Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[JonNC]

=dogknox;8018020] **Simply **The Standard to JUDGE teachers and dogmas are the scriptures!
Your CONCORD is "Other writings"!!

FACTS Are; You can’t trust your CONCORD over the scriptures… Show me scriptures that say…
“Man does NOT need to listen to the Church”!
Show me scriptures that say… “Scriptures is all Man needs”!

Of course I don’t trust the Formula of Concord over the scriptures. I trust them only in that they rightly reflect scripture. Where does it say, “Man does NOT need to listen to the Church”!. Where does it say, “Scriptures is all Man needs”!

I need the Church. I listen to the Church. There is not thing one in any of the early 7 councils that I disagree with.

JonNC The scriptures say… “They are USEFUL for teaching!”
Joseph TAUGHT “There is NO church left on earth!!”
Joseph believed “All the scriptures, the sole rule is the scriptures!” He like you is protestant! You are wrong and he is right… Who are you to judge, Joseph Smith!?

Yes, they are useful for teaching. Are you saying that the scriptures are only good for teaching, a textbook, as it were, and nothing more?

As for Joseph Smith, you can tie me to him, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Copeland, etc. when they confess to be Lutheran, or I confess to be LDS, or Reformed, or whatever Copeland is. Otherwise, they are irrelevent. Joseph Smith was free to believe as he wished. I’ll let God judge him.

JonNC One protestant TEACHES “Man CANNOT loose salvation!”
Another protestant TEACHES “Man CAN loose salvation”!
One is clearly the spawn of Satan … Both got their TEACHING from scriptures!
Both believe the scriptures are their “Sole rule”!!!

So? Your point? Some folks get it wrong. Some in Apostolic Succession say the pope has universal jurisdiction, some say he doesn’t. Both got their TEACHING from Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

You can’t judge who is right and who is wrong… “You are NOT scriptures you are just a man!”

Of course I can, in terms of which communion I belong to. You made that same judgegment.

Both have to be accepted as protestant both have to be accepted as “Believers” yet they are polar opposites!!

I don’t know why believers is in quotes, but the CCC says they are Christians.

Proving the lie of " the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures

On a recent thread, a number of Catholics challenged your claims about Baptism. Are you a liar? Perhaps we should keep that word out of a charitable discussion.

Jon

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Logic dictates a different conclusion, Miguel.

Show me the logic!

The existence of tens of thousands of different Christian denominations attests to the fact that the Scriptures indeed are quite un-clear.

Let’s formalize this:

1. If scripture were clear, then there would be only one interpretation.
2. There are multiple interpretations (witness the thousands of denominations.)
3. Therefore scripture is not clear.

In order to reject this argument, one need to show why either premise 1 or 2 is faulty. Let’s see. Hmmm. Well, premise 2 looks sound. But what about premise 1? There seems to be an unspoken assumption here–what we could call a “hidden premise.” In this case you are assuming that clarity resides in the subject (i.e., the interpreter) and not in the object (i.e, scripture).

Now if you agree that scripture is the the inspired, inerrant word of God, then it would be very difficult to attribute the lack of clarity to the object which all parties agree is without error. The alternative is to attribute the lack of clarity to the subject rather than the object. In other words, the interpreter is fallible, the Bible is infallible. The interpreter can make mistakes. The Bible does not.

Heck, even a simple verse, seemingly quite clear, that “baptism now saves you” isn’t, well, isn’t* clear *enough to have a universal Christian understanding of baptism.

But is the lack of clarity intrinsic to the text itself? Or rather are we, perhaps, drawing different conclusions because there is something deficient in us, or in the presuppositions that we bring to the text and/or other “baggage” such as various traditions we have?

In any case, how would one go about resolving the difficulty? Do we just defer to the edict of the Magisterium? Or do we return to the text, try to set our baggage aside and go from there? If the Magisterium decides, then two questions arise: 1. On what basis does it determine the meaning of the text? 2. How do we know that they got it right?

 

[PRmerger]

Show me the logic!

Let’s formalize this:

1. If scripture were clear, then there would be only one interpretation.
2. There are multiple interpretations (witness the thousands of denominations.)
3. Therefore scripture is not clear.

In order to reject this argument, one need to show why either premise 1 or 2 is faulty. Let’s see. Hmmm. Well, premise 2 looks sound. But what about premise 1? There seems to be an unspoken assumption here–what we could call a “hidden premise.” In this case you are assuming that clarity resides in the subject (i.e., the interpreter) and not in the object (i.e, scripture).

