J
justtryin
Guest
Sorry I came across that way. It was a poor attempt at sarcastic urgency. I am enjoying reading this thread though. I also meant no disrespect to Miguel.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
Ibetrippin, do you not remember what you yourself wrote? I’ve quoted it above to help your memory. You said that the Apostles didn’t heal and implied that they couldn’t perform any miracles. Philthy pointed out your error, but instead of addressing it, you attempted to change the subject and make it about something else.That is a dishonest approach and that won’t stand here.
Your error is that you claimed the Apostles did not heal, which is clearly false in light of the many passages of Scripture in which they do that and even greater miracles. Are you going to man up and acknowledge your error in this or are you going to try to buffalo all of us on this forum?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
And it does clearly teach the Trinity. That someone disagrees does not prove that it’s unclear in itself. It may be unclear to them. But that doesn’t mean it’s unclear. Now…for the record, I am not going to reinvent the wheel and prove Trinity. That has been done already. My position is that the Bible clearly teaches all the truths of the Trinity either directly or by necessary deduction from other explicit truths. You can point out all the nay-sayers who have a different take on this throughout history all you want. But the most you can prove by doing so is that the doctrine is unclear to them. Presumably, as a Trinitarian, you would agree that the doctrine ia the only interpretation of scripture that makes sense of all the data we have and that any other interpretation ultimately gets something wrong. If you don’t believe this, then you should give up your beliefs in the Trinity as it would not be rationale to hold to a belief that you believe to be wrong.
Here’s why I sincerely hope you’re not saying: That the Trinity is one of several equally plausible options and that the only reason why you’re Trinitarian and not, say, Arian is because your church ultimately voted to go Trinitarian so that the truth rests on the authority of the church rather than on the teaching of scripture.
Wait a minute. You’re the one who first said the doctrine isn’t clear. But that’s your interpretation. And it’s the major premise here in your argument (what I’m calling “The Trinity Gambit.”) But I deny your major and so it’s not on me to prove the clarity of the Trinity, but on you to show why its unclear. Let’s be clear about your claim. You draw the conclusion that because there are multiple interpretation of the Bible that the Bible is therefore unclear. But that conclusion does not follow. It overlooks the possibility that some interpretations are simply wrong.
If I give a Spanish vocabulary quiz to my students and half of them miss the same word–that doesn’t mean the definition of the word is in doubt. The mere fact of a wrong interpretation does not mean the answer is intrinsically ambiguous. More likely, the students have not prepared sufficiently. Perhaps they have confused a similar word for another or simply forgotten. The error in this case resides in the student and not the word he or she is attempting to interpret.
No. I am not going down this road. If I wanted to defend the Trinity on the basis of scripture I could. But that would be a tedious waste of time since you, presumably, believe in the Trinity.
By the way, if you really think the Trinity is unclear in scripture, then why do you believe it (if you do)? What information has “Tradition” or the “Magisterium” given you that you (and they) did not derive from scripture? What advantage, other than tie-breaking-authority, do they give you? And again, on what basis do you countenance their authority in the first place? (Scripture? Are you sure you’re reading these texts the right way? Do such texts “clearly” demonstrate the infallibility of the Roman magisterium? And who decides that such texts are “clear” in the first place? You? Rome? But doesn’t that beg the question?)
What was the litmus test you used to determine that the Roman magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals and, on her authority, you believe the Trinity is to be believed even though Arius and the Modalists may have been equally justified in their reading of the text? Isn’t the litmus test your own personal reading of scripture and church history? But how is it okay for you to engage in such “private interpretation,” and not allow others the same liberty?
But to answer your question, no. I don’t expect you to take my word for it. I expect you to take God’s word for it. Read the text. If you really believe that Arius had just as good a case as Athanasius, then by all means start a thread and demonstrate the equal plausibility of Arianism and perhaps those interested in that topic will join you there.
As for me, however, I want to go back to the topic of sola scriptura. I don’t think the Trinity Gambit is working for you here, Eric, if for no other reason than all parties here presumably agree that it is the best reading of scripture.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Except, perhaps, in the sense of “material sufficiency.”
My son just called me “chubby.” And now you’re calling me indeFATigable. Okay, okay…I get it.
