G
Genesis315
Guest
Scripture isn’t necessary for salvation at all. If it were, none of the first generation Christians would have been saved, including the apostles.
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Adherence doesn’t make it history.Then it must be interpreted ad infinitum.
But the point that we need to make here is that no one agrees whether the message of Scripture is sufficient for salvation.
If you say that it is not, then you definitely part with historic Christianity that the Orthodox and Protestants adhere to, that the regula fidei (tradition) is a summary of orthodoxy taken from what is now contained in Scripture.
:bigyikes: Good grief! You lost me there. Maybe it is late and I’m tired but how is sanctification connected to scriptural sufficiency? Can you break that down a little, because I did not follow you from premise to conclusion.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Absalom!:
Salvation is transformative, not (solely) informative. What then is the object of Salvation? Is it an idea? No. Is it a concept? No. The object of Salvation is our ‘being.’ Our ‘being’ is intimately entwined with the ‘being’ of other human persons. And with God who is also a Person. Three in fact.
While it can be said that some texts are transformative and, while it can often be said that Scripture is transformative, what do we really mean when we say these things? What is transforming in us is not only the ideas which we hold but also the way in which we hold those ideas. Those ideas may be transformed but only as a secondary effect of the primary transformation of our own being. And let us keep in mind that someone had to write those ideas. The ideas did not write themselves.
Try understanding Einsteins Theory of Relativity without understanding Einstein’s sojourn in the customs office (watching the lights) and ultimately without understanding Einstein himself and how he experienced the world (specifically the problems of the world). Uh-uh. Ain’t gonna happen. We need to understand the problem before we can apprehend the solution. The problem ultimately is a human problem. We understand the human problem by relating to the human who has the problem. This is the soul of delving into author-context. The soul of reconciling self with other.
Is it an accident that reformist thinking went hand-in-hand with the privatization of the individual? The divorce of self from other?
The question then of who is the final arbiter of interpretation is moot. It is the community which God has created and in which God finds himself: the Church. The deposit of faith was to the Church, not to Scripture. The deposit of faith was to persons, not ideas. The deposit of faith was to community not to concepts.
I think it does address the question. Scripture lacks something which Tradition (Oral Teaching) has in abundance: people. God the Father is a person. The Holy Spirit is a person. Jesus is not only a person but a human person.
Salvation is transformative, not (solely) informative. What then is the object of Salvation? Is it an idea? No. Is it a concept? No. The object of Salvation is our ‘being.’ Our ‘being’ is intimately entwined with the ‘being’ of other human persons. And with God who is also a Person. Three in fact.
While it can be said that some texts are transformative and, while it can often be said that Scripture is transformative, what do we really mean when we say these things? What is transforming in us is not only the ideas which we hold but also the way in which we hold those ideas. Those ideas may be transformed but only as a secondary effect of the primary transformation of our own being. And let us keep in mind that someone had to write those ideas. The ideas did not write themselves.
Try understanding Einsteins Theory of Relativity without understanding Einstein’s sojourn in the customs office (watching the lights) and ultimately without understanding Einstein himself and how he experienced the world (specifically the problems of the world). Uh-uh. Ain’t gonna happen. We need to understand the problem before we can apprehend the solution. The problem ultimately is a human problem. We understand the human problem by relating to the human who has the problem. This is the soul of delving into author-context. The soul of reconciling self with other.
Is it an accident that reformist thinking went hand-in-hand with the privatization of the individual? The divorce of self from other?
The question then of who is the final arbiter of interpretation is moot. It is the community which God has created and in which God finds himself: the Church. The deposit of faith was to the Church, not to Scripture. The deposit of faith was to persons, not ideas. The deposit of faith was to community not to concepts.
M
michaelp
Guest
Ani Ibi said:
Ani Ibi,
Your conversation has been gracious and informing. But I keep pointing you to other threads because most of your questions have been answered on those threads. I don’t have time to redo what has already been sufficiently done there. Some of them are over 400 posts long and I am the only Protestant discussing!!! It is tedious for me to say the same things over and over again.
You say that I have not demonstrated my assumptions to be true. Maybe, but neither have you to any degree. Neither one of us has been trying to prove our position, but explain it.
Your usage of the fallacies of circular reasoning and non sequitur are not applicable to my arguements. I think that you need to look up in a dictionary to be sure of what they mean.
