I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;8563275]Yes, and I find this to be a peculiar form of intellectual dishonesty.

Well, I wouldn’t say dishonesty, but I certainly would see it as unreasonable to not at least look at the totallity of history.

Is this the “I’ll know Scripture when I see it” paradigm?

Or perhaps “…when the Spirit shows me”, but even at that I would let those who believe this way express their view.

How else does one discern what is Scripture without an outside authority?

The Holy Spirit.

How is it that you consider “historically disputed” to be a criterion for rejecting the deuterocanon yet also accept the “historically disputed” books of James and Revelation (et al) as theopneustos?

Like I said, we don’t necessarily reject the D-C’s. Plus the level and types of disputes are different, going back to the Hebrew canon vs the LXX. I will reject here any claim of being an expert - just what I’ve read.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablo,
Since Cal is no longer able to respond, it is hard to know just exactly what he meant by this. In general, however, I think it is possible to embrace scripture without the a role of the Catholic Church, if by that one means those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Not trying to parce here, but one doesn’t need Trent, Hippo, Carthage, to embrace scripture. One could look to the early unified Church, or even post-schism Orthodoxy.
OTOH, even Luther recognized the great role the Catholic Church plays in the history of Christendom:

To simply ignore the role of first the unified Church and later the western See in Rome in our understanding of the faith and scripture just doesn’t seem to me to be reasonable. Again, I’m not saying anything about Cal since he isn’t able to respond, but just speaking in a general way.

Jon

\

Hi, Jon…sure, I agree it is possible to “embrace”…but before even one can begin to embrace…one needs prior knowledge of what is scripture…that that someone already had some sort of teaching and discernment…about scripture. CalC…in insisting on going back to Moses…seems to have had a different mindset.

And we agree the role of the unified Church in this.

pablope

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PRmerger,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.
’
Indeed, all Christian’s can warmly ‘embrace’ the scriptures and should do so, but that does not mean that they can privately interpret them. Private interpretation leads a man along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions and doctrinal chaos.

The notion of ‘bible alone’ was almost unheard of until Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. Moreover, if it were true then all Christians for up to fifteen centuries were in gross error as to the source of their faith, until God sent Mr. Luther to put everyone right. This means that, for all those centuries, Christ failed to keep his promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to the whole truth and be with them forever, and that He Himself would be with them to the end of time. As a result, the sola scriptura theory destroys belief in Christ and the Bible.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I agree with all you say, Portrait, with one exception. All of us are given the freedom to privately interpret Scripture–just not to the point where it contravenes doctrine/dogma.

For example, let’s say I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

 

[pablope]

On the issue of authorship, this was a big issue for Luther, and one of the reasons he, following the lead of others throughout the history of the Church, had questions regarding James.

Jon

I think CalC had a different issue/idea with that of Luther.

Here is what he said (in post 689)… “WHO the penmen were of most of the books regarded as Scripture is entirely unknown - and entirely irrelevant. By the way, no one knows who was the penmen for the other 3 Gospels, either. Couldn’t matter less.”…in determining scripture.

Well, following all what he said…how could you determine canonicity without knowing who the author was, and without the role of the Church?

That is why I asked him to demonstrate it. He evaded it twice…before he got banned.

 

[PRmerger]

Or perhaps “…when the Spirit shows me”, but even at that I would let those who believe this way express their view.

The Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit tells a baptized Christian that the Odes of Solomon are inspired, then by this criterion it is?

Like I said, we don’t necessarily reject the D-C’s.

Yes, I understand.

You will reject it as a measure for forming doctrine because of its disputed historicity.

Yet you will not reject James and Revelation as a measure for forming doctrine, right? Were they also not disputed?

 

[Portrait]

Well, I wouldn’t say dishonesty, but I certainly would see it as unreasonable to not at least look at the totallity of history.

Or perhaps “…when the Spirit shows me”, but even at that I would let those who believe this way express their view.

The Holy Spirit.

