Honest Question: How does Sola Scriptura not REQUIRE tradition?

[CopticChristian]

On re-reading the thread it seems that I had over looked a part of the topic.
“How was Scripture selected?” or made authoritarian? Well that is a long history… but to start lets go with the simplest answer.
The earliest Christian documents are currently from about CE 90 to 105 and are the epistles of clement. There is talk that a first century copy of Mark is now being studied but that has not been publicly confirmed yet. There are about 5500 fragments of the New Testament from the first 200 years of the history of the universal Church. Enough so that almost all the books of the New Testament are represented in their entirety including extra-biblical statements of Jesus known as Agraphia. The earliest list of the books of the N.T. is know as the Muratorian Canon (found by 8th century Cardinal L.A. Muratori) from about 190 CE. But the New Testament as we know with the exception of a couple of books has been around from the beginning say 110 CE onward. The Last to be accepted generally was Revelations, James, Hebrews but all were considered “Apostolic” very early and finally confirmed as the “measure” (that’s what canon means) of Faith by (I am not absolutely positive about which council) the council of Nicea in 325 CE to my best recollection. The next time Scripture was added to was the council of Trent in 1546 when the Catholic Apocrypha was added.
There you have it in a very shallow nut shell… hope this helps…

Have a God filled Day,

Jay

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (III) 397

The Canon of the Sacred Scripture3
( ’ a n . 36 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except 92
i l i < (’.anonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name
nl the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exo-
»1 (t’’,.MM 6f>3X5!. B f.: ]f 261; ML 13, 1177 B; Msi III 675 dus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books
of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books
of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel,
Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the
Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels,
the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one
of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three 1 of John, one of James,
one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus [it has been decided] that the
Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of
that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs,
when their anniversary days are celebrated.

 

[CopticChristian]

**The argument is NOT that sacred tradition is bogus. Anyone who says that is wrong - plain and simple. The argument is that Tradition - Sacred or otherwise - is not MORE important than scripture. **Protestants, by the way, claim Apostolic Succession as well. Roman Catholic’s say the succession is a function of the office passed from person to person. Protestant say it is a function of the knowledge. Again, going by Scripture, they would argue that it is “by the fruits” do you see the activity of the Holy Spirit (John15:26, 16:13 and a whole host of others).

When you get deep into these things, you begin to see that very little is black and white.
We are all still human and as capable of denying Christ three times as was Peter, and, we all are then capable of being re-reconciled to God as was Peter. That is why all our arguments , in my opinion, have to be irenic and not polemic. The more combative we are the less likely we are to see the Holy spirit show up to illuminate us. If you are a Pneumatologist (PNEUMATOLOGY :Study of the Holy Spirit) you begin to see him work in many strange ways.

By the way, hope you had a great lunch!.

Have a God filled day,
Jay

Jay,

You are declaring more and more your lack of Catholic understanding and your mention of studying for the ministry makes me wonder about you. What ministry are you studying for. Which Catholic Church do you believe you belong to.

 

[CopticChristian]

Jon, you are correct. Here is a reference from F.F. Bruce one of the best exegetical scholars of the modern age:

“One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. 1960

Hence the books we have as Scripture were inspired by God and recognized such by man.

I apologize for my error…

have a God filled evening…

Jay

Jay,

FF Bruce is Protestant to the core saying that the Church recognized them…well yeah and they recognized the same deuterocanoicals that the Protestants removed. Let me ask you this. On what authority and what ecclesial body were the deuterocanoicals removed?

 

[CopticChristian]

Ambrose, really, take a breadth…

I mean I don’t know if you approach them in the same manner you type and/or assert your prepositional statements but 1> you assume a great deal 2> If you present the hostility or anger you seem to as I read your statement, then I am sure they are afraid to respond to you in any way but defensive. If I am wrong and misreading you, please accept my apology. If I am not wrong then you might first befriend a person of another denomination and see what you can learn from them before you delve into their theology.

