Canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura Style

[DeFide]

Angainor:

No, they can’t all be correct, but that doesn’t mean the verse is void of meaning (as you suggest)."For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

It means something, not nothing.

Back up. I said your idea that the truths from the Bible detatched from an interpreter was void of meaning (not the verse):

Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, then in practice, the idea of the Bible alone not needing testing becomes void of meaning.

 

[MrS]

Angainor:

I assume you mean they took it to some Catholic officials.

This would mean they weren’t testing at all wouldn’t it? Someone else was testing.

this would mean that when they HEARD
what would later become the Gospel of Matthew…
and would later become Matthew 16:18,

they were advised to ask either the
early Christians (who would later be called Catholics),
or their students (would would or already were called Catholics)

what was meant. That authoritative interpretation (Tradition) would eventually be written down and shared with the world.

Yes they were certainly Catholic… and yes what they said was certainly official. BUT… it is the Catholic Church that is infallible… not the people in it.

Thus Jesus, foreseeing the problems of the 3 solas, gave His promise of protection by the Holy Spirit… to the early Catholic officials… along with the power to bind and loose, lay on hands, administer the sacraments etc.

No other church has it… come on home.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

It seems that you have a different interpretation. Let’s take it to the judge:

'If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault

This person knows his brother is at fault. He is not being asked to bring it to the Church to find out if he is at fault. This person has judged for himself that his brother is at fault.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

This person knows his brother is at fault. He is not being asked to bring it to the Church to find out if he is at fault. This person has judged for himself that his brother is at fault.

You just admitted that you know that other Protestant interpretations of Scripture are faulty, at least some of them. But are you wrong, or are they?

That’s why Jesus gave us an authoritative Church, and did not say, “if he refuses to listen to the Church, let him start his own Church”.

 

[MrS]

Angainor:

This person knows his brother is at fault. He is not being asked to bring it to the Church to find out if he is at fault. This person has judged for himself that his brother is at fault.

WAY WRONG… START AT VERSE 15, AND GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH 20+

The final judge… " and if he still does not listen, take it to the Church… and if he does not listen, let him be anathema…"

Sola Scripturists also abuse this verse by saying it tells us we don’t need a church… “…because whereever 2 or more…there I am”

another nail in the coffin of belief about ss

 

[alexaustralia]

Angainor:

I believe the Chruch preserved the Bible to the point where I can go to the corner bookstore to buy it.

Angainor,

From what I’ve read it seems to me that you trust in faith that the Church has preserved Scripture through out time and that there has never been any contention as to what Scripture was and therefore no testing was required (The only problem: history shows otherwise).

However my main point is this, if you believe the Church was capable of preserving the Bible why do you not believe the Church was capable in preserving its interpretation to the point as you may put it one can go to the corner/local parish and believe it?

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Back up. I said your idea that the truths from the Bible detatched from an interpreter was void of meaning (not the verse):

Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, then in practice, the idea of the Bible alone not needing testing becomes void of meaning.

If the idea that the truths from the Bible detatched from an interpreter is void of meaning then it follows that the statements of truths found in the Bible are void and without meaning.

If I was born on a deserted island and never heard of anything Christian–then a Bible washes ashore. I turn to this passage:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

There is no interpreter around, just me. Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, no truth can be had from this passage. This passage must be void of all meaning.

I don’t believe that.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

If the idea that the truths from the Bible detatched from an interpreter is void of meaning then it follows that the statements of truths found in the Bible are void and without meaning.

If I was born on a deserted island and never heard of anything Christian–then a Bible washes ashore. I turn to this passage:"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

There is no interpreter around, just me. Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, no truth can be had from this passage. This passage must be void of all meaning.

I don’t believe that.

One idea does not follow the other. For example, if the only Bible is 20 light years away in space, and was never seen by humans, what would be the point of Bob saying, “I follow what the Bible says.”?

It’s not a possible proposition.

