If the Bible is sufficient

[Shibboleth]

In reference to the comment on Joseph “knowing” Mary - I do not know what this means. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word “yada” means “to know” or “to be familiar with” sometimes people use this to mean sexual relations. I don’t think that this is the case most of the time. It is used in the story of the fall of Sodom and people have come to believe that this meant that the people wanted to rape the visitors. I don’t think this is quite right.
“Yada” is used in the Old Testament somewhere around 930 times and it is rarely if every used to define sexual relations.

 

[Puzzled]

While it is true that many lay evangelicals think that Sola Scriptura means what the posters here says it means, that isn’t the actual view. Catholics aren’t the only Christians to have had serious problems with catechesis this past generation.

The full phrase is sola Scriptura supra omne. That is, we do think that the fathers and doctors are important, and ought to be read. Beyond the basic perspicacity of Scripture for coming to faith in Christ and basic morality, interpretation is a collegial matter, as we are all inclined towards sin, even in our intellects. Yet, should it ever come to be the case that there is a real, rather than apparent, disagreement between the Scriptures and the Vincentian tradition (“what has been everywhere and always taught”) it is Scripture, as God’s inerrant communication to us, that is right. Luther, Calvin and the other reformers quoted -extensively- from the fathers and doctors. They obviously didn’t think it wrong to do so!

Too often, Catholic defense of Tradition seems to be a re-presentation of the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ of post-modernism. I seriously doubt that is what Catholic apologists -mean- to be communicating.

“Soul Competency” is a Southern Baptist doctrine alone.

IMO, Catholic apologists should not only correct misconceptions, but also treat the actual Protestant views in their apologetics.

 

[Chris_W]

Puzzled,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Bible is not the ONLY source for religious truths. The faith of the early Fathers, and perhaps other evidences, should be looked at as well? Great. I agree.

But then, if I understand your message correctly, you also say that when there is disagreement, the Bible is used to clarify, or decide between differing opinions? How does this happen when it is the very interpretation of that text which is in question?

I do not mean to mis-represent Sola Scriptura in any of my conversations. Correct me if I am wrong, but whatever the explanation, doesn’t Sola Scriptura ultimately mean the Bible is THE deciding authority?

That is the problem I have with it; No one has been able to explain to me just how the Bible solves disagreement, to avoid the house being divided against itself. Am I missing something here?

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Puzzled:

Too often, Catholic defense of Tradition seems to be a re-presentation of the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ of post-modernism. I seriously doubt that is what Catholic apologists -mean- to be communicating.

That is unfortunately often the case. I’ve seen it numerous times here already and it shows no sign of letting up. IMO - such an approach is far more a product of post-reformation apologetic needs and far less a faithful holding of patristic and medieval views on the value of scripture and language itself…

ken

 

[Puzzled]

In a not-to-distant issue of First Things Catholics were responding “oh, you mean Prima Scriptura!” Well, yes, that is what Protestants have been saying for half a millenium, do you mean to say you(Rome) didn’t understand? But Prima Scriptura doesn’t alliterate with Sola Gratia, etc., and you know how Protestants are for alliteration So, yes, the Bible is the deciding authority, for when there appears to be a disagreement between tradition and Scripture.

How? Well language is understandable, or you would be just as much at loss trying to understand encyclicals and the magesterium, as you say you are regarding the Bible. We see the Text as an objective thing (we are Logocentric in more ways than one), our understanding isn’t, but the Text is. So our task is to continue to study, collegially (and this is where the doctors and fathers come in, along with other living exegetes), and continue to improve our understandings, via the hermeneutical spiral. Our faith is not in perfect understanding, but in Christ and Him Crucified and Raised.

Hypothetically, Augustine or JPII might be wrong on something, but God never would be.

 

[Little_Mary]

homer:

A note to Little Mary about (Upon THIS ROCK (Peter) I will build my Church).

The word Peter means a little stone, and Jesus said that upon this rock he will buil his Church.

This means that we are only small stones and upon the rock that is Jesus Christ the church will be built and not upon any human being.

Just in case you have not gone to the link that MrS4ntA provided, here is part of it:

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is evna.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Also, I don’t understand your last statement. I can’t seem to tie it back to Matthew 16:18. Hmm…

 

[Chris_W]

Puzzled,

There are only two possibilities. Either we can say difinitively what is truth, or we cannot. Which do you believe is the case? Are you suggesting that the methodology you describe arrives at a conclusive answer to disputed beliefs? If so, then why do all those who hold to your methodology (Sola Scriptura) not necessarily agree with each other?

Perhaps I am still misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are suggesting we should accept a general consensus from people we trust as knowlegable, none of whom have any claim of authority. But this requires requires the discerning person to make a judgment as to who we should believe.