That’s not what Protestants have historically understood by perspicuity. One way to understand it is this: Because the Bible is inerrant, any errors in doctrine that are promulgated in the church are to be blamed on our fallibility and not the intrinsic lack of clarity of the Bible. That’s really all that is being claimed here. The Bible is true and without error. We, however, are prone to error and can and often do make wrong inferences. The error is in us. The lack of clarity resides in us. The text itself, however, is clear. Were it not, then we must necessarily despair of ever having the possibility of understanding what God has communicated to us–for then not only would the receiver be faulty, but so would the transmitter. Formal sufficiency (perspicuity) says that both the transmission and the message are clear. It does not say, however, that the receiver will always understand the message. For that reason, interpretation is necessary, which is why God has graciously provided the church with “teachers.”
Yes. it does both. Some doctrines are worked out in scripture. But not all of them. Some are only worked out by logical deduction based on other clear truths taught in scripture.
It’s typically Catholic to believe that it gives authority to scripture. In point of fact, however, no church has any authority apart from the word of God. So it is the word that authorizes the church, and not the other way around.
But he didn’t tell us exactly how the Holy Spirit would accomplish this. One way that promise could have been fulfilled was in the special revelation of scripture itself. Nor did he use the words “church” here, but rather “you.” But who is the “you” to whom John is writing/Jesus is speaking? The Roman Magisterium? If so, connect the dots for us.
Perhaps. But then, if this is a topic for another thread, how much more the claim that the Trinity isn’t clearly taught in scripture? Yet you’ve said nothing about starting a new thread for that.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
What was wrong with the example I suggested? You asked Catholics whether or not the Bible was enough for us. I turned this around and asked you the same question. After all, if, in practice, the Bible is not enough for those who believe in Sola Scriptura then why expect it to be enough for those who don’t?
To demonstrate the fact that adherents of Sola Scriptura can and do debate over the interpretation of Scripture, I gave a string of doctrinal issues which various Sola Scriptura using communities define differently. But it seems that rather than addressing this example, you suddenly want to turn this into a debate between a Sola Scriptura adherent (you) and one who rejects Sola Scriptura (me). How does this actually address the point I brought up?
In light of this, I will stick to my original example to see how various supporters of Sola Scriptura handle doctrinal differences and whether or not the Bible is, indeed, enough for them.
So as far as you are concerned, the Church of Christ representatives in the John Ackerberg Show video I linked correctly interpreted Scripture while those on the other side did not. My question for you is, how can you be so sure?
And here is something else for you to consider. The Faith Facts website was created by adherents of Sola Scriptura. This is clearly seen by the following statement on their “What We Believe: Our Statement of Faith” page: “We believe that the Bible is the final authority on faith and life—that it is a magnificent and unique document, truly inspired by God through human writers, and is without error in the original manuscripts.” Moreover, Faith Facts aspire to help Protestants solve doctrinal differences by teaching fellow adherents of Sola Scriptura how to interpret the Bible. Now keep that in mind for a moment…
Above you said that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that there are “dozens” of Bible verses that demonstrate this. And yet Faith Facts, who present themselves as bastions of Sola Scriptura, have an article called 101 Reasons Why Water Baptism is Not Necessary to be Saved. And by clicking on the link you can see that they have cited dozens of Bible verses as well.
In defense of the necessity of Baptism, you singled out Acts 2:38. This made it on #43 of Faith Facts’ 101 Reasons Why Water Baptism is Not Necessary to be Saved list, and I will present it here:
- Acts 2:38 in some translations says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins….” There are many reasons why for in Acts 2:38 does not necessarily mean “in order to achieve” forgiveness of sins. The Greek word eis (“for”) can mean “because of,” “as a result of,” or “in light of.” There are many passages in the New Testament that clearly show this meaning: Matthew 3:11, 10:41, 12:41, 28:19; Mark 1:9; Luke 5:14, 14:23; John 4:5, 11:31; Acts 2:25, 10:43, 19:3, 22:10; Romans 4:20, 5:8, 5:12, 6:3; 1 Cor 10:2. Thus whatever follows eis (for) is often something that has already been accomplished. Here is an online interlinear Bible that the reader can look up each of these passages, beginning with Acts 2:38: studylight.org/isb/ (note eis rendered as the original word eiv). It would also be helpful to review each of these video clips by Robert Morey before proceeding. These are from a 14 part series; each part lasts about 9 minutes: Morey on Baptism 7-14, Morey on Baptism 12-14, Morey on Baptism 13-14. Morey cites many Bible translations that render eis in Acts 2:38 as “because of” or “as a result of” or “in light of.” Also helpful is an essay by Lanny Tanton, a former Church of Christ preacher that changed his mind on this: Change of Mind. Eis also “looks backward” in the Old Testament Septuagint (Mal 2:2, 2:11). See Got Question on Acts. (Go to #42 from the actual Faith Facts website in order to get workable links found in this quote)
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued)
What shall we now say about Luther’s approach in determining doctrine? Shall we say that Martin Luther was not a true adherent of Sola Scriptura? Shall we say (as Miguel often accuses me of) that Martin Luther misrepresented the principle of Sola Scriptura? Shall we say that Martin Luther ignored the what Bible clearly teaches in order to advance his own sacramental theology (and in so doing make a hypocrisy out of the very concept of Sola Scriptura)?
