second question for our non-catholic brethern

[pocohombre]

It is self-evident that the Bible is no authority based upon the splintering that has occurred in the Protestant world.

False assumption. That is like saying God is not authoritative because what He commanded in the Garden was not carried out, and their arose division shortly thereafter. Even with the papal supreme authority on earth you still had division, as evidenced by Orthodox and Protestant movements. Authority can not be judged soley by compliance to it. That goes for God, the Bible or the Pope.

 

[eddie_too]

to me it is a bit of a stretch to compare the Bible to Almighty God; and to then use that comparison as a basis for a logical conclusion is stretching it even further.

 

[eddie_too]

i can see why non-catholic christians tend to elevate the Bible to near divine status.

if they did not do that, they would be bereft of any connection to the authority Jesus brought to the world.

so, do not be too harsh on our separated brethren, the only way they could not elevate the Bible to such status is by accepting apostolic succession, the doctrine by which we RCs believe we are connected to the authority Jesus brought to the world.

 

[eddie_too]

the fact that inanimated objects can neither possess nor exercise authority is of no consequence to our separated brethren.

for the sake of sanity, they must attribute Christ’s authority to the Bible or, in their system, Christ’s authority would not exist and what Christ brought to the world would not exist.

 

[Protestor]

Saying [1] is false is wrong more specifically it is not stated. The same goes for [2] it also is not stated in those verses.

 

[SteveVH]

False assumption. That is like saying God is not authoritative because what He commanded in the Garden was not carried out, and their arose division shortly thereafter. Even with the papal supreme authority on earth you still had division, as evidenced by Orthodox and Protestant movements. Authority can not be judged soley by compliance to it. That goes for God, the Bible or the Pope.

The Bible is a resource. It is not an authority. No inanimate object is an authority. One must ascertain truth from the pages of Scripture. The inspired nature of Scripture guarantees its truth, not its interpretation. Authority lies in the interpreter, not in what is being interpreted. When one interprets Scripture privately, apart from the teachings of the Church who gave the Scriptures to begin with, they become their own authority.

 

[Traverse]

But who has the authority to interpret the interpretation of the authoritative interpreter? And who has the authority to interpret who is the interpreter?

This logic is faulty. It doesn’t go anywhere.

The bible’s words can be twisted by the ignorant and unstable, as it says in 2 Peter 3. Twisting is an action. You may not be aware of doing it but you have to actually do it. Just because something can be hard to understand does not mean it is impossible to understand unless you have an interpreter.

 

[spina1953]

yes, and it goes one step further. As you say, there is first what the text is actually saying, then comes the meaning and finally the application to our lives.On all three levels it is Jesus that reveals them to our revived spirits.Well those are two problems. One is to be “uneducated”, but there are also maturity levels, even newborns.The other is to think you know it all.That is always a problem. But to be “uneducated” (newborn) can be addressed with time, in the Word, with teachers and experiences in the Lord etc. I don’t think anyone says all the bible is simple. However, enough of it is, but only for this one reason, it is primarily a heart matter, something we all have, and is not subject to IQ or education. AND we have a perfect heart teacher, Christ himself, as Augustine attests. As far as the more complex biblical issues, it is a heart matter again, and the level of desire to know such things that we allow God to give us.Seek hard as for Gold and He is a rewarder. . Agreed but be careful for I think there is only one church that claims infalibility.“Personal interpretation” can mean two things. One is that the interpretation is arrived at by "oneself’. The other is that indeed is an interpretation, and indeed it is personal, but given of God.It is personal just like it is for every one else. God is the only correct interpreter of scripture, and He is willing to share with any desiring soul. Hence John in his epistle says we know all things, we have an unction from the Holy one, and he wasn’t speaking to elders or leaders, but to every “christian” brother and sister. Of course on who holds to the proper view of “personal interpretation” will not force his view but respects the freedom of the other and his ability to "get it’ personally also. Like I am convinced of the Lord so you take it to Him and see if He won’t convince you also. That is dignity that hits right in the heart… No one is against elders, presbyters, teachers, prophets, the “Body” and a need to properly “study”. Thanks again

Hi Pocohombre: I have to agree with nearly all you have stated. As for personal interpretations I agree that while that can be a good thing on a personal level, my point was more to those who think that their personal interpretations is the only correct one and that everyone else needs to follow their thinking. What I mean by uneducated is not that someone has no schooling but that have no sense of what they are really reading and what the author intended when he wrote it as those he was addressing his words to understood the world in a much different way then we of this day and age do and their knowledge of the world was far more limilted then it is today. I think sometimes we need to look at it in the way that they did in order to understand what it is that is being said then see what there is for us as God speaks to us to better understand God’s word so as to live in the way God asks us to. Thanks for your comments as they are very good one’s.