If, after you look them up, you still think that I am committing these fallacies, then we are just talking past each other. I guess that we are “misinterpreting” each other!!! You see, all info does have to be interpreted.
What it comes down to is this:
- You start with fallibility in yourselves. I start with fallibility in myself.
- You fallibly interpret an infallible magisterium that interprets an infallible Scripture. I fallibly interpret an infallible Scripture.
- We both start in the same place and have to deal with the same problems. I just cut out the middle man in whom there no reason to place absolute trust and authority.
Michael
T
teajay
Guest
Michael, you talk of all texts being subject to interpretation. I agree with you on that. But I feel that we disagree on another aspect, and that is the scope of the interpretation that is open to us. Clearly we all interpret what we observe. We observe then we interpret. Our beliefs stem not from what we observe, but from how we interpret it. That much we agree upon (I assume).Then it must be interpreted ad infinitum.
But that is not to say that all matters permit equal scope in interpretation. On something like whether a person or object is beautiful, there can be as many interpretations are there are interpreters. But what about the issue of whether something is an object or a person? How many can reasonably disagree on whether a vase is or is not a person? There is interpretation, but only one ‘alternative’ is reasonable.
My opinion of Church teachings is that they are capable of far greater precision than the Bible itself is capable of. And more than that, the Church can resolve ambiguity by clarifying its own teachings over time. People can ask questions and get authoritative answers, not just opinions. Essentially it has the ability to clarify ambiguity to the point where all reasonable minded people can agree on what the position of the Catholic Church is. You can know what they believe on what is essential.
Some verses in the Bible are very clear. Like the objective status of a vase, they can be readily agreed upon by all reasonable minded observers. But on other areas, there are numerous interpretations possible. Some are crucial to salvation. Where there is ambiguity on such crucial matters, isn’t an interpreter with authority required to resolve it? And although the recipient of that information must also interpret it as part of there mental processes (‘interpret the interpretation’), they are not engaging in the same form of interpretation. One form of interpretation, due to ambiguity in the text, has several reasonable options. The other, where the text of the interpretation is practically unambiguous, has only one.
Now I’m not suggesting that all Church documents are completely unambiguous, or even that language is capable of removing all conceivable ambiguity. What I do suggest, though, is that the teachings of the Catholic Church are clearer and more unambiguous than those of Protestantism in general. The Bible is a large, an in many cases, ambiguous document. It permits many reasonable interpretations. I feel that this makes an external, and less ambiguous, mechanism necessary. If I want to know whether contraception is permissible, I can find out with practical certainty (do you have any reasonable doubt on what the Catholic Church teaches on this?). If I want to know whether faith alone or faith and works are necessary, I can get an answer. Given I believe that an external mechanism of validation is necessary, and only a few churches even claim to have that authority, the choice of Catholicism over Protestantism, at least for me, was not at all unreasonable. (The choice of the Catholic Church over other’s that claim interpretive authority is another matter).
Also, I have to say thanks for participating in this discussion. Oh actually, starting this discussion! I think that by learning more about each others belief systems, and the motivations of each other for believing what we believe, we can make great progress in removing conflict.
S
st_felicity
Guest
You probably have a post somewhere else on this…
…but how do you interpret passages in the Bible that say (paraphrased) “it ain’t all here” and “don’t interpret on your own–it’s dangerous…”? Doesn’t that prove that the Bible isn’t sufficient?And what about the Bible saying His church would be protected against “the gates of hell”? Isn’t that saying the church would be protected against destruction? Thus infallible on issues of faith and morals?
P.S. Are you equating inerrant and infallible?
P.P.S. Hope your classes went well!!
M
mtr01
Guest
I have always thought it was interesting that the main text used to support the material sufficiency of scripture (2Tim 3:16-17) is preceded by another text, in a previous letter from the same person to the same person which says:You probably have a post somewhere else on this…
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. If the Church is the pillar of Truth, then Scripture cannot supplant it.
M
Mickey
Guest
It’s called apostolic succession, Michael. The magisterium means apostolic succession. So, if you deny the magesterium you deny everything from Jesus to the apostles to the disciples of the apostles to the disciples of the disciples of the apostles …etc.