I think the answers to these various question is obviously “No.” Naturally, I am not a fan of Luther, but obviously Martin Luther knew exactly what Sola Scriptura is and how to apply it. So let me ask you this: is the Bible enough for you to prove that your interpretation of the Bible (regarding the Eucharist) is correct and Martin Luther’s is not? How do you explain the discrepancy between your interpretation with that of the man who practically coined the phrase “Sola Scriptura”?
(Continued in my next post…)
I think you misunderstood the question. I wasn’t asking about the necessity of sacraments, but rather why is there not a consensus among adherents of Sola Scriptura over the nature and number of sacraments? Is the Bible enough to clearly define what a sacrament is and tell us specifically what the sacraments are? If so then why do various adherents of Sola Scriptura have different sacramental theologies?
Once again I think you misunderstood the question. I did not ask whether or not the Eucharist is necessary, but rather asked why some adherents of Sola Scriptura say that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ while others say the Eucharist is not. Basically all you’ve done here is present your reasons why you think that the words Jesus spoke about the Eucharist are symbolic. But I can easily think of a renowned Protestant theologian who officially taught that the Eucharist is a sacrament and also that it is literally the true Body and Blood of Christ. The man I’m thinking of is Martin Luther. And yet he read the Bible and came to an opposite conclusion to yours.
What shall we now say about Luther’s approach in determining doctrine? Shall we say that Martin Luther was not a true adherent of Sola Scriptura? Shall we say (as Miguel often accuses me of) that Martin Luther misrepresented the principle of Sola Scriptura? Shall we say that Martin Luther ignored the what Bible clearly teaches in order to advance his own sacramental theology (and in so doing make a hypocrisy out of the very concept of Sola Scriptura)?
I think the answers to these various question is obviously “No.” Naturally, I am not a fan of Luther, but obviously Martin Luther knew exactly what Sola Scriptura is and how to apply it. So let me ask you this: is the Bible enough for you to prove that your interpretation of the Bible (regarding the Eucharist) is correct and Martin Luther’s is not? How do you explain the discrepancy between your interpretation with that of the man who practically coined the phrase “Sola Scriptura”?
(Continued in my next post…)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
statement issued by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. This statement concludes with the remark, “Southern Baptists are not anti-woman; indeed, they affirm the leadership of women in family, business, politics, and a wide array of human endeavors. Furthermore, women are an integral and invaluable part of the Body of Christ, serving in a broad variety of important roles both as volunteers and vocational ministers. We don’t know how to say this more strongly: women and men are of equal value! However, because Scripture speaks specifically to the role of pastor, churches are under a moral imperative to be guided by that teaching, rather than the shifting opinions of human cultures.” (Emphasis added)
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Her husband then responded with the following biblical argument:
Regardless of whether or not this man was a dirt-bag for doing what he did, objectively speaking is it biblically permissible for this man to get a divorce? And let me remind you that he believes in following what the Bible teaches, and he believes in Sola Scriptura, and he believes that in his case a divorce would be permitted due to the exception clause of Matthew 19:9.
If you say that a divorce is permissible then clearly explain why Jesus condemned divorce but then gave an exception clause that everyone on the planet could easily use as a loophole. If you say no then is the use of Scripture alone enough for you to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and his is not?
