F
Fredricks
Guest
Nicene said:
Bully, I said I would not defend myself.
- Status
Bully, I said I would not defend myself.
N
Nicene
Guest
The previous questions I posed about tradition covers the first part of your statement. The apostles were men, and they gave us those traditions. The second part however: Show us scripturally that the apostles authorized and approved The Holy Bible.
Also still waiting on a response as to why you think the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Show us scripturally where this is stated.
Show the word bible or doctrine of the bible in the bible.
Show the word trinity in the bible.
Did Christ found a bible or a church? Which came first?
Do you accept the council of Jamnia as having the authority to proclaim scripture, or the church? (reminder, the Jews at Jamnia did not accept greek writings, including the NT in 100 A.D.)
Was the Holy Spirit with the church or the Jews?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
No, you said:
In what manner is it bullying to ask you to prove your position? As you stated above we had only to ask, so I am asking.
By the way saying you will not defend is not scriptural, nor following the the authority of the apostles (as I stated earlier in the thread and which you said you do)
1 Pet 3:15: but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
F
Fredricks
Guest
I am debating Awful only read what I wrote.
N
Nicene
Guest
I believe you made this promise to me a week ago, yet have not answered, which is well before today with awfulthings9.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
F
Fredricks
Guest
Awful/Fredricks debate. I will only respond to him.
I do not reject the early Christian church. We simply disagree on what it was and what happened to it. The early Christian church has many groups today that can trace their beliefs to that era. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, St. Thomas Christians, etc. We also trace our beliefs to that era codified in the Bible but also part of early Christian history. We are not claiming a human apostolic tradition(another question perhaps) in the line of bishops like Orthodoxy or Roman
Catholicism. We claim that tradition from the apostles themselves as recorded in the Bible.
We do not reject tradition. We reject your definition of Sacred Tradition.
Okay, once again the criteria for being in the canon are the same for Catholics and Protestants, that’s why answering that question, always seems redundant. Relax, I will. The difference is that Catholics will sometimes claim that they believe it because a certain council made it such.
Quote from the First Vatican Council
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority…”
We contend the councils affirmed the canon, not created (key point of difference). The councils did not equally affirm it over all of Christendom which creates a problem for the Catholic perspective, not ours though.
While I disagree with aspects of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia please read:
“From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenæus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian’s Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists’ writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century.”
WHY the early church picked certain books:
The main criteria are the book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestants recognize the same New Testament canon for that same reason. I cannot argue against Catholicism and Orthodoxy when we agree on the same criteria! That is why I have always considered this argument from Catholics irrelevant.
How can you have confidence?
I think your stance is that you accept it because you believe because of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Catholic church that you have confidence??
We accept it because of scripture, tradition/history, and FAITH that the God through the Holy Spirit has protected it.
That is not substantially different than your view in my estimation.
As the Lord preserved the Old Testament scriptures despite the fallibility of Israel, so God preserved the New Testament despite the fallibility of the post-apostolic Christians.
Now if you really wish for me to go through the whole NT book by book I can do it. I will cut and paste from Catholic sources even because we do not disagree on why the made it and others did not.
Perhaps too short, we will see.
I can already see quite a few problems. One is the premise behind a great deal of which you say. This will not deter us but will require explanation.
I do not reject the early Christian church. We simply disagree on what it was and what happened to it. The early Christian church has many groups today that can trace their beliefs to that era. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, St. Thomas Christians, etc. We also trace our beliefs to that era codified in the Bible but also part of early Christian history. We are not claiming a human apostolic tradition(another question perhaps) in the line of bishops like Orthodoxy or Roman
Catholicism. We claim that tradition from the apostles themselves as recorded in the Bible.
We do not reject tradition. We reject your definition of Sacred Tradition.
Okay, once again the criteria for being in the canon are the same for Catholics and Protestants, that’s why answering that question, always seems redundant. Relax, I will. The difference is that Catholics will sometimes claim that they believe it because a certain council made it such.
Quote from the First Vatican Council
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority…”
We contend the councils affirmed the canon, not created (key point of difference). The councils did not equally affirm it over all of Christendom which creates a problem for the Catholic perspective, not ours though.
While I disagree with aspects of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia please read:
“From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenæus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian’s Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists’ writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century.”
WHY the early church picked certain books:
The main criteria are the book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestants recognize the same New Testament canon for that same reason. I cannot argue against Catholicism and Orthodoxy when we agree on the same criteria! That is why I have always considered this argument from Catholics irrelevant.
