since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

Ironically, you’re taking me out of context and misinterpreting my use of the word authority. Paul was an authority as an apostle. But his authority was not universally accepted. Two different things. My bishop is an authority, but plenty of people ignore what he says (don’t accept his authority).
So the HS works through directing the Church in their discernment, and that’s not Holy Tradition?

So it becomes tradition if it happened in such a fashion in the past ? The flip side then is that it was tradition to question authority, not to receive all things presented as OK. Paul was not readily accepted as you state, nor were apostles/disciple writings as you state, one was even lost ( possibly discarded) as you state. This also part of our ecclesia/ tradition/history.

So the question is, as was for Luther’s time, is such and such a thing" Holy" tradition, or just tradition ? Is this a case where we properly kept that letter from Paul or where we did not, where we properly accepted his authority, or not ?

Again that Holy Tradition of getting scripture right does not then say that Tradition is equal to it. I see it as the Created saying they are unconditionally authoritatively equal to the Creator.

never said they weren’t highly regarded until 300 years later. You’re reading something into the text which isn’t there (ironically again).

OK

Tradition decided it. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t appeal to Tradition to show that a letter was accepted as Scripture and then say that Tradition isn’t valid.

OK As long as you can interchange Church with Tradition. Also with the caveat that *some *scripture was authenticated by itself and other writings(Peter and Paul).
As noted above, it is possible to have a wrong tradition, not to be appealed to. hopefully.

The Jews rigorously preserved their Scriptures during periods of exile and persecution. The lack of significant textual variants in the Hebrew Scriptures is astonishing considering. They were much more than prudent with their Scriptures.

Agreed.

There are comparable parts in the OT? Where are the OT epistles?

NO, you posted, " but contain specific rebukes,* administration, even travel instructions?" *
and why would Jews quickly add such a letter to their OT…We have already agreed on the quickly not so quickly issue, but the content that you bring up I say can be found in OT in places also.

The purpose of Scripture is to point people to Christ. It’s not a reference manual for doctrine.

Amen to Christ centered but also the doctrine it contains also. Doctrine points. To Christ.

How can it authenticate that which it doesn’t discuss?

Why should we authenticate what Scripture does not say ? Why should we not only authenticate but then make it equal to Scripture ? OK. Authenticate but don’t make it equal.

Should we mix water and wine in the chalice? Should a Christian take on civic service, or join the army? Why were there so many arguments in the early church if it was as simple as look in the book?

But why say we got Holy Writ right , why not all these other things, how can we be wrong, even writ says we will be guided, (though tradition/history says we have erred for a time) For sure the Holy Spirit is willing to guide, but it is conditional. We can accept or reject that first or second letter, and so dependence continues, on water mixed with wine or not , or whether it is as binding as written assureties.

Arianism wasn’t defeated by an early form of SS, which hadn’t been invented yet.

No matter, as long as you don’t deny that we had Holy Writ compiled by then, making Athanasius swordless…

Arianism became an issue in the first place because someone wanted to break with the Tradition of the Church

And how was the tradition of proper Chrystology established, and how do we know that ?

and follow his own interpretation of Scripture,

and own interpretation of Tradition.

and it was a popular and long lasting heresy (still around today!) precisely because Arius was able to make a good case for his position from Sciripture

and from Tradition ,even councils…

Tradition is, and always has been, God’s safeguard against wacky, independent interpretation. Otherwise, it’s possible to make Scripture say pretty much anything you want it to.

Amen, now please add Scripture to that safeguarding also. Please also add that Tradition can also try to say anything if not for Scripture

 

[benhur]

Ben, the OP of this thread was that SS states we need never look outside the Bible to decide matters of faith, even with modern issues.

Suppose I am seeking an abortion. Friend A tells me that they’ve read the Bible and decided that its ok for me to have one. The Bible doesn’t mention abortion. Life begins with breath (Gen 2:7), not in the womb. A foetus isn’t considered a full person (Ex 21:22-23), so it isn’t murder. God gives us full dominion over everything on earth (Gen 1:27-28), so we have free will to decide what to do with our pregnancies. In fact, sometimes killing children is encouraged! (Ps 137:9, and just about every OT conquest of the people in the promised land).

No, says Friend B, the Bible opposes abortion because all humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), God has a high regard for all human life (Ps 8) and the child in the womb is already a unique human being (Ps 139:13,15).

Again, I don’t want to derail the thread with an abortion debate but how, without appealing to outside Tradition, could I decide between two opposing views with equally convincing Scriptural arguments? (the pro-abortion ones come from a real article, btw, so this is really an issue people are facing).