Like I said, we don’t necessarily reject the D-C’s. Plus the level and types of disputes are different, going back to the Hebrew canon vs the LXX. I will reject here any claim of being an expert - just what I’ve read.

Jon

Dear Jon,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The Holy Spirit discerns what Scripture is through the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter, not through a multitude of ecclesial communions, all *claiming *to be true.

In any event, the practical proof of the insufficiency of the bible as a sole rule of faith is the diversity of belief among Protestants, every extravagance of doctrine being professedly based on someone’s interpretation of the sacred text - and, crucially, no agreed authority to settle disputes even over fundamental doctrines and moral issues.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I agree with all you say, Portrait, with one exception. All of us are given the freedom to privately interpret Scripture–just not to the point where it contravenes doctrine/dogma.

For example, let’s say I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

Dear PRmerger,

Fair comment, I take your point that God may speak to you through the word of Sacred Scripture. However, is it wise to “open the word randomly”, even in a devotional context? Have you heard the oft repeated anecdote about a man who was sincerely seeking divine guidance and opened his bible randomly to the text that said “and Judas went out and hung himself”? Horrified, he quickly closed his bible and opened it again, this time he came to the text which said “Go thou and do likewise”. That is probably not on all fours with the example which you gave and approaches more to using the bible like some sort of ‘lucky dip’, rather than sincerely turning to it for a message/assurance from God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;8563397]If the Holy Spirit tells a baptized Christian that the Odes of Solomon are inspired, then by this criterion it is?

I guess you’d have to ask them. As you can tell, I don’t hold that POV.

You will reject it as a measure for forming doctrine because of its disputed historicity.

Yet you will not reject James and Revelation as a measure for forming doctrine, right? Were they also not disputed?

Like I said, types and levels of dispute.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PRmerger,

Fair comment, I take your point that God may speak to you through the word of Sacred Scripture. However, is it wise to “open the word randomly”, even in a devotional context? Have you heard the oft repeated anecdote about a man who was sincerely seeking divine guidance and opened his bible randomly to the text that said “and Judas went out and hung himself”? Horrified, he quickly closed his bible and opened it again, this time he came to the text which said “Go thou and do likewise”. That is probably not on all fours with the example which you gave and approaches more to using the bible like some sort of ‘lucky dip’, rather than sincerely turning to it for a message/assurance from God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Heh. Yes, I am not a proponent of Biblical Roulette.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess you’d have to ask them. As you can tell, I don’t hold that POV.

And what would you say to a Christian who tells you that the Holy Spirit guided him into believing that the Odes of Solomon are inspired? And because of something it says in the text he now believes that Jesus is not divine?

Do you think this man is in need of evangelization towards the Truth of Christ’s divinity?

Do you acknowledge and affirm his POV, given that the HS guided him here?

 

[JonNC]

=Portrait;8563413]Dear Jon,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Mutual wishes.

The Holy Spirit discerns what Scripture is through the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter, not through a multitude of ecclesial communions, all *claiming *to be true.

I know this to be the Catholic POV, though I suspect your statement must include with “ecclesial communities” those in Orthodoxy who have a different canon and are apart from “the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter”.

In any event, the practical proof of the insufficiency of the bible as a sole rule of faith is the diversity of belief among Protestants, every extravagance of doctrine being professedly based on someone’s interpretation of the sacred text - and, crucially, no agreed authority to settle disputes even over fundamental doctrines and moral issues.

One could say also that the practical proof of the insufficiency of Tradtion is the diversity of belief among those who claim it, as well.

Pax

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Portrait]

Mutual wishes.

I know this to be the Catholic POV, though I suspect your statement must include with “ecclesial communities” those in Orthodoxy who have a different canon and are apart from “the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter”.

One could say also that the practical proof of the insufficiency of Tradtion is the diversity of belief among those who claim it, as well.

And also with you,
Jon

Dear Jon,

Thankyou for your response above.

