Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lincoln7]

Hi, Lincs…

 

[guanophore]

In its context, Dr Packer is confronting ways in which scripture has been treated wrongly, in this case he is demonstrating his view of tradition as subordinate to the written word of God, and medieval tendencies to view certain Traditons as on par with scripture. Saying he means this to apply to the first 1600 years of Christian history however I would take issue with, as the relationship between scripture and tradition in the early centuries is often different to what is held now in the modern CC. Hence his comments this is a more medieval issue.

If you wish to take issue with this practice, then you need to go back to the Apostles, from whence it came. It did not start during the midieval period, but during the Apostolic period. Here is an example:

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers

The Apostolic preaching the krygma, is 'the Word of God". This Word is at work in the Church, where it is infallibly preserved in the believers by the HS.

In this passage:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The Apostle places the Word of God from both sources on par, which has been the belief of the Church since that time. The Gospel that was committed by word of mouth to the Church comes from the same Source as the letters.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Guanophore,

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers

The Apostolic preaching the krygma, is 'the Word of God". This Word is at work in the Church, where it is infallibly preserved in the believers by the HS.

Indeed, I don’t deny authoritiative apostolic preaching. “he who hears you…” I do however debate Trents comments on there being unwritten traditions.

2 Thess 2:15

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The Apostle places the Word of God from both sources on par, which has been the belief of the Church since that time. The Gospel that was committed by word of mouth to the Church comes from the same Source as the letters.

Indeed, Paul told them to ‘hold’ them, to ‘stand firm’ in them, they ha received the tradition in its entirity. As such, where are some modern traditons of the CC which are bound to conscience in history? If they are delievered fully by paul, why no mention of things such as papal infallibility? He also states of course it’s by word of mouth or letter, to me the verse implies that the Traditon is fully contained in the writing as it was when Paul preached it orally… I see nothing here to support the modern Catholic view of tradition.(1)

Regards

Lincs
(1) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/tradition

 

[guanophore]

Jon, I appreciate the dialogue. I think you and are closer on this issue than the “sola scriptura” framework allows.

If sola scriptura means scripture is harmonized, and not set against itself, then I don’t think any Catholic here would have a problem with that (I know I don’t).

Yes this is a very Catholic notion. But then, our dear brother Jon is more Catholic than most of those who claim to be Catholic.

 

[tarboy]

Oh the arguments I’ve caused by bringing up this passage in the “right” company.

I Corinthians 13: 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Randal, what you are doing is called Prooftexting, which I find a dishonest method of discourse. Great fun at your party, but not sincere.

When one reads the full chapter of I Corinthians 13 it is obviously about the importance of LOVE over everything else. It compares the importance of love with the gifts of the holy spirit. It does not prophecy the end of the gifts

The first paragraph of 1 Corinthians 13 confirms the intent for the full chapter is about LOVE
If I speak in the tongues[a](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28667a)] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love,** I am nothing.** 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28669b”)] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore,

Indeed, I don’t deny authoritiative apostolic preaching. “he who hears you…” I do however debate Trents comments on there being unwritten traditions.

There is never a need to write about the Traditions until heresy emerges. The early writers did not expound on the hypostatic union, either, but centuries after Christ, when it was called into question by rampant heresies, a dogmatic pronouncement had to be made to protect the faithful from falling into error.

The councils did not invent anything new. The Trinity was not a novel idea.

What SS has to presume is that the authoriative preaching of the Apostles ceased to exist at some point. And that position has to cease to believe that God is able to keep His word to preserve the Church from falling into error.

Indeed, Paul told them to ‘hold’ them, to ‘stand firm’ in them, they ha received the tradition in its entirity.

So where, in the Scriptures, does it indicate that this fullness of faith dissolved or ceased to exist at some point? If God really can, and does, preserve His Word, how did He fail to preserve this Word, deposited once for all to the saints?

As such, where are some modern traditons of the CC which are bound to conscience in history?

I am not understanding this question. Can you clarify?