This is where SS falls down. How do I decide who is right and wrong here? What about the recent plans to combine three strands of DNA to cure diseases in embryos? You can make a good argument from Scripture to prohibit mucking around with creation and destroying other embryos. You can make a good argument for curing diseases, too. How do I decide?

You want Church/tradition ? OK it is not infallible.

 

[benhur]

]Ben, the OP of this thread was that SS states we need never look outside the Bible to* decide* matters of faith, even with modern issues.

As long as we don’t say we can not look outside the bible *about *matters of faith.

This is where SS falls down.

On the contrary, that is where Scripture is used to uphold the proper view by the Church. The Church did not come up with proper doctrine by itself. She did not refrain from scriptural support, just as she did not refrain from Writ to* finally *come up with proper doctrine of life beginning at conception (that was debated for awhile ,unlike abortion,though it changed the severity if the abortion). Again, it is all conditional. It is a beautiful thing when all goes right

 

[stewstew03]

You want Church/tradition ? OK it is not infallible.

Is the Church not the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[Tomoko]

Thank you, Ben, for your replies. I hope you don’t feel ganged up on fielding these questions as taz seems to have dropped out. Also, I hope you don’t get the impression that we denigrate scripture in any way (arguing against SS can feel like that sometimes). I think all of us who post here, irrepespective of our ecclesiologies, want to experience the full riches of Christ even though we differ in our ideas of how to go about that. We can all learn from these debates, though, so I hope they come across in that spirit.

I like when people say this to me, so I will to you, “fair enough”.
Agreed. Thank you for not saying" final" or “only” but certainly as in good shepherding
Agreed, The lay and clergy alike, as one Corinthian/Galatian,etc., church, (and later one catholic church).

Agreed. The final authority was the council of the Church. Earler SS posts (not yours) argued that the criteria for inclusion in scripture came only from scripture, but I’m glad we have agreed that the Church had a hand in it.

Not sure that is accurate depiction of SS, which can only be applied after said scripture is in place (or allows for it).

The problem is, every proponent of SS seems to have a different definition and (again not you) pointing out where people have misunderstood it than explaining it, which leads to moving goalposts. Logically, I would ask: why did God allow men to freely discern the canon (Tradition), then decide to stop allowing them to freely discern after the canon was completed? How is this communicated? Why did the early church devise so much Tradition if this were the case?

PS- that was supposed to be humorous, about Paul “practicing” with

You can’t use humour in this debate unless you can provide a proof text allowing you to do so.

 

[Tomoko]

So it becomes tradition if it happened in such a fashion in the past ? The flip side then is that it was tradition to question authority, not to receive all things presented as OK. Paul was not readily accepted as you state, nor were apostles/disciple writings as you state, one was even lost ( possibly discarded) as you state. This also part of our ecclesia/ tradition/history.

Sorry, I’m not clear on what you mean in the first part. Yes, Tradition happened in the past by definition. Agreed, the Church has always tested and discerned (1 Jn 4:1), which is why some Traditions (eg the canon) took so long to come to their final form. The Church has always been cautious about what she admits to Tradition because of the exact reason you name. Many things have been small-t tradition but have never made it to being Holy Tradition. Small t tradition is often dispensable.

So the question is, as was for Luther’s time, is such and such a thing" Holy" tradition, or just tradition ? Is this a case where we properly kept that letter from Paul or where we did not, where we properly accepted his authority, or not ?

I don’t believe that the canon is wrong, or we kept the wrong letter (as my reply to your joke; it’s too important for trial and error!) So, if the Church was inerrantly guided to compile Scripture, the tradition which compiled it must logically be inerrant also. If there are Holy Scriptures, there must be a Holy Tradition. If there is only fallible tradition, there can only be fallible scriptures.

OK OK As long as you can interchange Church with Tradition. Also with the caveat that *some *scripture was authenticated by itself and other writings(Peter and Paul).
As noted above, it is possible to have a wrong tradition, not to be appealed to. hopefully

What makes you uncomfortable with the word Tradition but not Church? Genuine question.

Yes, there have been wrong traditions but, as above, not everything is declared Holy Tradition. I don’t think the CC would claim to have any Traditions that contradict Scipture (even if others argue they do, the CC would not see it this way), so it’s not about putting one above the other.

NO, you posted, " but contain specific rebukes,* administration, even travel instructions?" *
and why would Jews quickly add such a letter to their OT…We have already agreed on the quickly not so quickly issue, but the content that you bring up I say can be found in OT in places also.

I would say that the OT really has nothing comparable to the epistles, but we agree that the letters were not write in a way immediately identifiable as Scripturem so it’s a moot point.