(Continued in my next post)
- there were no known women pastors in New Testament times;
- none of the instructions regarding church order include instructions for women pastors;
- some texts on church order explicitly forbid women to occupy that role. In 1 Timothy 2:12, written with the specific purpose of regulating the office of pastor and the orderly function of the churches, Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (NIV).
statement issued by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. This statement concludes with the remark, “Southern Baptists are not anti-woman; indeed, they affirm the leadership of women in family, business, politics, and a wide array of human endeavors. Furthermore, women are an integral and invaluable part of the Body of Christ, serving in a broad variety of important roles both as volunteers and vocational ministers. We don’t know how to say this more strongly: women and men are of equal value! However, because Scripture speaks specifically to the role of pastor, churches are under a moral imperative to be guided by that teaching, rather than the shifting opinions of human cultures.” (Emphasis added)
Possibly. I haven’t come across a specific attempt to justify same-sex marriage using the Bible in accordance with Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, I presume that the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists as well as the More Light Presbyterians have made such attempts considering the comments they make concerning their beliefs (and here). But that is conjecture on my part.
Here is a true story. A friend of a friend called me one day crying because her husband had moved out and was saying that he wanted a divorce. He admitted that he wanted to start dating a woman he was working with, and claimed that he had not yet been sexually intimate with this woman. This husband and wife attended a Bible church (I forgot which) and were adherents of Sola Scriptura. She told me that she did not want a divorce. As a matter-of-fact, they had four kids at the time, including an infant. So she quoted Matthew 19:9 (and they used the NIV) to her husband:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Her husband then responded with the following biblical argument:
- Matthew 19:9 says that “marital unfaithfulness” is permissible grounds for divorce. “Marital unfaithfulness simply means “adultery” (and many Bibles actually use the word “adultery” in this passage).
- The man claimed that he had not had sex with any other woman.
- But Jesus says that if a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28).
- The man confessed that he had, indeed, lusted after other women, and so, based on Matthew 5:27-28, he was guilty of the sin of adultery.
- Therefore, the man concluded that it was morally permissible for them to get a divorce.
Regardless of whether or not this man was a dirt-bag for doing what he did, objectively speaking is it biblically permissible for this man to get a divorce? And let me remind you that he believes in following what the Bible teaches, and he believes in Sola Scriptura, and he believes that in his case a divorce would be permitted due to the exception clause of Matthew 19:9.
If you say that a divorce is permissible then clearly explain why Jesus condemned divorce but then gave an exception clause that everyone on the planet could easily use as a loophole. If you say no then is the use of Scripture alone enough for you to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and his is not?
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
(Continued…)
And yet here is an article titled, The Biblical Basis for Being Pro-Choice.
And yet there are those who say that it is ok to have pre-marital sex as long as two people are in a committed relationship. But I admit that I have not yet seen an attempt at a biblical argument to back this up, other than the claim that the Bible’s teachings on sexual morality are old-fashioned (which is not a proper argument).
And reality says that many things, even of a doctrinal nature, are not obvious, which is why there is no consensus among various adherents of Sola Scriptura concerning what the Bible truly teaches. Going back to the video link I gave you concerning the John Ackerberg Show, would you say that what the Bible teaches on the necessity of baptism is “obvious” and that the people who said that it is not necessary did not study the Scriptures? Quite the opposite, it seemed that they were well-versed in Scripture and yet your interpretation concerning the necessity of baptism certainly escaped them.
Well, let’s see…
There is no difference between “Catholics” and “Roman Catholics”. It is my understanding that the Anglicans coined the phrase “Roman Catholics” to distinguish Catholicism from Anglicanism (which they considered to be the Catholic Faith within Britain).
Actually, with the exception of Byzantine Rite Catholics, the people you just mentioned are in a state of schism (I presume this to be with “Independent Catholics” seeing as I have never heard that term before). In other words, they have chosen to separate themselves from Catholicism so they do not represent, as you put it, “divisions in the Catholic Faith.” Byzantine Rite Catholics use non-Latin rites, but this is not a division.
(Continued…)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
Regarding the one billion Catholics throughout the world who are in the Catholic Faith, there are no doctrinal divisions. In other words, every diocese’ catechism teaches the same thing. Sure, we have certain people who are in a state of heresy (rejecting one or more Catholic doctrines) and in a sense this causes divisions. But this is not the same kind of division found among adherents of Sola Scriptura.