If they are delievered fully by paul, why no mention  of things such as papal infallibility?

For the same reason there is no list of books that belong in the Bible, no explanation of the hypstatic union, no mention of the the words “theotokos” or “Trinity”. None of these were invented at the time they were proclaimed. They were proclaimed when it became necessary, to prevent heresy.

He also states of course it's by word of mouth or letter, to me the verse implies that the Traditon is fully contained in the writing as it was when Paul preached it orally.. I see nothing here to support the modern Catholic view of tradition.(1)

Of course you must understand it that way, or you would not be able to justify SS. But this was not the understanding of Christians prior to the invention of SS during the Reformation. The Church, both East and West, has always embraced two equal and complimentary strands of God’s revelation to mankind, in Sacred Tradition, and in Holy Scripture. Or do you really believe that God could not find even ONE faithful Christian to whom He could reveal to the Church that they made a mistake thinking this? Where is the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation, who is able to correct His Church when they stray? Did He get the flu for 1500 years?

 

[Lincoln7]

Guan,

There is never a need to write about the Traditions until heresy emerges. The early writers did not expound on the hypostatic union, either, but centuries after Christ, when it was called into question by rampant heresies, a dogmatic pronouncement had to be made to protect the faithful from falling into error.

Indeed, they had the full support of scripture in doing so. For it teaches more plainly and with more authority.

What SS has to presume is that the authoriative preaching of the Apostles ceased to exist at some point. And that position has to cease to believe that God is able to keep His word to preserve the Church from falling into error.

It assumes all things necessary for salvation are clearly laid out in scripture so that all can grasp them… “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130) On the possibility of error; I see that considering the error that continually assailed church even in the first century, there is no reason to assume it has ended. I disagree with the interpretation of the classic proof texts in Timothy and Matthew on an infallible church.

So where, in the Scriptures, does it indicate that this fullness of faith dissolved or ceased to exist at some point? If God really can, and does, preserve His Word, how did He fail to preserve this Word, deposited once for all to the saints?

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here, my point was simply that scripture contains all necessary for salvation.

I am not understanding this question. Can you clarify?

Apologies. Essentially- If things such as papal infallibility are part of the Traditon, which is claimed to be apostolic, why is there no mention of it in early church history? Of a papacy resembling the modern one at all for that matter?

For the same reason there is no list of books that belong in the Bible, no explanation of the hypstatic union, no mention of the the words “theotokos” or “Trinity”. None of these were invented at the time they were proclaimed. They were proclaimed when it became necessary, to prevent heresy.

Indeed not, but the Trinity can be found explicitly in scripture, as can the two natures of Christ, as well as having rather strong patristic support… I don’t see the same with a papacy, or say co-redemptrix.

Of course you must understand it that way, or you would not be able to justify SS. But this was not the understanding of Christians prior to the invention of SS during the Reformation. The Church, both East and West, has always embraced two equal and complimentary strands of God’s revelation to mankind, in Sacred Tradition, and in Holy Scripture. Or do you really believe that God could not find even ONE faithful Christian to whom He could reveal to the Church that they made a mistake thinking this? Where is the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation, who is able to correct His Church when they stray? Did He get the flu for 1500 years?

Material sufficiency or partim partim? I don’t see tradition as a clear issue in the CC, with respect as always Guanophore, thanks for some engaging conversation.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Isaiah45_9]

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, **either **by word of mouth or by letter.

Indeed, Paul told them to ‘hold’ them, to ‘stand firm’ in them, they ha received the tradition in its entirity. As such, where are some modern traditons of the CC which are bound to conscience in history? If they are delievered fully by paul, why no mention of things such as papal infallibility? He also states of course it’s by word of mouth or letter, to me the verse implies that the Traditon is fully contained in the writing as it was when Paul preached it orally… I see nothing here to support the modern Catholic view of tradition.(1)

Hi Lincs,

I have bolded the key link (pun intended get it? ) in that verse:

either

Not only one of them but use one to hold the other, not one to hold itself.

