L
Lincoln7
Guest
Just a comment on the textual reliability of the New Testament.
- Status
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Maybe I should have actuall read the site I was linking too first with a comb… My bad.
May I instead suggest here: ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/scripture-alone/
May I instead suggest here: ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/scripture-alone/
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Because the rules of grammar, history, context, etc. apply to any written work.Interesting.
I find so many un-biblical premises in that explanation of Sola Scriptura.
Firstly, this premise: Recognize that Scripture Interprets Scripture.
What verses in Scripture tell us this?
If you were reading the Illiad and came across some part of the mythological history that it records that confused you or didn’t make sense, would you go to another part of the Illiad to interpret it, or would you go to Moby Dick?
In the same way, as a written work, if you are reading the Gospel of Luke and want to know the reason why the Christ had to suffer, die, and be raised on the third day, you would go to the book of Romans or Galatians for a fuller explanation. Jesus Himself used this hermeneutic when He explained that He must suffer and die in order to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He understood that the revelation of Himself to mankind was the true interpretation of the OT covenants and prophecies.
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Because the central content and doctrine of the whole of biblical revelation is Christ and Him crucified for sinners. The Gospel of John reveals this in a clearer way than say, the book of Amos
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
Do you have the verses that say that “Scripture interprets Scripture”?
And that certain books of the Bible are “more central” than others?
Those teachings seem to me to be way more extra-biblical and man-made than, say the Catholic teaching on purgatory.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What books in the NT are “more central”?Because the central content and doctrine of the whole of biblical revelation is Christ and Him crucified for sinners. The Gospel of John reveals this in a clearer way than say, the book of Amos
Also, is there a verse that says that there are books (whether they’re in the OT or NT) that says this?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Sorry. Could you put the dots together for me? I’m not quite sure what your argument is regarding the “textual reliability of the NT”.
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
No. Neither are doctrines or dogmas. You’re free to attempt an interpretation of Scripture without referring to any other portion of Scripture. But I don’t see how you could do so and make sense of it. My guess is, it’s necessary for you to apply the same rules of interpretation, even if you don’t consciously acknowledge it as a method of interpretation. Every time you refer to the Passover as a foreshadowing of the death of Christ, you’re employing this method.
The apostles quoted from the Old Testament in order to reveal the New Testament and to demonstrate that what they spoke was from God. Why would I use a hermeneutic that is different from the one the sacred writers themselves employed?
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
No, but it’s a fact of history that certain books in the Bible have a more central place because of the doctrine they express, their textual reliability, their importance in proclaiming the gospel, etc. What was seen as more central to the gospel in the early church, Matthew or Revelation? Exodus, or Obadiah? Do we stand during the liturgy when the gospel is read, or when there is a reading from Leviticus?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well I would quote Jerome at this point who btw followed the Apostolic Church. What did Jerome believe in his SS understanding? Did this not coincide with the Church?
Right, however is this not self-evident till the reformation as to how and who transmitted?? Men who made and will always make mistakes doesn’t reduce the Deposit of Faith. Be it inside the Church or outside.By this I mean the canon received in the first century was textually transmitted ‘faithfully’. Accuratley if you prefer, that was my meaning. Forgive me if I was unclear
The scholars of this day present many different theological debates. Yet how does this coincide with history and tradition for the first 1500 years, let alone today?
In other words where is the fork which leads in a different direction up to the reformation?
Maybe? Well what else pray tell could this mean? How could this be understood in any other continuity in time/history/church? What we see as the papacy today is in regard to what has always been, how would it differ? The difference is in degree not kind.
Could we say we have traveled through time far enough to witness the reformation come to its complete fruition?
The only debate of today is to the exact responsibility of Peters Chair within the Apostolic Churchs. Not “if” the scripture is correctly understood in real time or properly discerned.
I posted my own brief explaination, however, a in depth understanding exists.
google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&sa=U&ei=MwGPT6fCGojn0QHD9sWYDw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=lNkpflsb150yDGJrJ0hC1A&usg=AFQjCNFVwxI2RJ4sw-7Z3dwCbZl1_7I8JA
Matthew
And I say to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
How many sola scriptura ways could we comprehend this? In light of a very real tradition/history I would say but one. The reality as to how much “honor” St Peter is given here is a very different question no? That is the question in the Apostolic Churchs today which we all acknowledge with respect to the East. Never is the authority St Peter and the Apostles hold and held in like authority in question. Granted the exact degree of Rome in authority is in question which Benedict himself states in “Light of the World”
Peace
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course they are doctrines, or teachings, Iggy.