Now to your points of view. I am sure that if you have spent any time in the theological circles of Roman Catholicism you will find many different interpretations and hermeneutic not to mention the many different forms of Catholicism. Picking the extremes to argue for the middle is a poor way to do polemics and someone is going to hand you your head for doing it. Argumentatively speaking.
“Scripture Alone” is a practice that the pope as a theologian has written about. He has also done a great discussion on Faith alone as well. I suggest you do a search and look up his comments, they might surprise you.

A couple more points,
When doing a polemic, in theology, by suggesting a generality as an interpretation for a specific without acknowledging your own presuppositions creates a great deal of confusion. For instance, ALL doctrine is “man-made”. After all Jesus was a man. Unless of course you are going to deny His Hypo-static union.
I think you should know this but you seem to be implying otherwise in your argument, ALL scripture is made up of words and they have a limited translation UNLESS you claim to be speaking “Ipsissima Vox” and then assert you have the very voice of the original autograph. If that were true, I doubt you would be wasting time with us. Most protestants translate “Ipsissima Verba” from the “very words” and then seek consensus in the modern idiom.
Lastly, the logical construct of your argument, leaves the other party with no other choice but to accept your total dominance and fling themselves at your feet asking for forgiveness.
No matter what your point of view is on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I am not sure you are authorized in that area.
Please remember they are your brothers and sister, they share the same “imago dei”. If your intention is to save their souls then having such a harsh judgement will be a problem for them and for you.

Have a God filled day
Jay

Jay,

Explain to me the many different forms of Catholicism.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The next time Scripture was added to was the council of Trent in 1546 when the Catholic Apocrypha was added.

Well, correct me if I’m wrong but the Septuagint included these books. Of course there was no canon at the time, but if the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles to quote from… who am I to say otherwise?

And in any event, they were not added but reinstated.

 

[in_servitude]

As a Lutheran, when the issue is doctrine, I have no more privilege to interpret scripture than a Catholic, and neither do our pastors.

I’m still struggling to grasp something, and it might be that I have a giant blind spot. But, I see this sentence as one that invalidates itself. Here’s my reasoning on this:

1. God did not print a Bible. Rather, He chooses to go through people. The person(s) He chooses are, therefore, inspired. These people necessarily have more privilege than others.
2. There is disagreement about which books are inspired and which books are not inspired amongst men today. Who has the privilege to decide which books are inspired (today)?
3. There is disagreement about the interpretation of scripture today. Who has the privilege to decide who is right?

The reason that I say that the sentence invalidates itself is because it assumes that “scripture” is a given while it says that the interpretation is not a given. The aspect of privilege is not acknowledged.

So, my question is:* where (in history, I presume) are the privileged ones that a Protestant would choose to submit themselves to* - saying those privileged people of history defined what all people must later accept as scripture? What is the mechanism by which those special people became privileged?

 

[JaKael02]

It seems us Christians forget our close ancestors (the Jews) had authentic and authorative interpretors of scripture.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the new covenant would have authentic and authorative interpretation as well.

God bless,
James

 

[Lincoln7]

I’m still struggling to grasp something, and it might be that I have a giant blind spot. But, I see this sentence as one that invalidates itself. Here’s my reasoning on this:

1. God did not print a Bible. Rather, He chooses to go through people. The person(s) He chooses are, therefore, inspired. These people necessarily have more privilege than others.
2. There is disagreement about which books are inspired and which books are not inspired amongst men today. Who has the privilege to decide which books are inspired (today)?
3. There is disagreement about the interpretation of scripture today. Who has the privilege to decide who is right?

The reason that I say that the sentence invalidates itself is because it assumes that “scripture” is a given while it says that the interpretation is not a given. The aspect of privilege is not acknowledged.

So, my question is:* where (in history, I presume) are the privileged ones that a Protestant would choose to submit themselves to* - saying those privileged people of history defined what all people must later accept as scripture? What is the mechanism by which those special people became privileged?