Peace,

Jose

 

[guanophore]

Guan,

Indeed, they had the full support of scripture in doing so. For it teaches more plainly and with more authority.

Can you show from the Scriptures where it says that they have more authority than the Apostolic Word of God that was committed once for all time to the saints?

It assumes all things necessary for salvation are clearly laid out in scripture so that all can grasp them…

“It” being Sola Scriptura?

Indeed, the CC does teach material sufficiency of Scripture.

"The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple." (Psalm 119:130) On the possibility of error; I see that considering the error that continually assailed church even in the first century, there is no reason to assume it has ended. I disagree with the interpretation of the classic proof texts in Timothy and Matthew on an infallible church.

So, you are saying that Jesus was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises to the Church?

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here, my point was simply that scripture contains all necessary for salvation.

Perhaps I did. This seems to imply that Jesus was wasting His time creating a Church, and training the Apostles. He should have spent His years writing instead!

Apologies. Essentially- If things such as papal infallibility are part of the Traditon, which is claimed to be apostolic, why is there no mention of it in early church history? Of a papacy resembling the modern one at all for that matter?

For the same reason many other elements of the faith have only small mention in the early documents. However, your “no mention” is not consistent with what we read of the early church.

Personally, I think that, like the Trinity, the concept was not needed so much in the early Church. When the need arose it began to be discussed and finally brought to the councils.
Same for the issues about baptism and the sabbath day.

Indeed not, but the Trinity can be found explicitly in scripture, as can the two natures of Christ, as well as having rather strong patristic support…

You can see it because you read the Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition on these matters. Others that read it without those preconceived ideas see something else.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Jose,

Not only one of them but use one to hold the other, not one to hold itself.

Do you hold partim partim on this or material sufficiency?

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Guan,

Can you show from the Scriptures where it says that they have more authority than the Apostolic Word of God that was committed once for all time to the saints?

I thought scripture was the word of God?

Indeed, the CC does teach material sufficiency of Scripture.

I thought there was no set idea on this? Considering i can find other notable catholics who dont think it does?
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/partim-partim.html

So, you are saying that Jesus was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises to the Church?

You assume the CC is infallible, I don’t. I don’t see this stated in scripture, and events in history prove otherwise.

Perhaps I did. This seems to imply that Jesus was wasting His time creating a Church, and training the Apostles. He should have spent His years writing instead!

Do you think scripture doesn’t state all that is necessary for salvation plainly?

For the same reason many other elements of the faith have only small mention in the early documents. However, your “no mention” is not consistent with what we read of the early church.

We shall agree to differ

Personally, I think that, like the Trinity, the concept was not needed so much in the early Church. When the need arose it began to be discussed and finally brought to the councils.

But it is ever so plainly taught in Holy Scripture. The councils draw their authority on these matters as they Accuratley state what is in scripture.

You can see it because you read the Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition on these matters. Others that read it without those preconceived ideas see something else.

Those who don’t see it are not faithful to the text. Yes I stand in the tradition, which carries authority as it is supported by scripture.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Jose,

Do you hold partim partim on this or material sufficiency?

Kind regards

Lincs

I would have to refer to this document:

The Transmission of Divine Revelation

General Audience April 24, 1985

1. Truly God’s word
2. Authentic interpretation
3. Vivifying process

Where can we find what God has revealed, so that we may adhere to it with our convinced and free faith? There is a “sacred deposit,” from which the Church draws and communicates its contents to us.

As the Second Vatican Council says: “This sacred Tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see him as he is, face to face (cf. 1 John 3:2)” (DV 7).

With these words the conciliar Constitution synthesizes the problem of the transmission of divine revelation, which is important for the faith of every Christian. Our “credo” should prepare man on earth to see God face to face in eternity. In every stage of history, the “credo” depends on the faithful and inviolable transmission of divine self-revelation, which reached its apex and plenitude in Jesus Christ.