It seems to me that without an authoritative truth verifying source to definitively state what we should understand from the words of the Bible, all beliefs that result would be reduced to mere human opinion.

You say the language is understandable. Yet if you ask three people what Jesus meant when He gave Simon the keys to the Kindom of Heaven, you will likely get three very different answers…even from those who are reputed to be Bible scholars.

 

[Sanosuke]

There is an Evangelical scholar named Craig Blomberg who would disagree with you, Puzzled. Blomberg is one of the top scholars in his field, receiving his doctorate on the New Testament. There is so much information that goes into interpreting the Bible: do you know Greek, for instance? I know many atheists who just read the English without the slightest knowledge of Greek and can find several hundred “contradictions” in an hour.

Do you know Jewish history? A lot of things that are said in the Bible were written to a people with a very different culture than ours. They had different figures of speech, different writing styles, and different connotations behind words. Some things don’t even translate (it happens all the time in Japanese; I see it happening just as often in Greek and Hebrew) from language x to English.

How did the early Christians interpret Scripture? Since they obviously spoke Greek, they shed much light on what certain passages mean. It’s important to know what they think of Scripture.

In conclusion, I don’t think the Bible’s language is easy to understand. It takes a lot of studying and a lot of time. Even after all of that, people still don’t agree on what the Bible says!

So who is correct when scholars dispute? The person with the most learning? The person who can speak Greek the best? I have pondered this question, and only one solution seems fair: scholars need to have a cookoff.

Or, we can recognize that the inerrant Bible also has an infallible interpreter. But that’s absurd!..isn’t it?

 

[homer]

LittleMary:

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:8)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST. (1 Coranthians 10:4)

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Coranthians 3:11)

No comment.

 

[PhilVaz]

homer << No comment. >>

Sorry, you aren’t dealing with Matt 16:18. The Catechism is perhaps the most fair since it says, along with many of the Church Fathers:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

There are at least a dozen reasons why Peter = this rock, here they are as given by various Protestant and evangelical biblical scholars:

Let’s summarize what all the Protestant scholars are saying in their commentaries on Matthew 16:18 –

(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;

(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);

(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;

(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;

(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;

(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;

(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;

(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;

(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;

(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;

(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;

(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).

And to bring it back to the topic, the Bible is “sufficient” to at least determine Peter = this rock.

Phil P

 

[Sanosuke]

homer:
LittleMary:

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:8)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST. (1 Coranthians 10:4)

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Coranthians 3:11)

No comment.

Homer, the Apostles are also called the foundation in Ephesians 2:20 with Jesus as the Cornerstone. You are confusing metaphors. How can there be no other foundation but Christ, and at the same time the Apostles are called the foundation? The answer is: they are two different metaphors with two completely different applications. How is it possible for Peter to be the rock (Matthew 16:18) and Christ to be the rock? They are two different metaphors making two different points. Are we being that picky that we can’t allow our Gospel writers any literary leeway?

“For goodness sake, Jesus! Are you the vine, or are you the bread of life? Pick one or the other, but you can’t have both!”

 

[Puzzled]

Little Mary, which text-type of Matthew are you using? Are you using the Peshitta?

Chris W,
Why no utter unanimity? Because we are sinful, fallen creatures. Our intellects are not only finite, but fallen. Even when we do our best, we still are clouded by our wishes, and systematic theologies, unbeknownst to ourselves. That is why we call it the “hermeneutical spiral” each time around we pray to be more conformed in our minds, to Christ (Romans 12:1-2).

We fallen human beings are incapable of -perfect- understanding. But neither do we then despair.
You, for instance, do not despair that the magestrium understand Scripture, and that you understand the magesterium, even though you are adding, not subtracting, layers of interpretation between you and what God had written.

When I say that language is understandable, I mean that if I ask for a glass of lemonade, I will get a glass of lemonade, I won’t be given the latest Dow Jones average instead. It might be powdered instead of fresh-squeezed, but there was still real and significant communication, if not exhaustive communication.

Anyone can read the Bible (if they can read, which is why literacy was so much higher in Protestant countries and in Jewish areas, than in the rest of humanity, including the HRE). They can, if honest, see that God created the universe, that we have sinned, that Christ, God the Son, came in the flesh and died for us on the Cross, and rose again from the dead in that same body. That murder, stealing, adultry, etc. are sin.

That doesn’t mean that every yodh and tsere will be understood perfectly. But there will be sufficient understanding for salvation.

Sanosuke, yes, Greek was a requirement in seminary. Yes, I believe in the grammatical-historical method as laid out in the declarations of the ecumenical Council of Chicago.

