfrey was a contributor to John Calvin: His Influence on the Western World; Reformed Theology in America; and Scripture and Truth. He edited the Westminster Theological Journal for several years, and is a frequent speaker at Christian conferences. Dr. Godfrey is a native of California. He and his wife Mary Ellen have three children: William, Mari, and Robert.

Thanks

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I would be grateful if proponents of Sola Scriptura would participate!

Thanks

Wow! A lot has happened in a week, and it looks like I’ve got my work cut out I’ll see how far we can get in the next hour or two!

Bnapgh — you’ve carried this and kept me on my toes friend. I’m glad to see that you got a hold of Godfrey’s article. This article has in fact been quite informative to my beliefs.

Just past the section you quoted below, Godfrey concicely defines the protestant position (I’m not sure why you didn’t include that below or anywhere, but it would be much easier for us to start there then branch out into the rest of the article.) I have quoted this def earlier in this thread, but will repost here:

Godfrey says

The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

James White makes this clear in his arguments, MacArthur, Sproul, Westminster Confession, Reformers of course, and many fathers. to answer your question, yes, it is what informed Protestants believe.

Let’s parse it:

all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life .

we’re not saying all things necessary for life are taught only in the bible. we know it doesn’t teach molecular biology, physic, brownie recipes, or have architectural blueprints (unless you’re building an ark or temple ). sufficient for salvation and concerning faith…

are taught in the Bible clearly enough

a doctrine techincally referred to as the “perspicuity of Scripture,” we mean here that “the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.” Again, when discussing this with Catholics, it is helpful to clarify what we do NOT mean by this. We are NOT saying every single passage and part is able to be easily understood (cf.2 Pet 3:15-16). But it would be a mistake to think that most of Scripture or Scripture in general is difficult to understand.

Scripture was to be taught to children (Dt. 6:6-7). It imparts understanding to the simple (Ps 19:7). Christ himself often assumed the clarify of Scripture when he frequently responded with teh phrase “have you not read?” (Mt 12:3, 5; 19:14, 21:42, 22:31) IOW, since Scripture is clear…how have you drifted so far from it? moving on…

for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

We do believe Scripture is best understood by true believers. The Holy Spirit is given as helper (Jn 14:16). Unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding,” and most of the NT epistles were addressed to churches, brothers, “saints who are in Ephesus,” etc.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

BTW, when you have time I would love responses to my earlier posts #62, #63, #64, #65, #66 above.

Especially #65

Thanks!

bnapgh- with all due respect and appreciation for your work, I cannot keep up with this thread (simply due to time constraints). But I DO WANT to discuss…and I don’t mean to disregard your work. Would you mind summarizing your key concerns, or maybe we can just continue the discussion from my post below??

Or perhaps we should just limit our comments to the thread topic of 2 Tim 3:16 and sola scriptura, or start a new thread “Current Protestants (Godfrey) and sola scripturea” or “church fathers and sola scriptura” or “Protestants and the necessity of Scripture” or “the perspeciuity of scripture” or “the authority of Scripture”

It’s just getting too broad, and each topic is worthy of its own thread. thoughts…?

Thanks in advance

 

[bnapgh]

Bnapgh, … Godfrey’s article…has in fact been quite informative to my beliefs.
Just past the section you quoted below, Godfrey concicely defines the protestant position (I’m not sure why you didn’t include that below or anywhere, but it would be much easier for us to start there then branch out into the rest of the article.) I have quoted this def earlier in this thread, but will repost here:

Westminster Confession … is what informed Protestants believe.
…the bible … doesn’t teach molecular biology (but is) sufficient for salvation and concerning faith…

(By) “perspicuity of Scripture,” we mean …“the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.” … We are NOT saying every single passage and part is able to be easily understood (cf.2 Pet 3:15-16). But it would be a mistake to think that most of Scripture or Scripture in general is difficult to understand.

We do believe Scripture is best understood by true believers. The Holy Spirit is given as helper (Jn 14:16). Unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding,” and most of the NT epistles were addressed to churches, brothers, “saints who are in Ephesus,” etc.

I think I find this explanation to be most helpful. Is my understanding correct when I restate what you wrote as follows?
As a totality the Bible’s core message is easy for all to understand, but in its particulars it can be misunderstood.
If so, then IMO there is no debate with RCC teachings.