Christ himself “commissioned the apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching” (DV 7). By oral preaching first of all, they carried out the mission entrusted to them. At the same time, some of them “under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing”(DV 7). This was done also by some of those in the circle of the apostles (Mark and Luke).

Thus the transmission of divine revelation was carried out in the first generation of Christians. “In order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handing over’ to them ‘the authority to teach in their own place’” (according to the expression of St. Irenaeus, cf. Adv. Haer., III, 3, 1; DV 7).

According to the teaching of the Council, Tradition and Sacred Scripture reciprocally support and complete each other in the transmission of divine revelation in the Church. By these means the new generation of disciples and witnesses of Jesus Christ nourish their faith, because “what was handed on by the apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the people of God” (DV 8).

“This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (DV 8).

In this thrust toward the plenitude of divine truth, the Church constantly draws on the one original “deposit,” constituted by the apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. “For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end” (DV 9).

Continued…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From previous post:

1. Truly God’s word

In this regard it is fitting to clarify and emphasize, in the words of the Council, that “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed” (DV 9). This Scripture “is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred Tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known” (DV 9). “Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her” (DV 8).

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the apostles” (DV 10). Therefore both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

1. Authentic interpretation

The problem arises here of the authentic interpretation of the word of God written or handed down by Tradition. This task has been entrusted “exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed” (DV 10).

Here then is a further characteristic of faith. In the Christian sense, “to believe” also means to accept the truth revealed by God as it is taught by the Church. But at the same time the Second Vatican Council stated that “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly ‘to the faith given once and for all to the saints,’ (cf. Jude 3) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life” (LG 12).

1. Vivifying process

Tradition, Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium of the Church and the supernatural sense of faith of the entire People of God form that vivifying process in which divine revelation is transmitted to succeeding generations. “Thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of his beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (cf. Col. 3:16)” (DV 8).

To believe in the Christian sense means to be willing to be introduced and led by the Spirit to the plenitude of the truth in a conscious and voluntary way.

1)vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850424en.html

Peace,

Jose

 

[guanophore]

Guan,

I thought scripture was the word of God?

I thought there was no set idea on this? Considering i can find other notable catholics who dont think it does?
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/partim-partim.html

I would not recommend using Reformed sources to tell you what the CC teaches. I recommend you rely on the Catechism, which is a sure norm for the faith.

The CC teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture. Catholic doctrine is not created by
“notable Catholics”, whoever they are. It is entrusted and guarded by the Magesterium.

You assume the CC is infallible, I don’t. I don’t see this stated in scripture, and events in history prove otherwise.

You have clearly been mininformed about the nature of the Church, Lincs. The Church is the Body of Crhist, which Him as her Head. Nothing that emanates from Christ is fallible. The Soul of the Church is the HS, who does not err, and therefore, the Word of God committed to the Church is infallible.

Besides, I “assume” nothing. I have come to believe that the promise of Christ to prevent the Church from falling into error are reliable, and that He did not get the flu for 1500 years. I believe He did not abandon or leave orphaned His Holy Bride. Events in History prove this!

Do you think scripture doesn’t state all that is necessary for salvation plainly?

If it did, then we would not have so many denominations, would we?

But it is ever so plainly taught in Holy Scripture. The councils draw their authority on these matters as they Accuratley state what is in scripture.

We agree on this, the rub, though, is, how do they “accurately state” what is in scripture. This, I think you will agree, is an hermeneutic exercise. Some people believe it says one thing, some believe the opposite. Catholics read scripture through the lens of what the Apostles believed and taught (Sacred Tradition). The Reformers jettisoned this point of view and developed their own. That is why Catholics (and Orthodox, who also hold fast to the Tradtiions) understand the faith differently.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think scripture doesn’t state all that is necessary for salvation plainly?

What* is* necessary for salvation?

Is baptism? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

It doesn’t appear to be quite so plain in Scripture to some folks.

What about altar calls? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

What about works? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

If Scripture were that perspicuous we wouldn’t have quite so many Christian denominations today (eek! I can’t stop doing a typo of DEMONinations each and every time I type that word!!)

