My rule of faith

[Eden]

Hi, Nick Jones. I’m just jumping in here midstream, forgive me if this was already asked/answered. I was just interested in the title “My rule of faith”. In that you have your own rules of faith, do you also have your own religion? I was just curious if one of the rules of your own faith involves baptizing yourself into it. Having one’s own rules of faith is an interesting concept and one that I’m eager to explore.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I think you may be missing my point. You can not have “sola scriptura” as a rule of faith without personal “conceptions and understandings.” You do not live in a vaccum. Thus, if your “conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed,” then that would neccessitate your rule of faith is “changing and flawed.”

Let’s say I’m a lawyer. My own understanding of the rules of evidence is imperfect. But I still understand that although I don’t grasp all of the nuances of the rules, there are, none the less, very well defined rules that really do exist, and are binding on all of us. So, if my “conceptions and understandings of the rules are changing and flawed,” then it hardly follows that this would neccessitate that the rules themselves are therefore flawed.

 

[Nick_Jones]

But, I do know that if your rule of faith contradicts 2000 years of Christian tradition and Scripture, itself, it is suspect.

If older tradition is better tradition, then perhaps we should all become Jews or Hindus. To me it seems that the bible ought to be our guide, and any teaching we have been taught to believe that isn’t taught in the bible (purgatory, the papacy, infallibility, etc) should be viewed as suspect.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi, Nick Jones. I’m just jumping in here midstream, forgive me if this was already asked/answered. I was just interested in the title “My rule of faith”. In that you have your own rules of faith, do you also have your own religion? I was just curious if one of the rules of your own faith involves baptizing yourself into it. Having one’s own rules of faith is an interesting concept and one that I’m eager to explore.

No, I don’t have my own religion…I’m not really into religion much.

 

[Eden]

No, I don’t have my own religion…I’m not really into religion much.

So, you just read the Bible for entertainment? If that’s the case, and you don’t really believe it is the Word of God, then why are you concerned about Sola Scriptura? I thought you were religious. My apologies.
Nick Jones:

Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

[mercygate]

What is the church without the bible? Could the church know the truth? What is it that keeps the church in the truth if not the written word?

The Church and Scripture are inseparable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church*, *quoting from the document Dei Verbum, states:

V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

God didn’t leave things to chance. If the early church was “apparently poorly armed” why did it grow at such a rapid rate during those first three centuries?

Well, in the first Century, when the expansion was explosive, it wasn’t by handing out copies of the written word to the faithful. Jews were not permitted to have any scripture other than the book of Esther in their homes. Pagans would have had nothing at all. As you know, possessing any kind of written “book” was extremely difficult because of the labor of transcription.

It was the preaching and the power of the Holy Spirit that armed the Church.

How does it discredit the Holy Spirit (and the church) that so many different religions and denominations keep popping up all over the world? Was this not forseen and predicted in the bible?

I see what you are saying. Good point! But the prayer of Christ was that “they all might be one.”

 

[mercygate]

Could you define the word, “traditions” as you understand it in the verse above? I just want a clear idea as to what is and isn’t part of these “traditions.”

Cutting in on Jonfan’s thought here: you raise the key question of this whole discussion. Bear with me as I post another section from the Catechism on Tradition. I have highlighted in blue the points where key Traditions are distinguished from local traditions that may be modified or abandoned.

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[JaneFrances]

Let’s say I’m a lawyer. My own understanding of the rules of evidence is imperfect.

Great analogy, except, in your real life scenario (SS as your rule of faith) you aren’t just the “a lawyer” you must necessarily also be the judge.

To take the analogy further. . .their are (and always have been) countless “lawyers” whose “conceptions and understandings of the rules are changing and flawed,” which is precisely why we have the binding authority of the judicial bench. Now, this–like any analogy–is flawed, of course. To compare the Kingdom to our judicial system isn’t entirely accurate, but it does work for certain purposes. . .

