Dirty Laundry

[cooterhein]

Oh, this is one of those instances where, ‘if it’s not written, then it’s acceptable to believe this way?’

You have some weird ideas about how Protestants think.

The Bible has plenty of examples of the ‘imposition of hands’, as well as choosing and appointing. There are NO examples of anyone appointing themselves, or non-authoritative people ‘choosing and ordaining’ others, to positions of authority.

There is a notable example of early Christians going out from Jerusalem to preach the Gospel to everyone and convert many. This happened while the apostles all stayed in Jerusalem. That’s fairly inconsistent with how Catholicism generally operates.

 

[cooterhein]

Read Nehemiah 8 for the basics of how the people ‘interpreted’ scriptures,

Ok, I did. The man doing the reading and interpreting in that chapter had a particular view of Scripture, to the effect that it was first in authority and everything else (even the Mishnah, the codification of Jewish tradition) came second. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

then provide me the scriptures that state people should ‘attempt’ to interpret scriptures for themselves,

Do the Bereans not count for some reason?

then please list the scriptures with the instructions for those ‘basics’

I don’t think the basics of hermeneutics are enumerated within Scripture. You might have to look to this type of source. amazon.com/Gospel-Centered-Hermeneutics-Foundations-Evangelical-Interpretation/dp/0830828397/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212366532&sr=8-1

Lastly, explain how those ‘many’ Protestants have the authority to tell everyone else their interpretation is wrong. Where is their ‘guarantee’ that they have it right in scriptures?

No one has the right to tell everyone else they’re right simply because of who they are. This is special pleading. This is a request that everyone else commit the sin of the genetic fallacy on this special occasion. This is…what the Magisterium does all the time.

Any thinking Christian has an obligation to interact with Scripture and understand it to the best of their ability. Sometimes one will understand it rightly and another wrongly, and this may lead to disagreement. Hopefully, this can be resolved through something called logical reasoning. It’s an attractive alternative to what you’re more familiar with, which is something on the order of “Because I said so.”

No one is guaranteed “rightness” in ever single situation, but everyone has the right to try and demonstrate that one thing or another is correct. If they can demonstrate this, good for them.

If they cannot demonstrate that something is right and are forced to depend on the “Because I said so” approach, they are generally presumed Catholic.

Paul did NOT endorse different doctrines/teachings.

I already told you he didn’t do any contradictory teachings, but he did have different kinds of encouragement and exhortation for different individuals or groups. That is what sets his letters apart from the ones that are more general in scope.

I did what you asked and briefly summarized all the Pauline letters. That took quite awhile, you know. It kind of seems like you didn’t read any of it, though, because you just come back with “No! He did NOT!”

Paul taught against divisions.

Divisions like “I follow Paul” or “I follow Apollos.” Or, on some occasions, “I follow Cephas.”

News flash. Catholics do the third one. How many times do you have to outline your argument for a particular interpretation of “On this rock” before you realize you’re in the “I follow Cephas” camp?

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this, about questioning authorship of the inspired word of God.

Great, so you must have decided whether or not you actually do know who wrote Hebrews.

Do you?

It’s the way it’s being used that pitches scriptures against scriptures, in what appears to be an attempt to validate many opposing doctrines/teachings as one truth that I see much irony in.

I very much doubt that’s what troubles you. I think it has more to do with who’s doing it and the fact that they’re not Catholic.

The Protestant reformation took place in the 1500s.

You think I don’t know when the Reformation took place.

Before that, there were not many Churches espousing different doctrines/teachings and being one as Paul wrote to be, or as Christ prayed we’d be.

Yes, absolutely, an apostolic church with no Reformations of any kind is a freaking utopia.

Why aren’t you Eastern Orthodox, then?

Oh, that’s right. You follow Cephas.

 

[cooterhein]

I’ve thought about this part of your post a lot today. It appears you’re either saying,

I haven’t read your options yet, but I’m already doubting that I’ll be happy with either option.

it can be ignored by most people except Hebrew Christians of a distinct area,

I would never suggest that Scripture should be ignored.

or there are parts of the Bible that doesn’t belong with the rest of scriptures because we cannot be sure who wrote it.

No, I like that one even less.

Which is it?

Neither. The options you came up with were awful.

It really seems you’re putting forth an argument

Regarding the authorship of Hebrews, don’t concern yourself with arguments. Just worry about what’s factual and what’s not. I don’t want you to hurt yourself.

Are ‘Americans’ free from some scriptures because there is not a letter or epistle to the ‘Americans’? We are a ‘specific’ group.

That’s absurd. Why even bring it up?

Was Galatians 3:28 exclusive so that it did not include others except Jews and Greeks?

Again, don’t hurt yourself. Try to stick with the things I purport to be factual and see if that is true.

