G
guanophore
Guest
Great post, and a great challenge.
- Status
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
The phrase “what is written” is Paul always refers to Scripture….Paul has prominently highlighted six Scripture quotations in the first three chapter of the letter (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20). In the case of the first two and the last two, the application of the texts is explicitly spelled out: No boasting in human beings: First Corinthians 3:21a links the two quotations in 2, though they are not explicit admonitions against boasting, reinforce the same theme by juxtaposing God’s gracious ways to all human understanding. The cumulative force of these citations is unmistakable: the witness of Scripture places a strict limit on human pride and calls for trust in God alone. What would it mean to go “beyond” this witness of Scripture? It would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. The last clause of 1 Corinthians 4:6 confirms this interpretation.
Richard B. Hayes, First Corinthians, p.67, cited in Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 705.
I thought we were talking about 1 Corinthians 1 through 4:6. I’m not limiting the scope of Paul’s argument to just the words, “Not beyond what is written,” but rather to what those words most likely refer to in context. That said, here is the position from a big-gun scholar who supports my interpretation, Richard B. Hayes:
The phrase “what is written” is Paul always refers to Scripture….Paul has prominently highlighted six Scripture quotations in the first three chapter of the letter (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20). In the case of the first two and the last two, the application of the texts is explicitly spelled out: No boasting in human beings: First Corinthians 3:21a links the two quotations in 2, though they are not explicit admonitions against boasting, reinforce the same theme by juxtaposing God’s gracious ways to all human understanding. The cumulative force of these citations is unmistakable: the witness of Scripture places a strict limit on human pride and calls for trust in God alone. What would it mean to go “beyond” this witness of Scripture? It would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. The last clause of 1 Corinthians 4:6 confirms this interpretation.
Richard B. Hayes, First Corinthians, p.67, cited in Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 705.
No, you have not. Let’s walk through this one point at a time.
- Do you accept the translation favored by the NIV (Protestant) and NJB (Catholic) that the neuter article τὸ should be rendered “saying,” because it introduces a formal quotation as it does elsewhere in the New Testament as I’ve already demonstrated? If not, why not?
- Second, if “Not beyond what is written” is a saying or phrase worthy of learning, (“so that you might learn”), then which of the following conclusions seems most likely to you?
a. Paul intends this saying to apply only to the “it is written” statements he has made up to this point and no further.
b. Paul intends this saying to be understood as a general principle that means something like, “Don’t go beyond the boundaries of scripture,” which he in turn applies to the specific verses he has cited thus far.
We agree that he was referring to those verses. But you’re saying something much more than this. You’re claiming that he was referring only to these verses—and you’ve offered no reason for this other than to suggest that it is a reasonable possibility. But can we limit the words, “not beyond what is written,” which seems to have been a pithy saying or expression to a mere one-time application? If Paul only intended to say, “Don’t go beyond what I’ve written up to this point,” rather than, “Don’t exceed the authority of scripture,” then why would Paul introduce the words as formal quotation, and why use γέγραπται which everywhere else in Paul’s writings is a reference to scripture?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
The real translation problems occur in other places. Just prior to this, Paul has used the difficult word μετεσχημάτισα which causes translators fits. Does it mean “figuratively apply” or “form in another way”? There is no single word equivalent in English. Likewise, in the phrase that comes just after this, when Paul says, “so that you may not get puffed up one over against the other,” is also a bit cumbersome and defies any one-to-one literal translation.
Yes. Again, this is the specific application of the principle contained in the saying, “Not beyond what is written.” We have no disagreement over the application of the passages. What you’re not seeing, however, is the principle that is being applied.
Your argument has big problems.
- It depends upon the saying being a Rabbinical proverb when this is just a speculative possibility.
- It assumes that even if it is a Rabbinical saying that Paul was using it the way the Rabbis would have.
- This in turn presumes that you know how they would have used it.
- It also presumes that Paul would have regarded oral Torah as being on par with scripture—yet there’s no indication in Paul that he ever put tradition on par with scripture.
There are several problems here. First, the phrase, “Not beyond what is written” is not difficult to translate at all. The Greek itself is straightforward. The only difficulty lies in getting it into the target language. Thus English translations often supply words that are not in the text such as “go” or “exceed.” Literally the phrase reads, “that you may learn the not beyond what is written.” The word “the” is problematic only because we don’t use “the” as anything but a demonstrative. But in Greek, the neuter article τὸ can be used like quotation marks in order to introduce a formal citation, which means it’s better not to translate it at all. The NJB is noteworthy here in this regard: “the saying nothing beyond what is written.” But even here the choice of “nothing” rather than “not” is interpretive.
The real translation problems occur in other places. Just prior to this, Paul has used the difficult word μετεσχημάτισα which causes translators fits. Does it mean “figuratively apply” or “form in another way”? There is no single word equivalent in English. Likewise, in the phrase that comes just after this, when Paul says, “so that you may not get puffed up one over against the other,” is also a bit cumbersome and defies any one-to-one literal translation.