Hi InServitude,

The first question/point you post Im not so clear on so I will try and answer/discuss the las 2 instead

It seems both 2) and 3) are essentially the argument that Protestants use private interpretation and thus this accounts for the numerous Protestant denominations today, I think that’s the crux of it?

I think with your question on who chooses what’s canon and what’s not, when did the Catholic Church get an infallible declaration on this? It’s not until Trent. Sure you can point to evidence of continuity with Trent’s canon, as Coptic Christian has tried to demonstrate in some of his posts above. But discontinuity can also be shown; Jerome for example, or Cardinal Catejan…
Thus it seems that the church pre Trent was rather content to go with history; the church early on recognising which books were canon… See my posts above on scripture testifying to itself as such, as well as my tiny quotes from ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’…

Regarding Your question on who can rightly interpret the canon; How often does the magisterium actually do this? Very rarely. The catholic layman is still having to use his own private interpretation, and try and find what the church says is true when they look at scripture. Furthermore, who interprets the infallible authority for you? To paraphrase a statement by Dr.White; Romans 8 seems far more perspicuous than some Catholic documents be tried to get through…(1)
Also, to again paraphrase Dr. White in one of his debates; how do you know Rome is the true church? Is it not private interpretation of sources? There is no more certainty for the catholic on a doctrine, as their decision to submit to Rome was a fallible one.(2)

Peace.

Thanks for the discussion!

Lincs

(1) - Dr James White, closing statement vs Fr Mitch Pawca, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego, CA
(2) - Dr James White, closing statement vs Fr Mitch Pawca, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego, CA

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi InServitude,

The first question/point you post Im not so clear on so I will try and answer/discuss the las 2 instead

It seems both 2) and 3) are essentially the argument that Protestants use private interpretation and thus this accounts for the numerous Protestant denominations today, I think that’s the crux of it?

I think with your question on who chooses what’s canon and what’s not, when did the Catholic Church get an infallible declaration on this? It’s not until Trent. Sure you can point to evidence of continuity with Trent’s canon, as Coptic Christian has tried to demonstrate in some of his posts above. But discontinuity can also be shown;** Jerome for example, or Cardinal Catejan…**Thus it seems that the church pre Trent was rather content to go with history; the church early on recognising which books were canon… See my posts above on scripture testifying to itself as such, as well as my tiny quotes from ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’…

Regarding Your question on who can rightly interpret the canon; How often does the magisterium actually do this? Very rarely. The catholic layman is still having to use his own private interpretation, and try and find what the church says is true when they look at scripture. Furthermore, who interprets the infallible authority for you? To paraphrase a statement by Dr.White; Romans 8 seems far more perspicuous than some Catholic documents be tried to get through…(1)
Also, to again paraphrase Dr. White in one of his debates; how do you know Rome is the true church? Is it not private interpretation of sources? There is no more certainty for the catholic on a doctrine, as their decision to submit to Rome was a fallible one.(2)

Peace.

Thanks for the discussion!

Lincs

(1) - Dr James White, closing statement vs Fr Mitch Pawca, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego, CA
(2) - Dr James White, closing statement vs Fr Mitch Pawca, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego, CA

I do not know how you can compare apples and oranges. Councils on the one hand and one person’s opinion on the other. Your premise to private interpretation leaves the door open to Jehovah Witness declaring the New World Translation to be Scripture & Joseph Smith declaring that the Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenants are Scripture because of private interpretation. There is no such thing as a Protestant church to say otherwise just a bunch of adverse opinions of fallible people absent what I believe in, the OHCAC.

 

[in_servitude]

Hi InServitude,

The first question/point you post Im not so clear on so I will try and answer/discuss the las 2 instead

It seems both 2) and 3) are essentially the argument that Protestants use private interpretation and thus this accounts for the numerous Protestant denominations today, I think that’s the crux of it?

