How sufficient is the Scripture?

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

No because tradition, in this since, is a summary of the orthodox teachings of Scripture (e.g. the great Creeds). If Scripture disagrees with the Creeds, then the creeds are wrong, not Scripture.

Michael

Our Creed doesn’t contradict scripture God Bless

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

This is Deconstruction. Is there really a “there” there? I reject relativism. There is ABSOLUTE Truth somewhere–I “interpret” it to be found in the Catholic Church. You can disagree, however. One major criticism of the Church is that is too slow to evolve–that is because the Magesterium is very carful to be sure that the definitions come from the Holy Spirit and not from man. Because someone misinterprets a definative Truth, does not make Truth false.

I agree that there is absolute truth, but I disagree that their is absolute certianty of that truth. The Holy Spirit convicts us where we are lacking (Romans 8).

We can have moral certianty that obligates us and makes us liable for our decisions. We are not out there in a sea of relativism, but we don’t have infallible (absolute) certianty about anything since you and I are both fallible.

For example, I do not have infallible certianty that the sun will rise tomorrow, since there are outside variables that could make this not so. No matter how slim those variables are, I still cannot have infallible certianty about this. But that does not mean that I live as a relativist. I have moral certianty that it is going to rise and therefore act responsibly based upon this. If I did not, this would be insane. All of the decisions that you and I make in life are based upon differing levels of certianty and non of them is infallible (absolute).

This is NOT relativism, which believes that there is no truth. It is soft-skepticism, which believes that all things must be tested and acted upon based upon the level of certianty that is provided. But we never can have infallible certianty about anything since you and I are fallible.

For my views on Postmodernism, watch here:
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=744

or read here:
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2452

Thanks for the dialogue. I do appreacate your irenic and gracious approach. And thanks for not attacking me.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

No because tradition, in this since, is a summary of the orthodox teachings of Scripture (e.g. the great Creeds). If Scripture disagrees with the Creeds, then the creeds are wrong, not Scripture.

Michael

??? WHO ??? says??? And are you saying our creed disagrees w/ Scripture?

(BTW–I’m really enjoyng this exchange–VERY interesting and engaging–thanks Michaelp!)

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Our Creed doesn’t contradict scripture God Bless

In your opinion, but who is to say that your opinion is right?

 

[robertjohn]

Interpretation is the key. Some Christian denominations scream the bible is the Word of God on TV (and vain faith) but renounce Christ’s teachings.

The gospel of John reveals this through the Lord’s words :

JOH 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
JOH 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

In reading the gospel they " do not know what manner of spirit they are", and wish to rain fire down upon others as Elijah. This is what causes so much division .

 

[michaelp]

??? WHO ??? says??? And are you saying our creed disagrees w/ Scripture?

(BTW–I’m really enjoyng this exchange–VERY interesting and engaging–thanks Michaelp!)

Actually, I was referring to my creed . . . Nicea and Chalcedon. Just kidding. Our creeds. I was saying, like the statement of the Orthodox and Anglicans, all Creeds, traditions, and teachers must be keep in check by the Scriptures.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

This is NOT relativism, which believes that there is no truth. It is soft-skepticism, which believes that all things must be tested and acted upon based upon the level of certianty that is provided. But we never can have infallible certianty about anything since you and I are fallible.

Thanks for the dialogue. I do appreacate your irenic and gracious approach. And thanks for not attacking me.

Michael

Then, how can you be certain Scriptures are sufficient for salvation–for that matter, how can you be certain there IS as God?

I CAN be certain. If I can’t rely on my own judgement–i can rely on the Magesterium–protected by the God I have faith exists.

(And, I would never attack YOU!)

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Then, how can you be certain Scriptures are sufficient for salvation–for that matter, how can you be certain there IS as God?

I CAN be certain. If I can’t rely on my own judgement–i can rely on the Magesterium–protected by the God I have faith exists.

(And, I would never attack YOU!)

The same way I can be certian that the sun is going to rise. Remember, doubt is the lack of certianty. Faith is the absence of doubt. Unless you want to say that you have PERFECT faith, then you have some degree of doubt. We are all progressively growing in faith, dispelling all doubt. The Holy Spirit is convicting us giving us more assurance all the time. We now see in a mirror dimly.