Yes and no. It is true that Paul and the Corinthians were on a wavelength that we may never fully understand. What exactly the saying meant to them, we may never know. So our knowledge is limited. But what we do know is sufficient. We know that the phrase is most likely a saying, which means it contains a principle. We know the principle is not to go beyond what is written. And we know with a high degree of certitude that “what is written” more likely means “scripture in general” than simply Paul’s letter to them and/or to the specific “it is written” statements he has made thus far. That much is knowable.
Well I’m glad I’ve moved you this far. Yes, mine is at least a possible interpretation. But it is also one that makes a lot of sense. That’s why I say it’s also plausible. And unless you can explain why Paul would want the Corinthians to learn a “saying” for only a one-time application to particular texts and not to scripture in general, I’m going to maintain that my interpretation makes far more sense than yours.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
“St.” John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on First Corinthians:
“But what is the meaning of, not to be wise above what is written? It is written, Matthew 7:3 Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in your own eye? and Judge not, that you be not judged. For if we are one and are mutually bound together, it behooves us not to rise up against one another. For he that humbles himself shall be exalted, says he. And [Matthew 20:26-27; Mark 10:43] He that will be first of all, let him be the servant of all. These are the things which are written."
Let’s begin with the observation that this is a homily rather than a pure exegesis of the text, and so we’ll allow Golden Mouth a little homiletical license here. That said, the interpretation he makes is problematic. First, Paul could not possibly have had Matthew or Mark in mind since Paul likely wrote at least a decade before either of them. Second, it is clear that Golden Mouth is making an application here to support his theme. So the only ancient commentary we have precisely on this text (1 Corinthians 4:6), ignores the text itself and instead connects it to other thematically similar texts. This is not so much a criticism as it is an observation that the little he says about it is irrelevant to what Paul himself means.
That said, notice that Chrysostom does not hesitate to apply the saying to other scriptures. Evidently he did not think the phrase, “Not beyond what is written” was limited to the specific OT texts Paul had cited. In fact he clearly thinks otherwise, which means his broad application of the phrase to other thematically related texts shows that he thought the phrase to contain a general principle. Notice too that he confines his application of “nothing beyond” to other scripture texts thereby demonstrating that he was observing the principle itself in the very application he makes with it.
My only quibble with Golden Mouth here is that he’s applying the principle “Not beyond what is written” to texts Paul could not have had in mind. So while Chrysostom might be accused of a non-contextual reading of Paul, he certainly shows that he understood Paul’s directive not to go “beyond what is written.” That much is clear.
And that’s the patristic record for you. All other references to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that I’ve found do not deal directly with the meaning of “not beyond what is written,” but rather touch on other parts of the verse, such as “puffed up.”
I don’t see a problem. The text means what it means and we discover that through exegesis. It is typically Catholic to assume that the meaning of a text is determined by what the church Fathers thought it meant. But the meaning of a text is not determined by what others thought it meant (tradition), no matter what their pedigree. Simply putting the words “St.” in front of a name does not mean his exegesis is better than ours. I hope you can see why that is. If not, let’s take a look at the only church father to have given us any sustained commentary on this verse:
“St.” John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on First Corinthians:
“But what is the meaning of, not to be wise above what is written? It is written, Matthew 7:3 Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in your own eye? and Judge not, that you be not judged. For if we are one and are mutually bound together, it behooves us not to rise up against one another. For he that humbles himself shall be exalted, says he. And [Matthew 20:26-27; Mark 10:43] He that will be first of all, let him be the servant of all. These are the things which are written."
Let’s begin with the observation that this is a homily rather than a pure exegesis of the text, and so we’ll allow Golden Mouth a little homiletical license here. That said, the interpretation he makes is problematic. First, Paul could not possibly have had Matthew or Mark in mind since Paul likely wrote at least a decade before either of them. Second, it is clear that Golden Mouth is making an application here to support his theme. So the only ancient commentary we have precisely on this text (1 Corinthians 4:6), ignores the text itself and instead connects it to other thematically similar texts. This is not so much a criticism as it is an observation that the little he says about it is irrelevant to what Paul himself means.
That said, notice that Chrysostom does not hesitate to apply the saying to other scriptures. Evidently he did not think the phrase, “Not beyond what is written” was limited to the specific OT texts Paul had cited. In fact he clearly thinks otherwise, which means his broad application of the phrase to other thematically related texts shows that he thought the phrase to contain a general principle. Notice too that he confines his application of “nothing beyond” to other scripture texts thereby demonstrating that he was observing the principle itself in the very application he makes with it.
My only quibble with Golden Mouth here is that he’s applying the principle “Not beyond what is written” to texts Paul could not have had in mind. So while Chrysostom might be accused of a non-contextual reading of Paul, he certainly shows that he understood Paul’s directive not to go “beyond what is written.” That much is clear.
And that’s the patristic record for you. All other references to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that I’ve found do not deal directly with the meaning of “not beyond what is written,” but rather touch on other parts of the verse, such as “puffed up.”
That’s an inference from silence. Apart from Chrysostom, we simply don’t know what the rest of the church made of the slogan. And what we do know is that the one person to comment on it, interpreted it in light of texts Paul knew nothing of.