Now if you agree that scripture is the the inspired, inerrant word of God, then it would be very difficult to attribute the lack of clarity to the object which all parties agree is without error. The alternative is to attribute the lack of clarity to the subject rather than the object. In other words, the interpreter is fallible, the Bible is infallible. The interpreter can make mistakes. The Bible does not.

Yes, you are correct here Miguel. The error lies in the interpreter. Not with the Scriptures.

I retract my statement that Scripture is unclear. It presents the Word of God with clarity, however the error lies in the interpreter.

Now, how this works with SS is puzzling, given your proposal that there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Thus, it means that with each and every act of interpretation, the fallible interpreter has the potential to be wrong. In fact, fallible means he’s going to be, at some point, wrong. It’s a guarantee, no?

So, can you tell us where your fallible interpretation of any verse of Scripture (pick any) is wrong? And how do you know?

With what do you compare–what is your measuring stick for your interpretation’s validity?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
=inkaneer;8017819]Well, first of all you got it backwards when you say that sola scriptura requires Tradition be accountable to it. For the early church the original test for any writing to be considered for and included in, the canon of scripture, was that it support the Oral Tradition which was far more voluminous than the Written Tradition. That being the case how can the Oral Tradition be held accountable to something that is accountable to the Oral Tradition???

No, I don’t have it backwards. It is your opinion, and perhaps that of your communion, that the practice of SS is backwards, but I do not have sola scriptura backwards.

I think you do have it backwards. And the kicker is that you can not say I am wrong because you have no authority to do so. All you got is your opinion and quite frankly that is all you have. This is what happens when you deny that Jesus established a church empowered with authority. This is why three protestants with two different opinions equals one new denomination. None of you has the authority to say another is wrong. This is why you have “Big Tent” christianity where everyone is welcome and there is no such things as heretics. You all just have different opinions, that’s all.
JonNC;8018038:

Apparently, that didn’t work out too well, because by 1054 there was a lack of unity, and different Churches in Apostolic Succession were using different canons. And again, while there is nothing wrong with scripture being a self-study guide, that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

Come on now, shall we rewrite history? The schism was not of anything theological . It was geo-political. And we all use the same NT canon whether we be Orthodox, protestant or Catholic. We all use the NT as designated by the Catholic Church. That despite the fact Luther did not agree with the Catholic NT canon.

No. Scripture has to be the tool the Church uses, not “any protestant”. I am not my own preacher or bishop (I’m not ordained), and there is only one Pope.

You are quite welcome to insist that personal interpretation is a corrollary to SS. As I told another poster, your insistance regarding what SS is or isn’t is as relevent as the protestant who (wrongly) insists that Catholics worship (latria) the Blessed Virgin.

Jon

That is correct there is only one pope and he is your pope just as much as he is mine. There was only one Moses to lead the OT church and those Jews who did not follow him met their destruction. There’s a biblical lesson in that for all protestants. When Jesus told Peter in John 21:15-17 to feed my sheep, tend my flock, feed my sheep. He, the Good Shepherd was making Peter the shepherd of Jesus church. Just as in Mt 16:18-19 the giving of the keys to the kingdom was the perfection of the OT Davidic kings giving their chief stewards keys to their households and what the chief steward would lock [bind, shut] no one could unlock [loose, open] and what the chief steward would unlock [loose, open] no one could lock [bind, close]. And that authority extends to not only on earth but to heaven also. The pope, the successor to Peter, has that authority. The OT chief stewards were limited by the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel. The NT chief steward has no such boundaries.

 

[PRmerger]

In any case, how would one go about resolving the difficulty? Do we just defer to the edict of the Magisterium? Or do we return to the text, try to set our baggage aside and go from there? If the Magisterium decides, then two questions arise: 1. On what basis does it determine the meaning of the text? 2. How do we know that they got it right?

Well, the treacherous error you make, as you so demonstrated here (see below), is that you have premises, and then you try to find Scripture to support your view.

Actually, I stated several propositions and then gave a scriptural reference to support those propositions. But since scripture verses can function as premises in an argument, your objection is moot anyway.

The above limns quite trenchantly how this paradigm creates a god in one’s own image, rather than conforming one’s image to God.

 

[dogknox]

JonNC You said…

So? Your point? Some folks get it wrong. Some in Apostolic Succession say the pope has universal jurisdiction, some say he doesn’t. Both got their TEACHING from Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

**I reply: **YES and the argument was decided by The CHURCH!!
The CHURCH interprets what the scriptures say!! Two men have a disagreement the JUDGE of who is right and who is wrong is the CHURCH!! She is the AUTHORITY, she uses the scriptures sometimes to make her decision!!!
The scriptures are USEFUL!!