How can you have confidence?
I think your stance is that you accept it because you believe because of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Catholic church that you have confidence??
We accept it because of scripture, tradition/history, and FAITH that the God through the Holy Spirit has protected it.
That is not substantially different than your view in my estimation.
As the Lord preserved the Old Testament scriptures despite the fallibility of Israel, so God preserved the New Testament despite the fallibility of the post-apostolic Christians.
Now if you really wish for me to go through the whole NT book by book I can do it. I will cut and paste from Catholic sources even because we do not disagree on why the made it and others did not.
Perhaps too short, we will see.
F
Fredricks
Guest
You want to know how to convince an agnostic the Bible is inspired? Live the Christian life as best as possible as an example and watch the Holy Spirit go to work friend. If you have debated someone into believing the inspiration, I would be happy to accept your insight!
I am more curious to hear how you Catholics do it!! You have me curious. That may be later.
E
Eden
Guest
You can set yourself up to only answer Awful but these are open forums and all of us are allowed to respond.
Fredricks:
Very interesting. He/they doesn’t/don’t reject tradition.
This is not true, as the Protestant Bible is missing some books.
This quote is from Ch.2 “On Revelation” and has been heavily edited by Fredericks:
- The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
- These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical
- not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
- nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
- but because,
- being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit,
- they have God as their author,
- and were as such committed to the church.
www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
E
Eden
Guest
I would encourage all posters to add their 2 cents and not allow Fredericks to create rules of monopoly or exclusion.
In fact, the opposite is true.
The second century? This proves what? The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century.
N
Nicene
Guest
Sacred Scripture
The Trinity
Liturgy of the Hours
Real Presence
Christ’s Natures
One Church
Baptism Regenerative
Apostolic Succession
Abortion
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
E
Eden
Guest
I forgot to add last time that Fredericks seems to have some confusion about the timetable involved in the creation of the New Testament.
Here is a refresher from post #201:
A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)
“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.”
B. THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION (A.D. 220-367)
“In this stage of the historical development of the Canon of the New Testament we encounter for the first time a consciousness reflected in certain ecclesiastical writers, of the differences between the sacred collections in divers sections of Christendom. This variation is witnessed to, and the discussion stimulated by, two of the most learned men of Christian antiquity, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian. A glance at the Canon as exhibited in the authorities of the African, or Carthaginian, Church, will complete our brief survey of this period of diversity and discussion…”
C. THE PERIOD OF FIXATION (A.D. 367-405)
F
Fredricks
Guest
Maybe Awful will ask about some of these.
He has unlimited follow up.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Remember Awful if you need clarification, you can always go three specific follow ups.
I will be at church today for all morning and lunch afterwards until early afternoon at the earliest.
I will be at church today for all morning and lunch afterwards until early afternoon at the earliest.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Hey Fredericks,
Thanks for your thorough reply.
Regarding question number 1, you clarified your position well for me and answered as I hoped you would. The only place I take issue is that your response attacks the validity of Catholic councils. You’ll notice that, in my post, I very specifically wrote nothing about councils per se (this was on purpose), but that our confidence rests in Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. There is a discussion to be made regarding the councils, but if my fellow Catholics will accept my apologies, I want to keep the conversation focuses on Frederick’s foundation for now, as he has invited me to, and not get distracted into moving the thread where it was before Fredericks offered this dialogue with me.
Fredericks, I have a couple follow-up questions, but they depend on your clarification to this statement from your post:
Fredricks:
Okay, regarding your response to question 2:
Fredricks:
Fredericks:
Am I to understand that, as a non-Catholic Christian, your only answer to why the Bible is inspired is that by living the Christian life, one will “see the Holy Spirit go to work”? (a simple “yes” or “no” is fine unless you need to clarify.)
Secondly, how, exactly, does one recognize that the Holy Spirit has gone “to work” in a Christian in a way that trumps that of other religious groups who make a simlar claim?
Okay, there’s more I could ask, but I that puts me at three. And I think these are relatively less broad.
Thanks for your thorough reply.
Regarding question number 1, you clarified your position well for me and answered as I hoped you would. The only place I take issue is that your response attacks the validity of Catholic councils. You’ll notice that, in my post, I very specifically wrote nothing about councils per se (this was on purpose), but that our confidence rests in Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. There is a discussion to be made regarding the councils, but if my fellow Catholics will accept my apologies, I want to keep the conversation focuses on Frederick’s foundation for now, as he has invited me to, and not get distracted into moving the thread where it was before Fredericks offered this dialogue with me.