 

[PJM]

=Novocastrian;11489583]I do of course disagree. In making certain traditions of men into de fide dogmas to be believed upon penalty of damnation, they do grievous harm the plain preaching of the Gospel. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with, e.g. the Assumption, as a theological opinion; it’s just one which doesn’t appear in the very earliest Church, and has no obvious bearing on faith in Christ. To make it binding de fide is to lay extra burdens on the faithful.

And don’t even get me started on Papal infallibility…

So what? Christ didn’t know what he was doing?

Where do we make “traditions of men into DOGMA?”

Christ didn’t reinvent the spiritual “wheel”; he followed OT Tradition where with TOTAL consistency God choose one man, empowered him to LEAD His people:

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Judges, Kings like David, the prophets like Isaiah, then John the baptist, Jesus Christ Himself, and then Peter…

One God

One set of faith beliefs

One KEY to heaven

One Church

AND ITS ALL BIBLICAL TOO:thumbsup:

We; not God choose heaven or hell.

We are NOT going to get to heaven on OUR terms; insisting salvation be MY way.

My friend; God is in charge even when we don’t want Him to be

God Bless you, and because God PERMITS you to disagree with Him is NO indication that he approves of it or that their will not be dire consequences.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But who has the authority to interpret the interpretation of the authoritative interpreter? And who has the authority to interpret who is the interpreter?

That’s why you need a living, breathing Church to correct things when beliefs go wrong.

This logic is faulty. It doesn’t go anywhere.

Not at all.

The bible’s words can be twisted by the ignorant and unstable, as it says in 2 Peter 3. Twisting is an action. You may not be aware of doing it but you have to actually do it. Just because something can be hard to understand does not mean it is impossible to understand unless you have an interpreter.

Right. That’s why there’s only ONE interpretation of all of scripture that’s believed by ALL the “bible only” protestant denominations, who are in full accord, right?

 

[pocohombre]

to me it is a bit of a stretch to compare the Bible to Almighty God; and to then use that comparison as a basis for a logical conclusion is stretching it even further.

ET- Who compared God to His Word ? What was suggested is that God is authoritative, so is His Word, and to Catholics, so is the Pope. Their authority can not be judged soley by compliance to it. I gave no comparison, and certainly by faith all agree the three are authoritative, even the CC.

 

[pocohombre]

The Bible is a resource. It is not an authority.

So is that like our constitution is just a resource, with no authority ? The interpreters (Supreme Court) have the authority ? And where did they get that authority, form the Constitution itself ? What happens to a country that follows a S. Court that is very "loose’’, even amiss of the constitution ? I heard Harvard law no longer offers constitutional study, but they study a lot of tradition (case studies). Faith in that court is blind if not also anchored in the constitution.

No inanimate object is an authority.

All authority is from God, and animate and inanimate objects follow irregardless. A stop sign has authority. It may not be “an” authority, but represents authority as if it were “an” authoritative police officer, or judge, who themselves get authority from a state constitution.

The inspired nature of Scripture guarantees its truth, not its interpretation.

Totally agree. Divinely written, divinely "caught’/understood/interpreted

.Authority lies in the interpreter,

Yes because God is His own interpreter. No one claims to interpret except by the Holy Spirit.

not in what is being interpreted

Well, when interpreted by the Holy Spirit the interpretation is authoritative

When one interprets Scripture privately, apart from the teachings of the Church

It is private when it is apart from the Holy Spirit , which makes it apart from the church.

, they become their own authority.

Yes, when apart from the Holy Spirit, which gave us the scriptures.

 

[jmcrae]

A stop sign has authority.

No, it doesn’t. A stop sign can’t arrest you if you fail to stop. It is the police officer who can arrest you, who has the authority that is represented in the stop sign.

In the same way, it is the Church, and not the Bible, that can tell you if you are misreading or misinterpreting the Bible.

And in the same way that a police officer can stand in an intersection and hold his hand up to signal “stop” even if there is no stop sign present, so also, the Church can tell us things about Jesus that we don’t happen to find in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it doesn’t. A stop sign can’t arrest you if you fail to stop. It is the police officer who can arrest you, who has the authority that is represented in the stop sign.

In the same way, it is the Church, and not the Bible, that can tell you if you are misreading or misinterpreting the Bible.

And in the same way that a police officer can stand in an intersection and hold his hand up to signal “stop” even if there is no stop sign present, so also, the Church can tell us things about Jesus that we don’t happen to find in the Bible.

Wow. Yes!! Love this way to look at the stop sign analogy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two things you don’t understand: sola scriptura, and infallibility.

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Not the only authority. E.g., a sola scriptura Christian can legitimately make inferences from history, tradition, logic, etc., about the Christian faith, as long as they accord with (i.e. do not contradict) Scripture. Scripture is the *final *court, the last word.

Since Scripture cannot actually render a verdict, it cannot be the final court. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. The Catholic Church interprets the Word of God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You are not able to do this with 100% accuracy because you, personally, are not protected from error.

