For Protestants - Sola Scriptura from a different angle

[Robbinson]

Well, yes. But the Jewish religion would be the oldest, because nothing can be older than Adam and Eve.

Actually, the first “jew” was Abraham (about 2,000 years after Adam and eve). The mosaic law was then given much later at Mt. Sinai. Although Abraham is also the father of the Arab nations - so perhaps he is really more the first “semite”.

God’s first covenant was a couple (representing all mankind), represented by Adam and Eve (the only humans).

God’s second covenant was with a family (Noah), again, representing after the flood all mankind.

God’s next covenant was with Abraham (the first Jew or semite given a “promise” distinct from all mankind)

God’s next covenant (a greater fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant) was with the Jewish people as a “Nation” (Israel) who were given the law at Mt. Sinai.

God’s final covenant was again with all man kind who come to believe in him - that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[inkaneer]

The Orthodox Church is older than the Roman Church by a few decades, you know. And the Buddhist religion started 500 years before Jesus was born. The Hindu religion is older than King David. I suppose the Buddhists and Hindus also have the protection of God Almighty, on account of their great age.

Oh really? We go back to Pentecost when Peter, who was the first pope you know, addressed the crowd. What we now call the Orthodox Church started in 1054 AD so we got a good millenium on you. Maybe you can tell us why every major heresy up until the 16th century started in the so called “Eastern Orthodox Church”. Nestorius was even a bishop of Constantinople.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But the Bible does not keep the church in check. Nowhere in scripture do you find that idea stated or expressed. Instead what you find is that the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth. So the Holy Spirit guides the Church which interprets the scripture. The Bible was never intended to be a self study course in christianity. That is a protestant perversion of the scriptures. Instead the Bible was intended to be used liturgically in the church in worship [The Mass].

There is no need for this principle to be explicitly stated in Scripture. As a Catholic you already know this. If a Catholic were to decide to reject a doctrine of the Catholic Church that is Biblically based then wouldnt you agree the Church would use the Bible as a standard to justify their doctrinal position along with Church precedent AKA rule of faith. In this sense the Bible does act as a kind of check on those within the Church and is no less authoritative. Why else would so much emphasis be put on Apostolicity of the NT writings during the canonization process.
I think Karl Rahner does a nice job relating scripture, authority and the Church when he states
B**]“The Church objectifies its faith and its life in written documents, and it recognizes these objectifications as so pure and so successful that they are able to hand on the Apostolic Church as a norm for future ages.”**

I agree with you that " the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth." but I don’t think this contradicts the view that Scripture also has a normative function as well as being authoritative and the two are not and can not be contradictory.

The Church uses Apostolic Tradition which is the Written Tradition as well as the Oral Tradition. I am not familiar with and therefore totally reject the term “…Church precedent AKA rule of faith” whatever that means. Furthermore the scriptures do not impose a check on the Church even though the Church may use them. Doctrinally the Church is held “in check” by the Holy Spirit and nothing else.

 

[simspt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But the Bible does not keep the church in check. Nowhere in scripture do you find that idea stated or expressed. Instead what you find is that the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth. So the Holy Spirit guides the Church which interprets the scripture. The Bible was never intended to be a self study course in christianity. That is a protestant perversion of the scriptures. Instead the Bible was intended to be used liturgically in the church in worship [The Mass].

The Church uses Apostolic Tradition which is the Written Tradition as well as the Oral Tradition. I am not familiar with and therefore totally reject the term “…Church precedent AKA rule of faith” whatever that means. Furthermore the scriptures do not impose a check on the Church even though the Church may use them. Doctrinally the Church is held “in check” by the Holy Spirit and nothing else.

I agree, I have faith that the HS guides the Church and calls people to faith. However it sounds as if you are somewhat minimizing the authority of Scripture. During the Patristic age all the church Fathers viewed scripture as authoritative within the church. It was only outside the church that the church fathers clearly argued that the scriptures were misinterpreted and abused to justify those other schools of thought (eg gnostics etc). Protestants claim the very same thing you are about their churches and interpretations being accountable only to the HS. This is a untenable position IMO. Maybe i am misunderstanding you, if so i apologize.