You can’t demand of scripture what you would expect of a systematic theology or a catechism. That’s not the genre of scripture. If you would apply this same demand to, say, Matthew 16:18-19 with respect to everything Rome claims to find in this text, you wouldn’t have anything close to “infallibility in matters of faith and morals when the bishop of Rome teaches in his capacity as universal pastor a doctrine or moral belief to be held definitively by the universal church.” Or what about this: “Hail favored one,” which means “a singular perfection of grace that extends all the way back to conception.” Is that really what the angel was saying? Is that what Luke intended to tell us? Certainly these texts do not demand such an interpretation. But do they even permit it?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. Consider this (non-exhaustive) list of issues that Christians have differing doctrines on, all from reading the very same Scriptures (well, give or take 7 books).
• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
I believe your consistent failure to see this point is because you labor under the misconception that Rome tells you what scripture is and means. But on what basis do you attribute this authority to Rome in the first place? Dwell on that for a moment, and I think you’ll see that you’re basing all this on your own interpretations of scripture and the church fathers—interpretations that are fallible, and most likely biased to confirm your desired conclusion anyway. But is Rome the correct starting point? Or is it the word of God itself? And where, apart from the scriptures, will you find the word of God anyway?
And now to deal with the Trinity Gambit…
I do. One more time: “Scripture cannot be broken.” The context indicates quite clearly that scripture has not only the authority to make Jesus’ theological point, but also the clarity to be understood. Now if in order for Jesus or Paul or anyone else who said, “It is written,” first had to have an explicit authorization from scripture in order to use this phrase, then we would have to ask, on what basis would they have recognized that original authorization in the first place? In other words, if scripture is only authorized by a previous scripture, then that scripture in turn would need a previous scripture for its authorization, and so on ad infinitum. But that’s not how scripture speaks. Jesus simply says, “It is written,” or “Scripture cannot be broken,” or “You err because you do not know scripture” etc. Jesus’ didn’t learn that truth by reading scripture. (Which would already presuppose that scripture is authoritative). So on what basis does he or anyone else know this? The only answer lies in the nature of scripture itself. God spoke through it to his people and his people recognized his words therein. That, finally, is the only explanation that doesn’t end in infinite regress.
I believe your consistent failure to see this point is because you labor under the misconception that Rome tells you what scripture is and means. But on what basis do you attribute this authority to Rome in the first place? Dwell on that for a moment, and I think you’ll see that you’re basing all this on your own interpretations of scripture and the church fathers—interpretations that are fallible, and most likely biased to confirm your desired conclusion anyway. But is Rome the correct starting point? Or is it the word of God itself? And where, apart from the scriptures, will you find the word of God anyway?
As I said before, I don’t accept this challenge since it is not reasonable. You have yet to explain why we need such explicit testimony in the first place. That said, while no one uses the precise terms you’re using, I think we do find a lot in the early church that is tantamount to exactly what you’re demanding here. I’ve already shown you Cyril of Jerusalem on sola scirptura and that at least one Catholic scholar attributes a “scriptura sola” principle to him. You can read that for yourself here.
Again, what would that prove other than “PRM” thought such verses said so? Citing a church father is no different in principle than citing a modern commentator. It’s nothing more than an appeal to authority. I’ve already cited Hayes. I can cite others who read 1 Cor 4:6 the way I do. But again, merely finding commentators (ancient or modern) who interpret a text only proves what they think the text means. The meaning of the text, however, is determined by what the text says and not by what people claim that it says. So this entire venture of yours in attempting to find other voices to corroborate my interpretation seems ill-advised, if you ask me, especially in light of some of the unreasonable interpretations that have been offered in the past.
So you’d rather that I’d tell you what other people think these passages mean? How does that get us any closer to knowing that the passage means? Does “not beyond what written” refer to the argument of the letter itself up to this point? (So Fee). Does it refer to only the OT citations he has made thus far (so EricFilmer). Is it too enigmatic to say one way or the other? (So Collins). Does it refer to scripture in general? (so Hays and yours truly). May the best argument, rather than the most prestigious person, prevail.
Now you’re just being pedantic. If you understand what sola scriptura is from a Reformation standpoint and then look for antecedents for sola scriptura prior to the Reformation, you will in deed find them. In fact you will find them in scripture itself. You will also find it in a number of church fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem teaching or assuming the final normative authority of scripture. But the language will be different. You won’t find people using terms like “norma normans, material and forma sufficiency” in the patristic era (though you will among the scholastics). Nor will they be using the terms such as “sola scriptura.” But they can and do articulate the same view of scriptural authority that the Reformers articulated.
And now to deal with the Trinity Gambit…
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
Eric, I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to your attempt at playing “Arius’ Advocate.” All claims that the Trinity cannot be established on the basis of scripture are simply false. The Trinity could never have become orthodoxy if each and every point of it could not be established on the basis of scripture. Your entire argument is nothing more than the nuclear option: You’re willing to throw the Trinity under the bus in order to make the point that there are “other readings” of scripture that lead to non-Trinitarian conclusions, so that you can conclude, on that basis, that sola scriptura therefore cannot be true. Your conclusion, however, doesn’t follow. For while there may be alternative (e.g., Arian, Modalist) interpretations, that does not mean such interpretations are as sound as those of Trinitarian theology.