It’s a belief that’s being promoted by Sola Scriptura advocates that’s not supported by any Scripture. Ironic, no?
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
We could interpret it as Peter being the rock (Cyprian), Gary, however, you would then find that this interpretation, the claims of Vatican I notwithstanding, was the minority interpretation among the church fathers. The rock being Christ (Augustine) and the rock being Peter’s confession of faith (Chrysostom) the other two opinions that were held during this time period. Even a Peter as the rock interpretation does not substantiate the claims of the papacy, since Cyprian interpreted it this way, and yet saw all of the bishops as being Peter’s successor and all of the bishops carrying his same authority (the view of Eastern Orthodoxy).
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
It’s not a “belief” or a doctrine. It’s a rule of interpretation. I’m pretty safe in following it if that is what the apostles did.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a good question, Iggy. And I hope you apply it to this verse:
Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’" -Acts 20:35
What Gospel does Jesus say that?
Not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. You won’t find it there. What the apostle is citing, then, is Sacred Tradition–the teaching of Christ passed down through his apostles.
And, if you claim that you don’t want to use a “hermeneutic that is different from the one that the sacred writers themselves employed”, then you ought to employ this one, too!
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
I don’t have a problem with this. Why would you think I would? If by tradition, what you mean is the teachings of Christ passed to His apostles, then passed to us, I have already established that this is true in an earlier post. Our claim is not that there is no tradition. Our claim is that the substance of verbal tradition is no different than what is contained in the Scriptures.
The saying of Christ you mentioned above is not verbatim contained in the gospels (though it is similar to Matt 10:8). However, is it contained in Scripture?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sources, and Cyrians work is of much debate today since the interpretations vary and we have been down this path with the East. I’m assuming you are referring to this work which is “authentic”. However, some are not. I acknowledge this as you should, and we are often left with a “translation”
De Unitate Ecclesiae Unity of the Church
Chapter four.
If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”
Christ the Church being the “Mystical Body of Christ” has always been understood. However that Church is built Upon St Peter.
St Augustine again doesn’t waiver here, again translations become of issue as to who did the translation. Here we see much folly.
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
However, I disagree.
This is slippery slope which I rarely enter into with the EO out of respect. For between the both of us we have have found many “false” interpretations.Comes back to the First among Equals and the Ecumenical Councils. Basically where the Church’s left off in 2010. Which btw is acceptable to the EO, at least from what Benedict XVI stated again in “Light of the World”
Peace
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Saying honorable things about Peter do not establish Petrine primacy over the whole of the universal church or establish anything relating to the doctrines surrounding the modern papacy. There is no doubt that Peter represents the church in the Matthew 16 passage. This also does not establish the papacy, for, many of the fathers, Cyprian included do not then take that representation and reduce it down to the church of Rome but apply it to entire church, regardless of where or who the bishop is.St Augustine again doesn’t waiver here, again translations become of issue as to who did the translation. Here we see much folly.
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
However, I disagree.
Peace
N
Nicea325
Guest
Iggy:
Which means absolutely not a single person said it or believes it.
Yet within the same stroke…it is a historical reality? Which really means…someone is saying otherwise and in this is case it would be you. In order to be a historical reality,I am curious why scripture makes no mention of it or any of the 12 or any ecumenical council?
Really? Written sources are more accurate? So everything Abraham and the Jews passed on orally is very doubtful and not very accurate? What written sources do we have from Abraham?
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Watch the video Gary, it documents numerous scholars and theologians from all centuries who disagreed the Apocrypha were to be held at the same level as the scriptures, the tradition of the first 1500 years is not set on this issue…
I think we could verge off into a Matt 16:18 discussion here… And I think it’s clear to any objective seeker that the papacy of today is not as it was in the earliest church…
Regards
Lincs
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You bought this Early Church Fathers up. Do you have “one” source to coincide with what you conclude? What the primacy has evolved to is very different statement than what you propose in your previous statement.
Amen, are we not to take the Lords words literal here? For sure, and always Jesus spoken word before anyones,
Show me “many of the fathers” I hear but I’m not seeing?
History dictates otherwise.
How do you conclude this theory from what is stated by Cyprian?Peace
- Status