Why should we authenticate what Scripture does not say ?

This wasn’t what I meant. I think my reply was to a point you made about being bound by Scripture in matters of authenticating doctrine. I asked how Scripture can authenticate doctrine when it relates to matters not found in Scripture.to put it another way, how can a Christian have assurance that they are following God’s will when faced with situations that the Bible doesn’t explicitly address?

For sure the Holy Spirit is willing to guide, but it is conditional.

Conditional on what? You see, this is where I struggle with this idea of two tier guidance. The HS was capable of guiding us to inerrantly compile Scipture but for the rest of it jst kinda leaves us to it, but guides us sometimes. How do we know? When Jesus prays for unity, is he really willing to leave us with so little guidance after his books finished, that has resulted in such a fractured church?

Please also add that Tradition can also try to say anything if not for Scripture

Indeed, traditions can. But the CC doesn’t pluck Tradition out of thin air. Scripture is always a part of her discernment (just look at the Scripture index in the back of the catechism).

 

[Tomoko]

As long as we don’t say we can not look outside the bible *about *matters of faith.

I don’t think I understand. Doesn’t SS stipulate we don’t need to look outside Scipture?

On the contrary, that is where Scripture is used to uphold the proper view by the Church. The Church did not come up with proper doctrine by itself. She did not refrain from scriptural support, just as she did not refrain from Writ to* finally *come up with proper doctrine of life beginning at conception (that was debated for awhile ,unlike abortion,though it changed the severity if the abortion). Again, it is all conditional. It is a beautiful thing when all goes right

Conditional on what? By Church here, do you mean the CC? Of course, I agree! And again, I don’t seek to place Tradition and Scipture at odds. We need both.

However, there are church leaders (and churches) that have no problem with abortion (or you can change that out for any other contentious issue). If their doctrine also has Scriptual support, who is right? Has God left himself without an authoritative voice? If all traditions, all interpretations of Scripture are correct (it’s possible to validly argue both sides of a number of issues from Scripture) then how can we ever be assured of anything?

I totally agree that Scripture contains more than enough to bring us to know God, but things start to get very confused and muddled once we start to debate the finer details of life without appealing to another interpretative authority.

Thanks once more for your posts.

 

[Abu]

benhur #459
As long as we don’t say we can not look outside the bible about matters of faith

That is precisely the petard on which you are hoist, and from which you have been unable to extricate yourself. But the answer is simple – rely on Christ Himself for He gave us His Church and She has given us the Sacred Scriptures as part of His Tradition and His Magisterium.

That is why we can know authoritatively everything we need to know because, besides Tradition and the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, primacy and infallibility are the driving force in Catholicism – the Catholic Church can always, has always, identified and overcome heresy, schism and dissent. It is not those who assent to the Magisterium, Tradition and the Scriptures that fall prey to relativism and secularism, but those who don’t – the dissenters. That is why dissent is always identified, and the truth affirmed.

It is precisely because of this lack of primacy and especially of infallibility that there is no sure norm outside of the Catholic Church on many grave issues such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, remarriage, capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems – some not even found in the Bible – that this fact results in uncertainty and confusion.

 

[benhur]

Is the Church not the pillar and foundation of truth?

What was the pillar and foundation of truth in the other covenants ? Did not Israel perfectly deliver and fulfill covenants ? Did Israel also produce some not so perfect things ?
The Church is the pillar of truth but that does not mean the Church, and your definition of Church is always truth producing.
Truth to the world is is no longer thru a nation but thru Christianity, and it’s “eclesia”/Church. She will deliver perfectly but without infallibility,Just as Israel perfectly delivered the Messiah.

 

[benhur]

That is precisely the petard on which you are hoist, and from which you have been unable to extricate yourself. But the answer is simple – rely on Christ Himself for He gave us His Church and She has given us the Sacred Scriptures as part of His Tradition and His Magisterium.

Thank you. Did not know many of us do not rely Christ or His Church, the Body and it’s teaching offices and history.

That is why we can know authoritatively everything we need to know because, besides Tradition and the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, primacy and infallibility are the driving force in Catholicism -

yes

he Catholic Church can always, has always, identified and overcome heresy, schism and dissent. I

Some of that is good,some isn’t. That is like Great Britain saying she always overcomes schism and dissent. Great Britain is still Great Britain, but she is not as great as she used to be. Is handling dissent the formation of the United States or other attritions ?

 

[Tomoko]

That is like Great Britain saying she always overcomes schism and dissent. Great Britain is still Great Britain, but she is not as great as she used to be. Is handling dissent the formation of the United States or other attritions ?