 

[Angainor]

alexaustralia:

From what I’ve read it seems to me that you trust in faith that the Church has preserved Scripture through out time and that there has never been any contention as to what Scripture was and therefore no testing was required (The only problem: history shows otherwise).

I never said that.

The “contention”, as you call it, is all part of the process of the Church preserving Scripture.

 

[MrS]

Angainor:

If the idea that the truths from the Bible detatched from an interpreter is void of meaning then it follows that the statements of truths found in the Bible are void and without meaning.

If I was born on a deserted island and never heard of anything Christian–then a Bible washes ashore. I turn to this passage:"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

There is no interpreter around, just me. Since any statement of truth from the Bible cannot be had independent of an interpreter, no truth can be had from this passage. This passage must be void of all meaning.

I don’t believe that.

Straw Man that if…then is not reasonable.

If the man on the island could read, and he made an interpretation… that is his truth… just as the protestants have their truth.

But the real Truth is not just something…it is somebody… and His Name is Jesus Christ… founder of the Catholic Church… giver of promises to the Apostles and their followers…

The same fallible men who wrote infallible Scripture
The same fallible men who determined the Canon
are
The same fallible men intrusted to interprete the Scriptures…

You may get it right
I may get it right

But we only get it right if it agrees with the authoritative right given to only the Catholic Church.

We we don’t agree - at least one of us is wrong,… so take it to the Church

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

One idea does not follow the other. For example, if the only Bible is 20 light years away in space, and was never seen by humans, what would be the point of Bob saying, “I follow what the Bible says.”?

It’s not a possible proposition.

I don’t follow you. Why would Bob say “I follow what the Bible says” if he never read the Bible because the only one was 20LY away?

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

I don’t follow you. Why would Bob say I follow what the Bible says if he never read the Bible because the only one was 20LY away?

Exactly my point. He can’t.

Any reading is an interpretation. Any reading requires a reader.

If you don’t need to test “what the Bible says” you need to determine whose interpretation is the one you “don’t need to test”. Is it yours?

 

[Angainor]

MrS:

If the man on the island could read, and he made an interpretation… that is his truth… just as the protestants have their truth.

What if the “interpretation” the man made went something like this:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Would this be “his own truth”?

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

What if the “interpretation” the man made went something like this:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Would this be “his own truth”?

Are you trying to deny that there many contradictory takes on the meaning of this in Protestant circles?

Once saved, always saved?
Belief alone?
Belief as a prerequisite?
What about invincible ignorance?
Who is God’s son?
What’s eternal life?
How many Gods?
Which Gods?
etc., ad nauseum.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

you need to determine whose interpretation is the one you “don’t need to test”.

Why? I prefer to test *all *interpretations.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Are you trying to deny that there many contradictory takes on the meaning of this in Protestant circles?

Once saved, always saved?
Belief alone?
Belief as a prerequisite?
What about invincible ignorance?
Who is God’s son?
What’s eternal life?
How many Gods?
Which Gods?
etc., ad nauseum.

Nothing of the sort. What I want to know is, if the man interpreted John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Would this be his own subjective truth?

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

Why? I prefer to test *all *interpretations.

Ok, you’re allowed to change your mind. I assume this means that “Bible truths” need testing since they all involve readers.

So what happens when you test the statement about taking matters to the Church as the final court of appeal?

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

Nothing of the sort. What I want to know is, if the man interpreted John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Would this be his own subjective truth?

This is not an interpretation. He did not answer even one of the questions I posed to him. That sentence is not floating around blankly in his head without implications and meanings.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Ok, you’re allowed to change your mind. I assume this means that “Bible truths” need testing since they all involve readers.

It means if someone tells me something is a Bible truth, that something would need testing.

DeFide:

So what happens when you test the statement about taking matters to the Church as the final court of appeal?

Including this. Where does it say we are to “take” matters of truth to the Church as the final court of appeal?

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

That sentence is not floating around blankly in his head without implications and meanings.

Yes it is.

If the man interprets John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and only mean that, is the man’s interpretation his own subjective truth?