How would it work if every single person with a law degree got to decide on their own which rules were important and what each rule meant? It would be chaos. This is the scenario you pose when you, as a lawyer, claim the authority to interpret law without regard for precedent and judicial authority.

On the other hand, as Catholic “lawyers,” we come to the courtroom with our own “conceptions and understandings,” to be sure. BUT, we submit our will to Christ through the Church He instituted. We acknowledge our personal limitations and know that our Lord did not leave us boundless. He left us with an authoritative teaching body. This is the same system that we see in Acts as the apostles met to fill the office left by Judas. It is led by the same God-given steward, the chair of St. Peter, that we see working and effective when St. Peter binds the sin of Ananias and when he speaks authoritatively on the issue of Gentiles inclusion, despite the wide and varied “conceptions and understandings” on the topic.

But I still understand that although I don’t grasp all of the nuances of the rules, there are, none the less, very well defined rules that really do exist, and are binding on all of us.

Really? I don’t know what world you live in or what your understanding of Sacred Scripture is, but historically the clarity of the “very well defined rules” hasn’t served us very well without an interpretive authority. The results of individual interpretation and rejection of God-given authority is evidenced throughout Scripture. Whenever “we, the lawyers” strayed too far, God was always there to call us back to Him through a shepherd. This is why God sent Moses, Aaron, the Elijah, the prophets, Christ. He knows our hearts better than we do. He knows that we are incapable of coming to the same conclusions independent of His stewardship. This is precisely why He has been so faithful in providing his people with shepherds.

So, if my “conceptions and understandings of the rules are changing and flawed,” then it hardly follows that this would neccessitate that the rules themselves are therefore flawed.

I don’t think you’re following. . .I NEVER said that Sacred Scripture is flawed. Do not misunderstand me about this. Sacred Scripture is God-breathed and Truth.

My point was that your “rule,” the one about Scripture alone being your final authority, is flawed. It is flawed because it is neither Scriptural nor is it in concert with 2000 years of Christian tradition.

 

[JaneFrances]

No, I don’t have my own religion…I’m not really into religion much.

Keep working on it. Here’s some Scripture to encourage you:

“Whoever teaches in any other way, not holding to the sound doctrines of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching proper to true religion, should be recognized as both conceited and arrogant. . .” (1 Timothy 6:3-4)

 

[JaneFrances]

If older tradition is better tradition, then perhaps we should all become Jews or Hindus.

Please do not misrepresent me, Nick. I did not suggest that “older tradition is better tradition.” I see that this would be an easy assertion to shoot out the water, but I never suggested it.

Instead, I said:

But, I do know that if your rule of faith contradicts 2000 years of Christian tradition and Scripture, itself, it is suspect.

My point was that, as a Christian, if your personal “rule of faith” is not in concert with 2000 years of Christian teaching, you may want to rethink your “rule of faith.”

That being said, knowledge of Jewish tradition is essential to the proper understanding of Christian tradition.

To me it seems that the bible ought to be our guide,

Actually, your original assertion is that the “bible alone” ought to be our guide. As Catholics, we would wholly agree that Scripture is authoritative and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in holiness. But we do not limit God’s Holy Word to a book. As I understand your position, you have concluded that the “bible alone” is your personal rule of faith, however, our contention is that your personal rule is inconsistent with Scripture and historical Christianity. Apart from one verse, in one insufficient translation (which isn’t consistent with other standard versions), you have provided no real proof to support your “rule of faith.”

and any teaching we have been taught to believe that isn’t taught in the bible (purgatory, the papacy, infallibility, etc) should be viewed as suspect.

Purgatory, the Papacy,and Infalliblity are wonderful ideas for thread starters. I imagine that if you wanted to begin a thread on how these aren’t “taught in the bible,” you would be pleased by the popularity of your threads! OH. . .and while your at it, start two more on how the Trinity and the canon of Scripture aren’t “taught in the bible” either.

I’d hate to derail this thread by discussing them here, but these are all very interesting points.