I’m not sure you can draw an analogy between a country and a Church. GB has not always overcome disent, that is why she no longer has an empire.

A country holding together impacts economy, welfare, etc. the Church impacts salvation. Two different purposes.

You’re right, GB is no longer as great as she was by some measurements. She is no longer as wealthy, no longer has as much land, is not as powerful. Splits and divisions impact this. But that’s not how we measure the greatness of the Church. S. Paul says “no doubt there have to be divisions among you, to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor 11:19). Size doesn’t matter to God. The OT continually favours the faithful remnant. Wrong doesn’t cesse to be wrong because everybody believes it, as Tolstoy pointed out.

 

[stewstew03]

What was the pillar and foundation of truth in the other covenants ? Did not Israel perfectly deliver and fulfill covenants ? Did Israel also produce some not so perfect things ?
The Church is the pillar of truth but that does not mean the Church, and your definition of Church is always truth producing.
Truth to the world is is no longer thru a nation but thru Christianity, and it’s “eclesia”/Church. She will deliver perfectly but without infallibility,Just as Israel perfectly delivered the Messiah.

I’m not sure, because there’s a lot of non-sequitur in your post, but it sounds like you agree that the Church (made up of human beings doing God’s will) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure, because there’s a lot of non-sequitur in your post, but it sounds like you agree that the Church (made up of human beings doing God’s will) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

A caveat is not a non sequitur.

 

[PRmerger]

A caveat is not a non sequitur.

No, ben. You are, I respectfully propose, the king of the nonsequiturs.

A point will be made by a Catholic here, and your response is requested.

And rather than addressing the question/comment, you take one or two of the words from the Catholic’s response, and expound on that.

Better if you actually answered the questions, rather than offer nonsequiturs.

An example:

Catholic: Do you believe that the Bible floated down from heaven on the wings of a dove?
Nonsequitur: Why, doves are indeed found in the Bible! Bible Verse A, B and C show it! And who said, anyway, that floating is not part of the Scriptures. Didn’t Noah’s ark float?

That’s what we mean, ben, by nonsequiturs.

 

[stewstew03]

A caveat is not a non sequitur.

True. But a caveat that doesn’t follow the premise is a non sequitur. If I may paraphrase our discourse:

Me: “the Church is the pillar/foundation of truth” (posed as a rhetorical question)
Ben: “the Church is imperfect”

That, my friend, meets the definition of non sequitur.

 

[stewstew03]

…
Catholic: Do you believe that the Bible floated down from heaven on the wings of a dove?
Nonsequitur: Why, doves are indeed found in the Bible! Bible Verse A, B and C show it! And who said, anyway, that floating is not part of the Scriptures. Didn’t Noah’s ark float?

…

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure you can draw an analogy between a country and a Church. GB has not always overcome disent, that is why she no longer has an empire.

A country holding together impacts economy, welfare, etc. the Church impacts salvation. Two different purposes.

You’re right, GB is no longer as great as she was by some measurements. She is no longer as wealthy, no longer has as much land, is not as powerful. Splits and divisions impact this. But that’s not how we measure the greatness of the Church. S. Paul says “no doubt there have to be divisions among you, to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor 11:19). Size doesn’t matter to God. The OT continually favours the faithful remnant. Wrong doesn’t cesse to be wrong because everybody believes it, as Tolstoy pointed out.

Hi Tom. thanks for your responses and when I have time will answer previous ones Lord willing, but I have a moment for this one.

Agree about remnant and size.

I was remarking on handling schisms, dissent from a quality, effectiveness point (to maintain unity). Sometimes good-Gnostics, Arians but not so good Orthodox , Luther (though counter reformation under Loyola was very effective but limited.) The Didache says create not a schism and pacify those that contend.

Your St. Paul quote fits right in .Sometimes a “faction”(Paul’s word) is created to show/prove one’s rightness. I believe Paul is saying that tongue in cheek. Of course stand up for truth, but sometimes, on some issues, it is done out of the flesh, to be right as opposed to others. Another words we can factionlize with the attitude of the pharisee praying at the temple, " Thank you Lord I (we) am not like these “others”/sinners".

Paul’s words are double edged possibly. Yes, the righteous and mature in Christ will be led to proper doctrine and action and attitude. But also less mature will factionalize to show one upism, “I am approved and you are not”.

Am not sure how much of Paul’s admonition applies to reformation, a bit for sure , but the issues I would say were deeper but just as serious as the Corinthians.