And I submit to you that we have those passages in scripture and that no other interpretation can do full justice to the text as that of Trinitarian theology. Remember—sola scriptura is not the claim that all doctrinal dots are connected in scripture; rather it is the claim that all the truths of the faith are in scripture—either explicitly sated or are necessarily implied. To wit, the Bible teaches monotheism. The Bible also teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. The Bible also teaches the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally God. It follows necessarily therefore, that either the Bible contradicts itself or—somehow—all three persons constitute the one God. Any other inference we make would lead to an explicit denial of some other Trinitarian truth taught in scripture.
That’s not my burden. To be faithful to the historical understanding of sola scriptura—which we Protestants define Eric, not you—I only need show that the truths scripture does teach necessarily lead to a Trinitarian conclusion. I do not have to find a text that formulates the doctrine. But this is precisely what you are demanding and by doing so you show—once again—either a poor understanding of sola scriptura, or an unwillingness to represent it fairly. That’s something you’re going to have to change in your thinking about sola scriptura or in your attitude. You’re defining it much too narrowly. Here’s as succinct and representative a formulation as you’re going to find: “VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith).
What exactly did “Sacred Tradition” supply that was not already in scripture? What was the content of this “Sacred Tradition” that contributed to Nicea that we cannot find in scripture? What exactly was this “Sacred Tradition” that you speak of? Can you define it? Did Nicea define it? And did it enjoy the same authority as scripture itself? If you can’t answer those questions, then appealing to something you cannot even define is simply meaningless.
Yes. This is what Nicea did. This is what Athanasius did. If was done before, it can be done again. But there’s not need to go over this ground, Eric, since presumably you agree that the Trinity is biblical.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Eric said:
You’re blaming the Bible for its alleged lack of clarity. I’ll blame William Arnold III, for his lack of logic. And this brings us back to the same error in reasoning that you’ve been asserting over and over again—namely—that the mere existence of multiple interpretations implies either a), that the Bible is unclear or b) that we can never come to know that the Bible says simply because there are people out there who come to different conclusions than we do (as if there were no way to prove them wrong). This entire line of argumentation shows that you have bought into a questionable skeptical premise about truth itself and your appeal to “Sacred Tradition” and the “Magisterium,” is nothing more than an attempt to escape your own skeptical premise by an appeal to a “tie-breaking” authority. But on what basis do you conclude that Rome has this authority in the first place? Surely you have to reason to this conclusion on the basis of something, right? And that puts you back in the same boat as everyone else who reads scripture. An appeal to an authority does not solve your problem if you yourself are subject to the same limitations that you attribute to others. No one escapes the dilemma of having to interpret. The question is, which interpretation makes the best sense of the data (scripture) that we have?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Your entire line of reasoning is based on the exaltation of a written book over the Living Church, the Body of Christ, who as head, has guaranteed that his Church will be forever under His patronage.
You accuse people of cynicism because they can see the obvious. The Bible is capable of multiple interpretations, nay infinite interpretations. You say the Bible contains the Truth (and so it does.) But you wrongly assume that one person arguing his interpretation over someone else’s is sufficient. But it is NOT sufficient. Only a Divine Authority is sufficient. Only the Church has that Divine Authority.
You may not like that Truth. But Truth is Truth, whether you like it or not.
B
Blacksword
Guest
On the basis that Jesus said so?..He named Peter the Rock, he gave Peter the leadership role in the Church he founded, and gave to Peter and the Apostles under him the keys the Kingdom, and the authority to teach and baptize in his name. Peter is the first Pope, and therefore the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. This passage in Matthew is devastating to Protestantism, and I submit cannot be answered without an incredible amount of mental gymnastics…the seat of Peter is in Rome!
The authority to teach came first from Jesus, the Scriptures of the cannon came later.
J
justtryin
Guest
Miguel failed by refusing to answer post #683 & #684. If Scripture alone were sufficient there would have been no need for the councils to refute these heresies. Everyone would know the truth simply by reading the Scriptures. If Miguel wants to convert me to SS he needs to answer #683 & 684.
D
dogknox
Guest
Miguel Sastre from your post #714 You said…
Miguel Sastre your words…* It is the claim that all the truths of the faith are in scripture* so the question is: Is God TEACHING the TRUTH!!?
Here is my point from the scriptures… all the truths of the faith are in scripture
SCRIPTURES… The TEACHING of GOD!!!
NOTE: The words of Jesus to start his TEACHING!!! 45** It is written** in the Prophets:
**45 It is written in the Prophets: **‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
**47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life. **
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
**50 **But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them,** “I tell you the truth,** unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55** For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. **
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this **while teaching **in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Miguel Sastre The Jews in verse # 52 do not believe the TEACHING because they do NOT believe Jesus is God!