 

[scottm]

Oh really? We go back to Pentecost when Peter, who was the first pope you know, addressed the crowd. What we now call the Orthodox Church started in 1054 AD so we got a good millenium on you. Maybe you can tell us why every major heresy up until the 16th century started in the so called “Eastern Orthodox Church”. Nestorius was even a bishop of Constantinople.

Expand. Learn the history of other cultures and other countries. It’s a good thing to do. There was no Pope of Rome at Pentecost. There was no Christian church in Rome yet. The Orthodox Church was founded in and around the Middle East by every single apostle in the New Testament, during the era of the Book of Acts. Many of those churches were established before Peter traveled to Rome.

Heresies generally arose in Eastern lands because that’s where Christians lived. To understand this rotate your map so Turkey is in the middle and then pull out your New Testament. The Eastern world was the world. Of course that’s where everything happened. You might have noticed that all seven ecumenical councils were held in the East too.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6962793&postcount=85

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7001436&postcount=11

 

[inkaneer]

I agree, I have faith that the HS guides the Church and calls people to faith. However it sounds as if you are somewhat minimizing the authority of Scripture. During the Patristic age all the church Fathers viewed scripture as authoritative within the church. It was only outside the church that the church fathers clearly argued that the scriptures were misinterpreted and abused to justify those other schools of thought (eg gnostics etc). Protestants claim the very same thing you are about their churches and interpretations being accountable only to the HS. This is a untenable position IMO. Maybe i am misunderstanding you, if so i apologize.

Is scripture an authority or is it merely authoritative? Let’s not lapse into protestantism here. The Church is an authority and the Church interprets scripture. And while scripture may say something it is the Church that says what that something means. There is a succinct difference there. Scripture says in John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] RSV

The Church says that verse refers to Baptism but the verse never mentions Baptism and some protestants claim that the ‘water’ mentioned in that verse refers to natural childbirth when a woman’s water ‘breaks’. So who is the authority here, the Church or Scripture?

 

[scottm]

Is scripture an authority or is it merely authoritative? Let’s not lapse into protestantism here. The Church is an authority and the Church interprets scripture. And while scripture may say something it is the Church that says what that something means. There is a succinct difference there. Scripture says in John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] RSV

The Church says that verse refers to Baptism but the verse never mentions Baptism and some protestants claim that the ‘water’ mentioned in that verse refers to natural childbirth when a woman’s water ‘breaks’. So who is the authority here, the Church or Scripture?

(emphasis mine) That boldface part is not the right question. The right question is, “Who is the authority here: the Church or you?” Everybody reads and interprets the Scripture, see. Everybody. The question is whose interpretation should we follow when differences arise.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Is scripture an authority or is it merely authoritative? Let’s not lapse into protestantism here. The Church is an authority and the Church interprets scripture. And while scripture may say something it is the Church that says what that something means. There is a succinct difference there. Scripture says in John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] RSV

The Church says that verse refers to Baptism but the verse never mentions Baptism and some protestants claim that the ‘water’ mentioned in that verse refers to natural childbirth when a woman’s water ‘breaks’. So who is the authority here, the Church or Scripture?

(emphasis mine) That boldface part is not the right question. The right question is, “Who is the authority here: the Church or you?” Everybody reads and interprets the Scripture, see. Everybody. The question is whose interpretation should we follow when differences arise.

I thought the question was whether Scripture was an authority? My answer was that while it is authoritative it was not an authority unto itself but needed another authority to interpret it. Now we can quibble about who that authority is whether it be the Catholic Church or individual protestants but regardless of who the authority is, it is not scripture. Thge idea that scripture is an authority is entirely protestant and is a cover-up to the basic protestant idea that every protestant is his own pope complete with the authority to infallibly interpret scripture.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We’re off on a tangent but you’re skipping the obvious: Moslems consider Adam and Eve and Abraham and Jacob/Israel and Moses and David and the rest, to have been Moslems. What we call the “Old Testament” is their heritage. It’s their book too. Adam and Eve are in the Koran. Abraham, Lot, The Twelve Tribes of Israel, Moses, David, Solomon – they’re all in the Koran too, and the “Old Testament” is specifically referenced in the Koran.

