Perspicuity of Scripture and Understanding

[Benadam]

Tradition is nothing more than a communities effort to keep the past present. Imagine a world populated with immortal human life. There would be no past, no history, because if no one dies the past is always present. In our fallen state we can keep the past present by a ritual memorial.

Since the beginning the ritual is centered around a faithful re-presentation of the events and their meaning in the lives of the ancestors who lived them and the lives of their children in the present. True then True now.
The oral transmission of Faith in the Word of God enabled generations for ages to receive the Word from Adam to the present.
It’s interesting that the Divine revelation to Moses is initiated through a testimony written by God’s own finger. This is fitting since it is an addition to the Oral expression already in their lives and was to submit to the authority of the Oral Tradition of the Jews. This is Divine Revelation from God who submits it to the authority of man to hand it down for generations until the coming of the Messiah. Incidentally, the Law exposed the need for a savior and the oral tradition in Moses at the end proved lacking but sufficient to accomplish it’s purpose in salvation history… The Jewish rituals preserved the Revelation and prepared the People,produced a Holy of Holies to prepare a Body for the Savior…

The Ritual Memorial is written initially in response to time and circumstance … Remember when Paul thought that Christ’s return was just around the corner? Even if it took millennia there would be no need to canonize the writings orally kept, taught and lived by the People of God.until the Oral tradition is spread world wide into foreign populations. It’s because the People of God were becoming Global and the faith burdened by mutitudes of writings claiming to come from the Oral Tradition.
My point in all this is to show that historically Oral tradition is a tried and proven transmission of faith for a community but as it grows to be a global community of believers what is written needs to be canonized, not because it is above The Word Orally expressed but because that’s how what is written becomes an expression of the Oral Tradition and confirms what is Orally expressed to a national or global community… The truth of Tradition is turned upside down when the Oral expression of the Word is thought to be conformed to the written expression.

 

[po18guy]

Our Lord was the true interpreter of any and all writing inspired by the Holy Spirit. Remember also that He condemned the Pharisees for “making void the word of God.” Man twists the meaning to suit his personal desires, and “bible alone” is perfect evidence of that.

 

[Gmsod]

Once again, thanks for a detailed reply!

No im not. In fact im not implying He cut off any revelation nor am I implying the apostles did not leave Him someone in which to reveal something to.

I apologize if I was not clear. I did not mean that you implied that GOD cut off revelation. I meant that I was not sure if you were implying that Scripture’s insufficiency was related to the hypothetical of cutting off revelation at a certain point. If that was not your intent of that paragraph about the hypothetical cutting off of revelation, could you please explain what you were trying to say with that paragraph because I must have misunderstood.
Also, would you please rephrase “the apostles did leave Him someone in which to reveal something to”. I can’t figure out what that means.

No. They didn’t “just accept it”. Thats the point. They accepted the authority of the church from which the scriptures would come. If they just accepted it there would not have been any division over Jesus’ divinity to begin with.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough again. I did not mean that they simply accepted it without proof. I agree with you that they accepted it because they accepted the authority of the ones preaching it to them because they were accompanied by signs. What I meant by “just accepted it” was that, despite some probably not fully comprehending it, they accepted what they were told because of who told it to them. And I also agree that the Scriptures get their authority (ultimately from the Holy Spirit- but as far as how to recognize them) from the Apostles because Jesus gave them his authority to preach the Gospel. Also, by “just accepted it”, that doesn’t refer to everyone. That was referring to the ones who accepted the authority of the apostles. Nobody could claim that they accepted the Apostles’ teaching minus Jesus’ divinity. The two were inseparable so of course anyone claiming that would just have to abandon the Apostles altogether.

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

Once again, I think that sola scripturists’ main burden, if it is theirs, lies in proving that there was nothing necessary for salvation outside Scripture and from the Apostles

Now that I think about it more, I don’t fully agree with my aforementioned statement. I think that even if that was shown to be true, sola scriptura would not be a necessary cause. I believe that would only prove the material sufficiency of scripture (which is a necessary thing for sola scriptura but is not a heretical view in the eyes of Catholics). So the perspicuity of Scripture still rests on whether or not the words of the Bible necessitate certain ‘descendants’ of the apostles giving an unquestionable interpretation or if history simply helps us in deciding. If you think that the perspicuity of scripture requires more than this to be proven, please add whatever that may be.

I can certainly understand this position. I can also understand the athiest position of “there is no God”. However i choose to believe, i choose to believe in the one true God and that he would never leave us orhpans with only the written word to flounder over its meaning. I choose to believe his Holy Spirit is alive and well and that his revelation of understanding of the written word will come in one voice not many.