Miguel Sastre Do you believe the TEACHING of God? I point out: all the truths of the faith are in scripture
LOOK these Jews reject the TEACHING…
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, **“This is a hard teaching. **Who can accept it?”
Miguel Sastre They decide not to follow Jesus, because they reject the TEACHING do you accept the TEACHING? Is Jesus God? Does God TEACH TRUTH in the scriptures!
LOOK what Jesus tells you…and them!!
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you** are spirit and they are life.
QUESTION: What are the WORDS Jesus spoke!!?
The Words Jesus just spoke to you are, his** TEACHING**!!! If you believe the** TEACHING** you will have life!!
Miguel Sastre your words…* It is the claim that all the truths of the faith are in scripture* so the question is: Is God TEACHING the TRUTH!!?
So is the SCRIPTURES TEACHING the TRUTHS of the FAITH!!!
Or do you believe what your Protestant churches TEACH YOU other then the scriptures!??
Miguel Sastre If you believe the scriptures you would be Catholic! You are forced to believe God TAUGHT LIE!!
**45 **It is written **in the Prophets: **‘They will all be taught by God.’
Dogknox
(I had to erase the rest to make room for my post)
Miguel Sastre your words…* It is the claim that all the truths of the faith are in scripture* so the question is: Is God TEACHING the TRUTH!!?
Here is my point from the scriptures… all the truths of the faith are in scripture
SCRIPTURES… The TEACHING of GOD!!!
NOTE: The words of Jesus to start his TEACHING!!! 45** It is written** in the Prophets:
**45 It is written in the Prophets: **‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
**47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life. **
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
**50 **But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them,** “I tell you the truth,** unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55** For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. **
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this **while teaching **in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Miguel Sastre The Jews in verse # 52 do not believe the TEACHING because they do NOT believe Jesus is God!
Miguel Sastre Do you believe the TEACHING of God? I point out: all the truths of the faith are in scripture
LOOK these Jews reject the TEACHING…
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, **“This is a hard teaching. **Who can accept it?”
Miguel Sastre They decide not to follow Jesus, because they reject the TEACHING do you accept the TEACHING? Is Jesus God? Does God TEACH TRUTH in the scriptures!
LOOK what Jesus tells you…and them!!
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you** are spirit and they are life.
QUESTION: What are the WORDS Jesus spoke!!?
The Words Jesus just spoke to you are, his** TEACHING**!!! If you believe the** TEACHING** you will have life!!
Miguel Sastre your words…* It is the claim that all the truths of the faith are in scripture* so the question is: Is God TEACHING the TRUTH!!?
So is the SCRIPTURES TEACHING the TRUTHS of the FAITH!!!
Or do you believe what your Protestant churches TEACH YOU other then the scriptures!??
Miguel Sastre If you believe the scriptures you would be Catholic! You are forced to believe God TAUGHT LIE!!
**45 **It is written **in the Prophets: **‘They will all be taught by God.’
Dogknox
G
guanophore
Guest
Not entirely, Miguel. It is true that we assume the Fathers, being closer to the writers, and some of them personally acquainted with them, do have a clarity that we do not. However, we do not “assume” that everything the Father’s write is consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. Some of them go beyond what is written.
We do see, though, the Sacred Tradition (Teaching of the Apostles) in their writings. None of the Sacred Tradition is determined by the writings or teaching of any one person.
This is where your denial of God’s ability to preserve His Word in the Church handicaps you, Miguel. Paul most certainly did have the Gospel message, long before the words were enscripturated. They were shared at every meeting,and most often by those who were present when the events happened. Of course Paul has them in mind.
Or, it could indicate that Chrysostom is not as myopic as you are, and that there are many levels of meaning in the Scripture, of which yours is only one, and his is another, all of them valid.
Yes. This method, however, still does not equate to Sola Scriptura.
Just because the stories had not yet been written does not mean Paul did not have them in mind. How did you think those stories were preserved the decades between when they occurred, and when they were enscripturated?
How do you think the history of God’s interaction with humanity from Adam and Eve to Moses was preserved? See what kind of holes you have with this SS mindset? God is able to preserve His Word through people just as well as He can on paper.
Yes. It is also clear that Chrysostom did not espouse SS, which shows that one can remain within the authorative and normative qualities of Scripture without falling into the modern innovation of SS.
No, Miguel. That is the Patristic record FOR YOU! For those who have received the Faith of the Apostles, there are dozens of references to Sacred Tradition being preserved through the Apostolic Succession.
But we do know that they kept the Apostolic command to preserve the Teachings of the Apostles, whether in writing, or word of mouth.
You are making an erroneous assumption about the Gospel, Miguel. It did not suddenly “appear” when they were written.
Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, **2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, **3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
Since Luke was Paul’s companion, don’t you think Paul would not have received the same paradosis?.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
This is a fairly common misunderstanding of sola scriptura. SS is simply not the claim that scripture requires no explication or interpretation. Nor is it the claim that scripture formulates all doctrines that we are to believe. In short–scripture is not a catechism or a systematic theology. But your objection seems to assume that we believe that it is.
