P
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
B
Bernadette173
Guest
I fully agree with you on this one Tim. The Bible needs an Authoritative interpreter in matters of Scripture, because it is so hard to interpret Scripture in the Bible we need the authority of the RCC to tell us what is inspired and what is not inspired in the Bible. The Bible states clearly that we must hold fast to Oral Tradition, [1Cor11:2; 1Pet1:25] 2Pet 3:15-16,] and [1Tim 3:15]
Scripture also tells us that Christ left a Church to teach, govern and sanctify in His name until the end of time. Having sola scriptura as a sole means of salvation without an official interpreter is like the Founding Fathers of the United States leaving no governing authority [The Supreme Court] to guard, guarantee and officially interpret the Constitution of the United States.
God Bless,
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Linc, sorry I didn’t get back to you its seems guanophore caught the difference’s, yes, I read the sight with CS Lewis [who’s inspired by GK Chesterton], as mentioned the difference is in Doctrine and Deposit of Faith. I would have to assume you didn’t read the Deposit of Faith link.
You see, not to change or sway from topic, but this is exactly what all reformers today are doing. And “without” a Magesterium as an authority on matters of morals and faith. Such as the “elect” “double presdestination” the “Rapture” and “OSAS” “JWs, and Mormons”, theology of “evil and satan,” misunderstanding the Holy Spirit" and “Trinity” and on and on and on.
Thus the theologian becomes his own magesterium. Thus great intellect which isn’t based in humility equates to disaster. Another well paved path to hell as we see throughout church history. Endless list of names of Souls who thought they were the “Elect”.
Lacking the Virture of “humility” the basis of Grace.
It would be “folly” to assume protestant denominations are not doing exactly this. And by large leaving out the teaching’s on the BVM and Eucharist which date back to the Catacombs thus before Scripture.
As far as mans state of Grace/Sin again guanophore is right and I believe pablope mentioned on another thread, Catherine of Siena’s “Dialogues” I would consider reading the book, its a classic just as Confessions is by Augustine. Couple hundred pages and will place this completely in perspective. Some of the SS/Reformed notions you have just do not square with reality. Grace and Sin alone are a topic where you are not going to find in depth understanding in the life of souls without reverting to Apostolic Church teaching/reading. Through Sola Scriptura man has given himself “permission” to act against his conscious in area’s such as “Contraceptives and Abortives” . Which gets back to the CS Lewis comments about “modern protestant theology” which by large is a illusion as we see since the CS Lewis period has continued “off-course”. Catholic Church still here and in this modern evolved time, appears absolutely correct. Mans modern evolution is another fantasy/illusion. Mankind spends One Million a minute on Weapons, while talking “Peace,” yes we have become very modern and evolved. We learned to kill more effectively and at a disconnected distance so we can say, I didn’t kill the bullets did!
The Bible does not interpret itself = if you place it on a table it remains for eternity unopened till someone picks it up.
Man alone certainly doesn’t interpret the Bible= reading inspired Holy Scripture is one thing, “one” who developes “infallible doctrine” as Calvin is a lost rogue leading others astray.
You see, not to change or sway from topic, but this is exactly what all reformers today are doing. And “without” a Magesterium as an authority on matters of morals and faith. Such as the “elect” “double presdestination” the “Rapture” and “OSAS” “JWs, and Mormons”, theology of “evil and satan,” misunderstanding the Holy Spirit" and “Trinity” and on and on and on.
Thus the theologian becomes his own magesterium. Thus great intellect which isn’t based in humility equates to disaster. Another well paved path to hell as we see throughout church history. Endless list of names of Souls who thought they were the “Elect”.
Lacking the Virture of “humility” the basis of Grace.It would be “folly” to assume protestant denominations are not doing exactly this. And by large leaving out the teaching’s on the BVM and Eucharist which date back to the Catacombs thus before Scripture.