I think with your question on who chooses what’s canon and what’s not, when did the Catholic Church get an infallible declaration on this? It’s not until Trent. Sure you can point to evidence of continuity with Trent’s canon, as Coptic Christian has tried to demonstrate in some of his posts above. But discontinuity can also be shown; Jerome for example, or Cardinal Catejan…
Thus it seems that the church pre Trent was rather content to go with history; the church early on recognising which books were canon… See my posts above on scripture testifying to itself as such, as well as my tiny quotes from ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’…

Regarding Your question on who can rightly interpret the canon; How often does the magisterium actually do this? Very rarely. The catholic layman is still having to use his own private interpretation, and try and find what the church says is true when they look at scripture. Furthermore, who interprets the infallible authority for you? To paraphrase a statement by Dr.White; Romans 8 seems far more perspicuous than some Catholic documents be tried to get through…(1)
Also, to again paraphrase Dr. White in one of his debates; how do you know Rome is the true church? Is it not private interpretation of sources? There is no more certainty for the catholic on a doctrine, as their decision to submit to Rome was a fallible one.(2)

On the question of authority for me - it’s the Church. It makes sense to me, given Matthew 16:18 and the continuation of authority from there.

But, I don’t understand the Protestant point of view, however. I don’t see an answer in your response.

I am truly asking an honest question - how does a person say two things at the same time - 1) no authority exists (over any other) to decide what is **meant **by scripture, but complete authority my someone (in the past) to identify what **is **scripture? I simply do not understand how this works.

 

[pablope]

I’m still struggling to grasp something, and it might be that I have a giant blind spot. But, I see this sentence as one that invalidates itself. Here’s my reasoning on this:

So, my question is:* where (in history, I presume) are the privileged ones that a Protestant would choose to submit themselves to* - saying those privileged people of history defined what all people must later accept as scripture? What is the mechanism by which those special people became privileged?

Well, we have the guidance of the Bible and the ECFs…

First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

How do we know who is “sent”?

This passage guides us…

From 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Question now is…how would we apply this passage today?

The ECFs guide us further…

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

And against the Gnostics…St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

 

[Cinette]

I agree with most of this. I too, feel it is important to properly define Sola Scriptura! The problem many of us Catholics face is that, many Protestants (mostly non-denominational evangelicals) do not define Sola Scriptura as Lutherans do. Many will say the bible only, and not look at anything outside of the bible when interpreting scripture “so they say”

I think, it is important to make the Solo Biblia Christians aware of what Sola Scriptura is!

In the proper context of Sola Scriptura, it could be viewed as a hermeneutic principle, but many of our separated brethren, do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura, but a caricature of it.

The caricature that they do hold of Sola Scriptura (Solo Biblia) is in fact a tradition. Hmm…yes.

Since Christianity is a revealed religion, it is important to question by what medium is Christ revealed? The Bible only? I don’t think so, one can not separate Christianity from Sacred Tradition, just as Sacred Tradition can not be separated from Scripture.OK - Sacred Tradition comprises “Oral Word” and the “Written Word” - that is correct. What you are saying that certain denominations define scripture as the Bible only. Hm! I have learned something. Thank you!

My two cents anyways!

Peace and love in Christ!

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette, thanks for the discussion.

Regarding the creeds: I wholly accept them, because they are a faithful witness to what Scripture says. Everything they say is based upon what is contained in sacred scripture. I’m looking for these ‘unwritten traditions’ that Trent talked about… Aka: ones which we won’t find recorded in scripture, which we can trace back the first century… *I think you confuse Tradition and traditions. Tell us which are these traditions “which we can trace back to the first century” with which you do not agree as being part of Sacred Scripture". *

There is no infallible pronouncement until Trent. Prior to this we see local councils such as Hippo or Carthage making pronouncements, but these councils are not considered infallible by the Catholic Church… Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas etc… We’re all these men in doubt over if they had the correct books, because the Church had made no infallible decision?“We’re”?? Do you mean were? No.