Fredericks, I have a couple follow-up questions, but they depend on your clarification to this statement from your post:
Can you explain what, specifically, you mean by a writing having “the authority of an apostle behind it”? Does this mean it was commissioned by an apostle, written by one of his close disciples, written in line with the teachings of the apostles, or something else entirely?
Okay, regarding your response to question 2:
This is essentially the same explanation for accepting the book of Mormon that my Mormon friends gave me when we visited lately. In addition, I know many who claim to “live the Christian life” but would disagree sharply with your assessment (privately I can send you a personal e-mail from one such woman). Now, don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I don’t doubt the power of Christ, but I do question resting the integrity of “inspiration” on subjective feelings.
Fredericks:
Yes, I do have a great answer for proving inspiration, one which surpases that of other religious groups, but we’re going to keep the burden of proof where it belongs for now. Take note that I’m not being evasive here; you offered to have yourself put under scrutiny and I want to accept that offer (I think most of the thread has been spent discussing councils, after all). My only follow-up to this post are these:
Am I to understand that, as a non-Catholic Christian, your only answer to why the Bible is inspired is that by living the Christian life, one will “see the Holy Spirit go to work”? (a simple “yes” or “no” is fine unless you need to clarify.)
Secondly, how, exactly, does one recognize that the Holy Spirit has gone “to work” in a Christian in a way that trumps that of other religious groups who make a simlar claim?
Okay, there’s more I could ask, but I that puts me at three. And I think these are relatively less broad.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Lets see if this clarifies:
Remember my presuppositions as a conservative apologist, with a modicum of experience in this area:
Early dating of all the NT(if the reasons for this become germane, we could elaborate)
Mark-travels with Peter, Peter is his source
Luke-travels with Paul, I do not want to get hung up on the word “commissioned”
Jude-brother or step-brother of Jesus
Hebrews-This may be where we get into a tangent. We, like many conservatives, date Hebrews early, real early. It fits, without getting to into this, a school of thought prevalent among Jewish-Christians, not Judaizers, that is completely in sync with Paul.
We have no doubt it was written by someone very close to Paul when he was still alive, if not by the Apostle himself.
No and that is not the scenario you presented. I cannot believe the simplistic manner in which you just framed a shared Christian belief either.
I DO NOT DEBATE AGNOSTICS(anymore to be accurate), I SHOW THEM THE LOVE OF CHRIST
The framework was placed in the context of an agnostic wanting to know how the Bible was inspired. From personal experience alone, I have left the world of non-Christian chat rooms and the rest of the on-line forums that dissect and destroy the spiritual lives of Christians. I feel that Satan has destroyed the faith of thousands of young Christians through this medium. I instead spend my time discouraging this from happening. If an agnostic were to drop on a Christian board and ask for “proof”. I could supply it. I have done it tens of times. The whole situation makes me uncomfortable though and it saddens me. I cannot imagine that a Catholic and a Protestant have different arguments for this for a nonbeliever since we both rely on:
scripture, both agree
tradition/Sacred Tradition, one Protestant view and one Catholic view.
Holy Spirit/authority of the Church-one Protestant view and one Catholic
history, to show that Christ’s church(which we disagree on the interpretation of) has prevailed throughout the ages.
Since we both believe in inspiration, I cannot imagine the significance of this particular question. Having said that, I suppose I could go into a very detailed answer if you demand such, I said I would.
Trumps? It is not a card game.
When I encounter a believer that has different views than myself, but the same framework of authority of the Bible, we use scripture. For conservative Christians, we may debate the nonessentials, but are in agreement on the essentials. When debating Catholics, Mormons, Christian Scientists, or liberal Christians, its much harder because some of the basic presuppositions are different.
The Holy Spirit will do what the Holy Spirit does, with or without my recognition.
My job is to be faithful to biblical teaching, thats all.
Just like you believe you are doing as well.
F
Fredricks
Guest
" On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired"
Is this where you are going Awful?
I am not allowed to respond , Im not allowed by my own rules,but if you wish to cut to the chase, which I wish you had and ask this question, help yourself.
Is this where you are going Awful?
I am not allowed to respond , Im not allowed by my own rules,but if you wish to cut to the chase, which I wish you had and ask this question, help yourself.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Okay,
First off, let me apologize for not being quicker to respond. My wife only works during tax season and, during that time, the computer is hers - I get left-over time.