That’s why we are certain! We are not lost in a sea of skeptism, and for that, we thank the Lord. **Glory To Jesus Christ! Glory Forever! **
M
mtr01
Guest
Michael, I just ran across this as I was looking into another topic, and I wanted your opinion on it. You say that the Orthodox agree with the statement that Tradition is subject to Scripture, correct? If that is indeed what you believe, how do you reconcile this statement from an Orthodox source with your interpretation?
It is pretty clear that the Orthodox view Scripture as a subset of Tradition, and that Tradition is not subject to Scripture, which is the Catholic view on the matter (as usual, it seems the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox position is an issue of semantics). I see this as being totally at odds with the Evangelical postion you are espousing.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
**
michaelp:
What it contains and what it is are indistinguishable.
Moreover your assertion assumes that the kind of knowledge offered by Scripture is the kind of knowledge which is sufficient. As a text, Scripture offers informative knowledge. And so it is profitable, but not sufficient. The kind of knowledge which is sufficient is salvific, or transformative knowledge. Why did Simon overcome his reluctance, fear, and just plain ‘stuff’ to help Jesus carry the cross? Why did Veronica overcome her fear and just plain ‘stuff’ to wipe Jesus’s face? Why did the Jewish women weep? Why did the thief on the cross repent? And so on.
Because they experienced first-hand direct, salvific knowledge which transformed them. That knowledge took the form of an encounter with the presence of Jesus as a person, not as a concept. That knowledge was transformative, not informative. That knowledge was personal, not conceptual, not textual.
**
What it contains and what it is are indistinguishable.
Moreover your assertion assumes that the kind of knowledge offered by Scripture is the kind of knowledge which is sufficient. As a text, Scripture offers informative knowledge. And so it is profitable, but not sufficient. The kind of knowledge which is sufficient is salvific, or transformative knowledge. Why did Simon overcome his reluctance, fear, and just plain ‘stuff’ to help Jesus carry the cross? Why did Veronica overcome her fear and just plain ‘stuff’ to wipe Jesus’s face? Why did the Jewish women weep? Why did the thief on the cross repent? And so on.
Because they experienced first-hand direct, salvific knowledge which transformed them. That knowledge took the form of an encounter with the presence of Jesus as a person, not as a concept. That knowledge was transformative, not informative. That knowledge was personal, not conceptual, not textual.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
**
**
**1. You start with fallibility in yourselves. I start with fallibility in myself. **
2. You fallibly interpret an infallible magisterium that interprets an infallible Scripture. I fallibly interpret an infallible Scripture.
3. We both start in the same place and have to deal with the same problems. I just cut out the middle man in whom there no reason to place absolute trust and authority.
I disagree for the following reasons (referencing the Catholic Answers apologetics page):
-
Code:
The Catholic Church started with examining the available texts, using the tools for lit crit expected of people schooled in lit crit. Yes, lit crit is a fallible mechanism. -
Code:
The Catholic Church then proceeded to determine which assertions in those texts could plausibly be assumed to be historically accurate, using the tools for historical analysis expected of people schooled in history. Yes, historical analysis is a fallible mechanism. -
Code:
Having ascertained that certain of those texts were historically accurate, the Catholic Church then “purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of His Resurrection we have reason to take seriously His claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.” -
Code:
One of the things that the Catholic Church teaches is that the Bible is ‘inspired.’ -
Code:
This teaching is **not** derived by means of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would look like this: The Bible is inspired because the Church says that the Bible is inspired and the Church is infallible **AND** the Church is infallible because the Bible says that the Church is infallible and the Bible is inspired. In other words the final conclusion is a restatement of the initial finding. -
Code:
The teaching of the Catholic Church is derived by means of spiral reasoning as follows: The Church ascertains that the Bible is historically accurate. The Bible tells us that the Church is infallible. The infallible Church tells us that the Bible is inspired. The final conclusion is **not** a restatement of the initial finding. - So (presumably) you and the Catholic Church both agree that the Bible is inspired. However, your methodology is flawed by circular reasoning while the metholodogy of the Church is not. The conclusion that the Bible is inspired “can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.”