(2) There is a difference between being infallible and being right! Of course we think that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right! But that doesn’t mean we think that they were incapable of being wrong! I am frequently right about x, y or z; that doesn’t mean that it is logically or metaphysically impossible for me to be wrong about x, y or z.

If the Catholic Church was not prevented from error when discerning which books were inspired, then it’s really just your opinion as to whether the 27 books chosen.were the right ones.

You say “of course we think the early Church got the 27 book canon of the NT it right.” but how do you know that for sure?

The fact is, you don’t know for sure. You’re just going along with the crowd.

 

[Protestor]

One KEY to heaven

There are many keys to the kingdom which open many gates.
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because the gates of Hades had no power against him, that he might open for himself the gates that were closed to those who had been conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters in, as a temperate man, through an opened gate— the gate of temperance— by the key which opens temperance; and, as a righteous man, by another gate— the gate of righteousness— which is opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the rest of the virtues.”(Origen Commentary on matthew)

 

[SteveVH]

There are many keys to the kingdom which open many gates.
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because the gates of Hades had no power against him, that he might open for himself the gates that were closed to those who had been conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters in, as a temperate man, through an opened gate— the gate of temperance— by the key which opens temperance; and, as a righteous man, by another gate— the gate of righteousness— which is opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the rest of the virtues.”(Origen Commentary on matthew)

I have never read where Jesus through a bunch of keys into a bucket and invited everyone to come and grab a set. You read too much into Origen’s comments. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Please demonstrate where any other keys were given to anyone else?

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that Jesus taught the Apostles and when He breathed on them and told then that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of all that Jesus taught etc… He was giving them the authority to interprete what it was and all that He taught. And when the Apostles made disciples to take their place so that they could continue to preach the Word everywhere they went, and since Jesus gave them the command to preach the Good news to all, that then is the authority to interprete and so that was handed down from them to and through the Church. Otherwise without it there would not be any authority to decide or to know what Jesus was teaching and how the OT was fulfilled throught Christ. Sadly, so many think that they can interprete the Bible and whatever they think it is is the truth and everyone else who do not go along with their interpretation are wrong and they say that the Holy Spirit led them to the interpretation they think is correct. However, the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of chaos and every different interpretation cannot be correct. This is why Christ astablished a Church so that all might know the truth of what He taught through His Apostles and be handed down inflitered.

 

[SteveVH]

So is that like our constitution is just a resource, with no authority ? The interpreters (Supreme Court) have the authority ?

Yep.

And where did they get that authority, form the Constitution itself?

Nope. They got their authority through appointment by the President of the United States, with confirmation by congress, unless you can point to a Supreme Court Justice who just walked up and took their place on the bench and held up the Constitution as their authority to assume that position.

What happens to a country that follows a S. Court that is very "loose’’, even amiss of the constitution?

Injustice. That is why it is very important for a president and a congress to vet every candidate for the Supreme Court very carefully. Sometimes they make mistakes. But this has nothing to do with where they got their authority.

I heard Harvard law no longer offers constitutional study, but they study a lot of tradition (case studies). Faith in that court is blind if not also anchored in the constitution. All authority is from God, and animate and inanimate objects follow irregardless. A stop sign has authority. It may not be “an” authority, but represents authority as if it were “an” authoritative police officer, or judge, who themselves get authority from a state constitution. Totally agree. Divinely written, divinely "caught’/understood/interpreted Yes because God is His own interpreter. No one claims to interpret except by the Holy Spirit. Well, when interpreted by the Holy Spirit the interpretation is authoritative It is private when it is apart from the Holy Spirit , which makes it apart from the church. Yes, when apart from the Holy Spirit, which gave us the scriptures.

I will defer to jmcrae’s excellent answer to this portion of your post.

 

[Traverse]

That’s why you need a living, breathing Church to correct things when beliefs go wrong.

That in no way answers the conundrum. Who is your authoritative interpreter to interpret the true church which can act as an authoritative interpreter?

Not at all.

I disagree.

Right. That’s why there’s only ONE interpretation of all of scripture that’s believed by ALL the “bible only” protestant denominations, who are in full accord, right?

Should I downplay the teachings of the Catholic church because it has split off into a SSPX? Should I fault sacred tradition because with that same tradition the catholic and orthodox churches experienced schism?

At some point you have to recognize it’s people that cause divisions because they want what they shouldn’t. The number of divisions has no bearing on the quality of the original message.

Also, as an aside to the rest of this thread… the comparison of the bible being interpreted by the church with the US constitution being interpreted by the supreme court really doesn’t work. The constitution is not an inerrant document written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the history and teachings of a gospel that does not change. The constitution, instead, is written with the knowledge that the founding fathers don’t know what the future holds and that the document must be a living document, able to be amended and reinterpreted. The word of the Lord, meanwhile, does not change and its teachings apply to us always.