Those things are: We don’t know the author of Hebrews with any certainty and this is something on which Protestant and Catholic scholars are in agreement. Also, Hebrews is generally not classed among the “catholic” or “general” epistles. There are some exceptions to this, but that is the usual course of action.

Do whatever research you must, get back to me when you can indicate that you now see that these things are true, and then we can move past it. Sound good?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sound good?

It’s seems to be a ‘smokescreen’ to avoid the discussion of ‘obey your prelates’ as written in Hebrews. You make references to stories in the Bible, but fail to post any scriptures. That appears to another avoidance to directly discuss an interpretation. Many people went out and shared the good news? How many did so with the authority from Jesus, or those He appointed?

Your justification of Protestantism falls short and your condescending tone falls even shorter.

I’m about to go do a 24 hour shift, not that it matters you seem to wait a few days to respond anyways. Please post these scriptures of self appointed people, or people who were appointed by those without authority so we can discuss them when I get back.

 

[cooterhein]

It’s seems to be a ‘smokescreen’ to avoid the discussion of ‘obey your prelates’ as written in Hebrews. You make references to stories in the Bible, but fail to post any scriptures. That appears to another avoidance to directly discuss an interpretation. Many people went out and shared the good news? How many did so with the authority from Jesus, or those He appointed?

Your justification of Protestantism falls short and your condescending tone falls even shorter.

I’m about to go do a 24 hour shift, not that it matters you seem to wait a few days to respond anyways. Please post these scriptures of self appointed people, or people who were appointed by those without authority so we can discuss them when I get back.

Hope your shift goes ok.

I’ve made a pretty clear request of you; these are the two assertions I want to work on right now.

We don’t know the author of Hebrews with any certainty and this is something on which Protestant and Catholic scholars are in agreement. Also, Hebrews is generally not classed among the “catholic” or “general” epistles.

Wrap this up and then I might do some of the things you want. You don’t get to call all the shots. There will be some give and take here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hope your shift goes ok.

I’ve made a pretty clear request of you; these are the two assertions I want to work on right now.

We don’t know the author of Hebrews with any certainty and this is something on which Protestant and Catholic scholars are in agreement. Also, Hebrews is generally not classed among the “catholic” or “general” epistles.

Wrap this up and then I might do some of the things you want. You don’t get to call all the shots. There will be some give and take here.

Maybe I’m thick, but it’s not clear.

You denied an authority and I provided instructions, in the inspired word of God, telling us to ‘obey your prelates’, which clearly indicates an authority. I can provide other examples of authority from scriptures but haven’t seen a reasonable explanation for those instructions in Hebrews, other than ‘Paul may not have written that’, or more specifically ‘we don’t know the author of Hebrews’. Hebrews is certainly accepted as part of the canon, by Catholics and Protestants. I really don’t understand the argument you’re using that we really are not being instructed to ‘obey our prelates’, or ‘leaders’ if you prefer.

 

[john_aurelius]

Obedite praepositis vestris, et subjacate eis; Heb.13:17 (Vg)

just thought u might be interested, praepositus -i: m.; dean, prior, provost, ecclesiastical superior.

Obviously the NT was written in greek rather than latin:slapfight: but surely an ecclesiastical superior is in fact a church leader:bible1:

The only leader I can think of with direct appointment from heaven was the Apostle Paul who then had to spend significant portions of his letters defending his authority.

 

[PRmerger]

Show me with scriptures where anyone had a freedom to choose who their authority was. When Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever that those who sit on the seat of Moses said to you, He gave them no options of ‘pick and choose’. Reading the rest of the New Testament, there are no offers of pick and choose your leaders, that you are to be subject too.

Trenchant point. One which I never considered.

Incidentally, contrary to what cooter has proposed, “consent” is not required for authority. To wit: I have authority over my children whether or not they give “consent”.

When that connection is made at your consent, I guess that’s the point where there’s a kind of relative or circumstantial authority- because you consent to the leadership of these teachers, you are being led by them, and they exercise authority over you.

 

[PRmerger]

Those are the Pauline epistles. We don’t know exactly who wrote Hebrews, but it is generally placed in this group instead of being included in the general epistles

This is a case, then, where you are giving “consent” to the authority of the Catholic Church to discern, despite its disputed authorship, that it is* theopneustos?*

For authorship is clearly important in determining whether an ancient text is inspired or not, yes?

And if we “don’t know exactly who wrote Hebrews”, one must submit to an authority–an infallible authority at that–to discern that it is God-breathed.

 

[PRmerger]

For authorship is clearly important in determining whether an ancient text is inspired or not, yes?

Great video regarding authorship of Scripture: “if we don’t know who wrote it, how can you know it’s inspired Scripture?”

youtube.com/watch?v=6pW7l2CC_20

 

[PRmerger]

You have some weird ideas about how Protestants think.

There is no “how Protestants think”, cooter. There are at least tens of thousands of “how Protestants think” so to categorize Protestants into one thinking entity is inutile.

