Objective Truth in Scripture

[mercygate]

No. The answer to the original question is no. There is no protestant “athority” on objective truth of scripture. How could there be? By default, if the source is protestant then they can not objectively find the truth.
It could be put another way though. There may be a great many protestants that find the objective truth of scripture- they are the many converts to the Roman Church.

To my thinking, this is a needlessly contentious view.

True: everything comes down to the matter of authority and discernment of where that authority lies.

Insofar as Protestants discern in Scripture the content of the faith as believed by the Catholic Church, the content of their faith shares in that objective authenticity. Many, of course, would rather stick red hot nails into their eyeballs than acknowledge that fact.

Your observation that when people begin to understand how the objective truth of Scripture is inseparably linked to the Catholic Church, they start walking the road to Rome.

Heh heh. For Protestants, the term “Roman Road” has an entirely different meaning.

 

[Trinitarian]

My intent was not to be contentious but simply to point out that “objective” truth can only be one. It is not possible that it could be fractured. By the very act of protesting the Church they are casting aside the truth to whatever degree they are not in agreement with the her. Since the question is asking what is the source of protestant objectivity in scripture the answer can only be that of mutual exclusivity.
I am not suggesting that non-Catholics are not well intentioned in their search for the truth of scripture, simply that if they are a protestant “authority” they are rooted in subjectivity from the start.

For my part, it was the very lack of authority in my search for scriptural understanding that lead me to the Catholic Church.

 

[mercygate]

My intent was not to be contentious but simply to point out that “objective” truth can only be one. It is not possible that it could be fractured. By the very act of protesting the Church they are casting aside the truth to whatever degree they are not in agreement with the her. Since the question is asking what is the source of protestant objectivity in scripture the answer can only be that of mutual exclusivity.
I am not suggesting that non-Catholics are not well intentioned in their search for the truth of scripture, simply that if they are a protestant “authority” they are rooted in subjectivity from the start.

For my part, it was the very lack of authority in my search for scriptural understanding that lead me to the Catholic Church.

Then I think we are singing off the same page of the hymnal!

 

[NDfan]

It is so much less circular than this.

The Catholic Church has a consistent history of teaching and the paper trail to prove it – going all the way back to the early 2nd Century.

And what paper trail would that be??

The Church wrote the table of contents of the New Testament and ratified the canon of the Old Testament (which later Protestant groups decided to truncate by 7 books – by whose authority?).

The church wrote nothing. The church compiled a list of books and letters that would eventually be considered official cannon through guidance from the Holy Spirit. But the church had no business trying to ratify the OT as only our Jewish bretheran are qualified to do that.

It might interest you to know that the apocryphal books did not appear in several copies of the Septuagint. This of course is what Jerome used to create the Vulgate Bible the English version of which is your Catholic Bible. But Jerome himself stated that the apocryphal books have no scriptural authority. Josephus never listed the apocryphal books, Pope Gregory the great and Athanasius stated that the apocryphal are not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan who opposed Luther also stated that the apocryphal books cannot be used to confirm matters of Faith. Another point of fact is the apocryphal books did not appear in all the Catholic Bibles. So your question about on whose authority is invalid as the RCC was not uniform on this.

With regard to your above statement on the paper trail it might also interest you to know that there was a copy error made right in Genesis 3:15. The Hebrew texts wrote it shall crush the head of the serpent using a masculine pronoun. The septuagint states HE yet Jerome used the word Ipsa which could mean either. Someone decided or mistakenly wrote SHE and then this translated into doctrine that states Mary will crush the head of the serpent. That’s why we see so many statues of her standing on a snake. I have one myself. But this is incorrect as we know from John and Revelations that Jesus and Jesus only defeats satan who is the serpent. So you can’t prove anything as the teaching was corrupted. Is this absolte truth or subjective truth??

Although the Catechism as a document, is not inspired, there is nothing in it that contradicts or challenges Scripture.

There is plenty that challenges scripture but that would derail the thread. The bottom line is the Catechisms are not inspired by GOD and cannot be used for matters of Faith.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Thank you. Please allow me to ask in another manner. 2+2=4. That is objective truth. There is no way it is different for different people. Now, I cannot prove that God exists. I have faith that He does. I see certain signs that point that way. I cannot show it to be true as I can a math problem. Now, is the statement that God exists objective or subjective truth? Subjective. Someone else may come to different conclusions. Subjective truth is an opinion or a statement of facts as seen by one person that may not represent reality. It cannot be described as “truth” however, as truth is a statement of universal fact that cannot be disputed. If there is no objective truth, there is no truth.