The above is all true (including the tangent part!). Which is exactly the point.

Both Christianity and Islam depend for their claim to validity upon the truth of the Hebrew religion. If that is not true, then Chrisitianity and Islam are not true either. And if Christianity is not true, what are we doing here discussing things that are false to begin with? There would be no point to it! Just agitating the electrons.

Hence, it is vital to both Christianity and Islam that the Hebrew’s religion to have been right, as opposed to Hinduism, Buddhism, et al. The age criterion is what brought this all up. My previous posts were to validate the Jews, which we are based upon.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Actually, the first “jew” was Abraham (about 2,000 years after Adam and eve). The mosaic law was then given much later at Mt. Sinai. Although Abraham is also the father of the Arab nations - so perhaps he is really more the first “semite”.

God’s first covenant was a couple (representing all mankind), represented by Adam and Eve (the only humans).

God’s second covenant was with a family (Noah), again, representing after the flood all mankind.

God’s next covenant was with Abraham (the first Jew or semite given a “promise” distinct from all mankind)

God’s next covenant (a greater fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant) was with the Jewish people as a “Nation” (Israel) who were given the law at Mt. Sinai.

God’s final covenant was again with all man kind who come to believe in him - that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

Yes, this helps to establish the antiquity of the Jewish beliefs. Or Hebrew, I’m not sure what is the more proper designation.

 

[scottm]

I thought the question was whether Scripture was an authority? My answer was that while it is authoritative it was not an authority unto itself but needed another authority to interpret it. Now we can quibble about who that authority is whether it be the Catholic Church or individual protestants but regardless of who the authority is, it is not scripture. Thge idea that scripture is an authority is entirely protestant and is a cover-up to the basic protestant idea that every protestant is his own pope complete with the authority to infallibly interpret scripture.

Heh heh heh! The last part made me chuckle. We’re in complete agreement.

 

[simspt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Is scripture an authority or is it merely authoritative? Let’s not lapse into protestantism here. The Church is an authority and the Church interprets scripture. And while scripture may say something it is the Church that says what that something means. There is a succinct difference there. Scripture says in John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] RSV

The Church says that verse refers to Baptism but the verse never mentions Baptism and some protestants claim that the ‘water’ mentioned in that verse refers to natural childbirth when a woman’s water ‘breaks’. So who is the authority here, the Church or Scripture?

I thought the question was whether Scripture was an authority? My answer was that while it is authoritative it was not an authority unto itself but needed another authority to interpret it. Now we can quibble about who that authority is whether it be the Catholic Church or individual protestants but regardless of who the authority is, it is not scripture. Thge idea that scripture is an authority is entirely protestant and is a cover-up to the basic protestant idea that every protestant is his own pope complete with the authority to infallibly interpret scripture.

By authoritative I meant the church fathers viewed certain documents (eg Synoptic Gospels) more authoritative than others (writings that were later not canonized). Apostolicity (however you want to define that) was a major criteria for a document being authoritative in the early church. I agree that the church was always viewed to be the final arbiter with interpretation becuase of its historical roots and succession from the apostolic and sub apostolic era but this only shows that the church was in a privelaged position (the writings came from within the early church!), not that the documents themselves were any less authoritative. I think we are on the same page with this one.

 

[inkaneer]

Expand. Learn the history of other cultures and other countries. It’s a good thing to do. There was no Pope of Rome at Pentecost. There was no Christian church in Rome yet. The Orthodox Church was founded in and around the Middle East by every single apostle in the New Testament, during the era of the Book of Acts. Many of those churches were established before Peter traveled to Rome.