In essence, how can anyone confuse ‘‘love God with whole self; love neighbor as self’’? But I wonder if the phrase ‘‘the devil is in the details’’ was about Sola Scriptura?

This is why I find the whole Sola Scriptura debate to be both a bit ironic and pretty circular.

The irony is that even as the forces of evil are growing, many believers seem to spend way too much effort debating intramurals for IMO pure tribal pride.

I find it circular to say: ‘‘We do believe Scripture is best understood by true believers’’.

I will number my questions so we don’t get confused:

Q 1: Since we know that many who read Scritpure are misinformed to their own destruction, who says which believers are ‘‘true believers’’?

Q 2: How do the ‘‘unlearned’’ avoid ‘‘destruction’’?

Q 3: Do the terms ‘‘Apostles’’ and ‘‘disciples’’ refer to two different groups?

Q 4: How would you distinguish the two?

I find it curious, Sola, that you NOW include 2 Pet 3:16 whereas EARLIER you purposely edited-out the part I cite below, when trying to show the risks of misinterpreting scripture.

2 Pet 3:16

…in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

‘‘I’m not sure why you didn’t include that below or anywhere’’.

But now it seems we both resort to it to show that Peter was sure that many would be confused about the best interpretation of the details, to their own destruction.

Q 5: Given this, how would a logical person expect Peter (with the Holy Spirit’s guidance) to establish the ‘’proper system of adjudication’’ of different interpretations?

Q 6: Since Christ, through Peter, says that the misinformed disciples can be led to their destruction, would it not be irrational for Christ not to have provided everything that His disciples need to be saved?

Q 7: Is it not obvious that there are many in the flock who have neither the emotional / spiritual ‘‘maturity’’ nor the biblical understanding to be fully armed in the war of selfishness?

Q 8: Is it not obvious that Christ MUST have intended to leave behind an enlighhtened group in charge, sort of like shepherds or, if you will, a baby sitter?

IMO Christ DID in fact do this at multiple places in the Gospel but always by naming the Apostles.

Q 9: Did Christ give the Apostles (as opposed to disciples) specific Graces? Which ones?

Q 10: But, since all those living with the Apostles did in fact not live to see the end of the world, how would Christ have provided shepherds ‘‘for ever’’ for the flock yet unborn (Jn 14:16)?

Q 11: Is it reasonable to assume that Christ might have intended that the Apostles — through the Paraclete — choose their successors?

Q 12: If Christ wanted every disciple to be on his/her own, would Peter have told us that doing so will lead some to their destruction?

So, leaving each and every disciple on his/her own would be antithetical.

Q 13: Do you have an alternative to either (a) Peter choosing specific successors, or (b) every disciple on his own?

Again, IMO the ONLY logical answer is Christ through His Apostles (not disciples) would ‘‘assure’’ (through the Holy Spirit) the proper appointment of successors ‘‘for ever’’. Jn 14:16 was your citation. Well, the verse immediately preceding Jn 14:1 was Jn 13:36-38. This was a ‘‘dialogue’’ (i.e. between two people) with Peter about his future denials, was it not? Therefore, the only one to whom we can be SURE (as opposed to make an argument for) that Christ was addressing in Jn 14:16 — about the Paraclete — was to Peter, right?

I think it is important that we should reach agreement on this here & now, or IMO any further discussion on this topic will be circular and thus fruitless.

Q 14: YES or NO, does it make sense or not that Christ must have created a way to adjudicate different interpretations for the misinformed and so prevent their destruction?

Continued below:

 

[bnapgh]

Continued from # 92

Sola, on the other points you raised, I am still curious about both Dr. Godfrey and the Westminster Confession of Faith (’‘WCF’’).

**Q: 15 ** Do you or do you not subscribe to all six of Godfrey’s clarifications, in what I termed his preamble?

The meaning of the Godfrey paragraph which you quoted is discussed above, but, IMO it seems obvious from Godfrey’s context, that that particular paragraph you raised specifically demarks the beginning of his defense/analysis since it is presented only after he completes his layout of his preamble by which he defines the topic.

**Q: 16 ** Isn’t it ‘‘much easier for us to start’’ with Godfrey’s hypothesis than to ‘‘branch out into the rest of the article’’ on his arguments?

Now, on the WCF, **Q: 17 ** how can you believe that all ‘‘informed Protestants’’ subscribe to it? If so, then I am confused as to why the Episcopalians immediately rescinded it? **Q: 18 ** Are all Church of England Protestants therefore ‘‘uninformed’’? If so, who says so? If so, then how does this jive with ‘‘unanimity’’ argument?