You said…

I need the Church. I listen to the Church. There is not thing one in any of the early 7 councils that I disagree with.

I reply… IF…
If you needed the Church, then you would be Catholic NOT Lutheran!!
JonNC There are things you do disagree with…
Martin Luther had 73 books in his bible, you do not, the Church Councils used 73 books!!
The Councils decided on 73 books!!

Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church… You are NOT Catholic… You are Protestant. You are Lutheran, protestant… NOT Catholic!

When the Early Church made the CREEDS they were making Catholic Creeds… Made by Catholic’s for Catholic’s, not for Lutherans! Lutherans are not Catholic’s!

JonNC The Creeds tell you the “Catholic Church is HOLY!!” The Catholic Church is HOLY, not the Lutheran church!
Jesus formed the HOLY Catholic Church, not the Lutheran church!

The Lutheran church was formed by a MAN… Martin Luther, sixteen hundred years after Jesus formed his; HOLY Catholic Church!
The BRIDE is the Catholic Church NOT the Lutheran church!

Scriptures are very clear…
Matthew 28 “And surely I am with **you **always, to the very end of the age.”

The **“YOU” **is the Catholic Church… Jesus was not addressing the Lutheran church there was no protestants for sixteen hundred years after Jesus said… “I am WITH YOU ALWAYS”!

JonNC To be “ALWAYS WITH” he had to have started with… ** JonNC PROVING beyond all doubt… Jesus is NOT with Protestants churches including your Lutheran church!.. There were NONE when Jesus said…I am ALWAYS WITH>>“YOU”!**

You are forced to reject or twist Mathew 28 to be protestant!

Dogknox

 

[PRmerger]

Catholic claim: Rome is infallible. (Affirmation)
Protestant and Orthodox response: Rome is not infallible. (Dissent)
Ergo: It is “unclear” that Rome is infallible.
Ergo: If Rome claims the Trinity is true, we still can’t be sure since it isn’t “clear” that Rome is infallible.

Fair enough. I see your logic.

Which is why, in the end, when there is no consensus regarding Scripture’s meaning–because, as you state, we are all fallible–then we are either left with
-chaos and confusion (the Protestant paradigm)
-One Truth, knowable through an authoritative, infallible interpreter of Scripture (the Catholic paradigm)

 

[dogknox]

Miguel Sastre you said…

Catholic claim: Rome is infallible. (Affirmation)
Protestant and Orthodox response: Rome is not infallible. (Dissent)
Ergo: It is “unclear” that Rome is infallible.
Ergo: If Rome claims the Trinity is true, we still can’t be sure since it isn’t “clear” that Rome is infallible.

Get it right “the Pope Is Infallible” you use the word “Rome”!!

Also to say what you do… You must believe the Holy Spirit can and does ERR!!
Miguel Sastre You are forced to think “God is not perfect!!”

The Holy Spirit is guiding His Holy Catholic Church into all truth, not Protestant churches! Proven by the thousands and thousands of protestant churches, all claim to have the only truth but not one the same!

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

=dogknox;8018567]JonNC You said…
**I reply: **YES and the argument was decided by The CHURCH!!
The CHURCH interprets what the scriptures say!! Two men have a disagreement the JUDGE of who is right and who is wrong is the CHURCH!! She is the AUTHORITY, she uses the scriptures sometimes to make her decision!!!
The scriptures are USEFUL!!

Which Church?

You said…
I reply… IF…
If you needed the Church, then you would be Catholic NOT Lutheran!!
JonNC There are things you do disagree with…
Martin Luther had 73 books in his bible, you do not, the Church Councils used 73 books!!
The Councils decided on 73 books!!

No, Fr. Martin had 74 in his.
How do you know what my Bible contains? Which of the first 7 set a canon of scripture?

Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church… You are NOT Catholic… You are Protestant. You are Lutheran, protestant… NOT Catholic!

Well spotted.

We’ve discussed (as much as conversing with you can be called “discussion”) the rest of your post before - in almost every thread you participate in, so I’ll pass.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;8018561]
Come on now, shall we rewrite history? The schism was not of anything theological . It was geo-political. And we all use the same NT canon whether we be Orthodox, protestant or Catholic. We all use the NT as designated by the Catholic Church. That despite the fact Luther did not agree with the Catholic NT canon.

Why is it, then, that almost every Orthodox I read says there is theology involved. Universal jurisdiction is theology.

That is correct there is only one pope and he is your pope just as much as he is mine.