You listed these as being capital T traditions in your previous post. Again, are there any unwritten Traditions (capital T) which can’t be found in sacred scripture? I would suppose that many of the Traditions are blended into the practice and worship of the Catholic Church - the Canon of the Mass is one example. Though we might have changed some translations of the liturgy nothing has been altered - only improved and made correct. No Doctrines or Dogma have been changed - they cannot be. It is not allowed.
Yes. The number of scriptural passages which discuss and demonstrate it is collosal.
The Church proclaims Christ, Paul’s description is wonderful, and based upon this. It upholds the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Barnes describes in his commentary on this passage here: bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm
It is inspired scripture, that which is God-Breathed. It testifies of him who holds all authority in heaven and on earth. It takes priority above any human institution or words. However by claiming to be the sole decider of what is scripture and Apostolic tradition, and claiming to be the sole interpreter of scripture and tradition, Rome sets herself as above both of them. (1) The resultant position is Sola Eclessia. I mean this as no insult, merely a descriptive term I am not insulted by your honesty - you state what you genuinely believe. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the Holy Spirit guided the Church into all truth. There can only be one interpretation (true interpretation). I am wracking my brain for the exact verse and have to run off to start my day - got a lot of do on Saturdays. Will revert later unless someone else comes up with the verses.

Source for this? Will revert. I think that history utterly refutes this idea… I’ve posted a response very similar in another thread: The Apostles knew they were writing scripture(2), the people of the new covenant expected terms that testified to this new covenenant, which were in the form of scripture. (3) Peter calls Paul’s letters ‘scripture’ in 2 Peter 3:16. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 2 Timothy 3:16… There is recognition of a canon displayed in the new testament itself. In the first century, people knew on the whole what was and was not scripture…

Thanks for the discussion Cinette

Peace.

Lincs.

(1) - Dr James White, closing statement of debate vs Fr. Mitch Pacwa, ‘Sola Scriptura’, 1999, San Diego CA
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 106
(3) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 101

 

[CopticChristian]

Cinette:
Cinette,

I find it difficult to follow who is saying what with the way the entire passage is encased in quotes. I am sure there was something there for me to discern but I was totally confused.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7
Hi Cinette, thanks for the discussion.

Regarding the creeds: I wholly accept them, because they are a faithful witness to what Scripture says. Everything they say is based upon what is contained in sacred scripture. I’m looking for these ‘unwritten traditions’ that Trent talked about… Aka: ones which we won’t find recorded in scripture, which we can trace back the first century… I think you confuse Tradition and traditions. Tell us which are these traditions “which we can trace back to the first century” with which you do not agree as being part of Sacred Scripture".

 

[Lincoln7]

On the question of authority for me - it’s the Church. It makes sense to me, given Matthew 16:18 and the continuation of authority from there.

But, I don’t understand the Protestant point of view, however. I don’t see an answer in your response.

I am truly asking an honest question - how does a person say two things at the same time - 1) no authority exists (over any other) to decide what is **meant **by scripture, but complete authority my someone (in the past) to identify what **is **scripture? I simply do not understand how this works.

Hi again In_servitude,

We see here the difficulty trying to compact lengthy ideas into a box!

Was it not your private interpretation of this verse that led you to conclude Rome was the true church? This is the issue I see now… This doesn’t solve the problem, you have to use private interpretation to conclude Rome is right, and then must still keep using to interpret what it the infallible authority has said. Why is Romans unclear and Vatican documents not unclear? Those are my honest questions, hope I don’t sound aggressive

Now to (try to) answer your question I don’t think from my perspective that in the past for a long time no one had any idea what was scripture, then out of the blue some people got together and said its x y and z… The position I stand by is one of early development, first century development for the majority of the NT (1). See my post no. 54 in this thread. There is evidence in the New Testament that the first century church already considered certain works scripture, they came to them with apostolic authority after all.

There is some debate of course; Hebrews for example(2). But the church does not appear to appeal to a centralised authority to ask what’s what. Rather it uses discernment, history, to conclude on books(3). This seems to be sufficient for the church for the majority of its history. Local councils such as Hippo or Carthage make decisions regarding canon, but its not discussed in what is now known as an ecumenical council. This seems to show us the Church knew they had the right books, not because of an infallible decision, for such a thing never came until Trent, but rather they knew they had the right books as they had always possessed them, going right back the the first century AD (4). I think this view best fits the historical evidence available to us. So really it’s not a question of ‘who has the authority to decide what’s canon’ The scripture is authoritative as it is God Breathed, it carries the authority of Jesus Christ, who himself has all authority.