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

I would not recommend using Reformed sources to tell you what the CC teaches. I recommend you rely on the Catechism, which is a sure norm for the faith.

The CC teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture. Catholic doctrine is not created by
“notable Catholics”, whoever they are. It is entrusted and guarded by the Magesterium.

Oh indeed, but my point is I can see there several notable Catholics, one of whom is the Pope, who don’t seem to hold to material sufficiency, nor do they think the church teaches it… Indeed I find material sufficiency a rather modern idea,

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

I would not recommend using Reformed sources to tell you what the CC teaches. I recommend you rely on the Catechism, which is a sure norm for the faith.

The CC teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture. Catholic doctrine is not created by
“notable Catholics”, whoever they are. It is entrusted and guarded by the Magesterium.

Oh indeed, but my point is I can see there several notable Catholics, one of whom is the Pope, who don’t seem to hold to material sufficiency, nor do they think the church teaches it… Indeed I find material sufficiency a rather modern idea, and not quite what Trent thought. I agree it does contain everything of course, I hold to its formal sufficiency. “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31) Indeed, these are written that I may come to know Jesus Christ, and thus be saved.

You have clearly been mininformed about the nature of the Church, Lincs. The Church is the Body of Crhist, which Him as her Head. Nothing that emanates from Christ is fallible. The Soul of the Church is the HS, who does not err, and therefore, the Word of God committed to the Church is infallible.

Besides, I “assume” nothing. I have come to believe that the promise of Christ to prevent the Church from falling into error are reliable, and that He did not get the flu for 1500 years. I believe He did not abandon or leave orphaned His Holy Bride. Events in History prove this!

If this infallibility of the CC were so, Trent would not have anathematised the Pauline gospel. Nor be teaching contrary to the plain meaning of scripture in many places, with respect.

And of course, how do you know the CC is the true church, or is infallible?

If it did, then we would not have so many denominations, would we?

Firstly, Im not defending every single denomination, as I’m sure a great many of them are departures from clear scriptural teaching.

Next of course, how many of them are apart due to essential doctrine? Or is it over secondary matters? Next, how many are apart due to geographical reasons?

I could responsd that if tradition was so clear, there wouldn’t be several churches who claim they have the right interpretation of it.

We agree on this, the rub, though, is, how do they “accurately state” what is in scripture. This, I think you will agree, is an hermeneutic exercise. Some people believe it says one thing, some believe the opposite. Catholics read scripture through the lens of what the Apostles believed and taught (Sacred Tradition). The Reformers jettisoned this point of view and developed their own. That is why Catholics (and Orthodox, who also hold fast to the Tradtiions) understand the faith differently.

Indeed, but I’m not convinced by the CC’s Traditon claims… It seems to change, and bring new things out every so often, unheard of to any Christian for centuries. To paraphrase CS Lewis; its not about accepting a given body of doctrine, but accepting in advance any doctrine your church decides to produce. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/two-excellent-quotes-by-c-s-lewis-on.html So yes, I can say many favourable things about Traditon, those which align with scripture are held to (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:8, 1 Cor 4:6) but those that don’t align are not. The old claim the reforms jettison it is likewise untrue, we both know their extensive use of the fathers, they stand perfectly in the tradition, what they found there just happens to be contrary to Rome in many places. On the Orthodox; So the papacy, purgatory and more modern Marian doctrines are not ancient then? As they neither hold to them, nor see them in the early church. Are these secondary matters? Considering most of them were proclaimed with anathemas, I’m inclined to think not…

Which traditions are sacred and apostolic and which are later developments and not? Do we know by testing them to sacred scripture, as protestants claim?
The early church speaks often of tradition, but it normally follows that what they mean of Traditon is some essential doctrine already expressly laid out in sacred scripture. (1) Using said fathers writings on Traditon as if it supports the current catholic tradition sphere seems a tad unfair, as these fathers knew nothing of them… Again to make plain my position; traditions are often good, but they are tested to the infallible and inspired scriptures, the written words of God.