As far as mans state of Grace/Sin again guanophore is right and I believe pablope mentioned on another thread, Catherine of Siena’s “Dialogues” I would consider reading the book, its a classic just as Confessions is by Augustine. Couple hundred pages and will place this completely in perspective. Some of the SS/Reformed notions you have just do not square with reality. Grace and Sin alone are a topic where you are not going to find in depth understanding in the life of souls without reverting to Apostolic Church teaching/reading. Through Sola Scriptura man has given himself “permission” to act against his conscious in area’s such as “Contraceptives and Abortives” . Which gets back to the CS Lewis comments about “modern protestant theology” which by large is a illusion as we see since the CS Lewis period has continued “off-course”. Catholic Church still here and in this modern evolved time, appears absolutely correct. Mans modern evolution is another fantasy/illusion. Mankind spends One Million a minute on Weapons, while talking “Peace,” yes we have become very modern and evolved. We learned to kill more effectively and at a disconnected distance so we can say, I didn’t kill the bullets did!
The Bible does not interpret itself = if you place it on a table it remains for eternity unopened till someone picks it up.
Man alone certainly doesn’t interpret the Bible= reading inspired Holy Scripture is one thing, “one” who developes “infallible doctrine” as Calvin is a lost rogue leading others astray.
P
Phyllo
Guest
Good verse thanks.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I don’t think there should be much quarrel about scripture being the final norm (except sola scriptura inevitably leads to solo scriptura). The question is, final for whom? Or final for what?
Historically, we see that the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, were written by members of the people of God, for the people of God, and to the people of God. Scripture is to be used in house, by the household of faith. Scripture was not written to outsiders.
This point is extremely important. Scripture has always been understood and appreciated within the assembly of God. Scripture belongs to the assembly of God collectively. Very few people had their own scrolls of scriptures, and few could read them anyway. So, how did they hear the word of God in the scriptures? They belonged to a group that did have copies of the scrolls and they assembled periodically to have the scriptures read to them.
Note that this was an aural and collective experience. Everybody heard the same scriptures at the same time, as a body. And they were understood as a body, the body of the assembly of God. They didn’t have their hip pocket compilation of all scriptures under one cover where they could go off and read it themselves in private and come to their private conclusions. Scripture was always heard and understood within the parameters of the household of faith, and within its traditions.
So, yes, it is not wrong to say scripture is the final norm–but only the norm for the household of faith, the church, not individuals. And in particular not for unlearned individuals outside the church, nor for unstable individuals who have purposely put themselves outside the household of faith, the church. We know who they are, these unlearned or unstable.
Even though the message of scripture is for everybody, for the whole world, scripture itself is not written to them. It is written to those who are already men of God, to be used by them in missionary work; it helps complete them for every good work.
J
JaKael02
Guest
Nice analogy. I’ll think more about this. In summary, you stated the Church > Scripture. I’ll think more about that as well. I know Lincs has issue with this, but I have thought they were equal. Hmm…
I agree. Ecumenical dialogue is important as the persecution picks up. Hopefully the persecution will fuel unity.
Another interesting analogy. I’ll reflect on this more. I agree with the analogy.
I’m not typing much in response, but I am reflecting on your comments. I figure it’s better I do this than rush to a quick response.
It increasingly is. The quality of life has increased manyfold since coming to Christ and actually walking with him, rather than being a fan.
Kind Regards,
James
J
JaKael02
Guest
Three people responsed to my comment. With respect, all three were good. But yours seemed to hit the nail on the head. I want to reallly reflect on that (as I head to noon Mass now) and put that response in my quiver to use in the future.
God Bless,
James
G
guanophore
Guest
pablope;9331787:
They behave that way, but they don’t think of it in those terms. As our resident Calvanist on this thread has demonstrated, they believe that he has “rightly interpreted the Scriptures” (because his framework agrees with what they also believe to be the right interpretation).
This is the legacy of every SS. They believe that the HS is guiding them into “all truth” and that they way they understand the scriptures is the “correct” view. It does not concern them that their ideas were unknown to Christendom for 1500 years.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, except that the CC is not “Roman”.
