Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[IggyAntiochus]

Using Scripture to refute your personal interpretation of Scripture doesn’t make sense?

One can only use Scripture to *support *one’s position? Never to refute?

When did that tradition start?

I’m all ears for your interpretation of the passage in John.

 

[PRmerger]

There undoubtedly are, and that is what the rest of the New Testament is for. However, John specifically states that he records what Jesus said so that those who read his gospel will believe that Christ is the Son of God, and thereby, receive eternal life. Why would I suppose that John is lying or was deficient in this purpose?

Because you are reading it with a deficient lens, Iggy.

When you read and interpret Scripture outside the guidance of the Faith that gave you these Scriptures, the result is a deficient understanding of God’s Revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m all ears for your interpretation of the passage in John.

I am only willing to offer the Catholic interpretation of the passage in John.

Would you like that?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I am only willing to offer the Catholic interpretation of the passage in John.

Would you like that?

Yes!

 

[PRmerger]

Do you believe there are other NT books that are more central?

Also, if you could address this? I know you gave the example of some OT books, and said that the Gospels were naturally in positions of prominence.

But I’d like to know if you specifically agree with the concept that there are other NT books that are more peripheral?

If so, what are they, and how do you know?

If not, then you are in disagreement with one of the pillars of SS that was espoused by your ecclesial community’s namesake?

Be aware that Some Books of the Bible are More Central than Other Books of the Bible. Luther saw that some Bible books were better at revealing Christ and his work than others. In an introduction to one of his Bible translations, Luther explained that John’s Gospel, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter contained all one needed to know about Christ. On the other hand, the Book of James is “really an epistle of straw, when compared with these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/#_ftn4

 

[PRmerger]

There undoubtedly are, and that is what the rest of the New Testament is for.

No, Iggy. This comment above is in direct contradiction to Scripture!

St. John says, specifically, that all of Jesus’ actions were NOT contained in Scripture. In fact, they COULD NOT be.

So to say, “that is what the rest of the NT is for” is the exact OPPOSITE of what John says.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you using Scripture to interpret Scripture???

John’s Gospel says the same thing (3:5)

I’m all ears for your interpretation of the passage in John.

I’m assuming that this is the passage to which you’re referring.

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Here’s what the CC says:

The name “Jesus” signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 432

Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of “the divine likeness,” prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.720

This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God.1215

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I’m assuming that this is the passage to which you’re referring.

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Here’s what the CC says:

No, sorry, I didn’t clarify. I already agree with the RC view of baptism. I meant John 21:25

 

[PRmerger]

No, sorry, I didn’t clarify. I already agree with the RC view of baptism. I meant John 21:25

514 Many things about Jesus of interest to human curiosity do not figure in the Gospels. Almost nothing is said about his hidden life at Nazareth, and even a great part of his public life is not recounted.[172] What is written in the Gospels was set down there “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

 

[PRmerger]

Also, if you could address this? I know you gave the example of some OT books, and said that the Gospels were naturally in positions of prominence.

But I’d like to know if you specifically agree with the concept that there are other NT books that are more peripheral?

If so, what are they, and how do you know?

If not, then you are in disagreement with one of the pillars of SS that was espoused by your ecclesial community’s namesake?

I know that it’s not even been 24 hours since I posted this, (but in internet culture that’s almost an eternity!) so could you address this, please?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I know that it’s not even been 24 hours since I posted this, (but in internet culture that’s almost an eternity!) so could you address this, please?

It’s not an either or, PR. It is not that some books have prominence and the others are to the peripheral. It is that some books preach Christ in a more prominent way than other books do. Those books which expound the gospel more clearly are more central because they focus more on the central revelation of Scripture; Christ’s person and work for sinners.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not an either or, PR. It is not that some books have prominence and the others are to the peripheral. It is that some books preach Christ in a more prominent way than other books do. Those books which expound the gospel more clearly are more central because they focus more on the central revelation of Scripture; Christ’s person and work for sinners.

So which books in the NT are more central (we are agreed that the gospels have positions of prominence) than others?

And how do you know?

And of what significance is this point of Luther?

And how does this uphold the position of Sola Scriptura?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

So which books in the NT are more central (we are agreed that the gospels have positions of prominence) than others?

And how do you know?

And of what significance is this point of Luther?

And how does this uphold the position of Sola Scriptura?

Traditionally, Lutherans have categorized the NT into homologoumena and antilegomena (I believe the East uses this same view as well. Maybe an EO poster can correct that if I am wrong). The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the *homologoumena/I

I am not sure what its relevance to sola scriptura is to you. I don’t see issues of the canon as related to the topic.*

 

[PRmerger]

I am not sure what its relevance to sola scriptura is to you. I don’t see issues of the canon as related to the topic.

Exactly. I don’t see its relevance, either. But it’s one of the pillars that were cited in “Brief Introduction to SS” that was cited earlier under Lutheran Theology.

So it’s curious to me that you wouldn’t see its relevance, as a Lutheran.

 

[PRmerger]

Traditionally, Lutherans have categorized the NT into homologoumena and antilegomena (I believe the East uses this same view as well. Maybe an EO poster can correct that if I am wrong). The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the homologoumena

And yet, peculiarly, the Scriptures do not say “that which was disputed may be considered peripheral.”

Another non-Scriptural tenet that’s being espoused by SS advocates!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Exactly. I don’t see its relevance, either. But it’s one of the pillars that were cited in “Brief Introduction to SS” that was cited earlier under Lutheran Theology.

So it’s curious to me that you wouldn’t see its relevance, as a Lutheran.

I stick with what is in our confessions. There are, of course, many good resources on the web discussing Lutheran theology. But just like you don’t take everything that apologists like Pat Madrid (who I’ve met, great guy) or Tim Staples at face value, the same applies to ours as well. Ultimately, we follow what our respective communions teach in creed, catechism and confession.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

By the way, could you address what the Catholic position is on 1 Cor. 15:29?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

And yet, peculiarly, the Scriptures do not say “that which was disputed may be considered peripheral.”

Another non-Scriptural tenet that’s being espoused by SS advocates!

But that’s because you seem to be working within a paradigm of what sola scriptura is that we don’t share.

 

[PRmerger]

I stick with what is in our confessions. There are, of course, many good resources on the web discussing Lutheran theology. But just like you don’t take everything that apologists like Pat Madrid (who I’ve met, great guy) or Tim Staples at face value, the same applies to ours as well. Ultimately, we follow what our respective communions teach in creed, catechism and confession.

Fair enough, friend.

Although getting you to admit that you’re disavowing yourself from 2 of those pillars of SS from that website has been like pulling teeth , I understand your point.

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, could you address what the Catholic position is on 1 Cor. 15:29?

We do not believe in baptism for the dead.