For example, if a baptized Catholic persistently denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist, he falls into heresy and is automatically excommunicated (according to Canon Law). He may think that his views on the Eucharist are correct, but as far as the Church is concerned he can be denounced for heresy and can be penalized as such. From the Catholic viewpoint, the Real Presence is doctrine and therefore can objectively be declared true while positions rejecting this doctrine can objectively be declared false. Backing up this assessment is the authority of the Magisterium to officially define doctrine. This is how the Catholic Church deals with debates concerning doctrine, and acts much in the same way the Supreme Court in the U.S. deals with debates concerning the Constitution.
But in terms of adherents of Sola Scriptura, what about a situation like I described concerning the question of the necessity of baptism. Both sides quoted Scripture at length, both sides displayed proficiency in Greek, both sides properly examined the context of the passages in the Bible, and yet one side concludes that baptism is necessary in order to be saved, and the other side concludes that faith alone saves and that it happens before baptism, and apart from baptism. Moreover, neither side claims to have the authority to state that their interpretation is infallible.
In this case, how can a universal norm concerning the Bible’s teaching on Baptism even be established? In the eyes of God, Baptism is either necessary for salvation or it is not, and the correct answer ought to likewise be a universal answer. If Sola Scriptura is the means by which God intends for all Christians to determine doctrine, then clearly explain to me how the question of the necessity of Baptism is correctly answered and then applied to all Christians.
Is a person saved and sanctified by the blood of Christ? Yes.
Does this mean that everyone is automatically saved? No. (After all, Jesus said that there will be people who will end up in hell)
Therefore, the saving grace of Christ is applied to some people but not others.
How is the saving grace of Christ applied?
And it is in answering this last question that all the various doctrinal disputes start cranking out. So the situation is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
Regarding the one billion Catholics throughout the world who are in the Catholic Faith, there are no doctrinal divisions. In other words, every diocese’ catechism teaches the same thing. Sure, we have certain people who are in a state of heresy (rejecting one or more Catholic doctrines) and in a sense this causes divisions. But this is not the same kind of division found among adherents of Sola Scriptura.
For example, if a baptized Catholic persistently denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist, he falls into heresy and is automatically excommunicated (according to Canon Law). He may think that his views on the Eucharist are correct, but as far as the Church is concerned he can be denounced for heresy and can be penalized as such. From the Catholic viewpoint, the Real Presence is doctrine and therefore can objectively be declared true while positions rejecting this doctrine can objectively be declared false. Backing up this assessment is the authority of the Magisterium to officially define doctrine. This is how the Catholic Church deals with debates concerning doctrine, and acts much in the same way the Supreme Court in the U.S. deals with debates concerning the Constitution.
But in terms of adherents of Sola Scriptura, what about a situation like I described concerning the question of the necessity of baptism. Both sides quoted Scripture at length, both sides displayed proficiency in Greek, both sides properly examined the context of the passages in the Bible, and yet one side concludes that baptism is necessary in order to be saved, and the other side concludes that faith alone saves and that it happens before baptism, and apart from baptism. Moreover, neither side claims to have the authority to state that their interpretation is infallible.
In this case, how can a universal norm concerning the Bible’s teaching on Baptism even be established? In the eyes of God, Baptism is either necessary for salvation or it is not, and the correct answer ought to likewise be a universal answer. If Sola Scriptura is the means by which God intends for all Christians to determine doctrine, then clearly explain to me how the question of the necessity of Baptism is correctly answered and then applied to all Christians.
Well, let’s see…
Is a person saved and sanctified by the blood of Christ? Yes.
Does this mean that everyone is automatically saved? No. (After all, Jesus said that there will be people who will end up in hell)
Therefore, the saving grace of Christ is applied to some people but not others.
How is the saving grace of Christ applied?
And it is in answering this last question that all the various doctrinal disputes start cranking out. So the situation is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
That’s just the thing about Bible debates, each side usually sees themselves as the “men in blue”.
In the context of this post I am more interested in seeing if the Bible is sufficient to bring various adherents of Sola Scriptura to the same conclusions concerning doctrine. Given the thousands of Protestant denominations out there officially teaching certain doctrines which are contradictory to one another, I’m guessing that the answer to my question is “no.”