So unless you want to say that you have perfect faith, then you don’t have infallible certianty.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

(And, I would never attack YOU!)

You rule!! . . . next to God of course. . . and Jesus . . . oh, the Holy Spirit too . . then there is that Mary thing . . . Ok, you are just cool.

See you tomorrw. I have to go teach two classes on Bibliology and Hermeneutics and Introduction to Theology. Pray for me.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

In your opinion, but who is to say that your opinion is right?

I believe one God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord Who by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the virgin Mary and became man.For our sake he was crucified under Pontious Pilate,he suffered died and was buried,on the third day he rose again.He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the Holy Catholic Church,the communion of Saints the forgiveness of sins ressurection of the dead and life everlasting.Amen
This is the short version.

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

I believe one God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord Who by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the virgin Mary and became man.For our sake he was crucified under Pontious Pilate,he suffered died and was buried,on the third day he rose again.He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the Holy Catholic Church,the communion of Saints the ressurection of the dead and life everlasting.Amen
This is the short version.

Amen!! The regula Fedei. I am with you here.

But, Lisa, you failed to answer the question. Who is to say that your opinion is right?

If you say the Roman Catholic Church, that is still just an opinion. It is ad infinitum. You have to go to the moral certianty and admit some degree of fallibility. Therefore, you have to study hard and trust the Lord, just like the Protestants.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

You rule!! . . . next to God of course. . . and Jesus . . . oh, the Holy Spirit too . . then there is that Mary thing . . . Ok, you are just cool.

See you tomorrw. I have to go teach two classes on Bibliology and Hermeneutics and Introduction to Theology. Pray for me.

Michael

Will do!

…And i’ll throw in some Hail Mary’s that you get that circular reasoning thing worked out!

Peace! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_8_10.gif

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Amen!! The regula Fedei. I am with you here.

But, Lisa, you failed to answer the question. Who is to say that your opinion is right?

If you say the Roman Catholic Church, that is still just an opinion. It is ad infinitum. You have to go to the moral certianty and admit some degree of fallibility. Therefore, you have to study hard and trust the Lord, just like the Protestants.

Michael

The Catholics do trust the Lord Michael and we trusted when Jesus set up His Church and the Authority of the Church,and we trust that in obedience and Faith in Jesus and His bride the Church and the Word of God.God Bless

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

In the context they are obvously the same. The first sentence is the header, the following are explainations of it. There are not two traditions of this statement.

Besides, this is an Orthodox and Protestant agreement. Don’t read it through Roman Catholic eyes.

The problem with your statement is that the Orthodox view of Tradition and Scripture is essentially the same as the Catholic view of the relationship. I would suggest, actually, that your are viewing it through “Protestanized” eyes, as is evidenced by your confounding of “tradition” and Holy Tradition.

michaelp:

Actually, I have said that there is no difference. Tradition is the Gospel which is the Regula Fidei which is a summary of the basic message of Scripture as is the Apostle Creed.

Still backwards. Scripture is a summary of Holy Tradition.

michaelp:

That is right, but it also says that Tradition is subject to Scripture. This is the point of sola Scriptura. It is not a rejection of tradition at all. It is a statment of faith that says that all traditions are subject to the testimony of Scripture.

No, it says “tradition” (not Holy Tradition) is subject to Scripture. Holy (what Catholics would call Sacred) Tradition and Scripture are complementary and equal. What the statement is clearly stating is that to determine of a tradition is part of Holy Tradition, it is to be tested against Scripture. This is in no way saying that Holy Tradition is subject to Scripture.

I’ll give you an example. A tradition of the both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is that St. Joseph was an elderly widower with children, who was chosen by the Holy Spirit to take Mary, a consecrated virgin into his home as a protector. Now such a tradition is to be tested against Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture, then it can’t be Considered part of Holy Tradition. (I wonder how many Protestants are confortable with this “tradition”, by the way. Further, the Orthodox refer to this tradition as the explanation for the “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Scripture).

michaelp:

I do understand that you don’t believe this, but you cannot misrepresent this statement that is made by Anglicans and Orthodox. It is not meant to say that Roman Catholics would agree. Most would not agree with this statement.

I do agree with the statement, as would any Catholic. What I (we)don’t agree with is your incorrect interpretation of the statement.

michaelp:

Actually, I do agree with this. But I would say that tradition can be true, without necessarily being infallible. Infallibility implies that WE KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTIANTY that such and such tradition acurately represents the message of the Gospel. We don’t. With Scripture, we do.