Since I don’t have an infallible interpreter of your post, of course I can’t be sure you aren’t talking about the price of tea in China.

PhilVaz,
What homer is doing is looking at the full context of Scripture, which is necessary in interpreting the Text. The Bible is primarily written in narrative, and thus not verses. Except in the relatively small amount of poetry. I assume you are not claiming that Matthew 16 is written in Greek poetic form? Do the eastern Patriarchies agree with the Catholic understanding of Petrine primacy?

 

[Chris_W]

Puzzled,

Thank you for the reply. If I understand you correctly, we should be content to say we simply cannot know for certain what the truth is? As long a person gets the gist of the Bible, that is enough for salvation?

The Gospel of John tells us “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4, 23-24).

Can God expect something from us and not give us the means of accomplishing it? No. God did give us the means of knowing with certainty what is truth. Sola Scriptura, touted by many as the alternative to an infallible church, simply doesn’t work. Sola Scriptura as you describe it, and as I have udnerstood it thus far, is merely settling for “close enough”.

Close enough doesn’t work for me …not when my salvation is at stake. People turn to Bible teaching ministries in the search for truth but arrive at mere human opinion.

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said human beings have inherent need to know they are grounded in truth. God gave us the means to meet this need, and that means is not Sola Scritpura.

 

[speaker]

I had a friend in the 8th grade whom was an avid reader. He told me he had read the bible 4 times straight through. Apparently he didn’t get anything out if it. What is he supposed to get out of it?

I began to read the bible because someone shared the faith with me; other then that, why would I bother with just some random book? And later, I hear from ‘oppinions’ that the Bible is infallable. I tried to find where it states that clearly. But anyway; everything I learned was not from the Bible. I could bearly understand Genesis when I was in the 7th grade. The little ‘‘facts’’ I learned about the faith was because someone shared them with me. Then some people take that a little further with their ‘prooftexting’ and their’ study of history and cultures.

The bible wasn’t sufficent to teach me anything. I only use it to prooftext other people’s theories; then I try to come to a conclusion. It would be such a blessing to have a teacher to teach me. I hope to attend RCIA when it starts. (sadly, i hope the RCIA I attend has good teachers, because not all are equal I heard). ((I remember reading in the scriptures, how one of the gifts of the spirit was “teaching” --in one of Pauls letters)) I wonder if any churches have such teachers.

I am quite rebelious to my parents when they ask me to do something; slowly, I hope to learn to love them and be obedient to them; I think practicing this will help disapate my rebelious attitude to ultimately be faithful to God. Because He is Our Father, Our Brother, and Our Friend.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

speaker:

The bible wasn’t sufficent to teach me anything. I only use it to prooftext other people’s theories; then I try to come to a conclusion.

You should reconsider how useful it is:

“The mouths of the inspired authors are the mouth of God, after all; such a mouth would say nothing idly — so let us not be idle in our listening, either. You see, if those who dig up metals do not pass over even tiny fragments, but on striking a vein of gold look around carefully for nuggets, much more should we do this in the case of the Scriptures. Admittedly, in the case of metals the search is very difficult for the prospectors: the metals are earth and the gold is nothing but earth, and their natural commonality deceives the eye of the prospectors; yet instead of desisting they give evidence of utter diligence, knowing as they do by sight what is really earth and what is really gold. In the case of Scripture, on the other hand, it is not like this: the gold does not lie mixed up with earth — it is pure gold. “The Lord’s sayings are untainted,” Scripture says, remember, “silver purified by fire, tested by earth” — that is to say, the Scriptures are not metals that require hard labor; rather, they provide a treasure ready for those searching for the wealth coming from them. It is in fact sufficient merely to peep within, and go away filled with every benefit; it is sufficient only to open them, and at once discern the sparkle of the jewels.”
Robert Charles Hill, trans., St. John Chrysostom, Old Testament Homilies, Volume Two: Homilies on Isaiah and Jeremiah (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003), Homily Two on Isaiah 6, p. 65.

ken

 

[johnMark]

I understand that the RC’s profess a belief in the infallibility of the RCC ( a belief that the Bible is not sufficient by itself for the instruction of the faithful unless infallibly interpreted ).

I have a question about this; Why does this message board or any RC radio shows exist, just as an example?

On these boards and on the radio shows, people call in with their questions about how to understand the Bible or the RCC teachings. Explainations (fallible) are given it to as the hosts’ understand them. If the infallible interpretation is totally self-sufficient, aren’t these teaching ministries completely unnecessary? It seems rather ironic to me.