Who said the pope was at Rome on Pentecost??? Not me! I say on Pentecost the pope was in Jerusalem and addressed the crowd there. Then later that same pope went to Antioch and later moved on to Rome where he was martyred and another was elevated to his office. And let’s face facts here, it really doesn’t matter where the opther Apostles established churches what does matter is that only one received the keys to the kingdom. Read Isaiah and see the parallel between Peter and the chief steward of the Davidic kingdom. As for those other Apostles, the early church knew who the ‘go to’ guy was. When the church in Corinth [that is in Greece by the way] had a problem it could not solve they did not go to any of those other Apostles. The year was about 80 AD and at least one, the Apostle John, the Apostle Jesus loved, was still alive. No, they went to Clement, the bishop of Rome and third successor to Peter. They knew who the chief steward of the church was and it was not any of those other apostles. So what Apostle established what church and when is totally superfluous. As Irenaeus said of the church at Rome in 189 AD:

" that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2).

Heresies generally arose in Eastern lands because that’s where Christians lived. To understand this rotate your map so Turkey is in the middle and then pull out your New Testament. The Eastern world was the world. Of course that’s where everything happened. You might have noticed that all seven ecumenical councils were held in the East too.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6962793&postcount=85

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7001436&postcount=11

How myoptic can you get? First of all there have been 22 general councils not seven. You are over a millenium behind times. Second, the first councils were in the East because that is where the heretics were! DUUH!!! You are tjhe ones who could not get doctrine correct. And believe it or not there was a church in the West in France, Spain, Portugal, North Africa, England, Ireland and it was the western Church that brought Christianity to the America’s while the Eastern church was kissing up to a bunch of pagan Moslems like they did to the Byzantine emperors. Did you ever stop to consider the fact that losing the Haggia Sophia, the church or the Holy Spirit, in Constantinople to the Moslems and they turning it into a mosque parallels the destruction of the Jewish Temple prophesied by Jesus? Why did so many people in the East and North Africa shed their Christianity for the captivity of Islam? Do you see a similar parallel in the lost tribes of Israel? I know what they did to deserve that punishment now what did you guys do to earn your punishment?

By the way if you want to talk about the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders let’s do so. That was the retribution the Greeks got for the murder of the 400 Venetian merchants in Constantinople a couple of years before and also for going back on their word to supply the Crusaders. Did you guys really think the Doges of Venice would not remember or care? By the way the sacking of Constantinople was done strictly against the orders of the pope.

In short when you guys got into trouble you called on the west to save your butts. Be it to save your doctrinal butts as in the condemnation of the bishop of Constantinople or to save your physical butts as in protecting Constantinople from Islam. Even then you bit the hand that saved you.

 

[scottm]

Expand. Grow. Learn the history of other cultures and other countries. It’s a good thing to do. The world really is bigger than you.

 

[inkaneer]

Expand. Grow. Learn the history of other cultures and other countries. It’s a good thing to do. The world really is bigger than you.

Maybe the physician should heal his own self before healing others.

 

[scottm]

Yes, you should. Your understanding of other people’s point of view is insufficient. “Walk in their shoes for a mile,” you know. Your life will be remarkably enriched when you can see things through the other guy’s eyes.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, you should. Your understanding of other people’s point of view is insufficient. “Walk in their shoes for a mile,” you know. Your life will be remarkably enriched when you can see things through the other guy’s eyes.

Sorry, but I am not into relativism. I seek truth where ever it may lie and I don’t try to color it. Seems to me you are not seeking truth but rather trying to justify something. Truth is an absolute and doesn’t require justification.

 

[scottm]

Wow, I missed the part where your point of view is the absolute one. Maybe another day we’ll be able to talk.

 

[inkaneer]

Wow, I missed the part where your point of view is the absolute one. Maybe another day we’ll be able to talk.

I never said that. So don’t put words in my mouth. Okay?

 

[scottm]

I never said that. So don’t put words in my mouth. Okay?

Yes actually you did say that in post 37, with reference backwards to other posts.