Thank you. Dogknox doesn’t even want me sharing the creeds and councils, so I appreciate it. I do consider him my pope.

There was only one Moses to lead the OT church and those Jews who did not follow him met their destruction. There’s a biblical lesson in that for all protestants. When Jesus told Peter in John 21:15-17 to feed my sheep, tend my flock, feed my sheep. He, the Good Shepherd was making Peter the shepherd of Jesus church. Just as in Mt 16:18-19 the giving of the keys to the kingdom was the perfection of the OT Davidic kings giving their chief stewards keys to their households and what the chief steward would lock [bind, shut] no one could unlock [loose, open] and what the chief steward would unlock [loose, open] no one could lock [bind, close]. And that authority extends to not only on earth but to heaven also. The pope, the successor to Peter, has that authority. The OT chief stewards were limited by the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel. The NT chief steward has no such boundaries.

And I will accept that jurisdiction - when Orthodoxy does.

Jon

 

[Philthy]

Did you see my words, “the basics of the Trinity?” If so, then I don’t know how your question could arise.

It was an easy question to attack Miguel, and you chose to do so. I have had a number of posts relating to more difficult issues that you have ignored completely. I assumed you were focused on Eric’s posts. Now I have reason to doubt that. What? You wanna list? Here’s a list of them for anyone who’s interested:

#556 ****Regarding “individual dissenters”: "There are always individual dissenters in all …communities(Prot and Cath), but it is the authoritative elements of the institutions themselves that have produced interpretive diversity within Protestantism, but not within Catholicism. If Scripture were formally and materially sufficient in the manner you propose, interpretive diversity within those authoritative elements would not have occurred.
**#575 ****Regarding determining the truth of Scripture via exegesis from **: "One may find objective truth from Scripture Miguel, but you won’t necessarily know that you have found it. It remains largely indistinguishable from the errors derived from Scripture. So when you claim that “we use exegesis…to find that meaning”, what you mean to say is that you use exegesis in pursuit of that meaning. What you actually find is “a” meaning and that meaning may be the objective truth of Scripture or it may not; and you don’t have any concrete way of distinguishing the difference for a variety of doctrinal issues. The fact remains that recognition of the objective truth as distinguished from falsehood cannot be reliably accomplished by the exegetical method you propose. "
You readily dismiss the fact that dozens of interpretations arise from the “sufficiently clear” Scriptures on any variety of issues by folks who believe they are using proper exegesis and without actually explaining how these misinterpretations arise and how they are to be remedied. You simply reply that formal sufficiency - by definition - has nothing to do with the fact that people will misinterpret Scripture despite it’s formal sufficiency. That is not a very practical approach, in fact it sounds like an avoidance of reality. You havent even begun to explain how these real differences of understanding - by folks who genuinely believe they are engaged in proper exegesis - are meant to be resolved apart from an external authority, and without that explanation your entire formal sufficiency is practically useless since it leaves the objective truth of Scripture unrecognizable as such.
# 604 Regarding the need for an interpretive authority: "You have consistently demonstrated the need for someone or something outside of Scripture to arbitrate what the “objective truth” of Scripture is. The problem for your position is that you won’t claim that title for yourself and you won’t grant it to anyone or anything else either. You simply attempt to claim that the objective truth of Scripture can be known by proper exegesis, but that no one can actually claim to know when that exegesis has been properly, infallibly performed. The closest we get is that while several interpretations may be possible, you consider a position more plausible. I wish you well with that position.
#729 “In the context of Protestantism vs Catholicism, I don’t see any difference between the two: everyone relies on “an authority that (they) countenance”. In the case of Catholics that countenance is the Church; in Protestantism it is their denominational affiliation or their personal interpretation.”

Have you no answers to these as well? Were these issues not worthy of attention or are they simply too difficult to handle? I’d appreciate a reply if you have time…

(con’d)