I understand why you believe what you do. Coming from an outsider (not really since I am a Christian but comparatively) perspective, how am I supposed to know whether or not I should have faith and believe in sola scriptura or the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church?

Thanks again,
GOD bless you!

 

[Gmsod]

Thank you, Benadam, for that explanation of tradition. I have never head it put that way.

One question I get from all that is if there is a difference between what is orally transmitted and what is written down, and how do we know. If there is no difference, it is just a matter of what form the words of the Bible take. Sola scriptura doesn’t seem to be necessarily in opposition to an entirely oral transmission: it is just that the words in the Bible are seen as as intelligible to people now as they were back then to the people they were written to and can accomplish the same purpose.

Prayers are appreciated and reciprocated!
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, any further is greatly appreciated.
GOD bless you!

 

[Gmsod]

Hello po18guy, I appreciate you always replying.

Our Lord was the true interpreter of any and all writing inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think anyone can disagree with that. Even sola scripturists believe that GOD is the only true interpreter and he is simply imparting his knowledge to us.

Remember also that He condemned the Pharisees for “making void the word of God.” Man twists the meaning to suit his personal desires,

True, and I guess as a Catholic you believe that the pope alone can do this, or am I misrepresenting you?

and “bible alone” is perfect evidence of that.

Ideally, nobody would twist the Scriptures to suit himself, and sola scriptura does not create false opinions, it is just a way of finding the truth that-if done improperly- can lead to falsehood. If this is right (if), then does it discredit any source of authority if all of them when used improperly lead to falsehood? Misrepresenting Scripture as a sola scripturist seems equal to a Catholic interpreting a papal bull or a priest’s advise in his own twisted way to suit his desires. The source of authority changes, but that does not make the laypeople immune to error either way. If any of this is wrong please correct me.
Thanks, and GOD bless you.

 

[adf417]

If that was not your intent of that paragraph about the hypothetical cutting off of revelation, could you please explain what you were trying to say with that paragraph because I must have misunderstood.

Im not sure what paragraph you are referring to nor do i understand this “hypothetical cutting off of revelation”. I am now offically confused.

Now that I think about it more, I don’t fully agree with my aforementioned statement. I think that even if that was shown to be true, sola scriptura would not be a necessary cause.

Cause of what? More confusion… sorry Gmsod but im not following your arguments

I understand why you believe what you do. Coming from an outsider (not really since I am a Christian but comparatively) perspective, how am I supposed to know whether or not I should have faith and believe in sola scriptura or the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church?

1st, as you say, Jesus gave the Apostles the authorty to go out and preach not necessarly to write so i think you would agree this Apostolic authority would trump, so to speak, the written word. 2nd, if you think this authority is no longer available to us who need it more than the 1st centry Christians then you are saying He, God, has abandonded us. If the authorty was needed in 1st century why would it no longer be needed. A view of the simple fact that Matthias was voted on to take the office of Judas by these same authority figures attests to this point. 3rd, if you still have trouble seeing a central authority with one voice as Jesus did and you cant historically find the true church among Catholics and Orthodox, we would say ‘no problem” pick one, they all have the apostolic authority. However, with the Orthodox, since there is not one voice, im not sure how one knows which Orthodox church has this authority without much research.

Peace!!!

 

[Gmsod]

Hey,
I reread your post again and I think I extrapolated a bit too much.
I was referring to this:

If the written word would have been completed before Acts chapter 15 the disciples would have never approved noncircumcision as part of Christianity

Rereading that shows me you never implied cutting off of revelation and I wasn’t sure what that would even have to do with this, so I’m thankful you didn’t actually say that. Sorry for the confusion, but I still am confused what you were trying to convey in the above sentence.

Cause of what? More confusion… sorry Gmsod but im not following your arguments

Sorry that should say result instead of cause. All I am saying is I don’t think that what I said before about proving the apostles to have not taught anything outside scripture would even necessarily prove sola scriptura but only the material sufficiency of Scripture. So the perspicuity of Scripture necessitate the Apostles’ teachings on what is necessary for salvation to all be in Scripture and for that to be clear enough to the reader to, with help and work, understand enough to be saved.