 

[benhur]

True. But a caveat that doesn’t follow the premise is a non sequitur. If I may paraphrase our discourse:

Me: “the Church is the pillar/foundation of truth” (posed as a rhetorical question)
Ben: “the Church is imperfect”

That, my friend, meets the definition of non sequitur.

No more like :Truth rests upon the Church, but not everything that rests on the Church is truthful
It is non sequitur if, *Church is pillar of Truth * is not same as, Truth rests upon the Church

However as the Didache suggests, I will pacify, and say thank you for admitting it at least caveatish, for me it “follows”. (Actually, you have me thinking:yukonjoe: can something be a caveat and nonsequitor at same time ? I think not.)

Regardless, I will also say for you it definitely does not follow, and indeed you are correct in seeing it as non sequitor.

 

[benhur]

No, ben. You are, I respectfully propose, the king of the nonsequiturs.

Hey , I thought of you at the posting of that word, and your once crowning me.:bowdown2:

A point will be made by a Catholic here, and your response is requested.

I did respond in the affirmative, hence i moved on to the caveat. as a , “Yes,but…” does not negate affirmative response

And rather than addressing the question/comment, you take one or two of the words from the Catholic’s response, and expound on that.

So I followed some of the words…then it is not a pure non sequitur. Not even evasive.

An example:
Catholic: Do you believe that the Bible floated down from heaven on the wings of a dove?
Nonsequitur: Why, doves are indeed found in the Bible! Bible Verse A, B and C show it! And who said, anyway, that floating is not part of the Scriptures. Didn’t Noah’s ark float?

That’s what we mean, ben, by nonsequiturs.

Actually, can you have a non sequitor to a question ? I say ns is more like, " do you like balloons ?" and I say, " I love tomatoes." If I say , “Yes, but not all things filled with hot air are balloons” is not a nonsequitor. My apologies if folks did not see the affirmative to* the church being the pillar of truth*.

I did post , "The Church is the pillar of truth "

The question was, " Is the Church not the pillar and foundation of truth?"

 

[fasolislithuan]

Again, my assertion is not the compilation or universalization of all books, for some were fringe relative to others, or some were universal relative to others. But that compilation did not make them “Holy scripture” rather universally recognized their" Holiness", which began at their writing, not at their canonization. That is my understanding of our history with Writ.

Sure. But the “Holiness” that began at their writing and not at their canonization is not a static definition, in reality is a process that cannot be artificially interrumpted until its conclusion (canonization by the Church) to establish with certainty such “Holiness”. They are some stages in the process and those two stages (writing and canonization) are indispensable to the consolidation of the “Holiness”. They cannot be artificially segregated because without the first (“holiness” of the writing) the second is unnecesary and without the second (canonization) the first is an entelechy. That canonization in addition has to be by means of the God-breathed authority, otherwise the canonization becomes a spurious process of falsification that implies an incomplete or adulterated Bible, i.e. like a protestant said: “a fallible collection of infallible books”, but I’d rather specify “an incomplet or adulterated God’s Word”.

I’ll put an example how it’s essential this infallible canonization to make possible the acknowledgement of the “Holiness” of some books of the Sacred Scriptures:

When I read the 3rd epistle of John, I always ask myself what is the reason this book is considered an inspired book. It’s very short, the subject dealed in the epistle looks, sorry if it sounds irreverent, ‘anodynus’, it’s weird there is not a single mention to Christ, the autorship is dubious for many scholars and the mentions of this letter in Early Church is nearly inexistent. Intellectually it’s highly unlikely to come to conclussion this book is God-breathed. Period.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned I don’t understand the reason this book is in the protestant canon because they deny the authority of the Sacred Tradition of the Church and its infallible authority in the councils. The only plausible reason to admit this book as inspired by God, is because the infallible authority of the Catholic Church established it. If any protestant is able to answer me with objective and solid reasons to admit this book as inspired by God it would be good to understand the real nature of the protestant canon. Sola Scriptura is unable to determine this book is inspired by God (in fact Sola Scriptura is unable to determine the God-breathed of any book of the Bible), scholarship is unable to determine this book is the result of John’s authorship, and not even its contents supports ‘prima facie’ this is a letter that God inspired to teach something theologically or doctrinally essential to the christian life.

An interesting and collateral aspect we can deduct from the text (if we admit the author is John the Evangelist) is that the apostles gave their teachings not only by letter but orally. We know this because 3 John 1:13 says “.There were several things I had to tell you but I would rather not trust them to pen and ink.” That’s not certainly an ‘anodyne’ question, it’s important because it shows another evidence that Sola Scriptura is an alien practice in apostolic times.** The apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura. If the apostles didn’t believe in Sola Scripture why any of us should believe?**