Well I know what you are saying. But I would say you can’t dispute our existence. So is that objective truth? If so then we can ask next, where did we come from? The answer to that would be subjective because in our opinion it would be GOD. But to some it would be evolution or aliens. But evolution cannot be proven 100% and certainly neither can aliens. So then we have an objective truth that we exist but with subjective truths about how we got here. Would you say we can never drill down to an objective proof of how we got here?

Now, for the Bible, the Subjective part is that God exists and cares for humanity. If that is accepted, there is objective truth in the Bible. If not, there is no truth there, only opinions.

It’s accepted by many but not by all. So is it objective for the many but subjective for the remainder?

 

[ralphinal]

Well I know what you are saying. But I would say you can’t dispute our existence. So is that objective truth? If so then we can ask next, where did we come from? The answer to that would be subjective because in our opinion it would be GOD. But to some it would be evolution or aliens. But evolution cannot be proven 100% and certainly neither can aliens. So then we have an objective truth that we exist but with subjective truths about how we got here. Would you say we can never drill down to an objective proof of how we got here?

Personally, I would. That is why I think that the whole argument about creation vs. evolution is so crazy. Science can only explain the actions of creation, not how it started, so it should be seen in that light. Evolution exists to some degree. We can see that in the form of natural selection. But to think that 1 million monkeys banging on typewriters will give us the complete works of Shakespear is crazy.

It’s accepted by many but not by all. So is it objective for the many but subjective for the remainder?

Perhaps you can say that, but can something be both? I would say that there is no such thing as subjective truth. There is truth and people either accept it or they do not.

 

[NDfan]

The manuscript evidence of the New Testament is stronger than any other documentary source of the same period. The non-Scriptural corroboration of early Christianity is also corroborative. The case for the Resurrection is by no means entirely subjective.

Absolutely agree 100%. But you can’t objectively prove that the resurrection happened. All you can do is go by what the early Christians reported. Again if you can prove the resurrection with objective truths then please do.

And the Holy Spirit as guide “into all the truth” is promised only to the Eleven, as is the Great Commission.

Where do you get that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only promised to the Apostles? The great commission applies to us all.

So for Catholics, at any rate, “all the truth” is found in the teaching that comes down to us from those Eleven through their successors. It has been a hands-on transmission of teaching for 2000 years. Gotta love that paper trail!

There’s no paper trail there at all. You can’t prove that something taught only orally 2000 years ago is the same thing that is being taught today. There is no way of verifying that whatsoever. You only have verbal confirmation. This is like saying that if you place 20 people next to each other and whisper something to the first that by the time it reaches the 20th person it would be the same exact thing every time. That’s impossible.

Insofar as the Holy Spirit guides ME “into all the truth” He guides me into the truth of the apostolic faith. If the “spirit” takes me anywhere else, it is NOT the Holy Spirit.

I would agree that the truth is the Apostolic faith which is Jesus. But that does not only reside in the RCC.

 

[mercygate]

And what paper trail would that be??

Please. The ECFs.

The church wrote nothing. The church compiled a list of books and letters that would eventually be considered official cannon through guidance from the Holy Spirit. But the church had no business trying to ratify the OT as only our Jewish bretheran are qualified to do that.

Poppycock. The inspired authors of the NT were all members of the Church. The Church that codified the canon. The Jews rejected the REASON the OT canon is part of the NT canon.

There is plenty that challenges scripture but that would derail the thread. The bottom line is the Catechisms are not inspired by GOD and cannot be used for matters of Faith.

:yawn:

PEACE

You’re kidding. Right?

 

[mercygate]

Absolutely agree 100%. But you can’t objectively prove that the resurrection happened. All you can do is go by what the early Christians reported. Again if you can prove the resurrection with objective truths then please do.

OK. Let’s use the “reasonable man” standard. By the evidence we DO have, a “reasonable man” would conclude that it is far more consistent with the facts to believe that the Resurrection DID happen than that it did not.

In John 14, Jesus is speaking to the Eleven. Nobody else is recorded as being in the room.

Where do you get that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only promised to the Apostles? The great commission applies to us all.

Matthew 28 tells us that only the Eleven were on the mountain to receive Jesus’ command to teach and his promise to be “with you to the end of the age.”

