Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

That’s not my paradigm?

Your paradigm is that there does not need to be an authentic interpreter of Scripture—that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the correct interpretation.

These folks who read the very same Bible that you do have concluded, with the Holy Spirit in their opinion, that there is no Trinity.

You cannot object to their conclusions without saying, “There is an authentic interpreter of Scripture”.

You can’t have it both ways, Lincs. Either each person can read the Scriptures and come to their own conclusions (i.e. abortion is fine), or there is an authentic interpreter of Scripture.

And you can see what happens when someone says that there is no need for an authentic interpreter–we get tens of thousands* of differing denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is correct.

If they come to such conclusions, they are unfaithful to scripture. The clarity of scripture is not the issue, it’s the unstable twisting it, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:16).

It’s absolutely about the clarity of Scripture. Scripture is not clear about most things. Hence, the tens of thousands* of differing opinions.

Likewise if a Catholic goes against church teaching on something, you would also state, the issue is not the church teaching, but the unfaithful person.

Lincs

But I have not given them permission to do this, as your paradigm has. Your paradigm is expressly about the individual being able to read and form his own theology.

Our paradigm is: you need to read the Scriptures within the lens of the Tradition which gave you these Scriptures.

*if you object to the tens of thousands Christian denominations statistic, I will gladly consider a different one, if you can provide what you believe is the actual number of Christian denominations, and your source.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

You cannot object to their conclusions without saying, “There is an authentic interpreter of Scripture”.

Then who do you conclude is this “authentic interpreter of Scripture?”

Moreover, what is the evidence of which your conclusion is based upon?

 

[PRmerger]

Then who do you conclude is this “authentic interpreter of Scripture?”

Christ and His Body, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Moreover, what is the evidence of which your conclusion is based upon?

God’s Word.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Westminster confession:

The Westminster Confession is a man-made document reflecting the human opinions of its creators. I don’t want man-made traditions, I want divine ones. I also see Westminster going against the plain sense of scripture, that the unlearned and unstable can twist scripture to their destruction, not their salvation.

And that even presupposes that they even have any scriptures to begin with.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,
You mention a lot what the Protestant paradigm is, without ever quoting one Protestsnt creed or confession which explains what it is…

You appear to have confused solo scriptura with sola scriptura. Big difference.
reformationtheology.com/2011/10/sola_scriptura_is_not_solo_scr.php
effectualgrace.com/2011/10/17/well-done-phil/

Solo scriptura is often responsible for what you talk about; “I think this is wrong so I’m gonna up sticks and start a new church!” It’s often very different from actual sola scriptura… The links may help clarify which I may have stated poorly.

After you have read them: This is why I keep appealing to confessions which state along the lines of “all things necessary for salvation are clear taught so that all can grasp them”, but note the same exact Protestsnt confessions also state along the lines that “not everything is clear in scripture”, the essentials most certainly are, but other things are not; hence why I follow teachers, the fathers, tradition, to help serve as a guide: yes, the church is authoritative! Buttttt - Tradition is not seen as infallible.

I hope this is helpful to you in better understanding my position.

So the paradigm you pose, is not actually what I hold to…

P.s - I think we have exhausted the 33,000 claim, I’m happy to state it’s untrue, I don’t however have an exact number to give… The catholic source I posted earlier says 149. Even then of course; we would have to see how many of these are actually sola scriptura adhering protestants, or indeed orthdox…

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Christ and His Body, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

God’s Word.

So you prove the authority of the church from the bible and the bible from the church?

 

[Lincoln7]

The Westminster Confession is a man-made document reflecting the human opinions of its creators. I don’t want man-made traditions, I want divine ones. I also see Westminster going against the plain sense of scripture, that the unlearned and unstable can twist scripture to their destruction, not their salvation.

And that even presupposes that they even have any scriptures to begin with.

I guess discussion is pretty much over then… I cold simply dismiss the catechism of the CC as the same, but we won’t ever learn from one another or have any sort of meaningful dialouge then.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[JaKael02]

Then who do you conclude is this “authentic interpreter of Scripture?”

Moreover, what is the evidence of which your conclusion is based upon?

Arizona - Not sure what your background is. My basic response is not intended to be insulting.

Catholics believe Jesus Christ left us a Church. The Church is the “authentic and authoritative” interpreter.

This Church is Visible & Invisible. Visible being the Apostles & those whom the Apostles consecrated to carry there office: the successors of the Apostles. The successors have their authority from the apostles (whom were given all Authority by Christ).

Invisible being baptisted Christians.

God Bless,

James

 

[mackbrislawn]

I guess discussion is pretty much over then… I cold simply dismiss the catechism of the CC as the same, but we won’t ever learn from one another or have any sort of meaningful dialouge then.

Regards

Lincs.

You’re right. We’re down to point blank and have stopped firing over each other’s heads. You haven’t convinced me why I should pay any attention to the reformers, since they are as human as I. You see the CC’s ideas as man-made, and I see the reformers’ ideas as man-made. Atheists see the whole thing as man-made.

 

[JaKael02]

After you have read them: This is why I keep appealing to confessions which state along the lines of “all things necessary for salvation are clear taught so that all can grasp them”, but note the same exact Protestsnt confessions also state along the lines that “not everything is clear in scripture”, the essentials most certainly are, but other things are not; hence why I follow teachers, the fathers, tradition, to help serve as a guide: yes, the church is authoritative! Buttttt - Tradition is not seen as infallible.