You’ve requested that I “cut to the chase”, so let me do so. First off, no, my point is not the quotation you pulled from a Catholic Answers tract. Surely I haven’t shown myself to be that feeble-minded that the best I can be presumed to do is rely on somebody else’s logic.
You have made a mistake, as many Catholics do, of asserting that our foundation rests on Scipture + Tradition. This is incorrect, as is the assertion that our foundation rests on Scripture + Tradition + the Magisterium. We believe in an active teaching church, guided to truth (and from error) by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Scripture and Tradition are the fountains, for sure, from which that church draws her teachings, but it is important to remember that we believe they have their origin within that teaching church, not the other way around. The “magisterium” is the practical application of that teaching authority. Simplified, the formula would go like this: The Holy Spirit works through the teaching church to give us Scripture and Tradition. The teaching church then works through Scripture and Tradition, guided from error by the Spirit, to give us doctrine and practices. Now, it must be understood that I am not opening this up for scrutiny but simply answering your request.
The point of my questions is that you accept Scripture as the foundation of your beliefs and, correct me if I am wrong, assert that the Church should resemble that model we see in Scripture. However, through Socratic questioning, which you have gratiously agreed to answer, I intend to show that this foundation (hence the title of this thread) lacks integrity.
Now, on to your response.
You got very frustrated with my response to your answer regarding inspiration, taking issue with my “simplistic response” and saying that I took it out of the context I, myself presented.
Fredericks, please look at your answer:
But the one thing you didn’t do was answer the question. Okay. I was an agnostic once. I’m glad I didn’t come to you with this question.
Regarding the table of contents, you wrote, in regards to my follow-up, that by “authority of the apostles”,
Fredricks:
First off, let me apologize for not being quicker to respond. My wife only works during tax season and, during that time, the computer is hers - I get left-over time.
You’ve requested that I “cut to the chase”, so let me do so. First off, no, my point is not the quotation you pulled from a Catholic Answers tract. Surely I haven’t shown myself to be that feeble-minded that the best I can be presumed to do is rely on somebody else’s logic.
You have made a mistake, as many Catholics do, of asserting that our foundation rests on Scipture + Tradition. This is incorrect, as is the assertion that our foundation rests on Scripture + Tradition + the Magisterium. We believe in an active teaching church, guided to truth (and from error) by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Scripture and Tradition are the fountains, for sure, from which that church draws her teachings, but it is important to remember that we believe they have their origin within that teaching church, not the other way around. The “magisterium” is the practical application of that teaching authority. Simplified, the formula would go like this: The Holy Spirit works through the teaching church to give us Scripture and Tradition. The teaching church then works through Scripture and Tradition, guided from error by the Spirit, to give us doctrine and practices. Now, it must be understood that I am not opening this up for scrutiny but simply answering your request.
The point of my questions is that you accept Scripture as the foundation of your beliefs and, correct me if I am wrong, assert that the Church should resemble that model we see in Scripture. However, through Socratic questioning, which you have gratiously agreed to answer, I intend to show that this foundation (hence the title of this thread) lacks integrity.
Now, on to your response.
You got very frustrated with my response to your answer regarding inspiration, taking issue with my “simplistic response” and saying that I took it out of the context I, myself presented.
Fredericks, please look at your answer:
Was this answer clear? Was it concrete? Was it developed? Yet, when I gave you a chance to clarify, you demanded that you DON’T DEBATE AGNOSTICS. You harped on the use of the word “trumped” (as if Christians don’t need to have a better stake to the claim of truth than other groups). You tried to corner me with a quote from a Catholic Answer tract.
But the one thing you didn’t do was answer the question. Okay. I was an agnostic once. I’m glad I didn’t come to you with this question.
Regarding the table of contents, you wrote, in regards to my follow-up, that by “authority of the apostles”,
continued …
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I only have one question for now. Many of the “liberal” scholars you have railed against question the authorship of the gospels and many of the epistles. To be fair, the authors of the gospels, as with the author of Hebrews, remain anonymous (the titles added later). Thus …
Question 1: Do you trust the authority of the early Christians to assert that these books have apostolic origin (since we know there were many fakes going around, like the Gospel of Thomas)?