 

[mercygate]

. . . any teaching we have been taught to believe that isn’t taught in the bible (purgatory, the papacy, infallibility, etc) should be viewed as suspect.

These go on separate threads, and all of them can be demonstrated from Scripture.

 

[KindredSoul]

Nick, read this post carefully, and if it leaves you with any questions, reread it (perhaps along with other related posts) to make sure those questions aren’t already answered…

What is the church without the bible? Could the church know the truth? What is it that keeps the church in the truth if not the written word?

I again refer you to the fact that the New Testament was not complete nor normative (meaning not every Christian was even aware of some of the books now included in the complete Canon) for over 300 years in the Early Church. So for 300 years, if scripture is the only basis of keeping the Church in truth, the Church had no truth whatsoever–if your beliefs are correct…if the Catholic beliefs are correct, then we know how the early Church stayed in truth–through Tradition.

God didn’t leave things to chance. If the early church was “apparently poorly armed” why did it grow at such a rapid rate during those first three centuries?

Because it wasn’t poorly armed…you’re the one who says that there was no central Church, not me. I believe firmly that the early Church was the Catholic Church; they were able to look to Tradition and to the successor of Peter, even though they didn’t even have an official New Testament yet (and they didn’t; references to “scripture” in the New Testament are references to the Old Testament). The early Church was only poorly armed if it wasn’t the Catholic Church. But since it was the Catholic Church, with all the spiritual benefits that come with that, that’s precisely why it was able to grow and flourish.

How does it discredit the Holy Spirit (and the church) that so many different religions and denominations keep popping up all over the world? Was this not forseen and predicted in the bible?

You rightly say that so many different religions and denominations kept popping up…seeing as how there can only logically be *one truth *among several contradictory claims, your (correct) use of the word different should answer your own question. In the Bible, Christ ordained that the Faith would grow, not splinter into contradictory sects. The Faith has grown: The Catholic Church has spread to nearly every part of the world, when in Biblical times the Church was confined to Palestine.

 

[KindredSoul]

Let’s say I’m a lawyer. My own understanding of the rules of evidence is imperfect. But I still understand that although I don’t grasp all of the nuances of the rules, there are, none the less, very well defined rules that really do exist, and are binding on all of us. So, if my “conceptions and understandings of the rules are changing and flawed,” then it hardly follows that this would neccessitate that the rules themselves are therefore flawed.

I want you to consider this along with my last post…meaning don’t just answer this and not even consider my last post, because there are some important points there too. But this has to be addressed as well. Again, read it all carefully before trying to challenge it.

You have to add one thing to your analogy: An all perfect Judge (The Holy Spirit) who promises to explain and interpret the Law (including all nuances and rules) to you perfectly. In that case, there’s no room for you to have flawed conceptions, because as soon as a flawed conception even begins to form in your reasoning, the Judge will correct you, if he does in fact live up to his promise.

In the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit acts through the Pope and the Magesterium to do just that; any Catholic *who is willing to listen *to the Church will never have to worry about having flawed misconceptions, because we have a source to look to that will never allow us to come to false, contradictory conclusions when it comes to faith and morals…if on the other hand, in your analogy, the Judge allows you to keep your flawed conception of the Law without correcting you, he’s failing to live up to his promise, and I don’t think either of us would dare to accuse the Holy Spirit of that.

 

[ncgolf]

It seems on of the stumbling blocks is the acceptance of the authority of the Magestrium. How can people put rest their faith on a bunch of flawed people who are leading the Church? We know they are imperfect since they are human and they themselves know they are flawed, so it does seem a leap to put so much trust into the Church they lead? The alternative is just to trust yourself. The thinking is I can do it as well as that guy in Rome … I feel safer trusting in myself. But this is not even scriptually based. Remember in Scripture Peter is rebuked the most of all the apostles … he even denied Christ 3 times yet Christ started the Church with Peter … arguably the most flawed of all the apostles. Could not Jesus have picked someone with better credentials? He didn’t so being perfect was not a requirement for the job. Jesus said he was the good shepard … I guess that makes us the sheep … and we do need to be led but you have to find the right Shepard. The Shepard is not the book on sheparding it is a shepard … something alive and in communion with Christ himself. That is what you must look for. I do not think it is yourself othewise we would all be shepards. Jesus said he was the good shepard for a reason.