YES the Great Commission is the work of the whole Church. But we ain’t doin’ our job if our “teaching” is not united with the teaching of the Apostles and their successors – and in communion with the one who was entrusted to stengthen the brethren. Christians are not free-lancers.

There’s no paper trail there at all. You can’t prove that something taught only orally 2000 years ago is the same thing that is being taught today. There is no way of verifying that whatsoever. You only have verbal confirmation. This is like saying that if you place 20 people next to each other and whisper something to the first that by the time it reaches the 20th person it would be the same exact thing every time. That’s impossible.

This is a highly mistaken view of doctrinal development.

And there DEFINITELY is a paper trail. We call the ancient papers the Early Fathers.

I would agree that the truth is the Apostolic faith which is Jesus. But that does not only reside in the RCC.

But the RCC is objectively the SAME Church that is fully, hand-to-hand in the apostolic line. That is objective.

 

[mercygate]

Absolutely agree 100%. But you can’t objectively prove that the resurrection happened. All you can do is go by what the early Christians reported. Again if you can prove the resurrection with objective truths then please do.

OK. Then let’s use the “reasonable man” standard. By the evidence we DO have, a “reasonable man” would conclude that it is far more consistent with the facts to believe that the Resurrection DID happen than that it did not.

Quote:
And the Holy Spirit as guide “into all the truth” is promised only to the Eleven, as is the Great Commission.

Where do you get that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only promised to the Apostles? The great commission applies to us all.

In John 14, Jesus is speaking only to the Eleven. Nobody else is recorded as being in the room.

Matthew 28 tells us that only the Eleven were on the mountain to receive Jesus’ command to teach and his promise to be “with you to the end of the age.”

YES the Great Commission is the work of the whole Church. But we ain’t doin’ our job if our “teaching” is not united with the teaching of the Apostles and their successors – and in communion with the one who was entrusted to stengthen the brethren. Christians are not free-lancers.

There’s no paper trail there at all.

There is ample documentation (the same documentation that ratifies the Resurrection) that the Church that came into being at Pentecost is the same Church that we know as the Catholic Church today. That’s not theology. That’s just history.

You can’t prove that something taught only orally 2000 years ago is the same thing that is being taught today.

That is not how doctrinal development works. If it were not for doctrinal development you would not believe in the Holy Trinity.

There is no way of verifying that whatsoever. You only have verbal confirmation. This is like saying that if you place 20 people next to each other and whisper something to the first that by the time it reaches the 20th person it would be the same exact thing every time. That’s impossible.

No. No. No. That is NOT how it works. Trust me. This was not about Jesus in a smoke filled room telling the apostles things that they would pass on in secret and then just drop into the doctrinal corpus some time in the future.

A LOT of Catholics have an exaggerated notion of “oral” tradition.

But we CAN show continuity of development. There definitely IS a paper trail.

I would agree that the truth is the Apostolic faith which is Jesus. But that does not only reside in the RCC.

It “subsists” fully in the RCC. Everything else is something “other” than the Apostolic faith. Less. More. “A different gospel.”

 

[loscampos]

As far as objective truth is concerned, using scripture as the means to truth is circular, so in essecense you are being subjective and not objective. By adding the authority of the church, whis is the pillar of truth, you can take away some subjectivity but not all. I dont know of any christian that is purely objective about religion, there will always be a level of subjectivity. But i do understand the point of the discussion as far as who is more objective when it comes to the theoligical teachings and interpretations of the bible.

Since the topic of christianity among christians is subjective, we can see if our claims of truth, knowledge and authority are objective within the scope of our beliefs.

An objective view would be,I do believe that around 400 ad the Catholic church was granted authority to put together all of the books of the bible. And doing so with the guidance of the holy spirit, in which no man himself can overturn, because the holy spirit is truth, and if one is guided by the holy spirit one is guided in truth. It would be subjective of me to say that the Catholic church that was guided by the truth, was wrong and 1000 years later the holy spirit guided someone else into a different yet equal truth. If i accepted this second view then who is to say that luther was guided by either the real truth, or in the Catholics manner the wrong truth. And which one becomes the truth and which one is discarded.

I have heard other arguments for the protestant OT in other discussions, and they claim to use the Jewish OT as put together in around 90 ad. The problem with accepting the OT based on this, is in that same forum the Jewish people rejected the whole NT and Jesus as the son of God. So if you are going to be objective about the authority of the OT is only given to the Jewish, then they must also have the authority to donounce the NT and Jesus. As a side note, even if you accept this decree in 90 ad, the Jewish people would not have had authority over the disciples of Christ. Anything that the Jews decided on after Jesus has no bearing on us as christians.