But what makes a council worth believing? Does the council have an intrinsic authority to tell us what scripture means? Or do we rather believe councils only insofar as they give credible interpretations of scripture?
If you believe that councils have this kind of authority, then how would you justify that belief?
So here we come back to the issue at hand. Do we believe X because an authority that we countenance tells us its true? Or do we believe X because it is true?
G
guanophore
Guest
I am glad to hear you say this. I have had Reformed Christians tell me the opposite.
You are right, of course, but you seem to be forgetting (once again) that the CC is not a “bible based” faith that is extracted from the pages of the book. The CC was whole and entire before a word of the NT was written… Our doctrines are not formed by the text, but rather, the text reflects the doctrine that was delivered to the Church “once for all” by the Apostles.
we understand what is written differently than you because we read it according to the One Faith that was passed down to us. We know that any interpretation of the passages cannot “go beyond” the once for all deposit of faith. SS adherants disregard the Apostolic command to keep the faith as it was delivered, so they have a divergence of understanding of the text that significantly departs from the Apostolic faith. The two examples you give are among those departures.
G
guanophore
Guest
Is this how you enter eternal life? By keeping the Commandments?
Really, ibe, I plead with you to restrain yourself with such comments. Things like this really say more about you than they do anything else. Is this how you wish to represent yourself here?
If you are here to get Catholic Answers, this is not a respectful way to go about it. If you are not, then you are probably on the wrong forum, and it would be better for you to move on, before you violate any more forum rules. It is really a bad witness when a Christian is disrespectful to others, and cannot follow simple rules.
Jesus explains this.
Mark 4:10-13
10 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; 12 so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.” 13 And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?
1 Cor 2:7
7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
1 Cor 4:1
4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Jesus imparted the secrets of the Kingdom to His Apostles, and they disclosed these mysteries to their successors, the bishops. Jesus method of understanding the Scriptures has been passed down for the last 2000 years.
Because we best understand the meaning of the words in the light of the faith of those who produced them. Since you are separated from that faith, it is likely that you understand communion and baptism very differently than those who have kept the Apostles’ command to preserved what was handed down to us.
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
@ ignatius:
I would argue Jesus is God and since God wrote the holy scriptures through man, then his word alone is authoritative enough. He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no. to say Jesus never commanded anyone to write these things down is somewhat irrelevant because the apostles did write these things down because they knew to preserve the most important series of events in history and portray his teachings properly that they must be written down. I do believe they were inclined to do so by the holy spirit however just as any of the old testament writers were as well.
Did they not preach and teach Gods already spoken word? (which i take the same as written scripture, authoritative.) He gave all saved men the ability to preach and teach. look what happened to stephan. but what did he preach or teach that was not already written?
The jews didnt want to accept the gentiles based on the old view of them, that they were nothing but unclean dogs, they wanted to maintain their prestigious status as God ONLY CHOSEN people. This debate too was not settled by a point anyone made but a point God made through a vision to peter. This parallels with 15:8 “So God who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us”
while i agree many converted through oral word, oral word was not the basis or meant to be the basis of a rooted faith. oral word may get you in the door, such as if i were to go on the street corner preaching the kingdom of God is at hand i would be no different than this proposed situation here. The gospels are deemed to reasonably been written between 50-60 ad. This is no later than maybe 20 years after his death, but what says for 20 years witnesses from all over could not correlate what Jesus had said or the well learned apostles at their time? The ancient druids had no written language and yet preserved all their teachings. But again i believe all the teachings were included in the scriptures and anything unnecessary was left out. after all these were written and approved by our early church fathers the apostles.
I understand, which is why the gospels were written to all.
The new testament itself could have been formalized 20 years ago, the gospels and other letters still existed not long after his death.
preaching based on what? the scriptures! I am not interested in debating if the catholic church chose to keep the books in a certain language or not, if they did it was their soul on the line if not then God bless em.
I am aware of this, ever heard of the monks that committed themselves to literally reading the scriptures and memorizing whole sections of the bible? listen maybe you just dont understand sola scriptura but it has nothing to do with physical pages or a book. it has to do with the living Gods words which so happen to be written down in books, letters, epistles ect. the counter to me should be that mans non divine revelations or teaching not directly received from God were and are equally as important which I just dont see how they ever could be.
Is the church a structure? Is it not a symbolic representation of the believers? It is the body! We are the pillar because we are witnesses to his glory. Im not arguing or holding the stance that paul and any of the other apostles didnt throw their two cents into some things they taught but again, if it was important it would have been written down. otherwise why didnt they write these things down? would you take the lucifarian stance that there is hidden knowledge? but that would take us into the occult which is exactly what Jesus did not want for his people thus why all things written are sufficient for the soul.
I think the more important reasoning behind John 20:30 is 31: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”
^this is definitely more proof that the point of these writings is stated above. is not the goal to escape death and find life through Jesus? what more would you then ask of anyone?