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

1st, as you say, Jesus gave the Apostles the authorty to go out and preach not necessarly to write so i think you would agree this Apostolic authority would trump, so to speak, the written word. 2nd, if you think this authority is no longer available to us who need it more than the 1st centry Christians then you are saying He, God, has abandonded us. If the authorty was needed in 1st century why would it no longer be needed. A view of the simple fact that Matthias was voted on to take the office of Judas by these same authority figures attests to this point. 3rd, if you still have trouble seeing a central authority with one voice as Jesus did and you cant historically find the true church among Catholics and Orthodox, we would say ‘no problem” pick one, they all have the apostolic authority. However, with the Orthodox, since there is not one voice, im not sure how one knows which Orthodox church has this authority without much research.

Could you please explain what you mean by apostolic authority ‘trumping’ Scripture. I do not see how either could contradict the other, so there seems to be no need to trump another. I also do not see how Matthias’ election to fill the role of a deceased apostle shows its primacy over Scripture. It shows how the Apostles needed another to fill the authoritative role of Judas because Jesus chose 12, but I do not see how that relates to Scripture. All elaboration is welcome.

I completely agree about Orthodoxy having a very unclear voice. Catholicism seems to say tradition is about communion with Rome and Orthodoxy just says the traditions have to go back to the apostles and it is not determined by external communions (through Rome also claims that its traditions date to the apostles).

I have done much research and it seems like there were popes and priests here and there throughout history who had a very high-petrine view of the Church, but it is confusing because they could have been the right minority or the wrong minority. Without a tradition to tell you, you can’t tell which without just finding out exactly what the apostles taught, but the best resource is the Bible, which is why I am trying to find out using reason (since I have the Bible as an authority but don’t know if I am allowed to interpret it) whether or not GOD wants us to submit to an authority blindly or to use them as guides. This all has gotten very off point (probably because it has sola scriptura in it and people just post whatever proof they have against it here- which is welcome but not the purpose of this). So I would appreciate getting back to the main point of this thread: Does the “have you not read” support sola scriptura?

This is not to say I don’t want to continue the current discussions about sola scriptura in general, but I would very much appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut on the original post.

So all (name removed by moderator)ut and corrections about what I just wrote or the original topic are very helpful.
Thanks again and GOD bless you, adf417.

 

[adf417]

Rereading that shows me you never implied cutting off of revelation and I wasn’t sure what that would even have to do with this, so I’m thankful you didn’t actually say that. Sorry for the confusion, but I still am confused what you were trying to convey in the above sentence.

Simply that if the written word was all there was to revelation we would have miss out on revelation after the written word was pinned. Case in point, the Trinity and also what constitutes NT scripture.

Sorry that should say result instead of cause. All I am saying is I don’t think that what I said before about proving the apostles to have not taught anything outside scripture would even necessarily prove sola scriptura but only the material sufficiency of Scripture. So the perspicuity of Scripture necessitate the Apostles’ teachings on what is necessary for salvation to all be in Scripture and for that to be clear enough to the reader to, with help and work, understand enough to be saved.

Still unsure what you are getting at here. I think i can agree with most of this but its unclear. In my opinion the perspicuity of scripture, ot the lack of, would somehow be tied to the timing of the writings themselves. We all kno much of the writtings occured many years after the actual events and clearness, as someone already pointed out about Paul’s writings, was absent. Im under the belief that the NT writers did not know they were writing NT scripture.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Could you please explain what you mean by apostolic authority ‘trumping’ Scripture. I do not see how either could contradict the other, so there seems to be no need to trump another. I also do not see how Matthias’ election to fill the role of a deceased apostle shows its primacy over Scripture. It shows how the Apostles needed another to fill the authoritative role of Judas because Jesus chose 12, but I do not see how that relates to Scripture. All elaboration is welcome.

Sorry, i did not mean trump as in more powerful but that Apolostic authority having the authorty to clarify what would have been written.

What need would there be to fill the role of Judas if not to continue what Jesus began. If there was no need to fill this teaching position why would have Jesus need the original 12 in the first place? As i alluded to above, the written word was an after thought for the apostles, otherwise they would have began their writtings much earlier and been much more clear and Jesus would have told them to write instead they were commissioned to go out and preach the gospel. Fullfilling Judas’ seat, and those to come, was Jesus way of insuring the gates of hell would not prevail.

I have done much research and it seems like there were popes and priests here and there throughout history who had a very high-petrine view of the Church, but it is confusing because they could have been the right minority or the wrong minority. Without a tradition to tell you, you can’t tell which without just finding out exactly what the apostles taught, but the best resource is the Bible, which is why I am trying to find out using reason (since I have the Bible as an authority but don’t know if I am allowed to interpret it) whether or not GOD wants us to submit to an authority blindly or to use them as guides. This all has gotten very off point (probably because it has sola scriptura in it and people just post whatever proof they have against it here- which is welcome but not the purpose of this). So I would appreciate getting back to the main point of this thread: Does the “have you not read” support sola scriptura?