G
guanophore
Guest
Pablope, I think ibe left a tag off, so it might have appeared that the comment was directed to you, but it was not. Ibe asked why, if traditions were so important, they were not mentioned in the Scriptures. I offered some references, then noted that it might be difficult to see these Scriptures because he is reading the Bible with “anti-catholic blinders”.
I think this would have prevented the misunderstanding above. However, with the degree of disrespect I am seeing in ibe’s posts, it is not likely that he/she will be here long.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are suffering under a misperception, ibe. Catholics do not extract docrtrine for individual verses of scripture.
Not only that, Catholicism, unlike the faith of “bible christians”, is not determined by how each individual person understands the verses. There are ab out as many diffferent understandings as there are belly buttons.
Catholic doctrine is defined by what has been received through the paradosis from the Apostles. The majority of Catholics are very poorly formed in your faith. You might be an example of one.
Yes, the Church is the Bride of Christ, but there is more to her than just the body of believers here on earth. This truncated understanding of teh Body is also the result of errors that occurred during the Reformation.
I copy the poster’s info and paste it before the quotes, then close them. There is a tutorial. I really hope that you can stay, but if you do not start following the forum rules, it may not be worth your while to learn how to use quotes, because your posting privileges are going to be terminated.
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, guan…thanks, I know…I read in one of his posts he was asking how to do the multi quote…and I was attempting to show him and gave him instructions.Pablope, I think ibe left a tag off, so it might have appeared that the comment was directed to you, but it was not. Ibe asked why, if traditions were so important, they were not mentioned in the Scriptures. I offered some references, then noted that it might be difficult to see these Scriptures because he is reading the Bible with “anti-catholic blinders”.
I think this would have prevented the misunderstanding above. However, with the degree of disrespect I am seeing in ibe’s posts, it is not likely that he/she will be here long.
God bless…
G
guanophore
Guest
This is wise of you, Miguel. It would be a useless exercise, since Arius himself has already accomplished it, and at one time 80% of Christendom had fallen prey to it.
It seems that way to you because you approach the scriptures with this doctrine in mind, so when you read the passages, it confirms your perspective. This is an example of how you are reading the Scripture with this Sacred Tradition in mind. When an Arian reads it, they do so with a non-trinitarian view in mind, so they see the Scriptures from a point of view that confirms their bias. The problem is that the non-Trinitarian view san also be established on the basis of scripture, and has been very convincingly.
Yes, but Arianism would not have been such a popular and dangerous heresy, if the opposite was not also true.
This is silly, Miguel. Catholics do not “throw the Trinity under the bus”. On the contrary, we know the word, as well as the development of the doctrine are part of Sacred Tradition. This does not concern us.
The Truth is that the issue of the Trinity, (as well as a number of other doctrinal issues) consistently prove against SS. There are “other readings” of Scriptures, and contrary doctrines can be supported by interpreting differently. However, Sola Scriptura as an erroneous practice most ceratinly exists, and in that sense, is “true”, just as Arianism exists.
The fact that erroneous practices, leading to erroneous conclusions exist, does not make the Truth void.
Sound according to whose standard? You see, we are again back to extrabiblical standards.
Of course we will agree on this, because we are in agreement before reading on the Trinity. However, we would say the same about the Eucharist, and you will disagree.
Yes. And the Apostles taught that it is necessary to connect those “dots” accurately.
Some people fail to connect them. Others connect them erroneously.
It seems like this would be difficult, since it lacks much history (only 500 years). All the quotes of the Fathers you have tried to use do not equate to SS.
You are creating false dichotomies, Miguel. Sacred Tradition contains the perspective through which we understand Scripture. no one is claiming that “we cannot find it in scripture”. The Aposotlic faith is reflected in the Scriptures. We understand what that faith is because we read the Scriptures with different perspectives. Catholics read from the point of view of the Apostles that was handed down (pardosis) through the Apostolic Succession. You read it from a faith tradition that has been separated from that paradosis for 500 years. That is why we have different understandings of what we are reading.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
It is meaningless to you, because you do not recognize it as valid. It would be like me trying to convince a Pagan about the Trinity, using the Scriptures.
Athansasius was successful because he was operating on sacred Tradition.
G
guanophore
Guest
Excellent example Eric! I am going to save this to a file.
G
guanophore
Guest
That is just the point, Miguel. this is exactly why an infallible interpreter is needed. It is unclear to some people, and some people make mistakes in understading it, as the Scriptures themselves state.