Perhaps there is a rational reason for someone to have a radio show and discussion board which are RCC teaching ministries while still adhering to an infallible magisterium, but I cannot imagine what that reason is. People here are taking advice from those who are not officially sanctioned by the RCC to teach and recommend books for learning that do not have the Nihil Obstat. Nonetheless, even criticizing an RC book that has the Nihil Obstat. Why can’t an RC just read the infallible teachings of the faith and of the Bible and understand directly from said authority?

Just some thoughts…
Mark

 

[Chief]

homer:

The church is the group of true believers that follow the word of God present in the Bible.

What did they follow before the Bible was compiled? Did God ever speak any word that do not appear in the Bible? How do you account for John 21:25?

 

[Chris_W]

Interesting spin, and I welcome your questions.

There is no contradiction with Catholic teaching ministries because Catholics profess that faith comes from hearing. Therefore, Catholics can use evidences from Papal encyclicals, the writings of the early fathers of the faith, other Catholic apologists, etc to justify and explain the positions held by the Catholic Church. Catholics are therefore open to all evidences and know that instruction is needed to help understand the Word of God (whether written in the Bible or through Apostolic Tradition).
Confidence in the teachings comes from the knowlege that the infallible Church will define doctrine as necessary to keep the faithful from being led astray.

This is not the case with Protestant denominations. If the denomination professes a belief that the Bible is the only source of God’s revealed truth, and that it alone is sufficient, then to use other sources of information, or to appeal to teachers ouside of the Bible is self-contradictory. That is the premise for my question. Do Bible teaching ministries see the irony of feeling like they need to teach the very Bible they profess is self-evident?

There are only two possibilities: Either the Bible is by itself sufficient (self evident) or it is not. If it is, then it should require no additional teaching. Hence, my initial question.

I ask, is it, or is it not sufficient (self evident)? If it is not, then it requres an infallible authority, external to the Bible, to guide the faithful, in order for Jesus to keep His promise to protect the Church from error.

 

[johnMark]

There is no contradiction with Catholic teaching ministries because Catholics profess that faith comes from hearing. Therefore, Catholics can use evidences from Papal encyclicals, the writings of the early fathers of the faith, other Catholic apologists, etc to justify and explain the positions held by the Catholic Church. Catholics are therefore open to all evidences and know that instruction is needed to help understand the Word of God (whether written in the Bible or through Apostolic Tradition).

On what do you base your claim that there is no contradiction with Catholic teaching ministries? One can use evidences to support thier positions, however, on what authority are they to do this? And what do you make of one apologist criticizing a method used in a book that has the Nihil Obstat (this is posted elsewhere on this forum)?

Confidence in the teachings comes from the knowlege that the infallible Church will define doctrine as necessary to keep the faithful from being led astray.

Do you have confidence in anything else in life in which you must put some type of trust in that is/are from a fallible source(s)?

This is not the case with Protestant denominations. If the denomination professes a belief that the Bible is the only source of God’s revealed truth, and that it alone is sufficient, then to use other sources of information, or to appeal to teachers ouside of the Bible is self-contradictory. That is the premise for my question. Do Bible teaching ministries see the irony of feeling like they need to teach the very Bible they profess is self-evident?

There are only two possibilities: Either the Bible is by itself sufficient (self evident) or it is not. If it is, then it should require no additional teaching. Hence, my initial question.

Is this what has been presented to you as to what Sola Scriptura is? (see above posts)

Mark

 

[Chris_W]

johnMark wrote: “On what do you base your claim that there is no contradiction with Catholic teaching ministries? One can use evidences to support thier positions, however, on what authority are they to do this?”

Sorry if I didn’t explain it well. There is no contraditcion in Catholics citing evidences outside of Scripture because Catholics are not limited to Scripture. Those evidences of themselves are not necesarily authoritative, unless it is an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Those evidences are brought forth to support the position, much as a lawyer might use circumstantial evidence to make his case. The convergence of evidences merely strengthens the argument.

johnMark wrote: "And what do you make of one apologist criticizing a method used in a book that has the Nihil Obstat (this is posted elsewhere on this forum)?"

An apologist may criticise any method he chooses. As for the Nihil Obstat, my understanding is that, like the imprimateur, it means someone credible has approved the message of the book. This, to my knowlege, is not a judgment outside the possibility of error.

johnMark wrote: *“Do you have confidence in anything else in life in which you must put some type of trust in that is/are from a fallible source(s)?” *

Certainly I put trust in other authorities. I just won’t wager my salvation on the trust of fallible sources. (We are getting quite off subject here).

johnMark wrote:* “Is this what has been presented to you as to what Sola Scriptura is? (see above posts)”*

Yes. If your understanding of Sola Scriptura differs from the arguments of Puzzled (see above posts), by all means, that is the objective of this thread.