I think you are on the right track Gmsod and as far as your OP i think it was answered above when someone said that Jesus was speaking to the scribes when He said “have you not read”. Most people could not read back then.

Peace!!!

 

[po18guy]

Our Lord sent Apostles, and those who hear them hear Him. This is difficult for humans to accept, for a variety of reasons.

We are allowed a wide latitude of interpretations which do not depart from the sheepfold which is the sacred deposit of faith. Love is the guiding principle, with denial of self a requirement. Bible alone is an indulgence, not a denial, as it places the individual in charge of discerning “truth”

Pope does in no way speak unilaterally. It is always in communion with and collaboration with the “Apostles and Elders” (think: Acts 15), and then only when he addresses the limited subjects of faith and morals. This continues to be widely misunderstood.

Peter rightly and perceptively noted the twisting of scripture as soon as the ink was dry - 2,000 years ago! It has not gotten better. And, which scriptures in particular?

Paul! Paul is the bible Christian “pope”, but he does not even agree with himself! The NIV, which is flooding the world, can be more malignant than benign in this area, as it makes Paul even more easily twisted due to its nebulous translation.

Bottom line: where you work, there is probably a mission statement. Mission - ponder that. Anyway, does every individual simply read the mission statement and do what they think best?

Or, is there a CEO in charge to keep the train on the rails?

 

[Gmsod]

Hey
po18, thanks for a detailed response.

We are allowed a wide latitude of interpretations which do not depart from the sheepfold which is the sacred deposit of faith. Love is the guiding principle, with denial of self a requirement. Bible alone is an indulgence, not a denial, as it places the individual in charge of discerning “truth”

Please don’t post another paragraph like this. It assumes Catholicism to be true, and, using that axiom, discredits the opposing side. For I could say the same thing about Catholicism: that it is and indulgence because it places an individual in charge of discerning “truth”. Neither of these statements are true (neither mine nor yours). Both sides believe the guidance is from the Holy Spirit, but they disagree on who has the Holy Spirit guiding them and who has the authority to do so. I in no way intend to be rude, but since I am not a Catholic or Protestant, I cannot assume either to be true, so I would prefer if you didn’t include another paragraph like this and keep the discussion to clarifications or arguments please.

Pope does in no way speak unilaterally . It is always in communion with and collaboration with the “Apostles and Elders” (think: Acts 15), and then only when he addresses the limited subjects of faith and morals. This continues to be widely misunderstood.

I have heard many times that this is what should happen. Is this necessarily the case, though? If all the cardinals were in error and the Pope needed to correct them all, he would do it without their consent. If he removes all the cardinals because they all deny Christ’s divinity, he doesn’t need their consent. So does the pope have to be speaking in communion and collaboration with the Apostles and Elders or is it just what GOD desires? If my example is not accurate, please let me know how that type of situation would be dealt with. Whether it is or is not accurate, I would like to know if it is a necessity for the pope to speak in communion with the Elders and Apostles or if that is just the ideal situation.
(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

Peter rightly and perceptively noted the twisting of scripture as soon as the ink was dry - 2,000 years ago! It has not gotten better. And, which scriptures in particular?

Paul ! Paul is the bible Christian “pope”, but he does not even agree with himself! The NIV, which is flooding the world, can be more malignant than benign in this area, as it makes Paul even more easily twisted due to its nebulous translation.

People twist Scripture just like they can twist a papal bull to say what they want. No matter where your source of doctrine is, you can twist it to what you want, but this does not discredit the source. The difference is that sola scriptura assumes that such people may not necessarily be detected until final judgement.
Going along with your second paragraph, sola scripturists simply accept a wider difference of opinion among themselves than Catholics, so the difference between sola scripturists and Catholics is that the authority in Catholicism can openly tell people you are wrong, whereas in Protestantism, you must (along with Church history and the Holy Spirit guiding you) discern truth from error. It is a lot harder to twist a pope’s words, “DO NOT USE CONTRACEPTION”, to allow contraception than it is to defend memorialist views of the Eucharist, despite both being false.

Bottom line: where you work, there is probably a mission statement. Mission - ponder that. Anyway, does every individual simply read the mission statement and do what they think best?

Or, is there a CEO in charge to keep the train on the rails?

They don’t do what they think best, but what they believe the mission statement wants them to do. Does sola scriptura assumes that the mission statement is clear enough that as a whole we are able to figure it out, while Catholicism teaches that we need an interim CEO while the boss is gone, or is there something I am missing or misrepresenting?