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

And then there was this sound exegetical dismantling of your position on 1 Cor 3 (which you had attempted to use as a Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura):
#695 - "I think you are grossly overstating the problem that existed. I think it was as simple as this: some Corinthian Christians had begun to associate with socially or culturally similar Corinthians (while dissociating with other Christians). They were effectively behaving in a discriminatory manner by seeking to surround themselves with people they more easily related to, forgetting that their relationship in Christ is what should be their first consideration. It was clearly wrong for them to have done it , but it is not idolatry. They all worshiped Christ and I think Paul is merely pointing out that creating these divisions based upon slave or free, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, or whatever, simply is not in keeping with the Christian Way. His reference to “Was Paul crucified for you?” could very easily be a reminder that what truly unites them all, and that which is most important, is Christ - not the other petty differences. His asking does not at all suggest that they considered Paul or Cephas to be God. Again, this does not add up to idolatry, and furthermore Paul doesnt even suggest that their salvation is in play. As support of my position - and especially regarding the venial nature of their actions, we need look no further than Ch 6 of the very same letter. There we can see how Paul addresses issues of a more serious nature that jeopardize one’s inheritance in the kingdom of God. He withholds no punches in 1 Cor 6:1-9:"How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones?..it is…a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers. Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thievesnor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.“When someone’s inheritance in the kingdom of God is at stake, Paul isn’t satisfied with rhetoric and implications: he speaks definitively. Please note how he describes the action they were involved in(“you inflict injustice”) and then asks, flabergasted, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?” He then reiterates the same message - expanded to include other sins - with the clear warning “Do not be deceived…will (not) inherit the kingdom of God” He uses almost the exact language again in (Eph 5 and Gal 5). I submit to you that while your conclusion about the issues in Ch 3 rising to the level of idolatry is possible it is not a necessary conclusion, and furthermore that given the clarity and directness of his handling of other, definitively mortal sins later in the very same letter, that your conclusion is improbable and, as you say, implausible. That obviates the intended significance you attempted to convey regarding this section of Scripture and it’s apparent support of Sola Scriptura.”

I’m pretty sure I know why this post never got addressed and it isnt because it would be too easy a target.

 

[Philthy]

What I am claiming is that each of those premises is established by scripture.

And others claim the opposite Miguel. Does your opinion carry any more weight than theirs? If so, on what basis? If not, then what’s the point of your claim?

Since sola scriptura is the claim that doctrine must be stated plainly in scripture or deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence, then I think I have established the Trinity using sola scriptura

You think it - so what? Again I miss your point. Am I to think it because you think it? Does your thinking it carry any authority at all?

Now the question becomes, which of those premises would you eliminate and on what basis would you eliminate it/them?

It does? What if I told you that I - like 99% of Christians - don’t feel competent to make that call? I don’t know Greek, Latin, I have no formal study of history, ancient cultures, etc and I’m generally a dolt. It is so confusing. Much too confusing for me. I find your arguments compelling, but I find Eric’s and Guanophores equally so. What am I to do, Miguel? What does Sola Scriptura tell me to do exactly? That, my friend, is the question. And you - and your version of Sola Scriptura - don’t seem to have any answer for it.

Blessings!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

]Regarding “individual dissenters”

: "There are always individual dissenters in all …communities(Prot and Cath), but it is the authoritative elements of the institutions themselves that have produced interpretive diversity within Protestantism, but not within Catholicism.

You’re kidding, right? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no “interpretive diversity” within Catholicism?

1. So everyone agrees that Dei Verbum 11 teaches to total inerrancy of scripture in whatever it affirms and not just a limited inerrancy in matters of salvation?
2. So everyone agrees that in Lumen Gentium 8 the choice of the words “subsists in” was intended to teach that the Church is coterminous with Catholicism and not intended to include non-Catholic churches?
3. What about the Molinists who—with ecclesiastical approval—are allowed to teach that election is conditional, while the Thomists—with the same ecclesiastical approval—are allowed to teach that election is unconditional? What “objectivity” does your church bring to this difficult issue when it essentially “punts” and allows two mutually exclusive theories to be held simultaneously as orthodox interpretations of scripture? I mean, honestly, how much more diverse can it get? Are the elect chosen by a sovereign act of God so that it is his will that causes our will to choose him (unconditional election)? Or are the elect chosen on the basis of the divine foreknowledge of their foreseen cooperation with grace? Both positions cannot be true, Philthy. So it isn’t rational to claim that there is no “interpretive diversity” within your church.
4. Is scripture materially sufficient? You don’t have to hold that view as a Catholic. You are also free to hold—as did most of the theologians at Trent—that the deposit of faith is contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition. Or—since the second Vatican Council, incorporating the insights of Karl Rahner, SJ and Yves Congar, OP—you can hold to the new “material sufficiency” view. But if you do, then you are holding a view that is, once again, mutually exclusive with the partim/partim view. For one cannot rationally hold that the deposit of faith is simultaneously contained in scripture alone and only partly in scripture and partly in tradition.