So, we have a high respect for tradition, but do, like the Orthodox, believe that traditions ultimately submits to Scripture.

Michael

I think you’d be disappointed to learn that the Orthodox would not agree with your statement (although you misunderstand infallibility). The Orthodox adhere to the revealed truth, through Holy Tradition of such doctrines as the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, and her Dormition, e.g., neither of which are explicitly spelled out in Scripture. I would venture to say however, that any Orthodox Christian believes in both WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. So much for Holy Tradition submitting to Scripture.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

Tradition=regula fidei=safeguard against faulty Biblical interpretation

Agreed.

Furthermore, I am increasingly disturbed by the slipperiness between the terms ‘the message of Scripture’ and ‘Scripture.’

It is virtually impossible to have this conversation without determining which Scripture we are talking about. Which translation? Translations?

For the message tends to mutate according to the form of scripture. At least the understanding of the message tends to mutate. The form of scripture mutates according to its translation; it in turn according to the translator; it in turn according to who promotes that translator.

Some of us have said this already. This is very much a question of people over ideas; community over concept.

As for michael’s link to postmodernism. OK, so I bit. However these pages are going to take over an hour to download and I just don’t have the time. The reason I bit is that recently on the BBC message boards, there has been a mad fad toward postmodernism in an effort to support many Protestant points of view. When questioned further, not one poster was able to demonstrate knowledge of postmodern thought but in fact was quoting writers many times removed from the original postmodern texts.

This is significant because as much as postmodern method can argue for Protestant points of view, it can just as easily argue for Catholic points of view or any other points of view. Postmodernism questions foundational texts – all foundational texts equally – while providing the means for pluralist examinations.

Rather than providing links, Michael, I would ask you (again) to set out your thinking in steps. If you need to refer to your previous tracts to do that, then please do so; but please use the quote button instead of the link button. I would be happier to participate in this thread as a discussion rather than as a research assignment in a course for which I don’t remember signing up.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

dennisknapp:

I feel this is a trick question. If a Catholic were to say that Scripture contains all this necessary for salvation then a Protestant can come back and reply, “Ok, you have said that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, correct? Now let’s get down to the issue of proper exegesis…So on and so forth…”

If a Catholic answers in the affirmative the issue turns away from Church teaching regarding both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to the issue of Protestant exegesis of Scripture alone.

Peace

I have the same feeling.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Who decides on the interpretation? The same people that decide on the interpretation of your catechism and the Magisterium. Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it is tough and there are disagreements . . . hey, this thead itself shows that there are many disagreements among Roman Catholics on this issue. Those who "recognize his voice."Michael

Who decides on the interpretation?

In a world cut loose from the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, it seems everybody and his or her brother decides on the interpretation. And this in the name of ‘truth.’

But let us look at the term 'truth. What are people looking for when they say they only want the truth? And how is truth promoted? Often truth is promoted in the form of textual or conceptual ideas only. Concern is for whether someone or some text is telling the truth; relating something accurately.

The truth of the Catholic Church differs in that it is a ‘living’ truth; it is apprehended in the lives chosen by Her people and in the societies chosen by Her people. The supremacy of the individual may make a lot of sense on paper, but it inevitably devolves to who is top dog. This is not a question of accuracy but of power.

The Catholic appeal to the Magisterium is not so much an ascertainment of who is top dog, but an assurance to Her community that it will be preserved, not marginalized. This sort of truth enlarges the concerns of accuracy (particularly historical accuracy) to a concern to include and be of benefit to human experience.

There may be (as you suggest) disagreements among Catholics on this board. Catholics on this board indeed may be struggling to understand what is the greater good among themselves and in the company of non-Catholics. But this intellectual and spiritual rigour cannot be equated to that of the Magisterium. Just because some Catholics disagree on some points in some conservations does not mean that they disagree as one Church on principal points in the one conversation that counts: that of salvation.