Peace

Lincs.

(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 95
(2) - daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm
(3) - daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm
(4) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 101

 

[Lincoln7]

I do not know how you can compare apples and oranges. Councils on the one hand and one person’s opinion on the other. Your premise to private interpretation leaves the door open to Jehovah Witness declaring the New World Translation to be Scripture & Joseph Smith declaring that the Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenants are Scripture because of private interpretation. There is no such thing as a Protestant church to say otherwise just a bunch of adverse opinions of fallible people absent what I believe in, the OHCAC.

Hi again Coptic Christian, thanks for the discussion

Now to me it does not, the text of the New Testament if exegeted contextually, as a whole, leads to orthodox conclusions. Saying it leaves the door wide open to such interpretations you list in your post implies that the New Testament is unclear on its meaning. Because such and such a group comes up with a certain interpretation that is false and claims its all based on scripture, does not make scripture unclear, rather it means such and such a group has twisted its meaning.

“…as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:16 ESV. [emphasis mine].

Regarding the OHCAC, it is affirmed see questions 23 and 54: wts.edu/resources/creeds/heidelberg.html

Peace!

Lincs

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi again Coptic Christian, thanks for the discussion

Now to me it does not, the text of the New Testament if exegeted contextually, as a whole, leads to orthodox conclusions. Saying it leaves the door wide open to such interpretations you list in your post implies that the New Testament is unclear on its meaning. Because such and such a group comes up with a certain interpretation that is false and claims its all based on scripture, does not make scripture unclear, rather it means such and such a group has twisted its meaning.

“…as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:16 ESV. [emphasis mine].

Regarding the OHCAC, it is affirmed see questions 23 and 54: wts.edu/resources/creeds/heidelberg.html

Peace!

Lincs

Lincs,

You are confirming that Scripture can be twisted. Scripture is hard to understand. Peter says the ignorant and unstable categorizing those that do this as victims of their own devices. It also points out that there must be something to being cautious in private interpretation and infers that there are problems associated with Sola Scriptura although he does not say this but says that ignorance and instability may lead to destruction. This is a self fullfilling prophecy when you see what private interpretation has led to.

Looking in the world we can see that this is a problem.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lincoln7:

Was it not your private interpretation of this verse that led you to conclude Rome was the true church? This is the issue I see now… This doesn’t solve the problem, you have to use private interpretation to conclude Rome is right, and then must still keep using to interpret what it the infallible authority has said. Why is Romans unclear and Vatican documents not unclear? Those are my honest questions

You have touched on a very interesting topic (although a bit off topic) But to establish meanings a little clearer, private interpretation (or judgment) is something that one does while reading the Sacred Scriptures.

However when it comes to Rome, or as Catholics like to say The Church, we use terms like assent and certitude. Catholics are not constantly using private judgment on everything the Church teaches. Catholics are certain The Church is the One, True, Divine Church established by Jesus Christ. Therefore whatever it teaches, is certainly true. However, because we live in a fallen world, where men are capable of error (even the Pope when not speaking ex cathedra,) there is an ongoing judgement on day to day matters that takes place.

This is where the infallibility of the Church (note, not just the pope,) comes in. The faithful, meaning all of the laity, priests, bishops and religious of the Catholic Church, as a unified voice, also possess the charism of Church infallibility. As John Henry Newman pointed out, this infallibility of the faithful is what kept the Church orthodox, during the Arian heresy, when most of its bishops were Arians.