Orthodoxy is acknowldeged by Rome as having valid orders and thus is part of the one true Church of Christ - it is not an ecclesial community like say the church of England.

There is unanimity of belief as touching Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church, for the Church decides which Traditions are authentic and which are to be received as such by the faithful.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[JonNC]

Dear Jon,

Thankyou for your response above.

Orthodoxy is acknowldeged by Rome as having valid orders and thus is part of the one true Church of Christ - it is not an ecclesial community like say the church of England.

There is unanimity of belief as touching Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church, for the Church decides which Traditions are authentic and which are to be received as such by the faithful.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

While I believe you did not respond to the issue of schism among those who claim Tradition, I bid you His peace.

Jon

 

[louis91766]

There is unanimity of belief as touching Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church, for the Church decides which Traditions are authentic and which are to be received as such by the faithful.

I am not sure that there is unanimity of belief. Have there not been differences in belief on the following:

1. Filioque
2. The Blood was shed for all.
3. Slavery. Should slaves be obedient or subject to their masters?
4. Capital punishment.
5. Is torture ever justified?
6. Is burning of heretics at the stake justified?
7. Should women be silent in the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not sure that there is unanimity of belief. Have there not been differences in belief on the following:

1. Filioque
2. The Blood was shed for all.
3. Slavery. Should slaves be obedient or subject to their masters?
4. Capital punishment.
5. Is torture ever justified?
6. Is burning of heretics at the stake justified?
7. Should women be silent in the Church?

Could you please cite the Orthodox position, and how it differs from Catholicism, on points 2-7?

Thanks.

 

[louis91766]

Could you please cite the Orthodox position, and how it differs from Catholicism, on points 2-7?

Thanks.

The question I had was whether or not the teaching on those issues has changed within the 2000 years of the Church? I am understanding unanimity of opinion to mean that the teaching has been unanimous within the 2000 year period.

 

[PRmerger]

The question I had was whether or not the teaching on those issues has changed within the 2000 years of the Church? I am understanding unanimity of opinion to mean that the teaching has been unanimous within the 2000 year period.

No, louis, the teaching on those issues hasn’t “changed” but it has developed.

And unanimity of opinion does NOT mean teaching has been unanimous within the 2000 year period. That is not a Catholic position.

 

[louis91766]

No, louis, the teaching on those issues hasn’t “changed” but it has developed.

And unanimity of opinion does NOT mean teaching has been unanimous within the 2000 year period. That is not a Catholic position.

So the teaching has varied and is not now what it was before?
The Traditional teaching in the early Church was that women were to wear headcovering. This is not the Traditional teaching now, is it?
The Traditional teaching was that the Blood was shed for many. The teaching now is tha the Blood was shed for all, at least in the USA. But this is not the teaching in Italy today, is it?

 

[PRmerger]

So the teaching has varied and is not now what it was before?
The Traditional teaching in the early Church was that women were to wear headcovering. This is not the Traditional teaching now, is it?
The Traditional teaching was that the Blood was shed for many. The teaching now is tha the Blood was shed for all, at least in the USA. But this is not the teaching in Italy today, is it?

Ah, I see where your question arises.

You seem to be using “teaching” as a generic for “everything that the Church has ever written.”

Traditional teaching can mean discipline (which can change), opinions (which can change), theological speculation (which can change), doctrine (which cannot change) and dogma (which cannot change).

So it was a teaching (here, read discipline) that women wear head coverings in church.

This discipline has indeed changed.

 

[louis91766]

Ah, I see where your question arises.

You seem to be using “teaching” as a generic for “everything that the Church has ever written.”

Traditional teaching can mean discipline (which can change), opinions (which can change), theological speculation (which can change), doctrine (which cannot change) and dogma (which cannot change).

So it was a teaching (here, read discipline) that women wear head coverings in church.

This discipline has indeed changed.

In the Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches, in their creed, they say that the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father. In the Roman Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This is not a disciplinary teaching.