I would argue Jesus is God and since God wrote the holy scriptures through man, then his word alone is authoritative enough. He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no. to say Jesus never commanded anyone to write these things down is somewhat irrelevant because the apostles did write these things down because they knew to preserve the most important series of events in history and portray his teachings properly that they must be written down. I do believe they were inclined to do so by the holy spirit however just as any of the old testament writers were as well.
Did they not preach and teach Gods already spoken word? (which i take the same as written scripture, authoritative.) He gave all saved men the ability to preach and teach. look what happened to stephan. but what did he preach or teach that was not already written?
The jews didnt want to accept the gentiles based on the old view of them, that they were nothing but unclean dogs, they wanted to maintain their prestigious status as God ONLY CHOSEN people. This debate too was not settled by a point anyone made but a point God made through a vision to peter. This parallels with 15:8 “So God who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us”
while i agree many converted through oral word, oral word was not the basis or meant to be the basis of a rooted faith. oral word may get you in the door, such as if i were to go on the street corner preaching the kingdom of God is at hand i would be no different than this proposed situation here. The gospels are deemed to reasonably been written between 50-60 ad. This is no later than maybe 20 years after his death, but what says for 20 years witnesses from all over could not correlate what Jesus had said or the well learned apostles at their time? The ancient druids had no written language and yet preserved all their teachings. But again i believe all the teachings were included in the scriptures and anything unnecessary was left out. after all these were written and approved by our early church fathers the apostles.
I understand, which is why the gospels were written to all.
The new testament itself could have been formalized 20 years ago, the gospels and other letters still existed not long after his death.
preaching based on what? the scriptures! I am not interested in debating if the catholic church chose to keep the books in a certain language or not, if they did it was their soul on the line if not then God bless em.
I am aware of this, ever heard of the monks that committed themselves to literally reading the scriptures and memorizing whole sections of the bible? listen maybe you just dont understand sola scriptura but it has nothing to do with physical pages or a book. it has to do with the living Gods words which so happen to be written down in books, letters, epistles ect. the counter to me should be that mans non divine revelations or teaching not directly received from God were and are equally as important which I just dont see how they ever could be.
Is the church a structure? Is it not a symbolic representation of the believers? It is the body! We are the pillar because we are witnesses to his glory. Im not arguing or holding the stance that paul and any of the other apostles didnt throw their two cents into some things they taught but again, if it was important it would have been written down. otherwise why didnt they write these things down? would you take the lucifarian stance that there is hidden knowledge? but that would take us into the occult which is exactly what Jesus did not want for his people thus why all things written are sufficient for the soul.
I think the more important reasoning behind John 20:30 is 31: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”
^this is definitely more proof that the point of these writings is stated above. is not the goal to escape death and find life through Jesus? what more would you then ask of anyone?
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
still @ ignatius (im about to probably post like 5 times here lol)
your last bulletin is more testament that these books survived and were separated, as you stated earlier it was not until later that they were complied into one easy access book. But of course this only makes sense, did philip not learn directly from Jesus? so who else better to ask? also the point here is this person does not recognize who is being spoken of in Isaiah because the eunuch had never heard of him! so of course he needs to consult someone who does know this person. shoot he could have consulted me, it wouldnt escape me to find Jesus is clearly being talked about here. This is not up for interpretation because how else would you interpret that scripture? who is it Abraham? lol!
regarding 2 peter. of course its not a matter of ones own interpretation because it should only be interpreted one way! This does couple well with your 3:16 in that it supports the notion to be well learned people, Jesus does not want us to blindly go out uneducated in the scriptures. This parallels Mat 10:16 “behold I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” know your stuff but be gentle about it!
Your examples do not provide testimony in private interpretation, if these people had read the books and especially mat 10:16 they would have studied the word, then they would have run across Jesus telling us to “test” the spirits. It is common in satanism for example when conjuring up a demon to ask it its intentions and then move forward with their ceremony or whatever stupid ritual they attempt to perform. so even the evilest of people in a way heed Jesus “testing of the spirits”, these unfortunate incidents you listed are just a result of ignorance of study, not private study. For example some teachers do not even believe Jesus is the son of God, asking that question right there tells you their intentions, its really not a difficult process to find out if the teacher is a false one or not, just some confidence on the christian/catholics part.
My reference to sola scriptura had no backing from man, i used pure scripture and some of my own logic for the argument but mostly the scripture is what i stand by. please before responding to this before we get ahead of ourselves i would invite your disproving and tearing away of the sola scriptura doctine from the scriptures i listed, how do they not support them? if they dont what is their purpose?
^this by the way without scripture would be impossible, see the importance yet?
your last bulletin is more testament that these books survived and were separated, as you stated earlier it was not until later that they were complied into one easy access book. But of course this only makes sense, did philip not learn directly from Jesus? so who else better to ask? also the point here is this person does not recognize who is being spoken of in Isaiah because the eunuch had never heard of him! so of course he needs to consult someone who does know this person. shoot he could have consulted me, it wouldnt escape me to find Jesus is clearly being talked about here. This is not up for interpretation because how else would you interpret that scripture? who is it Abraham? lol!
regarding 2 peter. of course its not a matter of ones own interpretation because it should only be interpreted one way! This does couple well with your 3:16 in that it supports the notion to be well learned people, Jesus does not want us to blindly go out uneducated in the scriptures. This parallels Mat 10:16 “behold I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” know your stuff but be gentle about it!