 

[NDfan]

hi ND. not so much my interpretation, but acceptance of authority. in the field of religion, morality, doctrine, yes I accept that the RCC teaches infallibly. I couldn’t prove that, but I accept the claims made by the Church, because according to my limited study those claims make the most sense when compared to the claims made by others.

Well again you say that your limited study moves you to accept the authority of the RCC. If it’s limited then how do you really ever know? Are you just taking it on blind Faith to some degree?

yes, the Bible is also written by man. The Catechism contains huge amounts of Scripture, so if we accept that the Bible is inspried, which I sure do, then at least those parts of the Catechism are inspired. It is true that the Catechism contains interpretations. the Church is the authorized interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.

I accept scripture as inspired. But scripture that’s in the Catechism is copied inspiration. It’s not new inspiration. But why do you make the jump to say that only the RCC is authorized to interpret it? I gave an example to mercygate of a mistake that was made in Genesis when the English translation of the vulgate was being created. Doctrine was created from this mistake. So does the RCC have the authority make a mistake and NOT correct it but only defend it??

again, not my own interpretation, but an acceptance of the authority claims made by the RCC. To me it is a matter of authority. hundreds of protestant denominations and nondenominations claim authority to interpret, but it is apparent to me that few if any of them do have the authority because they are all split up along doctrinal lines. I agree with the RCC that the authority of Jesus resides int he teaching magisterium of the RCC. I am not smart enought to disagree with what they teach. The more I study it, the more it makes sense to me.

Well here’s a point I would like you to consider. Scripture tells us that we all have gifts. Teaching, preaching, serving etc. Where in scripture does it then say that teaching only resides with the magisterium? I would agree some teach that don’t belong teaching. I think this is where many denominations get into trouble. But that doesn’t mean that only the RCC teaches error-free. To make this claim then again you would have to have knowledge of the complete truth error-free. If you don’t then you can only say that this is what you believe and that I am fine with.

i disagree. the fact of my fallibility is obvious. I don’t have to be infallible to submit to the authoirity of the Catholic Church. That is part of the beauty of the thing.

True you don’t have to be infallible to submit to authority. But if you then make the claim that they are infallible you would also have to be. Otherwise it’s just opinion.

a protestant has to always be on the lookout for proper interpretations. Things shift constantly and easily. One teacher teaches this, another teaches that. many protestants bounce from one thing to another, in and out of this denomination and that.

Protestants don’t always have to be on the lookout. Many are soundly devoted to Presbyterianism, or the Lutheran church etc. I agree some bounce around but that doesn’t mean the whole protestant world is crashing down. I can introduce you to Roman Catholics that do the same thing. They may stay within the church but they certainly don’t believe everything that is taught.

I think you’re picking it apart out of context. the infallibility is narrowly defined. You need to dig into it a little and find out exactly what infallibility means. it isn’t that every word that proceeds out of the mouth of a priest or pope is infallible, not even close to that.

No I understand what infallibility means. What I am saying is that anything that is declared to be infallible, even within the narrow scope as you say, is then being communicated to fallible people like the clergy who are responsible for teaching it to fallible laity. Just look at how so many teachings of the church are misunderstood. Why is that? Because we are fallible. So that would imply that either the teacher or the student or both is fallible. So no matter how narrow the scope is of what the Pope declares as infallible, once fallible people get their hands on it it gets corrupted.

the Bible suppports the magisterial authority to teach, to interpret Jesus, and carry Jessu to the world. The Bible is a Catholic book. it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the Bible, by which I hardly mean to diminish the Bible at all. i love the Bible and depend on it at all times. But out of the context of the Church which wrote it, assembled it, protected it for 2 thou years, the Bible is easily distorted to mean anything any crazy guy wants to twist it to mean. The Bible can be a very dangerous thing in the hands of the wrong people. present it as the Word of God (which it is) and then distort its message, and you end up with cults.

I agree that the Bible can be dangerous in the wrong hands. And as I have said we all do not have the ability to teach, so those who can’t shouldn’t. But you can’t prove to me from scripture that only the magisterium are given the authority to teach, interpret, and carry forward Jesus’ message. That’s a subjective truth only.

May God blesss…

PEACE and GOD Bless you too

 

[NDfan]

No. The answer to the original question is no. There is no protestant “athority” on objective truth of scripture. How could there be? By default, if the source is protestant then they can not objectively find the truth.
It could be put another way though. There may be a great many protestants that find the objective truth of scripture- they are the many converts to the Roman Church.

