How sufficient does the CC deem the Scriptures?

[itsjustdave1988]

…as a parent, I would view something troubling in my relationship with my children if they didn’t feel they could come directly to me for their needs.

Yet that’s the false dichotomy which Catholicism rejects. See Hebrews 12:22-24. It is not God OR the angels/saints. It is God AND the angels/saints. Thus, your analogy is a accurately compared to a child going to their brethren AND their parents if something is troubling them…it’s almost as if the FAMILY of Christ is a UNITY, a COMMUNION OF SAINTS.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…The glorified in heaven no longer need to ask.

Those in heaven do indeed offer the prayers of the holy ones (saints) to God. Rev 5:8 "the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. "

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Someone said we can pray to the saints/angels for anything we would ask our earthly brothers and sisters for. But why would I do that?

James 5:16 “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.”

Why do we need to pray at all? (My answer would be: so we can have a relationship with our creator.

Great answer! Why do we need to ask our brethren and heavenly angels/saints to pray for us? So we can have a relationship with the brothers and sisters of Christ. Afterall, wasn’t it Jesus that said, according to St. Luke: “He who accepts you, accepts me?”

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Those in heaven do indeed offer the prayers of the holy ones (saints) to God. Rev 5:8 "the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. "

Hi Dave,

I’m inclined to believe in the communion of saints, but I’m not sure I find sufficient scriptural basis for praying to those who may be in heaven. Your reference to Rev 5:8 can also mean: the prayers of the saints (here on earth).

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

James 5:16 “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.”
Great answer! Why do we need to ask our brethren and heavenly angels/saints to pray for us? So we can have a relationship with the brothers and sisters of Christ. Afterall, wasn’t it Jesus that said, according to St. Luke: “He who accepts you, accepts me?”

I like that…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I like that…

Ok, but *still *, God is a jealous God. Isn’t putting our relationship (for our heavenly needs) in other people (heavenly “righteous” ones/saints) idolatry? Aren’t we exercising faith in someone other than God in this respect???

Thanks

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hi Dave,

I’m inclined to believe in the communion of saints, but I’m not sure I find sufficient scriptural basis for praying to those who may be in heaven. Your reference to Rev 5:8 can also mean: the prayers of the saints (here on earth).

Peace

Yes, but now your are arguing that Scritpure is not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT, right? I agree. Material sufficiency contends that the “stuff” of Scritpure is sufficient, when rightly understood. Formal sufficiency seems to contend that Scritpure is perspicuous, that everything in it is clear, and that nobody needs a teaching Church in order to properly understand authorital intents. Catholicism rejects that Scripture is formally sufficient. Any written communication has an inherent potential of multiple interpretations because of the limitations of language. Even spoken communication can be unclear. However, Scritpure cannot say, “Wait! You’ve misunderstood me.” The Church, which Scritpure calls the “pillar and foundation of Truth,” can.

What you’ve demonstrated is that Scripture is not perspicuous. I agree. It isn’t. That’s why God didn’t simply send Jesus with a better Bible. Jesus instead built a Church. The Bible is Holy, God-breathed. But if you recall, God also breathed upon the apostles, thus the Church is also God-breathed. The Bible and the Church having both been given to us by God, have the complementary function of teaching the faithful. To pit one against the other is completely contrary to the NT and the will of God.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Yes, but now your are arguing that Scritpure is not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT, right? I agree. Material sufficiency contends that the “stuff” of Scritpure is sufficient, when rightly understood. Formal sufficiency seems to contend that Scritpure is perspicuous, that everything in it is clear, and that nobody needs a teaching Church in order to properly understand authorital intents. Catholicism rejects that Scripture is formally sufficient. Any written communication has an inherent potential of multiple interpretations because of the limitations of language. Even spoken communication can be unclear. However, Scritpure cannot say, “Wait! You’ve misunderstood me.” The Church, which Scritpure calls the “pillar and foundation of Truth,” can.

What you’ve demonstrated is that Scripture is not perspicuous. I agree. It isn’t. That’s why God didn’t simply send Jesus with a better Bible. Jesus instead built a Church. The Bible is Holy, God-breathed. But if you recall, God also breathed upon the apostles, thus the Church is also God-breathed.

Well actually, no. I just started a thread in the Scripture forum that basically adresses (somewhat) this.

But, specifically answering your question:

I would look very closely at what Scripture tells me. It no where instructs me to pray to anyone other than God the Father. Demonstrating a communion of saints and then pointing to a verse in Revelations about saints is a very round about way of deciding it’s ok to pray to someone other than Who Jesus tells us to pray to.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think it might help you if you sought from Scripture, the correct NT epistemology. Did the NT Christians go by “Bible only?” Of course not. We are explicitly told to hold fast to the tradition, oral and written.