Your examples do not provide testimony in private interpretation, if these people had read the books and especially mat 10:16 they would have studied the word, then they would have run across Jesus telling us to “test” the spirits. It is common in satanism for example when conjuring up a demon to ask it its intentions and then move forward with their ceremony or whatever stupid ritual they attempt to perform. so even the evilest of people in a way heed Jesus “testing of the spirits”, these unfortunate incidents you listed are just a result of ignorance of study, not private study. For example some teachers do not even believe Jesus is the son of God, asking that question right there tells you their intentions, its really not a difficult process to find out if the teacher is a false one or not, just some confidence on the christian/catholics part.
My reference to sola scriptura had no backing from man, i used pure scripture and some of my own logic for the argument but mostly the scripture is what i stand by. please before responding to this before we get ahead of ourselves i would invite your disproving and tearing away of the sola scriptura doctine from the scriptures i listed, how do they not support them? if they dont what is their purpose?
^this by the way without scripture would be impossible, see the importance yet?
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
@ gaun
1 cor 11:1 does indicate to follow apolistic instruction, forgive me but i thought you were trying to make the point the apostles taught something other then what was mentioned in scripture.
If a man imitates an apostle right? and this apostle is imitating Christ ultimately does this not mean to imitate Christ? otherwise how could the man imitate the apostle without imitating Christ?
I should probably learn to use the multi quote properly but for now please bear with my ignorance
If we need pastors and teachers why did he say grace is all we need according to heb 13:8/9
again paul is saying to imitate him. what does paul do on a daily basis? he imitates Christ. what should the believe do? imitate Christ, how should he do it? the way paul does.
referring to your eucharist reply. Is the bible not the word of God himself? did he not write it ?(through people of course but he is still the author) if the sacraments are not in the scriptures how do you know you should take them? and why are they not written?
do you not know a demon can look just like Jesus as well? so if you supposedly saw Jesus tomorrow what would you measure him against? the scriptures! while he may not be confined to the scriptures his wisdom which is sufficient for any man to have life has. it speaks to our soul, his law written on our hearts so that we may live in communion with him.
“But I don’t have to look far, because the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. Catholics copied it, preserved it, protected it, promulgated it and canonized it.”
^ this is overused and really an irrelevant point. I could just as easily argue that the protestants believe they were the early church fathers and preserved the book, but at the end of the day what does that have to do with sola scriptura?
I too find no problem with reading other writings. I plan to read satanist bible to be able to destroy any satanist i come across with their own words. The koran for the same reason as well.
do not get me wrong here, i do believe other writings are useful pertaining to Christianity however did the early church fathers God breath anything new? no
let me end this part and move to your next post
1 cor 11:1 does indicate to follow apolistic instruction, forgive me but i thought you were trying to make the point the apostles taught something other then what was mentioned in scripture.
If a man imitates an apostle right? and this apostle is imitating Christ ultimately does this not mean to imitate Christ? otherwise how could the man imitate the apostle without imitating Christ?
I should probably learn to use the multi quote properly but for now please bear with my ignorance
If we need pastors and teachers why did he say grace is all we need according to heb 13:8/9
again paul is saying to imitate him. what does paul do on a daily basis? he imitates Christ. what should the believe do? imitate Christ, how should he do it? the way paul does.
referring to your eucharist reply. Is the bible not the word of God himself? did he not write it ?(through people of course but he is still the author) if the sacraments are not in the scriptures how do you know you should take them? and why are they not written?
do you not know a demon can look just like Jesus as well? so if you supposedly saw Jesus tomorrow what would you measure him against? the scriptures! while he may not be confined to the scriptures his wisdom which is sufficient for any man to have life has. it speaks to our soul, his law written on our hearts so that we may live in communion with him.
“But I don’t have to look far, because the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. Catholics copied it, preserved it, protected it, promulgated it and canonized it.”
^ this is overused and really an irrelevant point. I could just as easily argue that the protestants believe they were the early church fathers and preserved the book, but at the end of the day what does that have to do with sola scriptura?
I too find no problem with reading other writings. I plan to read satanist bible to be able to destroy any satanist i come across with their own words. The koran for the same reason as well.
do not get me wrong here, i do believe other writings are useful pertaining to Christianity however did the early church fathers God breath anything new? no
let me end this part and move to your next post
J
justtryin
Guest
Every time you are confronted with a challenge you can’t answer this is your response. I am not knowledgeable enough to be an apologist. I find these threads informative. Everyone else answers and meets a challenge when confronted. Your pattern throughout this thread, when unable to answer, is to claim “This is a fairly common misunderstanding of sola scriptura.” If my soul is at risk this answer will not suffice. Please refute #683 & 684. I DO NOT WANT TO BE DAMNED BY GOD! Please refute these heresies so I can rest in the comfort of receiving my reward in Heaven.
- Status