Lincs,

I read the articles. I see the difference between solo/sola. Both different denominations are both professing sola? Such as Baptist and Methodist? How are those differences reconciled while both claim sola?

If you have interest in answering: You mentioned “Church is authoritative”? I’m now confused because of your sola scripture stance.

Thank you,

James

 

[PRmerger]

So you prove the authority of the church from the bible and the bible from the church?

No, for that would be a circular argument and, as such, no argument at all for the authority of the Church.

We use a spiral argument, which is:

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Catholics believe Jesus Christ left us a Church. The Church is the “authentic and authoritative” interpreter.

And here lies the million dollar question - which church??

Arizona - Not sure what your background is.

Pertaining to which portion of it, and how is my background relevant to the discussion at hand?

My basic response is not intended to be insulting.

I didn’t find your response the least bit insulting, James. What part of your response do you feel I might have taken offense to?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,
You mention a lot what the Protestant paradigm is, without ever quoting one Protestsnt creed or confession which explains what it is…

Well, let’s just clarify: is it your position that all Christians do not need someone to tell them what the Bible means? All they need is their Bible and the Holy Spirit?

Or is there a correct interpretation of Scripture? And this correct interpretation is expressed by ________? (fill in the blank)

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs,

I read the articles. I see the difference between solo/sola. Both different denominations are both professing sola? Such as Baptist and Methodist? How are those differences reconciled while both claim sola?

If you have interest in answering: You mentioned “Church is authoritative”? I’m now confused because of your sola scripture stance.

Thank you,

James

Indeed, there are still differences, one must make the choice. I stand with a more reformed understanding of things of course.

Yes, the church is authoritative, in that I count myself far less capable than say Calvin, or Augustine, Chrysostom, to name a few major ones, I must learn from these men, from the church. I just don’t adhere to the Catholic model of church authority, I don’t see the church as infallible. The inspired scriptures are the authority in matters of faith.

Lincs.

 

[JaKael02]

And here lies the million dollar question - which church? Pertaining to which portion of it, and how is my background relevant to the discussion at hand? I didn’t find your response the least bit insulting, James. What part of your response do you feel I might have taken offense to?

Arizona -

My response was basic. In this forum post, we have gone into great detail. So I did not want to appear as if I was coming off rude.

Background would determine if my response was adequate or too simple and therefore insulting your intelligence.

Which Church? Via my response, any Church with valid apostolic succession. Primarily those in union with Pope, as we know any Bishop can go rogue.

Just my perspective. I understand this is not apologetically satisfying.

God Bless,

James

 

[Lincoln7]

No, for that would be a circular argument and, as such, no argument at all for the authority of the Church.

We use a spiral argument, which is:

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source

Big assumption to assume scripture teaches an infallible church was founded, and that it’s the catholic church is also another big one, with respect. One is still back in the waters of private interpretation no?

Well, let’s just clarify: is it your position that all Christians do not need someone to tell them what the Bible means? All they need is their Bible and the Holy Spirit?

On essentials for salvation, people can come to a sufficient understanding by reading the scriptures. On other things, which may be less clear in scripture, people should indeed consult the collective wisdom of the church over the last 2000 years, the great exegetes and theologians.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

P.s - I think we have exhausted the 33,000 claim,

Just to be clear. I don’t propose that it’s 33,000. I use the designation “tens of thousands”. I haven’t used that statistic (33,000) in a very, very long time.

I’m happy to state it’s untrue, I don’t however have an exact number to give…

Well, Lincs, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell me I can’t use a certain approximation, but then not offer me a number that you will accept (and its source).

The catholic source I posted earlier says 149

149? There’s 149 independent corner churches in my metro area alone. Each independent of the other. Each claiming their own interpretation is correct. Not a single one agrees on doctrine. (Else they would be one church, no?)

http://www.portlandground.com/vernon/2006-11-20albertaChurch059.jpg

Did the 149 count that one posted above?

Or this one?



Disclaimer: I have no attachment to any of these websites. I only google and cut and paste without reference to what these churches proclaim.

. Even then of course; we would have to see how many of these are actually sola scriptura adhering protestants, or indeed orthdox…

Kind regards

Whether they are SS protestants is irrelevant. They are the fruit of the Protestant Reformation’s “Authority? We don’t need no stinkin’ authority!” mantra which has spawned this obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations.

 

[Nicea325]

And here lies the million dollar question - which church??

Pertaining to which portion of it, and how is my background relevant to the discussion at hand?

I didn’t find your response the least bit insulting, James. What part of your response do you feel I might have taken offense to?

Actually it is not a million dollar question at all. Read history and it will clearly tell you which church it is.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Well, let’s just clarify: is it your position that all Christians do not need someone to tell them what the Bible means? All they need is their Bible and the Holy Spirit?

Or is there a correct interpretation of Scripture? And this correct interpretation is expressed by ________? (fill in the blank)

To aid in explaining the verses, the Lutheran Study Bible includes commentary and interpretations by the Church Fathers.

 

[Lincoln7]

Actually it is not a million dollar question at all. Read history and it will clearly tell you which church it is.

But the next question would be: isn’t that your private interpretation of history?

Not too mention of course, I see a vast difference between the early church and modern Rome.

Hope youre well Nicea

Lincs