**2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
**
So, who decides which are the ignorant and unstable understandings? Again, we are into an extrabiblical standard.
P
paul_c
Guest
Your seem to be limiting the word of God to what is written in the Bible. Why do you do that? The word of God is Jesus, right? Remember John 1: The word was made flesh and dwelt amoung us!. And Jesus did indeed authorize the Catholic Church. Why do you deny the divine inspiration of the Catholic Church, yet believe that the Scripture it wrote and compiled is divinely inspired? Isn’t that a ludicrous conclusion?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
No, Guano. You haven’t solved the problem by positing an infallible interpreter or what I would simply call a “tie-breaker.” You’ve only pushed the problem back a step. For the infallible interpreter (so-called) can only define what it first knows to be true. Therefore the truth must first be known before it can be defined. This means the truth is knowable.
Having said that, let me say this. I have no problem in principle with believing a truth claim on the strength of someone else’s testimony (witness the Samaritan woman). Far better, however, is when the people no longer need to rely on her testimony because they have discovered the truth for themselves. Thus pushing back from interpreter to interpreter we must eventually arrive at the ground floor itself, which is the truth. This truth is in scripture as even the “material sufficiency” crowd in Rome would happily admit.
Therefore, any claim that the truth of the Trinity depends upon the infallibility of the Nicene creed or the magisterium or tradition or whatever, is only credible insofar as the reasons for the Trinity are themselves credible. I believe it is an extremely credible doctrine and that it alone can handle all the curve ball texts that seem to lead to another conclusion. So once again…ultimately we believe the Trinity because it is true and only penultimately because the Church/Creed/Tradition tell us it is true.
**2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
**
Yes, Guan, “some things,” not “all.” And those things are what “the ignorant and unstable” distort. Where does the blame fall here? With the text? Or with the ignorance and instability of some people?
G
guanophore
Guest
This is largely consistent with what CC believes, and what the Scritpures say about themselves. It is precisely the reason that we need the gift of infallibility.
No, Miguel. This is material sufficiency. This is Catholic!
I don’t think I would argue with this. The problem is that we can still reach opposite conclusions.
Jesus promised not to orphan His Church. If there is no way to know which is the correct understanding of the Word,then we have been orphaned. Even orphans can get it right by guessing, but this is not the way He set things up.
The Word of God in the Church is equally authorative with the Word of God in Scripture. The Church teaches that the Scriptures are authoritative because their primary author is ?God. The ability to claim which books are so written is based upon the authority Christ gave to the Church.
Yes, Miguel, He did. You just don’t want to admit it. You see these passages of Scripture, but you want to believe they mean something else, so that you don’t have to “cave in” to the CC.
Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
The statement was made to His fledgling Church, Miguel. The CC is not “Roman”. The Magesterium is not “Roman”. It is comprised of the successors of the Apostles, and those who are in unity with them.
G
guanophore
Guest
Did you think I believed otherwise? Though the Magesterium may not always see the Truth, Jesus promised that He would reveal it to them, and so he has always. In the first council, we see how this unfolds.
Yes, but since there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons, then an authoritative voice must exist alongside those scriptures to resove disputes.
Jesus said to take the disputes “to the Church”.
Catholics know it is true because it has been revealed divinely. It is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith given to the church.
I am not really looking to place blame, as humans by nature have a tendency to distort and be ignorant. This is precisely WHY the gift of infalliblity is needed. We can’t get there on our own. We need God’s revelation.
In your heart you know this to be true.
Once you are willing to soften your heart, and accept that SS is wrong, you will make a great champion! You have a great love of the Scripture, and will not want to misuse it.
P
paul_c
Guest
How do you know the Trinity is true? You can’t witness the existence of the trinity directly, unless of course you are blessed with some miraculous vision. You can’t learn it for yourself through the scientific method or any dee thinking you might do. So that means you need to rely on the witness of someone who has had one of these visions. This brings you all the way back to the Apostles as credible witnesses. They passed their testimony on primarily through word of mouth. What was written down in the Gospels or epistles wasn’t particularly clear on this issue so we were left to rely on the Church’s witness for the truth.
The problem here is that the ignorant and unstable that are distorting scripture don’t recognize that this passage is in reference to them. The fact is, once you distance yourself from the stability of truth that the Church offers, you are in error…
- Status