How do “Protestants think” about baptism?

Well, some say it’s an ordinance; some say it’s a sacrament.
Some say it must be done in a river; some say it’s ok to sprinkle.
Some say it must wait until adulthood; some admit infants.

How do “Protestants think” about salvation?
How do “Protestants think” about abortion?
How do “Protestants think” about divorce and re-marriage?
How do “Protestants think” about OSAS?

There are about as many Protestant “thinkings” as there are bellybuttons, (to steal a phrase from my friend, guanophore.)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hope your shift goes ok.

I’ve made a pretty clear request of you; these are the two assertions I want to work on right now.

We don’t know the author of Hebrews with any certainty and this is something on which Protestant and Catholic scholars are in agreement. Also, Hebrews is generally not classed among the “catholic” or “general” epistles.

Wrap this up and then I might do some of the things you want. You don’t get to call all the shots. There will be some give and take here.

I’m on another shift and looking through my subscriptions and came back to this thread.

Maybe I’m thick, but it’s not clear.

You denied an authority and I provided instructions, in the inspired word of God, telling us to ‘obey your prelates’, which clearly indicates an authority. I can provide other examples of authority from scriptures but haven’t seen a reasonable explanation for those instructions in Hebrews, other than ‘Paul may not have written that’, or more specifically ‘we don’t know the author of Hebrews’. Hebrews is certainly accepted as part of the canon, by Catholics and Protestants. I really don’t understand the argument you’re using that we really are not being instructed to ‘obey our prelates’, or ‘leaders’ if you prefer.

I asked a question referencing Hebrews 13:17, after you denied any authority. You turned the discussion to, ‘we don’t know for sure who wrote Hebrews.’ It’s not a give and take situation as you’re trying to make out. It’s more of a ‘side step’.

Hebrews is accepted by Catholics and Protestants as a part of the canon of the New Testament. Catholics and Protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

I’ve already said, I maybe thick. Please explain how we can ignore that passage that clearly shows authority.

 

[cooterhein]

It’s not a give and take situation as you’re trying to make out. It’s more of a ‘side step’.

This is not the kind of thing that makes me want to do as you ask. Want to see if you can come up with something that does?

Hebrews is accepted by Catholics and Protestants as a part of the canon of the New Testament. Catholics and Protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

And the authorship? What do you know about that?

Please explain how we can ignore that passage that clearly shows authority.

I don’t suggest that you ignore any passage. Tell me what you know about the authorship of Hebrews. Then I’ll do what you want, which will quite likely be a restatement of a couple of things that I said already.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not the kind of thing that makes me want to do as you ask. Want to see if you can come up with something that does?

And the authorship? What do you know about that?

I don’t suggest that you ignore any passage. Tell me what you know about the authorship of Hebrews. Then I’ll do what you want, which will quite likely be a restatement of a couple of things that I said already.

It’s clear to see you don’t want to respond to the inspired word of God stating, ‘Obey your prelates and be subject to them.’ Hebrews 13:17 clearly shows an authority.

Authority is also demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 12:28, as the hierarchy lists positions within the Church according to rank from 1 on.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

 

[PRmerger]

And the authorship? What do you know about that?

The same thing that you do: it’s only* theopneustos* because some outside (infallible) entity declared it to be so. And each and every time you quote Hebrews, cooter, you give tacit acknowledgment of submitting to the authority of this infallible entity*.

• Catholic Church

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, this is one of those instances where, ‘if it’s not written, then it’s acceptable to believe this way?’ But, in the instances of Catholic beliefs not specifically stated, usually to a Protestant’s expectations, that is not acceptable?

You know, this concept keeps following me around lately, and I can’t figure out why the Holy Spirit keeps putting this in front of me. In all my years here at the CAFs I’d never considered the “if it’s not found in Scripture, it’s acceptable” paradigm vs the “if it’s not found in Scripture, it’s prohibited” paradigm…

But it seems that Protestants are trying to have it both ways. As you point out, PS1, sometimes things not found in Scripture are proclaimed acceptable by a pastor, (unless it’s a Catholic belief of course!); however, it’s just as likely that the default position by a pastor will be “if it’s not found in Scripture then it’s prohibited”.

I started a thread on this, as the issue has been, as I said, following me around lately:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573928

 

[Jack_Bauer]

At one point in my faith I came to believe such things were true. But only after many years of struggling to be faithful in spite of the agony I went through in my earlier years. It seemed that my pride caused me to break, stumble. The pride was well intended, but not a good reason to leave - I discovered later as a fundamentalist. However, I prayed that GOd would lead me to the truth and ultimately I returned. Now I’ve never not loved God with all my heart. But I have stopped loving the Church, even though Christ established it. I interchanged the Church Authority with Leaderships, but realized the hard way why it is not the case.