-
Code:
This being the case, then the Bible is **profitable** for salvation but **not sufficient** for salvation. Salvation is found in the Church which Jesus founded and its arena of influence.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Now you might well point out that the Catholic Church seemed to start out in a position of fallibility; that is She used the fallible tools of lit crit and historical analysis. However who do you think the Holy Spirit was guiding in the years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection? The Roman powers who worshipped their own gods? Roman citizens who knew nothing about Jesus? Or those who knew Jesus or who had heard about Jesus and who believed that He was the Son of God who forgave their sins? The latter obviously. So yes, in general, the tools of lit crit and historical analysis are fallible instruments.
But in this particular case (quite apart from the general rule), the Holy Spirit did not abandon those early Christians in whose hands were the tools of lit crit and historical analysis. And the Holy Spirit is infallible.
But in this particular case (quite apart from the general rule), the Holy Spirit did not abandon those early Christians in whose hands were the tools of lit crit and historical analysis. And the Holy Spirit is infallible.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
**
michaelp:
Ah, but you have sidestepped what I have presented about information being NOT the only feature of truth. In any case the question has never been whether or not to interpret. The question has been who has the authority to interpret? What is an authoritative interpretation?
Much in life is indeed open to interpretation. However that does not mean that anybody can legitimately hold just any point of view or make just any interpretation whimsically and expect to be honoured in the arena of legitimate discourse. The key to participation in legitimate discourse is the willingness and dexterity with which the participants appeal to legitimate authority. As opposed to private unsupported opinion.
Ah, but you have sidestepped what I have presented about information being NOT the only feature of truth. In any case the question has never been whether or not to interpret. The question has been who has the authority to interpret? What is an authoritative interpretation?
Much in life is indeed open to interpretation. However that does not mean that anybody can legitimately hold just any point of view or make just any interpretation whimsically and expect to be honoured in the arena of legitimate discourse. The key to participation in legitimate discourse is the willingness and dexterity with which the participants appeal to legitimate authority. As opposed to private unsupported opinion.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
**
michaelp:
I have just demonstrated that the Catholic Church has not started in the same place as you have.
I have also demonstrated that your assertion “there is no reason to place absolute trust and authority” in the “middle man” (presumably the Catholic Church) is not supported.
Moreover, I have demonstrated compelling support for placing absolute trust and authority in the Catholic Church.
**
I have just demonstrated that the Catholic Church has not started in the same place as you have.
I have also demonstrated that your assertion “there is no reason to place absolute trust and authority” in the “middle man” (presumably the Catholic Church) is not supported.
Moreover, I have demonstrated compelling support for placing absolute trust and authority in the Catholic Church.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
**
michaelp:
I have shown some of your reasoning to be circular above. As for ‘non sequitur’ not being applicable to your arguments: this particular assertion is unsupported. Rather than discussing the sections which I have questioned, you have responded simply by dismissing my responses arbitrarily which is unconducive to productive discourse.
**
michaelp:
OK then. Non sequitur: a conclusion that does not follow from the premises; a remark having no bearing on what has just been said. (Webster’s)
I thought I had explained why I thought one of your assertions was a non seq. And I did. Here is what I said: “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.’ “
**
I have shown some of your reasoning to be circular above. As for ‘non sequitur’ not being applicable to your arguments: this particular assertion is unsupported. Rather than discussing the sections which I have questioned, you have responded simply by dismissing my responses arbitrarily which is unconducive to productive discourse.
**
**
OK then. Non sequitur: a conclusion that does not follow from the premises; a remark having no bearing on what has just been said. (Webster’s)
I thought I had explained why I thought one of your assertions was a non seq. And I did. Here is what I said: “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.’ “
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I understand relativism as holding all truth to be relative.
Relativism was a feature of Modernism if memory serves me. Pluralism was a feature of Postmodernism.
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Michael-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.
Michael
You cling to this concept -desperately- in my opinion. Again the alledged “divisions” among Catholics forms your basis for “moral certainty” in justifying Protestant doctrinal proliferation - which is the rule rather than the exception. There is a HUGE difference between the Magisterium communicating to the faithful and the static words in the bible. the difference is called dialogue. The magisterium can CONTINUE to clarify anything unclear if it so chooses and actuallly have dialogue. This has happened on a number of issues - including your favorite “No salvation outside the Church” The magisterium continues to clarify ambiguities of the full meaning of this docrine. Perhaps slowly, perhaps imperfectly, but unquestionably PROGRESSIVELY. Fixed words on a page are incapable of progress. The bible is fixed in this respect and the only possible “clarifications” are not of the bible’s doing, but are the result of the INDIVIDUAL’S INTERPRETATION. Didn’t you say you read Newmann"s “Essays on the development ot Christian Doctrine”? His writing can be difficult to follow, but he covers this very well.