 

[Damascus]

So, you just read the Bible for entertainment? If that’s the case, and you don’t really believe it is the Word of God, then why are you concerned about Sola Scriptura? I thought you were religious. My apologies.

:tiphat:

 

[Nick_Jones]

You have to add one thing to your analogy: An all perfect Judge (The Holy Spirit) who promises to explain and interpret the Law (including all nuances and rules) to you perfectly. In that case, there’s no room for you to have flawed conceptions, because as soon as a flawed conception even begins to form in your reasoning, the Judge will correct you, if he does in fact live up to his promise.

In the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit acts through the Pope and the Magesterium to do just that; any Catholic *who is willing to listen *to the Church will never have to worry about having flawed misconceptions, because we have a source to look to that will never allow us to come to false, contradictory conclusions when it comes to faith and morals…

Then why do Catholics get divorced? Why do they use artificial birth control? It seems to me that faith without deeds is dead faith. Do you really think that (to God) as long as I have gotten sound teaching, that is all that matters? What kind of “unity” do you think God desires?

if on the other hand, in your analogy, the Judge allows you to keep your flawed conception of the Law without correcting you, he’s failing to live up to his promise, and I don’t think either of us would dare to accuse the Holy Spirit of that.

God has not promised that He will guide every individual out of error and into the truth. There have been heretics in the past, and there will be heretics for some time in the future.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It seems on of the stumbling blocks is the acceptance of the authority of the Magestrium. How can people put rest their faith on a bunch of flawed people who are leading the Church? We know they are imperfect since they are human and they themselves know they are flawed, so it does seem a leap to put so much trust into the Church they lead? The alternative is just to trust yourself. The thinking is I can do it as well as that guy in Rome … I feel safer trusting in myself. But this is not even scriptually based. Remember in Scripture Peter is rebuked the most of all the apostles … he even denied Christ 3 times yet Christ started the Church with Peter … arguably the most flawed of all the apostles. Could not Jesus have picked someone with better credentials? He didn’t so being perfect was not a requirement for the job. Jesus said he was the good shepard … I guess that makes us the sheep … and we do need to be led but you have to find the right Shepard. The Shepard is not the book on sheparding it is a shepard … something alive and in communion with Christ himself. That is what you must look for. I do not think it is yourself othewise we would all be shepards. Jesus said he was the good shepard for a reason.

Hi ncgolf,

In that case I’ll follow the good shepard, Jesus. I could trust in Peter, or someone else, but my choice is to follow Jesus.

 

[Damascus]

Hi ncgolf,

In that case I’ll follow the good shepard, Jesus. I could trust in Peter, or someone else, but my choice is to follow Jesus.

I hope you have a recipie in that Bible that tells you how YOU can make the Eucharist in your own home.

Ritz or Saltines? Grape juice or Wine? What to do…

 

[Nick_Jones]

You rightly say that so many different religions and denominations kept popping up…seeing as how there can only logically be *one truth *among several contradictory claims, your (correct) use of the word different should answer your own question. In the Bible, Christ ordained that the Faith would grow, not splinter into contradictory sects. The Faith has grown: The Catholic Church has spread to nearly every part of the world, when in Biblical times the Church was confined to Palestine.

The issue of unity is a very important one. So I will challenge **all of you **to demonstrate that those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture plus an infallible teaching authority” as their rule of faith are in greater doctrinal unity than those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture alone” as their rule of faith.

 

[ncgolf]

Hi ncgolf,

In that case I’ll follow the good shepard, Jesus. I could trust in Peter, or someone else, but my choice is to follow Jesus.

The shepard is real and on earth today … the Church and Christ are one in the same. No … I still think you trust yourself more.