When we attempt to understand the OT, for example, we are wise to see how ancient Jews interpreted Scripture. Likewise, when attempting to rightly understand the NT, it is wise to seek what the earliest Christians–those closest to the fountain of truth than either you or I–understood was the authentic belief and practice of Christians.

Did the earliest Christians ask those in heaven for their help? Was this an unorthodox novelty which was opposed by the early Christians? Who was the first in all of Christian history to oppose the humble request of the angels and saints for their help? I think you will be enlighted by the answers to the above questions.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I know I’m not in error by praying *only *to God the Father. I have to trust in the claims of the Catholic Church to believe it is okay to pray to anyone else. If you read my other thread you will see why I’m not sure I should (trust those claims):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=142925

However, in that thread I am basically saying it’s ok to join any church according to your own, biblical convictions (which had better be as unbiased as humanly possible or you are as answerable to God as a “cafeteria catholic” ) (not targeted directly at you, dave - or anyone else )

Peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I would look very closely at what Scripture tells me.

Good, but I hope that you also look beyond what is explicit, and seek to know that which is implicit as well. For instance, “faith alone” appears nowhere in Scritpure, excepint in James, where it explicitly refutes Protestant doctrine.

Also, “Bible alone” is no where to be found explicit (or implicit) in the Bible. So, if you really are truthful in seeking to look closely at what Scritpure tells you, you would adhere to tradition (Gk paradosis), both oral and written, and not simply that which was written.

It no where instructs me to pray to anyone other than God the Father.

It explicitly shows the Psalmist directly invoking the angels and saints in prayer. While it may not direct you to do so, it exemplifies how we too are permitted to piously invoke the angels and saints, in truth all the works of God in our prayer.

Demonstrating a communion of saints and then pointing to a verse in Revelations about saints is a very round about way of deciding it’s ok to pray to someone other than Who Jesus tells us to pray to.

I’m pretty sure Jesus approves of Scripture. So, if Scritpure shows explicitly that we can converse with angels and saints in heaven, just like St. John did in Revelation, or the Psalmist did in his songs of praise, then I’m thinkin’ Jesus approves of such a pious act.

Furthermore, Heb 12 explicitly states that Christians “have come” (past tense) to the “city of God” which includes a communion of saints. Any friend of God is a friend of mine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JoyToBeCatholic:
… However, in that thread I am basically saying it’s ok to join any church according to your own, biblical convictions …"
I grew up in northern Idaho, where the Aryan Nations Church was headquartered. Would it be ok to join that Church because it one’s “biblical conviction” to do so? “Aryans” referred to above are neo-Nazis who use their “Biblical conviction” to justify their evil acts, however, there were some other ancient “Arians” who were also “biblically convicted” that Jesus was just a man, not divine. I think that one’ personal biblical conviction is rather insufficient in determining Christian truth.

Using such an epistemology of one’s personal “biblical conviction”, it seems to me these remarks by Martin Luther are the inevitable result:

Martin Luther:

There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. (Martin Luther, as cited in Ray, S., Faith of Our Fathers)

In another place he laments again …

Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They no longer care for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God…After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases. [They say] ‘we will spend the day like Lutherans. Drunkenness has come upon us like a deluge.’ If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the gospel." (WL 6, 920)

Luther confesses…

I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was fomerly seen among monks and priests." (WL 9. 1311)

In a letter to Zwingli, Luther writes…

If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." (Contra Zuingli et Oecol. cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)

All of Christian preaching is nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. That’s Catholic doctrine. That does not mean that one’s personal “conviction” is necessarily free from the sin of heresy. Thus, it is not “biblical conviction” which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” according to Scripture, but that distinction belongs to the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I know I’m not in error by praying *only *to God the Father.

Jesus also said, “He who rejects you, rejects me.” I have to trust in the claims of Sacred Scripture, and so I must trust in the doctrines of Christ’s Church.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I think it might help you if you sought from Scripture, the correct NT epistemology. Did the NT Christians go by “Bible only?” Of course not. We are explicitly told to hold fast to the tradition, oral and written.

The NT Christians were going by bible only in the sense that they had the authors at their disposal. Assuming that the H.S. led them into all truth and brought everything to their remembrance (which Jesus promised). After the early church had the apostles, it had their writings. Now, you say it didn’t have a bible yet, but it did! It also had other writings which didn’t make canon! So what, exactly, was the early church teaching??? It had to be teaching error, no? Mixed, perhaps, with a little truth, no?

Let me ask you this:
Since advocates for the CC point to the fact that the CC went through a great process to determine which writings were canonizable… Before an infallible pronouncement was made about which writings were canonizable, we have to assume that the early church was circulating and reading writings that may not have been canonizable, correct? Does this mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the church?

