I disagree with the way you’re characterizing the debate so far. Again, it is very difficult to speak of sola scriptura without making reference to its counterpoints—namely Tradition and the Magisterium—all the more so when my opponents keeping making statements such as, “that’s why we need an infallible interpreter” or “you have no objective way to decided which interpretation is true” and words to that effect.
You may see this as a debate, I see it as a fight for the salvation of your immortal soul. I have no objection to bringing up these points so long as the conclusion relates to the assertion. It began to look as though the topic was being steered away to other topics while the assertion remains unaddressed.
But I don’t accuse you Catholics of “dancing” around the issue when you bring up these counterpoints because I see it as part and parcel of the entire debate—for Catholics also are reacting to what they see as problematic with sola scriptura.
The counterpoints brought up speak directly to the issue at hand. We are not attempting to derail the challenge by debating the individual points themselves.
So when we Protestants come to the same conclusion as your Catholics we do so on the basis of Sacred Tradition and not because of, but rather in spite of what the Bible says?
Which Protestants are you referring to, Miguel? Some of you have different interpretations “in spite of what the Bible says.”
And you think you can demonstrate this?
I just did
Okay, let’s see where this is going:
Jason L Barnes:
The point Eric was making by playing devil’s advocate demonstrates, from actual historical events, that more than one interpretation of the text is possible.
But what is the relevance of this point, which I do not deny, by the way? In other words, so what?
It is entirely relevant as repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that multiple interpretations are possible using the same scripture verses. To say their exegesis is bad and yours is good must be demonstrated otherwise it is an opinion and refuted.
"Jason L Barnes:
Are they open to interpretation by fallible men? Yes, IF done so without some way of knowing the author’s intent.
I’m not sure I’m following you here.
I admit I could have been clearer here. Since man is fallible, it is possible for scripture to be interpreted in a number of ways, using good exegesis I might add. In order to determine the true intended meaning we must know the authors true intention when he authored the work.
If you’re asking whether or not we can get into the author’s head, I don’t think we can.
I agree that “we” can’t because
you are outside of the deposit of faith.
True. But then has anyone claimed that exegesis can get us into the author’s head?
Understanding author’s intent is part of exegesis. The Church has maintained author’s intent from the time it was given to Her by the Apostles themselves.
And how do you know that “PARADOSIS” can do this?
I know this because the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, containing the Sacred Tradition, passed down through the generations, tells us this, and it is trustworthy.
And how do you know what the precise content of the PARADOSIS is?
If you’re asking for a book reference stating the “precise
content” then I fear you missed the point. 3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, “from close-beside” and 1325 /dídōmi, “give over”) – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.
strongsnumbers.com/greek/3862.htm I doubt they were slipping each other scriptural pamphlets.
That might be true, if we were able to first know what that paradosis is. But apart from scripture, where are you going to find any access to that paradosis?
The Catholic Church is a great place to start
But you haven’t yet shown that my interpretation only “happens” to agree with the Catholic Church because I’m unwittingly relying on PRADOSIS or Sacred Tradition.
Correct me if I’m wrong but, wasn’t your list of interpretations meant to prove sola scriptura?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “unwittingly.” We are all created in God’s image and have an inborn desire to know God and subsequently, truth. To be drawn to Paradosis is only a good and natural function of this desire.
God bless!