The list could be multiplied, which shows quite a bit of diversity over these issues within Catholicism too, including the individual interpretation of particular biblical texts for which Rome offers no definitive definition. You see–Rome holds that infallibility extends to the substance of dogma, but not to the actual formulations of dogma, which are subject to the limitations of any given age. So while no Catholic is free to disagree with the Immaculate Conception, no Catholic is required to believe that Luke 1:28 has given rise to the dogma. While it may be a popular and traditional prooftext for the dogma, the text itself has not been infallibly interpreted. This is why most responsible Catholic exegetes dismiss the text out of hand as having anything to do with the Immaculate Conception–and they are free to do so, just so long as they continue to hold to the dogma anyway.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If Scripture were formally and materially sufficient in the manner you propose, interpretive diversity within those authoritative elements would not have occurred.

I suspect you haven’t even begun to understand the “manner” in which I define this; rather you seem determined to misrepresent sola scriptura every chance you get. Be that as it may, you’re making the same error in reasoning that we’ve been seeing over and over again on this thread. For you conclusion simply does not follow from your hidden premise, as we shall see:

Your argument is this:

1. If scripture were sufficient, there would be only one interpretation of it.
   (Hidden premise: Any lack of sufficiency, or clarity, must lie in the object of interpretation rather than the subject who interprets).
2. There are multiple interpretations of it (witness all the “interpretive diversity” out there)
3. Therefore scripture is insufficient.

Since “sufficiency” is either material or formal, and since a Catholic is permitted to accept material sufficiency, then crux of the matter only concerns formal sufficiency. Now formal sufficiency has to do with the intrinsic clarity of the scriptures. Since all parties agree that scripture is inerrant (though it is far from clear that Catholics would affirm a total inerrancy), it makes far more sense to postulate that any lack of clarity must reside in the fallible subject who interprets rather than the object that is interpreted. Sola scriptura—as historically understood—is the claim that the infallible, inerrant Word of God (which at least some Catholics affirm) is clear, but that we, fallible, errant human beings are less than clear. Interpretive diversity, therefore, is to be expected.

The problem with your argument, of course, is that it contains a hidden premise that is entirely without warrant—unless of course you’re one of those Catholics who interpret Dei Verbum 11 as teaching only a limited inerrancy.

What you actually find is “a” meaning and that meaning may be the objective truth of Scripture or it may not; and you don’t have any concrete way of distinguishing the difference for a variety of doctrinal issues.

I don’t accept the skeptical premise you’re using here (and elsewhere)—namely that our own subjectivity gets in the way of arriving at any objectivity. If you truly believe this, then stop reading. Honestly—for any thing I would say to you in a post or you to me would be hopelessly beyond the possibility of understanding. If you really believe this, then stop writing. For how could you—in good conscience—reasonably expect anyone to arrive at an “objective” understanding of your words? We could only ever hope to arrive at “a meaning,” but never “the meaning” of whatever it is you’re saying.

You simply reply that formal sufficiency - by definition - has nothing to do with the fact that people will misinterpret Scripture despite it’s formal sufficiency .

Bingo. I think you’ve finally understood our position. It’s really a modest claim. Scripture is the stable norm and is intrinsically clear due to its inerrant and infallible qualities that it alone enjoys as God’s inspired word. We, however, are fallible, which means we are not immune from error. That doesn’t mean we always get it wrong or even mostly get it wrong. In fact, I think we can usually get it right. But there’s no a priori claim that it is impossible for us to be wrong. That is why we must constantly check our interpretations against scripture. To be sure—traditions will develop. But the only possibility of overturning a questionable tradition is by comparing it to scripture. If it becomes tradition to argue that “Hail favored one” really means, “Mary enjoyed a fullness of sanctifying grace that must have extended all they way back to the moment of conception,” what is the fix to this obvious error? The answer is exegesis. We read the text and discover that this is not what Luke meant at all and that such a tradition is being read back into the text, which in no way shape or form can sustain the meaning that proponents of the Immaculate Conception have attempted to find there. Scripture really is the remedy to the traditions of men, as Jesus showed over and over again. How are you not seeing this?

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Doctrinal dance?

A Doctrinal dance is the avoidance of addressing the issue at hand by introducing other issues as a distraction such as Magisterium, Sacred Tradirtion, etc…

Did you miss where we already discussed the following premises? Here they are for your consideration, along with a single scripture text (though more could be cited):

1. God is one. (Duet. 6:4)
2. The Father is God. (Isa. 63:16)
3. The Son is God. (Hebrews 1:8-12)
4. The Holy Spirit is God. (2 Cor. 3:17).
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. (Matt. 3:16-17)
   Conclusion: In the one being, God, there exists three distinct persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I certainly didn’t miss the discussion and it is your discourse that spawned my request for demonstration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from SS; something you still haven’t done as I will attempt to demonstrate.

In this, your “basic concept of the Trinity,” you have demonstrated ST, not SS. It is my understanding that you already believe in our Triune God as the RCC does. Your interpretation of the scripture versus above demonstrate a natural predisposition towards these conclusions which HAPPEN to align with Church doctrine. This is not proof and, if I may be so bold, I posit that your interpretation was strongly influenced by the RCC when you were in full communion.

That’s the basics of the Trinity on the basis of the Bible. There is, of course, more to it than that. EricFilmer has attempted to play “Arius’ Advocate” on any number of these premises and if you’ve been present at the “doctrinal dance,” you’ll see that I’ve given him a Biblical answer to all of his objections.

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.

Are the text clear and innerant? Yes

Are they open to interpretation by fallible men? Yes, IF done so without some way of knowing the author’s intent.

How can we know for sure what the author’s intent was? Exegesis takes one only so far because it is too often assumed that the texts exist without the spoken word, if it were an exact science this thread wouldn’t exist! Exegesis in this matter is only reliable in helping to narrow down the possible meanings. Again, how can we know with certainty the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as handed down to us is correct? PARADOSIS

Miguel, you’ve asked what makes the Churches interpretation more reliable than anyone elses - Paradosis is the root of that answer.

When we say we are reading scripture through the lense of ST, that lense contains Paradosis.

We trust in what was orally passed on to us from the Apostles, it is for this very reason we are an Apostolic Church.

I propose that your confusion with how this or any other Church doctrine came to be lies soley with the absence of paradosis in your exegesis. Scripture is useful for supporting what the Apostles handed down orally, not the other way around. They work together, oral teachings and written word, ST & SS, peanut butter & jelly

Scripture has always been a tool for men of God to capture the critical points of revelation in order to equip them for teaching the fullness of their meaning. You will no doubt want proof of this - I submit the entire Bible. It logically makes sense that the scriptures seem vague until one realizes that they are only the basis needed to expound on oral teachings. Does your Pastor not expound on Biblical verses for the greater understanding of the congregation on Sundays?

Simply because your interpretation of scripture agrees with Church doctrine on the Holy Trinity doesn’t mean you’ve proven SS and please rest assured that I really tried to objectively see it from your perspective. You are way more learned than I on these subjects and I truly applied benefit of the doubt. Your claim is just not there. Please consider the following:

1. Were the interpretations you posted truly your own as derived via SS?
2. If yes, then how did you come to those particular conclusions?
3. If by SS/exegesis, how do you distinguish your interpretation as being correct vs Arius?
4. Can you objectively defend your interpretation using only SS (careful, paradosis opens up ST)?

Unless you concede ST through Apostolic paradosis, your exegesis can’t conclusively yield the same result.

Is it possible for someone to come to the same combination of interpretations as the Doctrine? Sure, that’s not in question.

What is in question is whether or not it is a chance combination of interpretations and not definitive truth.

Paradosis → Sacred Tradition + Sacred Scripture = Doctrine, taught to the masses via Magisterium which is safeguarded through Paradosis. Rinse and repeat

Hope that helps.

It has helped, thank you, Miguel.

God bless!

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
=inkaneer;8018561]
Come on now, shall we rewrite history? The schism was not of anything theological . It was geo-political. And we all use the same NT canon whether we be Orthodox, protestant or Catholic. We all use the NT as designated by the Catholic Church. That despite the fact Luther did not agree with the Catholic NT canon.

Why is it, then, that almost every Orthodox I read says there is theology involved. Universal jurisdiction is theology.

Unlike the protestant heretics the Orthodox did not (and still do not) deny the authority of the pope. They recognize him as the Patriach of the Western Church and attribute a primacy of honor to him. The geo politics come in when they say he is not the head of the Eastern churches. This despitethe fact that the bishops of the eastern church did accept the universal bishopric of the pope at the Council of Florence. Later some of them, not all, renounced their acceptance. That is their error and it is political not theological. Again read the history of Caesaropapism in the Eastern church. As proof of this I ask you to compare the Greek Orthodox with the Byzantine Catholic. You will find no difference in their theology. The only difference is that the Byzantine Catholics accept the pope as the universal bishop while the Greek Orthodox do not. That is not theology, that is politics.

Thank you. Dogknox doesn’t even want me sharing the creeds and councils, so I appreciate it. I do consider him my pope.

But the creeds are not totally scriptural. They also rely on the Oral Tradition and the Magisterium. Seems to me that in accepting the creeds you, ipso facto, accept the basis that they are based on. This places you in a very real predicament. If sola scriptura is indeed true then those Catholic bishops who decided what writings were inspired had no authority to do so. And if they did not have the authority to do so then you, by virtue of sola scriptura, are placing your trust in something that may not be the infallible word of God that you would like to think it is. That being the case then protestant christianity is no better than any of the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans or other ancient peoples. But, by accepting the canon of the NT you automatically affirm the authority of those who decided it and that blows sola scriptura totally away. It gets kind of messy logically and it would be so much easier if God, in His infinite wisdom, had just given us an inspired table of contents to go with the Bible. But He didn’t. All He did was give us a church to decide those things.

Quote:
There was only one Moses to lead the OT church and those Jews who did not follow him met their destruction. There’s a biblical lesson in that for all protestants. When Jesus told Peter in John 21:15-17 to feed my sheep, tend my flock, feed my sheep. He, the Good Shepherd was making Peter the shepherd of Jesus church. Just as in Mt 16:18-19 the giving of the keys to the kingdom was the perfection of the OT Davidic kings giving their chief stewards keys to their households and what the chief steward would lock [bind, shut] no one could unlock [loose, open] and what the chief steward would unlock [loose, open] no one could lock [bind, close]. And that authority extends to not only on earth but to heaven also. The pope, the successor to Peter, has that authority. The OT chief stewards were limited by the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel. The NT chief steward has no such boundaries.

And I will accept that jurisdiction - when Orthodoxy does.

Jon

Orthodoxy accepted it at the council of Florence only to later renounce it based on political concerns. And look what happened to Orthodoxy. Things don’t seem to go well for those who oppose God’s plan. Scripture tells us of people like Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra being struck dead for their actions [Acts 5]. The Jews met their fate. The church in North Africa, once the hotbed of christendom but succumbed to heresy, was overrun by Islam in less than a century. The Orthodox themselves lost Constantinople and the great church of the Holy Spirit, the Haggia Sophia. The largest church in the world is now a mosque. There is a price to pay for disobedience.

 

[PiousFriend]

The problem with sola scriptura and the whole Protestant Reformation is the ability to own a copy of the Bible. Ironically, the printing press was invented at about the time of the reformation, but the school systems were not. There weren’t a large number of educated and literate people, so the whole principle of being led by only the Bible would have excluded everyone who was not educated and had never learned how to read, which for most of human history was virtually everyone except for the wealthy. Most people seem to have a westernized perspective of history but the schools in the middle ages, for example, were not filled with the peasantry. The feudal system had an entirely different social structure than we have in the U.S. The feudal system excluded alot of people who would never have attended schools, had schools even existed on a widespread basis(and they did not).
Furthermore, the Bibles that were in existence were hand produced by monks and were not mass produced as they are today. How long does it take to copy a Bible by hand from Genesis to Revelation?
The Reformation could never have taken place at any other time in history than the time it did not only because of the technology but also because of the enlightenment which had already created a subjective sense of the truth and the whole propensity toward individualism which fostered such things as a “me” approach to interpreting scripture.

If Sola Scriptura were true it would have been practiced from the foundation of the church. But without Guttenburg and an education that would have been difficult to say the least.

 

[gerard1984]

The opposite case is made in Scriptures, that the words of Scripture are not sufficient and we must rely on the authority of the Church. See Luke’s account of the Council at Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles … Chapter 15. This is an irrefutable argument that the authority of a Church council trumps the Scriptural account of the requirement for circumcising the Gentiles in order to be fully accepted as Christians…

I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion looking at acts 15. They were teaching that unless you were circumcised you could not be saved in verse 1.
Peter was saying that the gentiles were saved the same way that they were.

Acts 15:6
6 The apostles and the elders came together to **look into this [c]matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that [d]in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.

I am not sure i understand your argument that Church council trumps Scripture. Now we are saved by Grace and not the works of the Law. Now this council was telling the people only what was revealed to them by God and they witnessed some of these Gentile conversions.**

 

[PRmerger]

In this, your “basic concept of the Trinity,” you have demonstrated ST, not SS.

'zactly.

I think even Miguel realizes this now.

He proposes that he starts with a “premise” and then uses Scripture to support it. That’s called tradition.

Originally Posted by **Miguel Sastre **
Actually, I stated several propositions and then gave a scriptural reference to support those propositions. But since scripture verses can function as premises in an argument, your objection is moot anyway.

One cannot provide apologia for the Trinity using Scripture alone. One starts with a premise or proposition. As Miguel demonstrated so ably.