That’s an interesting way to put it but there’s only one problem. You’re assuming that the RCC has the absolute infallible truth to begin with. You can’t make that claim unless you yourself are infallible which you are not. So then how do you know that what Protestants are protesting is not a corrupt truth of the RCC and that they (the protestant) in fact have the real truth??

 

[mercygate]

That’s an interesting way to put it but there’s only one problem. You’re assuming that the RCC has the absolute infallible truth to begin with. You can’t make that claim unless you yourself are infallible which you are not. So then how do you know that what Protestants are protesting is not a corrupt truth of the RCC and that they (the protestant) in fact have the real truth??

We don’t need infallibility. All it takes is the “reasonable man” standard. Given the evidence, a reasonable man would find more reason to place his trust in the Church than not to.

Given the reasonable man standard, a reasonable man would have more reason to believe in the resurrection than not to.

But FAITH is Jesus Christ? Trust in Him, in His Person? No. that is completely beyond reason. Not UN-reasonable. But beyond what is merely reasonable.

 

[NDfan]

Personally, I would. That is why I think that the whole argument about creation vs. evolution is so crazy. Science can only explain the actions of creation, not how it started, so it should be seen in that light. Evolution exists to some degree. We can see that in the form of natural selection. But to think that 1 million monkeys banging on typewriters will give us the complete works of Shakespear is crazy.

Good points.

Perhaps you can say that, but can something be both? I would say that there is no such thing as subjective truth. There is truth and people either accept it or they do not.

I agree. But if someone accepts it they may only accept it on Faith.

 

[ralphinal]

Good points.

I agree. But if someone accepts it they may only accept it on Faith.

True, true. The way you reach a conclusion may be important, but if the answer is correct, it is still right.

 

[NDfan]

We don’t need infallibility. All it takes is the “reasonable man” standard. Given the evidence, a reasonable man would find more reason to place his trust in the Church than not to.

Given the reasonable man standard, a reasonable man would have more reason to believe in the resurrection than not to.

But FAITH is Jesus Christ? Trust in Him, in His Person? No. that is completely beyond reason. Not UN-reasonable. But beyond what is merely reasonable.

Well I agree with your points. But again you can’t say that only the RCC possesses the absolute infallible truth. To say that you have to be more than reasonable, otherwise it’s just opinion. Protestants believe in the resurrection as well. But the main point here is not the things both sides agree on. It’s in the points of disagreement. Someone might protest for good reasons and could in fact be right.

To the point I made to you earlier. There is an error in Genesis 3 in the RCC Bible. Now that doctrine has been written based on that error, does that mean the truth still resides within the RCC. Absolutely not. That would be like a school teaching 2+2=5 because someone made a copy error and still asserting that it is the absolute infallible truth. If someone deviated from that and started teaching that 2+2=4 they would be called protestant. Based on the original statement the infallible truth would still reside within the school teaching 2+2=5.

 

[NDfan]

Please. The ECFs.

Please!! Don’t bring up the ECFs as this is a losing battle.

Poppycock. The inspired authors of the NT were all members of the Church. The Church that codified the canon.

Yes they were members of the church. But not the Roman Catholic church.

The Jews rejected the REASON the OT canon is part of the NT canon.

You need to explain this better.

It sounds like you are saying the Jews rejected the OT because of the NT

:yawn:

:coffeeread:

You’re kidding. Right?

Why would I be kidding?

 

[ralphinal]

ND,
Not to derail, but I have been reading along. What was the early church? Where did it go? What faith were the ECFs?

 

[mercygate]

Please!! Don’t bring up the ECFs as this is a losing battle.

The ECFs are a “losing battle”? I agree. It is because of the ECFs that I’m no longer Protestant. And I read them in a secular university, not in the context of the Catholic Church.

Yes they were members of the church. But not the Roman Catholic church.

The authors of the New Testament were not part of the Catholic Church? There is complete historical continuity from the Catholic Church of today back through the ages to the same Church that ratified the canon, and from them to those who wrote the New Testament.

You need to explain this better.

It sounds like you are saying the Jews rejected the OT because of the NT

The REASON we accept the OT is JESUS. The Jews rejected Him. They don’t even SEE the prophecies Christians see when we read the OT.

Why would I be kidding?

With your signature, “PEACE”? Sometimes you seem to be anything BUT peaceable.