I’ll give you my short and sweet summary:
Is the bible sufficient? Depends on how you define sufficiency. I think the bible is sufficient, but we are insufficient in drawing out the fullness of it’s message. So if some people are incapable, despite their best efforts, of discerning the salvific message of the bible and fall into grave doctrinal error as a result - then is the bible sufficient or not? I would have to side with those who say MATERIAL sufficiency is there, but FORMAL sufficiency is not.
thanks for a great thread-
Phil
Hey- have you seen Pax (pete) around at all?
P
Philthy
Guest
Here we go again Michael! I don’t wanna get going on apples again, but you are truly comparing apples to oranges when you speak of “interpreting” the magisterium in the same manner that you “interpret” the Bible. Every time we have this discussion you choose obtuse topics to demosnstrate the inherent lack of clarity of the teachings of the Magisterium. It just isn’t true and I believe these examples will refute your logic above. Lets take some BASIC issues that Protestants can’t agree on and use the terms that you can find in, say, the CCC and see if there is any “interpretation” required. Ready?Ani Ibi,
I guess that we are “misinterpreting” each other!!! You see, all info does have to be interpreted.
What it comes down to is this:
Thanks, but I will stick with my method for now. Much more defendable. But to see the defense, you are going to have to look at the other threads, like it or not.
- You start with fallibility in yourselves. I start with fallibility in myself.
- You fallibly interpret an infallible magisterium that interprets an infallible Scripture. I fallibly interpret an infallible Scripture.
- We both start in the same place and have to deal with the same problems. I just cut out the middle man in whom there no reason to place absolute trust and authority.
Michael
Q1. Is Sunday the Lord’s Day? A1. Yes
Q2. Is it a sin not to go to Church on Sunday? A2 Yes, unless you are sick or have a dispensation.
Q3. Is the Eucharist simply symbolic? A3. No
Q4. Is it proper to baptize infants? A4. Yes
Q5. Is abortion a sin? A5. Yes
Q6. Is it a sin to be gay? A6. No
Q7. Is it sinful to be actively gay? A7. Yes
Q8. Is it a sin to divorce? A8. Yes, unless you get an annulment first.
I could go on and on with simple questions(which Protestants will vary on) with simple answers that do not require interpretation. There is no “fallible interpretation” required. They are stated in the affirmative or negative. You are confusing DESCRIPTIVE terminology with AFFIRMATIVE terminology (I just made those terms up!) when you apply the concept of interpretation to all communication… There is no interpretation required with YES and NO. Even the Bible says so…Let your Yes be yes and your no be no…
Unfortunately, the Bible is unclear on some of these topics - like infant baptism - and so is the message from the Protestant community. This makes perfect sense: Protestant theology is a function of Scriptural interpretation. Any time the bible is less than perfectly clear we should expect to get mixed messages from the Protestant community. And this is exactly what we can observe readily in our own time.
So you can easily get a clear, absolutely authoritative message requiring NO INTERPRETATION from the Magisterium through a variety of channels, one of which is the CCC. This refutes your contention that we, as Catholics, “fallibly interpret an infallible magisterium that interprets an infallible Scripture” and therefore your “moral certainty” concept of being OK in your self acknowledged fallible interpretation of (Scripture) is a house of cards.
We still love you anyhow…
Phil
M
michaelp
Guest
Hey Phil,
One question: Are you fallible or infallible? If you are fallible then all you have to work with is your own fallible certianty, which by def is guided by moral certianty.
Remember there is nothing wrong with moral certianty. Every decision in life we make is based upon it. Unless you are infallible, that is your only option.
Sorry all . . . I only have a minute to answer. I will be back here and there, but I cannot keep up with this right now. Remember, I am the only Evangelical on this thread.
Have a great day Phil.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Got an email from him the other day. He seems to be doing OK . . . but I have not seen him around on the forum. Why?
Pete, you there?
Michael
- Status