But to get back to your original question; There comes a time, in a person’s journey on this earth, when they become certain of something that is still based on Faith. For example, our belief in God is certain. We don’t keep watching events in the world to see if maybe God doesn’t really exist. IOW, that becomes one of our First principles. God exists. Then other things start to build on this certitude. Same with the Church. Some may not be certain of course, and are only Catholic by default, but that is not right. A true Catholic is certain that the Church is the True oracle of the Divine Lord Jesus, guiding us today, even as He did 2000 years ago. We aren’t constantly “checking” to see if what they say matches our “interpretation” of whatever.

But lastly, as Newman liked to say, A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. Yes, we have difficulties to overcome and sort out, but it never undermines our certainty or trust in the Church.

 

[Cinette]

On the question of authority for me - it’s the Church. It makes sense to me, given Matthew 16:18 and the continuation of authority from there.

But, I don’t understand the Protestant point of view, however. I don’t see an answer in your response.

I am truly asking an honest question - how does a person say two things at the same time - 1) no authority exists (over any other) to decide what is **meant **by scripture, but complete authority my someone (in the past) to identify what **is **scripture? I simply do not understand how this works.

*Protestants do not acknowledge the veracity of Jesus’ words in Mat 16:18-19. Their interpretation is that Jesus was not addressing Peter but someone else! Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail - that we would be guided by the H Spirit into all truth. Protestants do not believe this was the case. The H Spirit only became involved at the Reformation! That is how this works for them.

Perhaps someone can enlighten us.

*

 

[in_servitude]

Was it not your private interpretation of this verse that led you to conclude Rome was the true church?

Given the great and wonderful design of Creation and His Church, we are all allowed (required) to wrestle with the Truth. However, to answer your question, no - it was not my private interpretation of scripture that led me to conclude that the Catholic Church is the one true church. It’s history, scripture, and my own personal experience (spiritual) that guides me.

However, as a follower of the Catholic Church, I understand that the Bible is a consequence of the Church as established by Jesus. It is not what everything is built upon.

Why is Romans unclear and Vatican documents not unclear?

I guess I miss your point. However, it is fairly obvious that two people will come to different conclusions reading the same scripture.

I don’t think from my perspective that in the past for a long time no one had any idea what was scripture, then out of the blue some people got together and said its x y and z… The position I stand by is one of early development, first century development for the majority of the NT (1). See my post no. 54 in this thread. There is evidence in the New Testament that the first century church already considered certain works scripture, they came to them with apostolic authority after all.

I did review your post #54. I still don’t see it. For a number of years, there were zero NT writings. Over the next 70 years or so, they were written. But, many other things were written too. Some, I presume, would also quote Luke and other books. The Church did not have an automatic method for rejecting bad and accepting good. It had to discern, as you say. However, discerning what is proper and what is heresy requires authority. Otherwise, nothing is resolved. That is one reason, from where I sit, why we have tens of thousands of different flavors of Christianity.

The dead sea scrolls are interesting. They show us early scripture. But, there are other scrolls in there too - ones we currently view as outside of scripture. Since they were discovered in 1945, how might we decide if they are also scriptural?

There is some debate of course; Hebrews for example(2). But the church does not appear to appeal to a centralised authority to ask what’s what. Rather it uses discernment, history, to conclude on books(3).

Well, in reality, it uses both. The Pope works with his councils and they examine information for a long time before coming to a conclusion. But, in the end, the Pope does have the authority and the final say.

This seems to be sufficient for the church for the majority of its history. Local councils such as Hippo or Carthage make decisions regarding canon, but its not discussed in what is now known as an ecumenical council. This seems to show us the Church knew they had the right books, not because of an infallible decision, for such a thing never came until Trent, but rather they knew they had the right books as they had always possessed them, going right back the the first century AD (4). I think this view best fits the historical evidence available to us. So really it’s not a question of ‘who has the authority to decide what’s canon’ The scripture is authoritative as it is God Breathed, it carries the authority of Jesus Christ, who himself has all authority.

Did God breathe the Essene scrolls?

I think the summary that I’m getting is that “scriptures exist - they confirm themselves.” I suppose I’ll have to study more history, but at this point, I don’t see the logic of it.