I am hesitant to prove things using analogies, especially since GOD’s wisdom is foolishness to men. He can choose to run his church how he wants and I can’t apply our worldly standards of what works to it. If that was not your intent, but rather it was to explain, you can ignore this paragraph.

Once again, prayers and corrections are appreciated,
thanks for reading, and
GOD bless you!

 

[po18guy]

Huh? I thought you were seeking the truth? Or, is it team sports?

If you like Protestantism, indisputably a 16th century European innovation, then by all means stick with it. Just pile that on top of the other explanations you will have to provide on that fine day.

As to what is true, the ONLY Christian Churches that have any claim - any claim at all - to being the Church that Christ founded are Catholic and Orthodox. And, they are the same, only divided on differences which are being overcome. Far better to be Orthodox than Protestant - zero doubt.

You “assume” that I was not non-Catholic before joining the Church and you “assume” that the bible, derivative of and subservient to the long-established Church, is somehow how Christ intended the faith to be handed on. Doesn’t say that.

Deal: Get your protestant brethren on the same page first and we’ll talk!

Over and out.

 

[po18guy]

False false false! We have a living, breathing authority - teaching without error right here, right now. Authority which can correct you and I face to face in real time. Not simply one opinion versus another. How does a bible do any of that? It cannot because it was never intended to. To impute (there’s a term for you) living breathing authority to the bible is to divinize it, is it not? And Catholics are accused of idol worship. Sheesh!

Bible (alone) is the greatest harm that has ever been inflicted on the formerly unified Body of Christ - it has succeeded only in dividing Christ to the great delight of the evil one. While we argue, Islam ascends. Riddle me how that is a good thing!

Do not err in focusing on bad practitioners of the Catholic faith to judge the faith. Go to the deposit of faith and forget the men and women involved! We are not a cult of personality, but of revealed truth and of obedience to it.

 

[Benadam]

There is a difference. Not meaning to offend, I think if you believed that the status of the Traditions are not chosen or a matter for humans to decide. but are revealed by the Word of God, you would not need to ask,. The Word of God comes down to earth from above, When it does, how the Word is expressed and how it unfolds demonstrates the status of it’s expressions. Jesus spoke,the Word, the Apostles spoke a teaching on the Word Jesus Spoke. The Church Father’s gathered the sacred writins and sifted them for authentication. They taught us to distinguish true teaching from the Apostles and what is not, Their successors are charged with gaurding the teaching and knowing the voice of the Holy Spirit so as to draw out the eternal quality of the Word of God and teach what it reveals to the Body of Christ according to the time and circumstances they live in. In the hands of those who it testifies to it’s a living testimony. Apart from them it’s inspiration isn’t a matter guaranteed.

 

[Gmsod]

Thanks for responding.
I understand that the Apostles’ teaching was a tradition that was protected by, authorized by, and came from GOD. I do not know if such traditions were protected by GOD orally and in letter or just in letter. Some Catholics believe material sufficiency of Scripture, but that a teaching body (the Catholic Church) is necessary to understand it fully and properly.
May I ask what you mean by “status of it’s expressions” and “In the hands of those who testifies to it’s a living testimony. Apart from them it’s inspiration isn’t a matter guaranteed”? I am having trouble telling what you mean.

I am having trouble understanding your paragraph’s message as a whole. I believe it deals with GOD’s word being revealed fully and transferred by tradition, of which the Bible was only a part. Is that correct?

Thanks again for bearing with me,
GOD bless you!

 

[Benadam]

How can a letter protect anything without a teacher to exercise it’s authority?

What came first is a demonstration of Status. The existence of all is contingent on the Word spoken by Jesus. The Church’s existence in contingent on the oral teaching of the Apostles. The Father’s continue the Oral tradition of teaching the Word and the authority of the Apostles. The truth of the Tradition wasn’t decided but lived made visible and real by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church declares what is revealed.about Sacred Tradition. The written Tradition was usefull more for the teachers of the faithful and less for learners of the faithful.

 

[Benadam]

I understand that the Apostles’ teaching was a tradition that was protected by, authorized by, and came from GOD. I do not know if such traditions were protected by GOD orally and in letter or just in letter. Some

Thanks for asking dear Gmsod
Gifts from God are eternal gifts. I’m sure you know that God gives and doesn’t take back . God gave the gift of an oral expression of the Word for teaching the faith. It makes sense to me that He would do that since left to us it would corrupt and look like any other work of Man.