Besides in all of this, it’s one thing for us to throw our epistomalogical arguments at one another, quite another for us to engage what the other practically says!

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - m.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iv.xvii.html

 

[Lincoln7]

What* is* necessary for salvation?

Is baptism? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

It doesn’t appear to be quite so plain in Scripture to some folks.

What about altar calls? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

What about works? Some of your Protestant brethren say yes. Some say no.

If Scripture were that perspicuous we wouldn’t have quite so many Christian denominations today (eek! I can’t stop doing a typo of DEMONinations each and every time I type that word!!)

I would say a knowledge of, and firm trust in Jesus Christ as “My Lord and my God.”

I would say the Athanasian creed, apostles creed, and nicene creed are rather accurate summaries of things, adding of course the free gosepl offer of justification to the exclusion of works, as Paul labours to extensively prove.

On baptism; I generally hold that a true believer will be baptised, as why would they not want to? I hold of course that faith alone justifies, with baptism being the expression of said faith.

On altar calls; I see them as just one way in which people can sta their journey with Jesus Christ, I know many beloved people who did, others who did not. Sme have a dramatic, Damascus road experience, others dont. So I’m not sure as much is a fair question. If you’re asking; “is professing faith in Christ necessary”, obviously my answer is yes, how and where this happens, will vary for people.

On works; they are the fruit of justification, the one whom the Lord has justified will perform them.

1. Q. Does this teaching [justification by faith alone] not make people careless and wicked?

A. No. It is impossible that those grafted into Christ by true faith should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.[1]

[1] Matt. 7:18; Luke 6:43-45; John 15:5.

If Scripture were that perspicuous we wouldn’t have quite so many Christian denominations today

“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130) I think together we have rather extensively argued over and over the sola scriptura vs sola eclessia paradigms! Still waiting on that second century quote that shows papal infallibility is apostolic in origin!

Apologies, I find humor lightens the atmosphere…

Lincs

 

[Lochias]

***I ***would say a knowledge of, and firm trust in Jesus Christ as “My Lord and my God.”

***I ***would say the Athanasian creed, apostles creed, and nicene creed are rather accurate summaries of things, adding of course the free gosepl offer of justification to the exclusion of works, as Paul labours to extensively prove.

On baptism;*** I generally hold that a true believer will be baptised, as why would they not want to? I ***hold of course that faith alone justifies, with baptism being the expression of said faith.

On altar calls;*** I ***see them as just one way in which people can sta their journey with Jesus Christ, I know many beloved people who did, others who did not. Sme have a dramatic, Damascus road experience, others dont. So I’m not sure as much is a fair question. If you’re asking; “is professing faith in Christ necessary”, obviously my answer is yes, how and where this happens, will vary for people.

Lincs

I, I, I, I…the biggest thing that is always going to keep me in the Catholic Church, with no doubts about its authority, is that a Catholic practicing his faith would begin statements about what he believes with “The Catholic Church believes…” “The Catholic Church would say”…ect ect. Which hasn’t changed in 2000 years. Yeah, buddy.

Ten bajillion other people, Lincs, could start the paragraphs you did with “I think, I believe, I know”, and you’d get ten bajillion other answers. There’s the proof that Scripture doesn’t interpret Scripture, not in the way you seem to be hoping it does, at least.

 

[submariner2]

If scripture interpreted scripture, Peter would not have written 2 Peter 3:16. Scripture interpreting scripture is nonsensical.

Phyllo,

I dont think it is nonsense. I think it means we look for the mainstream of meaning in scripture where we dont take just one verse as a proof verse but look at the many verses that deal with an issue and derive our interpretation from that. Hence “scripture interpreting scripture.”

Of course we should utilize other avenues to understand what we are reading. Historians and bible experts is what I turn to as well as the other opinions and the early christians.

But I see nothing wrong with the principle of utilizing other verses on the same topic to help us understand a difficult verse.

Rob