Let me ask this:
*If, *before an infallible pronouncement was made about which writings were canonizable, we assume that it was always common knowledge which writings were worthy of canonization (which, historically, we know is untrue anyway), then we can say that the church always had the bible.

Either way, the church always had the bible. But the church did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired. Did the fact that it did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired cause the church to go into error? Do you see the possibility that having other, non-inspired books may have been cause to lead the church astray? Do you also see that having other, non-inspired books being circulated and read aloud in the churches indicates that the church was (at that very early time) infallible? It was using erroneous, uninspired texts in its churches!

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that, yes, there was a time when we did not have our perfect, leather-bound, gold-trimmed bibles. Catholics often try to shoot-down sola scriptura b/c of that fact, but church infallibility can just as easily be refuted by the same argument. It obviously couldn’t perfectly define what traditions were apostolic if it was accepting (for a time) uninspired texts as suitable for circulation and teaching in the church.

Regardless of who “pronounced” that God’s Word was God’s Word, it is God’s Word b/c God said He would preserve His Word.

Btw, cut it out. You type way faster than I. I have to go to bed, so I’m not going to be able to respond to your other posts 'til tomorrow.

This has been a great conversation!
~Peace~

 

[Chancellare]

I definately have a mental block with this and I’m trying to understand…

Scripture itself says it is “sufficient”.

Ok, but since the church deemed certain apostolic writings to be canon (a rule of measure), and since Scripture even declares itself to be “sufficient”, why should we accept things outside of it?

I suppose the teachings of the church (canon law - theres that word “canon” again) are on par with Scripture then? Why not just add them to the Bible then? I’m sincerely asking, not trying to be wise…

Thanks

Sorry if I’m coming in from the cold with a little of ignorance. But where is that in the Bible that you say is “sufficient”?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…
Btw, cut it out. You type way faster than I. I have to go to bed, so I’m not going to be able to respond to your other posts 'til tomorrow.

I promise only to use my typing powers for good.

Good night and God bless.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I promise only to use my typing powers for good.

Good night and God bless.

THanks, you too. (I have a typing trophy for fastest typist you know:thumbsup: . Hows that for humility?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The NT Christians were going by bible only in the sense that they had the authors at their disposal. Assuming that the H.S. led them into all truth and brought everything to their remembrance (which Jesus promised). After the early church had the apostles, it had their writings. Now, you say it didn’t have a bible yet, but it did! It also had other writings which didn’t make canon! So what, exactly, was the early church teaching??? It had to be teaching error, no? Mixed, perhaps, with a little truth, no?

Well the first Christians did not go by Bible Alone. For one, the Apostle preached the Gospel orally. For the early years of the Christianity there was no written account of the Gospel until 20-30 yrs after the fact. The only Scripture they had was Old Testament.

Second, the Council of Jerusalem did not appeal to Scripture from the OT if it did, we would still be required to have circumcism today.

 

[Nicene]

Having read through most of the thread the one component which seems to have eluded the discussion with concern for ones ability to interpret the bible is the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

While the Holy Spirit guides each of us individually, we can also impose our thoughts feeling and preconceptions onto scripture. That is the danger. God set up the church so we would know what is authentic through the Holy Spirit. How? By having us check the spirit. A spirit unwilling to be checked is a spirit that isn’t present in the Holy Spirit. Why? Think of it as Gods system of checks and balances. Why is this important, because it is not only in the bible, but it is tradition. Why is this tradition important? Because we believe we are not the first people to have been led by the Holy Spirit, that in fact there are 2000 years of people in the church who have been led by the spirit, submitting themselves with the understanding and trust that God would not leave us orphans or to our own devices as he promised to lead the church by the Holy Spirit forever.

Next taking Timothy into context. For Timothy and Paul scripture they are talking about which he has known from childhood is the OT. It is taught and seen through how Christ revealed scripture to the apostles, which is typology and allegory.

So if you wish to try your hand at the Pauline method in reality as Timothy learned it and as Paul did with the Bereans, take out all of the NT, then begin to interpret Christ from the OT through allegory and typology. As well, it is apparent through 2 Tim 3:15-16 that salvation can be read through the OT without knowing or having read the NT at all. If nothing else it will be an interesting exercise, but again, who will check your Spirit? Yourself? That would be, (tossing back in the NT for a moment), against Gods command in the NT. In other words disobeying God.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Oh almost forgot.

JoytbeCatholic, If you want to find out why Paul wrote what he did concerning head coverings, you are going to have to go outside the bible. You’ll find it in some non biblical apocryphal literature. It is also one of the reasons the church decided to allow what she did. It has to do with this verse:

1 Cor 11:10: That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Bottom line: it dealt with superstition. Think of it as going topless (pun intended) for an angel.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene