It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Grace_Seeker]

And what exactly is the practical difference between the two.

I’ve been repeated told that that would be going off topic.

So can you explain to me how submiting *Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 ***fits the bill for demonstrating that “**a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.”

I suggest you read the posts in which they were given. The scriptural supports that I previously provided were deleted.

This is of course why I do not accept that “scripture alone,” however you define it, or justify belief in the concept, can ever exist as a practical rule of universal Christian faith.
Chuck

Nor, I. But I am willing try to understand why those who do hold to it prefer it over “Scripture as Primary.”

*]First, the Christian faith is older than the Bible from which you claim that SS emanates.

Actually, I personally claim that SS is merely the operational statement of an apriori assumption. An assumption that I believe remains unproven. And my objection to the attack on it here is that it only accepts that SS is true if it can be proven from scripture, which is a ridiculous charge for it is asking more of SS than what SS demands of others.that is not what SS demands. But, that conversation has repeated been ruled off-topic.

*]Secondly, the claim “that those who don’t accept the tennents of SS simply read those same verses and conclude something different from them than those who do accept SS.” points to the necessity of something OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE to reveal the Truth which Scripture intends to reveal.I would say it points to the necessity of something other ALONG WITH SCRIPTURE rather than OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE, for I think the latter might imply that scripture could be dismissed without doing damage to the faith. And I do not hold to that.

I think you are admitting that some issues regarding the faith are capable of being interpreted more than one way by well-intentioned people honestly seeking the Truth. Do you not acknowledge that?

Most certainly. I trust that you are a well-intentioned person honestly seeking the Truth. I would like to think of myself that way as well. Are we not likely to read the same set of scriptures and at least at times (not likely in all cases, but just in some) arrive at differing understandings of what it is that is being revealed? I know of no two people who are in total agreement with regard to every interpretation of scripture – not even two Popes. Do you not acknowledge that?

If so, then what do you propose is that something which “builds the foundation” from Scripture???

Nothing. That or I don’t understand your question. I propose that Christ is the foundation, and that Scripture is the primary means of revealing Christ to us. And with that guidance we seek to then build the ediface of our faith and its praxis upon Jesus. I would also submit that if something is proposed as an article of faith that it must be evaluated. If it runs contrary to scripture that it needs to be rejected. If it is not contrary to scripture then, assuming that it is in consonance with the overall teaching of scripture and there are other meritorious reasons to adopt it, it should not be exlcuded. However, I also suggest that when it comes to matters of salvation that even if there is knowledge added from outside sources that it is not needed for scripture already is itself sufficient and contains that is necessary for faith and practice. And I don’t need a verse of scripture to support that either, for reason and experience together teach that this is true. Reason in that if there was more necessary for salvation, then God surely would have shared it with us and not depended on fallen human beings to compose it. Experience in that I have seen people who came to saving faith based only on their reading of a Gideon Bible in a hotel room and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Where did that “something” get its authority??

The “and guidance of the Holy Spirit” portion of my above answer I believe addresses your question. God is his own authority.

How do we know when that “something” has spoken? The Catholic position at least addresses these issues coherently - uniting Scripture, history and reason.

And I concur with that, and as you noted above also allow for reference to experience.

I dont get a clear sense of how a SS adherent answers these basic questions from even one of these perspectives, let alone uniting all three, and I’ve heard from a plethora of them.

And you won’t in this thread. All such conversation is immediately stifled as being off topic unless it includes a quote from scripture.

The whole argument for SS IMHO - even in the context of it being defined as you did above - is tenuous from the viewpoint of anyone objectively looking to be convinced of it.

Which is why you and I appear to hold to relatively similar views. It is not something that you can convince another person of with objective texts, but begins with a gut-level since of the way God makes himself known to us – through his Word; and then has a similar lack of trust for anything that is not as unassailable as God is. What all parties fail to realize, is that even in accepting SS as one’s rule, that scripture still has to be interpreted. That means looking outside scripture to some preferred authority: be it Pope, commentary, or self. If led by the Holy Spirit, I see no problem, except the problem of discerning that is was indeed the Holy Spirit’s leading. Which is why I use reason, tradition and experience as confirmation (but not proclamation) of any interpretation of scripture’s revelation.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

**‘Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church’ (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II,10)

The Bible and Tradition are intimately related, interdependent.
God’s revealed Word is not limited to the Bible.
Both are Vehicles for God’s Revelation; both are divinely inspired.
The Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.

’Jesus Christ ordered his apostles, who are the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, to preach it to every creature. This truth and teaching are contained in written books and in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ himself or that were handed on, as it were from hand to hand, from the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us’ (Council of Trent, Decree on Sacred Scripture and Tradition)

 

[Philthy]

I personally claim that SS is merely the operational statement of an apriori assumption. An assumption that I believe remains unproven.

Oops! I assumed you were a SS adherent!

And my objection to the attack on it here is that it only accepts that SS is true if it can be proven from scripture, which is a ridiculous charge for it is asking more of SS than what SS demands of others.that is not what SS demands.

So Sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture - and need not be to remain valid.
Interesting twist! So you are agreeing with the OP then: SS isnt in Scripture, OK?!

I would say it points to the necessity of something other ALONG WITH SCRIPTURE rather than OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE, for I think the latter might imply that scripture could be dismissed without doing damage to the faith. And I do not hold to that.

Ahhh, but why would you not hold to that?? Where did you receive said teaching? Is that not another a priori assumption?

Are we not likely to read the same set of scriptures and at least at times (not likely in all cases, but just in some) arrive at differing understandings of what it is that is being revealed?

Of course! Sometimes we reach different, conflicting conclusions - that is a bit of a problem…at least one of us is wrong. Other times we will reach different, non-conflicting truths…that’s ok.

I know of no two people who are in total agreement with regard to every interpretation of scripture – not even two Popes. Do you not acknowledge that?

I cant speak for Popes, but I certainly acknowledge that left - to personal interpretation of Scripture - no two people will be completely united in their understanding of the faith

Nothing. That or I don’t understand your question.

I dont think you understand my question. You claimed that “a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe”, while at the same time you acknowledge that no two people interpret Scripture the same. Either you are OK with any teaching different things as the “one faith” as long as they have “a” biblical foundation, or you arent. I would assume you are not. This leaves us in the position of not only requiring that “foundation” to be built upon Scripture, but to built BY someone who knows which of the various interpretations of Scripture reperesent the Truth which it testifies to.

I’ll address more of your excellent comments later…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Bible and Tradition are intimately related, interdependent.
God’s revealed Word is not limited to the Bible.
Both are Vehicles for God’s Revelation; both are divinely inspired.
The Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.

Certainly Jesus is also God’s revealed Word. So it is correct that God’s revealed Word is not limited to the Bible. And no doubt God speaks to us through sacred tradition as well – how else might we arrive at some of the key creedal statements of the Church.

But the revelation found in sacred tradition is not of the same order as that found in scripture. For instance, to suggest that Sacred Tradition is sufficient on its own, apart from the Bible, to lead one to an experience of God’s saving grace is not something I have ever heard nor seen to be the case. That is why we are thankful for the use of more than just scripture, but that scripture must still be primary.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I would say it points to the necessity of something other ALONG WITH SCRIPTURE rather than OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE, for I think the latter might imply that scripture could be dismissed without doing damage to the faith. And I do not hold to that.

Sure, it is an a priori assumption, and one I’m surprised that you even question. If one simply had something other than scripture – meaning Christian scripture – one could utilize the Qur’an or Book of Mormon, both come to us as “revealed” documents. I think that dismissing scripture and using them would indeed do damage to the faith. Scripture serves as a check that the ideas being presented are NOT contrary to God’s revelation. Unless scripture serves as the final authority to check one’s beliefs against, you are asking me to put my trust in something that I don’t know the origins of. They may assert that they are divinely inspired, but how do I know that? This is just what you yourself were (I thought) speaking about when asking the questioned in the prior post: “Where did that “something” get its authority?” The apostles can claim it directly from Jesus. Others may try to go a step farther and claim that they have it from the apostles. But I don’t any evidence for this authority to extend to all succeeding generations. If it does, then the scriptures are actually superfluous to faith, for the Church is all that was ever needed. Why then did the apostles write anything down? I believe the existence of them is that it shows they they were of the opinion that we needed to document the faith as something we could continue to refer to. Not everything is in there, but what we have is written (as least in the mind of John) so that we may believe and have eternal life. Others might well provide the sort of guidance that Paul gave to the churches with regard to things like order in worship and practical application in the life of the community of faith, but any teaching regarding the person and work of Christ needs to be in harmony with that which we already have, and so it must come alongside the scripture, it cannot be in place of scripture.

I dont think you understand my question. You claimed that “a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe”, while at the same time you acknowledge that no two people interpret Scripture the same. Either you are OK with any teaching different things as the “one faith” as long as they have “a” biblical foundation, or you arent. I would assume you are not. Actually, I am OK with that. Let me illustrate two different teaching and not even bring the Catholic Church in. I am a United Methodist. We practice open communion. We believe that if you are a member of the body of Christ, that Christ invites you to receive the sacrament and thus all who are in Christ as welcome. None are excluded. I think that I can provide Biblical support for this. Now, I know that the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church teaches that only those who are a part of that local community and are in the communion and fellowship of that local congregation are to be admitted to receive the Eucharist. They would even exclude children raised in that local congregation who have moved away to join other Missouri Synod congregations in others communities from communing when they return home to visit mom and dad. I disagree with there interpretation. But I do allow that I can see where they get it from. And so I don’t see them as being of a “different faith”. I understand that we are all Christians having the one Lord, one baptism and one faith – even if, regrettably not one communion nor fellowship.

This leaves us in the position of not only requiring that “foundation” to be built upon Scripture, but to built BY someone who knows which of the various interpretations of Scripture reperesent the Truth which it testifies to.

That gets back to the issues of discernment. And discussing that is prohibited in this thread.

 

[joe370]

RedBert, who has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the holy bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built, or the church to which you belong, or each individual Christian, or perhaps no one? If your answer is Jesus, then how does He accomplish this task?

Sola scriptura is not in the bible. This is a man-made doctrine. Do you adhere to this doctrine? To which church do you belong, if you don’t mind me asking? Don’t know why you would!

I read your post before it was removed. PM me because I would love to read those articles. I am a former Lutheran and trust me, non-Catholics ignore major chunks of the bible, as did Martin Luther, and compensate by delivering disinformation.

Looking forward to your response.

 

[Philthy]

Sure, it is an a priori assumption, and one I’m surprised that you even question. If one simply had something other than scripture – meaning Christian scripture – one could utilize the Qur’an or Book of Mormon, both come to us as “revealed” documents. I think that dismissing scripture and using them would indeed do damage to the faith. Scripture serves as a check that the ideas being presented are NOT contrary to God’s revelation. Unless scripture serves as the final authority to check one’s beliefs against, you are asking me to put my trust in something that I don’t know the origins of.

 

[RedBert]

RedBert, who has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the holy bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built, or the church to which you belong, or each individual Christian, or perhaps no one? If your answer is Jesus, then how does He accomplish this task?

Sola scriptura is not in the bible. This is a man-made doctrine. Do you adhere to this doctrine? To which church do you belong, if you don’t mind me asking? Don’t know why you would!

.

I worship and serve my Lord and Saviour at a Methodist Church.
While I don’t agree with every doctrine of the UMC, I do agree with the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

"Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible.

**Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, **

Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience.

Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition. Reason is the first means by which we may “trim our sails” and adjust interpretations of Scripture."

“Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.”

 

[joe370]

I worship and serve my Lord and Saviour at a Methodist Church.
While I don’t agree with every doctrine of the UMC, I do agree with the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

---

So, the answer to the question:

RedBert, who has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the holy bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built, or the church to which you belong, or each individual Christian, or perhaps no one? If your answer is Jesus, then how does He accomplish this task?

Is the Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, the answer to the question:

RedBert, who has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the holy bible? Is the Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral?

I don’t believe that is what he said. Read it again. You’re putting a twist on his statements that he did not.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

We dont actually have one faith when we start believing different things - unless you believe that nothing is a necessary article of faith.

I certainly acknowledge that left - to personal interpretation of Scripture - no two people will be completely united in their understanding of the faith.

Enough said.

 

[joe370]

I don’t believe that is what he said. Read it again. You’re putting a twist on his statements that he did not.

---

True, but my question was: who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture. That is the answer I am looking for, from RedBert. He chose to answer my question in the manner in which he did. RedBert, still looking for an answer, when you get the chance.

RedBert, this was the question that helped me become a Christian belonging to the CC.

 

[MonFrere]

But canon, as you point out, was in part necessitated by limiting the scope of what people in the Church referred to as being worth using as a measuring stick – a standard of faith and practice. And for reason that we shall leave in the hands of the early church they included Jude, but not Barnabas. They included the letters of Peter, but not Clement. They include Hebrews, but not Hermes. And they didn’t include lots of other things either. Should those non-canoncial works – the letters of Clement, Barnabas, Hermes – now be accepted as carrying the same weight as that which was determined to be scripture? Should the writings of Ignaitius, Irenaeus, Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa be accepted on par with the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Should we today change the standard by which we measure the rule of faith and practice?

My readings bring me to look at things in a different way. At this time the early Christian Church, which was already being called “Catholic”, was drawing on the writings of various writings for liturgical readings. As such, they were using things as the Shepherd of Hermes and the letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians as well as the gospels and the epistles of St. Paul. When the controversy over the false canons of Marcion came about the Church needed to make a decision over what texts were indeed worthy of being in a canon. It was decided that being apostolic was of top priority. I’m a little foggy here - but I think they also decided that those who were witnesses of the life of Christ would also be accepted; so the gospel of Mark; viewed in tradition as St. Peter’s close associate got the major themes of his gospel from him. And, St. Luke, seems likely to have gotten some material from the Blessed Mother herself. The detail of the narratives of the birth of Christ seem to point to Mary because who else who have the intimate details that’s part of Luke’s gospel. So, this is the main reason that highly revered writings; as the Shepherd of Hermes and the epistle of Pope Clement were taken out of the running. Nothing about their “being inspired” or not being entirely orthodox. However, at this point I think a couple points need to be made. Oral tradition was still part of the apostolic witness and this was simply the way information was passed on in ancient societies. This is not saying that manuscripts were being made of the writings of St. Paul and the gospels and other apostolic writings. ALSO - I think it a very important point that when deciding upon which writings were to make it into the canon there was NEVER a point made that what was being decided upon was the COMPLETE DEPOSIT OF FAITH passed on to the apostles by Christ. There “seems” to have been a work extant in antiquity of the “sayings of Christ”. Don’t know it it was a falsified document or an authentic one. Because of this, we can look upon the canon of scripture as being born out of the tradition of the Church WITHOUT being representative of the COMPLETE DEPOSIT OF FAITH. Since oral tradition was still a major means of passing on the apostolic witness both scripture and tradition would work side by side as to passing on the apostolic faith. Remember, the early Church still highly revered other writings and these writings also gave support and comment to the apostolic witness and could rightly be considered sources of apostolic tradition; just not canonized; as the Church determined these needed the authority of being “an apostolic witness” to the person of Christ. In other words, the canon wasn’t established to in any was replace tradition. More accurate it would be said it was established to SUPPORT tradition. Certainly, the early Church fathers, being very literate men, would take to the scriptures like a duck to water and the used it extensively in their writings. The veneration given the scriptures was very very great. Even before canonization Church Fathers as Origin were writing extensive commentaries on the books that became scripture. (I never thought of it until not, but I wonder if some of the writings that didn’t make the canon were also commented upon – I wouldn’t doubt it.) I’ve a very good book by Robert Wilkins called Early Christian Thought. He wrote this book BEFORE becoming Catholic. He wrote glowingly of the veneration the early Christian Church gave the scriptures.

MAJOR POINT - FOR A CATHOLIC just because the Church canonized the scriptures doesn’t take other writings out of the loop and it certainly doesn’t invalidate oral tradition. The canonization process did PROMOTE certain writings by stamping them with the weight of the authority of the Church; but just as the Church carried out its business without the canon, it could carry out its business just as effectively with the canon. Check history. Theology didn’t change after the establishment of the canon. The use of tradition didn’t change. The lively exchange of ideas didn’t change. All that changed was that there was a canon so HERETICS couldn’t play with the intellectual property of the Church - to put it in today’s terms. INTERNALLY, there wasn’t a blip on the way the church conducted its internal affairs.

So, I don’t think saying the Church was giving “extra weight” to the canonical works as much as they were making a separation between those writings of “apostolic witness” and those without that “first person” witness to the life of Christ. The distinction was made for “external reasons” and not “internal reasons” – as the Church was fully operational before the canonization of the NT writings as after.

MonFrere

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Certainly Jesus is also God’s revealed Word. So it is correct that God’s revealed Word is not limited to the Bible. And no doubt God speaks to us through sacred tradition as well – how else might we arrive at some of the key creedal statements of the Church.

But the revelation found in sacred tradition is not of the same order as that found in scripture. For instance, to suggest that Sacred Tradition is sufficient on its own, apart from the Bible, to lead one to an experience of God’s saving grace is not something I have ever heard nor seen to be the case. That is why we are thankful for the use of more than just scripture, but that scripture must still be primary.

In contrast to the Protestant position of “Scripture alone”, the Catholic Church regards Scripture and Tradition as equally important fonts of the one Revelation given by Christ and entrusted to the Apostles.
"Recognising that this truth and code are contained in written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself…preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church’ (Council of Trent)

The Sacred Scriptures are part of Sacred Tradition. There is no differentiating break between the two. Sacred Scripture is primary; Tradition is not in opposition but in fulfilment,confirmation and explanation, work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[joe370]

RedBert, (Grace Seeker too) - you said:

I worship and serve my Lord and Saviour at a Methodist Church.

**I ask with the deepest respect for the Methodist Church: was the Methodist Church established by Jesus Christ on Pentecost or John and Charles Wesley in the 18th century as a movement within the Church of England?

**
While I don’t agree with every doctrine of the UMC, I do agree with the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

**Just as the CC does. However, you forgot just one thing: the authority of your church leaders: the Council of Bishops and the General Conference which makes all decisions as to doctrine and polity.
**

It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible.

**So, you are saying that within the bible, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral can be found, and that the bible is the sole source of truth about God, via individual interpretation as opposed to any kind of authoritative interpretation from any church? I too believe in individual interpretation just as long as my interpretation agrees with what the CC built by God, teaches. **

Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible.

**As a former Lutheran I always rejected any kind of tradition, until it occured to me that the holy Spirit is guiding Jesus’ church until the end of time. The holy spirit is guarding/protecting the deposit of faith, be it transmitted through the centuries orally or in written form. If the holy spirit is the divine rudder guiding Jesus’ church through the endless onslaught of the anti-Christ, then surely we can trust His church. To trust sacred scripture and sacred tradition is to trust the holy spirit, sent to guide Jesus’ established church until His return. This certainly seems reasonable.
**

But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience.

**Why the need for the “lens” of fallible tradition to interpret the infallible Bible?

**

"Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture.

**Sounds familiar. The Catholic Church believes that Christ is the ultimate authority, and that he passed on this authority to men who did the same.

“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.”

“you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." **

If the bible is our sole authority via individual/private interpretation, then why does the bible tell us that Jesus gave authority to His church leaders, in his stead, and that these church leaders are to teach His flock, starting in Jerusalem and eventually all the way to the ends of the earth? In His Church, the Catholic Church, Christ’s authority is exercised as a 3 -legged stool. The authority of Jesus church is found in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It’s these 3 working together that keep the Church firmly grounded in the fullness of Truth, the truth which is Jesus Christ Himself.

None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority."

**Well, let’s see if this line of thought passes the authoritative litmus test. The Lutheran church to which I once belonged does not believe in the true presence in the bread and wine, once consecrated; The Evangelical Lutheran church to which my friend belongs, absolutely believes in the true presence in the bread and wine, once consecrated, and they both defer to the authority of the infallible word of God, insisting that the other guy is wrong, again based on their unique interpretation of their “sole authority” - the bible. Who is right; who is wrong? If you tell one of them that they are wrong, they will simply say: the bible is my sole authority, not the Methodist or the Catholic church. If the bible (not people) - is our sole authority, then every Christian regardless of church affiliation, should defer to their bibles as opposed to their respective church leaders - right? What do your church leaders teach regarding the Eucharistic doctrine?

If the holy bible is my only authority, why does the holy bible tell us to - “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.”

**

 

[Ads]

I cant see a problem in believing other writings other then the Bible as long as it does not contradict the Bible.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
So if what you learn outside the Bible does not go against the Word that is there for reproof and correction, then it’s ok.
No doubt their is a lot of writings being passed as more important but God says to correct it by the Bible for instruction in righteousness, yes even the Catechism.

 

[MonFrere]

No doubt their is a lot of writings being passed as more important but God says to correct it by the Bible for instruction in righteousness, yes even the Catechism.

Why not have the Church correct it? For example - the issue of slavery. The Bible supports the practice - however, it give some regulations, even possibilities for release. But is ONLY THE BIBLE is our guide - we would not see, as Jesus stated about divorce, from the beginning it was not so. The dignity God gave to the human person mitigates against the practice of slavery. It took a LONG time in the process of the Church living out the gospel to begin to see the error of slavery because it was so ubiquitous to the way mankind viewed each other; thinking ownership of people was acceptable. When the Bible was being written the practice was totally acceptable - and except for regulations given by the scriptures it was viewed as a possibility for living righteously. IT TOOK THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH to get beyond “the letter of the law; or biblical precedent” If the Bible were the final authority this would not have happened.

MonFrere

 

[RedBert]

---

but my question was: who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture.

I’m very busy: so the choice is a quick answer or no answer:
Quick for now:

The Bible tells us ( from memory)
We are to treasure the word of God more than gold and silver
We are to be in fellowship with other believers
We are to test all things in scripture
Iron sharpens iron
We have some freedom on some doctrines ( see Romans 14)
We are to grow in wisdom and truth
Children should be taught scripture.

So God called has called each one us to study scripture:
And we search for Truth, with prayer, study, fellowship , worship, etc

so yes; God has empowered us to interpret scripture. with prayer, study, fellowship , worship, tradition, reason, experience, etc

Thanks be to God!

it seems the other Qs are off topic

 

[srferdave]

I cant see a problem in believing other writings other then the Bible as long as it does not contradict the Bible.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
So if what you learn outside the Bible does not go against the Word that is there for reproof and correction, then it’s ok.
No doubt their is a lot of writings being passed as more important but God says to correct it by the Bible for instruction in righteousness, yes even the Catechism.

Nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts the Word of God.