Question 2: As you have admitted in other posts, the word “Scripture” literally applied to the Old Testament (though you claim that it was meant to imply added books). Putting the gospels and Revelation aside, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John’s letters (and Hebrews) are unique in that the Old Testament does not give us a model of personal correspondence as “Scripture”. Given that none of the epistles were meant to be an exposition or summa of the faith, but rather (in most cases) personal letters of praise or chastisement. Also, given that most of the epistles don’t give any indication that the author felt he was writing under the guidance of God, why did the early Christians presume the authority to add these letters to the established canon of “Scripture”, especially since we have Hebrews, whose authorship seemed highly contested by the early church? (Please reference Scripture to support this answer.)
Question 3: When you and I disagree on an interpretation of a piece of Scripture and we both can claim that we are interpreting it in the context of the text, the social conditions, and the genre, from a Protestant perspective, I’d like to know to what source we should turn as an interpretive authority?
Finally, in a private e-mail to me, you said I could ask doctrinal questions without it counting against my limit. Here are three:
Is baptism merely a symbol? In no, what is it?
What is your definition of the Trinity?
Again, thanks for the dialogue Fredericks. I probably won’t answer until tomorrow morning. Take care and God Bless, friend.
Question 1: Do you trust the authority of the early Christians to assert that these books have apostolic origin (since we know there were many fakes going around, like the Gospel of Thomas)?
Question 2: As you have admitted in other posts, the word “Scripture” literally applied to the Old Testament (though you claim that it was meant to imply added books). Putting the gospels and Revelation aside, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John’s letters (and Hebrews) are unique in that the Old Testament does not give us a model of personal correspondence as “Scripture”. Given that none of the epistles were meant to be an exposition or summa of the faith, but rather (in most cases) personal letters of praise or chastisement. Also, given that most of the epistles don’t give any indication that the author felt he was writing under the guidance of God, why did the early Christians presume the authority to add these letters to the established canon of “Scripture”, especially since we have Hebrews, whose authorship seemed highly contested by the early church? (Please reference Scripture to support this answer.)
Question 3: When you and I disagree on an interpretation of a piece of Scripture and we both can claim that we are interpreting it in the context of the text, the social conditions, and the genre, from a Protestant perspective, I’d like to know to what source we should turn as an interpretive authority?
Let’s stay focused. I’m not the one who said I was more interested in debate than proof. My point exactly is that this isn’t a game. On that note, I apologize for the “sigh” earlier.
Finally, in a private e-mail to me, you said I could ask doctrinal questions without it counting against my limit. Here are three:
Is baptism merely a symbol? In no, what is it?
What is your definition of the Trinity?
Again, thanks for the dialogue Fredericks. I probably won’t answer until tomorrow morning. Take care and God Bless, friend.
F
Fredricks
Guest
One common claim of Catholicism is that they are the infallible interpreter of scripture. Let’s take a look at two common verses used to support their view:
ACTS 8:30-31 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch’s problem was not the scripture passage in and of itself, but with its fulfillment which was not found in scripture! Phillip uses that opportunity in verse to teach about Jesus. Prior the NT being written, the eunuch would have had to have someone teach him, he could not read it yet.
Notice too, Phillip does not praise or support the Eunuch for needed this assistance. Something that we will address in a bit.
2nd Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost
This verse shows that Peter is referring to the writers of prophecy, not the people reading.
It was not their private interpretation but the Holy Ghost.
Let’s look at some verses that support our contention:
ACTS 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Where was their interpreter?
One of the big problems with the infallible interpreter argument is that it contradicts itself. In order to know that Catholicism has this authority to interpret scripture to begin with, a person would have to interpret the scriptures himself. Personal interpretation is unavoidable.
When Protestants disagree, they do not turn to a source to be an interpretive authority that does not exist in scripture. Sure, it would easier to do such but we must be faithful to what the Bible teaches.
An applicable verse
1st Cr. 2:10-17
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Authority of the early Christians?
God does not need the authority of early Christians.
God does not need them to assert anything.
Do not misunderstand us, the early Christians did assert the books of the NT were of apostolic authority.
These books were inspired the minute they were written. God did not need anyone to assert that the Old Testament was Scripture and God did not need anyone to do it for New Testament.
Did they? Sure they did. Humans are always thinking they are doing God some kind of favor with their actions.
The Lord has always used fallible people for his infallible purposes.
Here is what the first Vatican council said:
Catechism
Why did they presume to add them? They knew they were divinely inspired letters and “God is the author”.
The history of Christianity is not about human decisions but God himself coming to Earth and showing us the path to salvation.
A verse?
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
- Status