There is a level to Catholic life which non-Catholics may not readily understand. And I think it is intuitive, not doctrinal. We debate all the time. But where we cannot agree or where we experience incomplete understanding, we cede to the authoritative teaching of the Church. And it is not because we are lukewarm and wishy washy. Consider that our Church contains every kind of society from closed, shame-centred societies to open, postmodern societies; every stripe of thinker from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal. We cede to the authoritative teaching of the Church because we have far too much to lose by insisting that only one segment of our population is right. As I said, ‘truth’ for a Catholic is about community over concept.

Consider that Jesus did not say he possessed the truth; He said he is the truth. “…I am the way and the truth and the life.” (Jn14:6) This attribute of truth is personal not conceptual.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

All information, by definition, must be interpreted–no matter who it comes from.

Partly true. The ‘being’ of an item of information is influenced by the context of its author, by the context of its reader, and by its own formal structure, limitations, and degree of mutability.

michaelp:

This is evidenced by all the varying interpretations of the Magisterium’s statements on “extra ecclesia nulla salus” and “invincible ignorance.”

Non seq. There is no relation whatsover (let alone cause and effect) between your claim ‘all information…must be interpreted’ and by ‘varying interpretation of the Magisterial statements on extra ecclesai nulla salus and invincible ignorance.’

michaelp:

Many different interpretations of an infallible interpretation. Interesting, huh?

Not really.

michaelp:

All information is interpreted according to the context in which the hearer recieves it.

Ah, but how limited is the context in which the hearer/reader receives it? How much is the hearer/reader the author or his or her own context? Actively or passively? How much of someone’s context is transformative? Again a divide reveals itself between the concept of truth and the experience of truth. Information versus transformation. Community over concept.

michaelp:

That is why all information is subject to interpretation

Circular reasoning: “All information is interpreted…that is why all information is subject to interpretation.”

michaelp:

We all have differing cultures, languages, backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes that contribute to the way we interpret any information.

True. However, a seeker of Wisdom enlarges the culture, language, backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes available to him or her. The Magisterium is about that enlargement.

michaelp:

To say that the Magisterium does not need to be interpreted is niave in my opinion.

It may be naive. It may even be natural. But this particular claim begs the question and implicitly equivocates on the term ‘interpret.’ Individual interpretation may occur as a reflex action, as a natural response. However, the seeker of Wisdom does not satisfy himself or herself with individual interpretation. The influence of authorial context, the influence of reader context, and the influence of formalist features are rightfully weighed in the pursuit of Wisdom. And all of these things are in fact weighed within the Magisterium because, as I have suggested earlier, it is not simply the informative features of teaching with which the Magisterium concerns itself but the transformative features of teaching.

michaelp:

Here is the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…hlight=michaelp

Michael

Please just quote the parts to which you wish to refer and set out your thinking in steps. It makes the discussion easier for me to follow. Thank you.

 

[Absalom]

The earliest Christians had many books from which they read in the observance of the liturgy of the word. Many of them are not considered canonical now (like the Didache, the letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) and some books that ARE considered canonical now were rejected by some Christians (like Revelation). The Church settled the matter of which of the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit at Carthage. Now, if Catholic Church has the authority to infallibly tell the faithful which of the apostles’ memoirs, letters, etc, are canonical and the inspired word of God, then the question has to be asked: Which is more authoritative, the Church, or the Bible?

This is why the doctrine of scripture alone strikes me as so ridiculous. Anyone who believes that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God is indebted to the magisterium of the Catholic Church for that belief (whether they realize it or not). The Catholic Church is the reason why most of us are not quoting the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocolypse of Peter and the letters of Clement when defending our faith.

I realize this doesn’t exactly answer the question, but I think it’s important to consider when discussing whether the Scriptures are complete or sufficient.

God bless all of you and lead you into truth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I would say that tradition can be true, without necessarily being infallible.

:bigyikes: If you are saying that ‘tradition’ (small ‘t’, or ‘custom’) can be true sometimes, somewhere but not always, everwhere, then I agree. In fact this is self-evident.

michaelp:

Infallibility implies that WE KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTIANTY that such and such tradition acurately represents the message of the Gospel.

Always and everywhere.

michaelp:

We don’t.

You have not demonstrated this. :nope:

\ With Scripture, we do.

You have not demonstrated this. :nope:

michaelp:

So, we have a high respect for tradition, but do, like the Orthodox, believe that traditions ultimately submits to Scripture.

Yes, evidently you do believe this. But you have not offered compelling evidence for the Wisdom of believing this.

Michael