**Q: 19 ** Hypothetically would you say that both tensions and emotions are unusually high during a vicious war between armies of different beliefs?

**Q: 20 ** Would you agree that tensions and emotions tend to cloud reason?

**Q: 21 ** If so, does it make sense to you that the best (i.e. the least biased) interpretation of scripture should be determined in the midst of a vicious cultural war among multiple religious sects?

**Q: 22 ** Or logically do you think that such circumstances very probably would lead to ultra-tribalism?

**Q: 23 ** IF Christ were to choose to have a second delineation of His Scriptures in a whole new way, and IF He were to prefer a group other than the one chosen by His Apostles as set continuously through Peter with the Paraclete’s guidance for ever, then is it logical that Christ would choose a purely temporal, political body to do so?

**Q: 24 ** Was the Scottish parliament temporal and political?

More later

 

[bnapgh]

Originally Posted by Sola C F G S DG
what I find most sad about Catholic theology is the lack of hope.

 

[bnapgh]

Originally Posted by Sola C F G S DG
As Paul mentored Timothy,he was very aware that what he was writing and teaching young Timothy was Scripture. Timothy was to continue in the things he learned from Paul.

 

[bnapgh]

Originally Posted by Sola C F G S DG
A scalpel is useful for doing surgery (piercing soul and marrow). But not “only” a scalpel can cut skin, a flint, a hand saw, an ax.

 

[bnapgh]

Originally Posted by Sola C F G S DG
70% of communication is non-verbal.

 

[bnapgh]

Hey, Sola!

I had posted two POLLs which administrators thought were duplicates and deleted both of them.

The first asked to which of Dr. Godfrey’s 6 clarifications each responder subscribed.

The second listed 10 options for ‘‘criteria’’ that each thought was appropriate for abjudicating any differences in scriptural interpretations.

You were away, I guess.

In any event, I would argue that such information would be helpful to focus the discussions.

There was only one responder before they were deleted, and he just said the ‘‘church’’ (lower case) does not have special gifts as Dr. Godfrey says it does. He also said it was boring.

Polls, themselves, are always a little boring, but the results can be illuminating.

What do you think?

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I think I find this explanation to be most helpful. Is my understanding correct when I restate what you wrote as follows?
As a totality the Bible’s core message is easy for all to understand, but in its particulars it can be misunderstood.
If so, then IMO there is no debate with RCC teachings.

Yes, this is good.

I
Again, IMO the ONLY logical answer is Christ through His Apostles (not disciples) would ‘‘assure’’ (through the Holy Spirit) the proper appointment of successors ‘‘for ever’’.

Q 14: YES or NO, does it make sense or not that Christ must have created a way to adjudicate different interpretations for the misinformed and so prevent their destruction?

I think your question 14 is the heart of the matter.

If I may summarize your concern:

People, even true believers, disagree on scriptural interpretation. (agree)
RCs believe the RC church adjudicates between differing interpretations.
What “system” does Protestantism have in place to adjudicate differing interpretations.

Several thoughts:

1. All Protestants hold to a common core of beliefs about God (trinitarian), Christ (unique in human-divine person), and teh Scriptures (the authoritative text passed down from apostles and prophets). Denominations do differ on some doctrinal issues, but not the major ones listed here. On the major biblical doctrines protestants are totally unified.
2. For Protestants, the church, as the pillar and support of the truth, does adjudicate to some degree, but in a far different way than it does for a catholic. For Ps, the church is an invisible body of the elect. Gr. ekklesia “called-out ones.” as such, we have differing members that function together as one, and as such, we all fall under Christ, our Head (to borrow the biblical metaphor) but we do not have formal dogma or a magisterium as teh RCC does, and as the Pharisees did with their Targums and volumes of extra biblical teachings. However, there are creeds, doctrinal statements, confessions, etc, that we do abide by.and that hold us accountable, but they are not authoritative.

More later…

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Continued from # 92

Sola, on the other points you raised, I am still curious about both Dr. Godfrey and the Westminster Confession of Faith (’‘WCF’’).

**Q: 15 ** Do you or do you not subscribe to all six of Godfrey’s clarifications, in what I termed his preamble?

If you want to do Godfrey, please start another thread and send me the link so we can try to stick to this thread topic here.

I too have gotten us off-topic several times.