No person who espouses SS will claim that it is the “sole means of salvation”. All will look to Christ alone for that, but they will claim that Scripture is the 'final authority" with regard to faith and morals. This doctrine was invented to replace the authority of the corrupted Catholic officials in Europe at the time of the Reformation. Christians wanted an authentic expression of the Gospel, not one marred by simony and other abuses. They meant well…
B
bogeydogg
Guest
po18guy;9331790:
Of course they were known, Gottschalk died imprisoned in a monastery in the 9th C for teaching similar doctrine and Huss was burned alive for the same thing in the 15th C. Both men took a few writings of Augustine (without any consideration for anything else Augustine wrote) and built a doctrine strikingly similar to Calvin’s. So Calvin did not invent anything (there is nothing new under the sun) the difference is that Calvin’s followers view Gottschalk and Huss as heros rather than folks of questionable repute.They behave that way, but they don’t think of it in those terms. As our resident Calvanist on this thread has demonstrated, they believe that he has “rightly interpreted the Scriptures” (because his framework agrees with what they also believe to be the right interpretation).
This is the legacy of every SS. They believe that the HS is guiding them into “all truth” and that they way they understand the scriptures is the “correct” view. It does not concern them that their ideas were unknown to Christendom for 1500 years.
God Bless
G
guanophore
Guest
On the contrary, I think these were the major topics of the Reformers. Calvin has written volumes on the topic, and Luther made these the foundation stones of his own doctrines.
They are, of course, separated from the Apostolic faith, and bring in new doctrines unknown to the Apostles, but they are certainly “in depth” - It is just depth in a different pond.
I think the opposite is true in this case. Because of SS, individuals do not have a properly formed conscience. Conscience should be formed by the revelation of God to mankind. Since they reject the portion of Revelation that is not in the Scripture, they can only arrive at a partially formed conscience. Most committed Christians do act according to their conscience, it is just that it is improperly formed. I do agree with you, though, it is SS which supports this inadequate formation of conscience.
Exactly!
But that was not his intention. All the Reformers wanted a “pure Gospel” uncontaminated by sin.
G
guanophore
Guest
Like the other Reformers, they were zealous and passionate about “pure” Christianity. All these men lived in a place and time where there was much corruption in the Catholic hierarchy. They yearned for a NT church. Their methods of going about finding it were off the mark, but their intentions were good.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Better persepective, I believe through this lense we can also see we are talking to many in different areas truly seeking the Lord.On the contrary, I think these were the major topics of the Reformers. Calvin has written volumes on the topic, and Luther made these the foundation stones of his own doctrines.
They are, of course, separated from the Apostolic faith, and bring in new doctrines unknown to the Apostles, but they are certainly “in depth” - It is just depth in a different pond.
I think the opposite is true in this case. Because of SS, individuals do not have a properly formed conscience. Conscience should be formed by the revelation of God to mankind. Since they reject the portion of Revelation that is not in the Scripture, they can only arrive at a partially formed conscience. Most committed Christians do act according to their conscience, it is just that it is improperly formed. I do agree with you, though, it is SS which supports this inadequate formation of conscience.
But that was not his intention. All the Reformers wanted a “pure Gospel” uncontaminated by sin.
po18guy
Well-known member
po18guy
Well-known member
FYI, that was not my quote that you were replying to, but guanophore’s.
I absolutely agree. SS is not individual interpretation. It is a pactice of hermeunetics, and hermeunetics is the responsibility of the Church. I do not practice individual interpretation in articles of faith/ doctrine. For example, to be Lutheran, I have no position to define the Lord’s Supper in any way other than what the Church has.
I would disagree with the claim that sola scriptura leads to solo scriptura. It hasn’t happened in the Lutheran Church.
Jon
Jon
B
bogeydogg
Guest
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
No, not the Lutheran Church. Although among other groups sola seems to have devolved into solo, and individual interpretation. Or, rather, influential individuals do their own interpreting, persuade others, and a new denomination is formed.
L
Lochias
Guest
And yet, it have to have happened at least once, with Luther, or else there wouldn’t be a Lutheran Church to begin with. If it hasn’t happened in the Lutheran Church as a whole, that just means that the Lutheran Church is staying faithful to the changes of one man who did succumb.
- Status