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

[benhur]

[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”.
Is that like if no one is in the woods does a tree make a noise when it falls to the ground ? I understand and agree but only a little. Of course it is divinely written and divinely received and divinely understood. The question then is what is God- breathed authority ? Like the OT did not have an institutional authority like council to figure out their (our) Holy Books, but for sure the God breathed “Israel” was God-breathed receptors/authority of the Holy Books.

I would still be cautious to link, even pause holiness until canonization. Like asking when does life begin, at conception, or at second trimester or at birth ? As you may know it took a while for the Church to finally say at conception, deeming it to be truthful from the beginning, not just at it’s realization/acceptance.

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.

Actually is that a doctrine, the infallibility of Sacred Tradition ? As long as you say we don’t deny authority in councils and tradition (especially in acceptance of Books as recorded in our history) **

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),

Did not know this was required of SS.

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.

SS does not deny oral transmission of gospel and truth. It is even done today.

We know this because 3 John 1:13 says ".There were several things I had to tell you but I would rather not trust

/I] them to pen and ink." I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and inkDon’t see any translation that has trust in it. Writing is always trusted more so than oral. It is just not always expedient or necessary, as in this case.

"it seemed fitting for me as well,… to write it out for you… that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:4

The apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura. If the apostles didn’t believe in Sola Scripture why any of us should believe?

Well, they did not believe in many of the Sacred Traditions also, for they had not been formulated yet either. They even operated without a council for fifteen, twenty years. Shall we say they did not believe in councils (at least for some time) ?.

The context of SS is the authoritative use of Holy Writ as has been written/ received, first by Israel then by the Church.

Your argument is a bit like the children of Israel telling Moses the God-written tablets are fine, but they did not exist for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so oral is still just as authoritative.

But if you imply that SS rules out all history and tradition and oral then you have a point,(just don’t know any SS folk who imply that).**

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You appealed to:

“it seemed fitting for me as well,… to write it out for you… that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:4

That’s fine. But you can’t toss the word “ONLY” into Luke 1:3-4 (or anywhere else) when it is not there. That just is not good Scripture exegesis.

St. Luke in the book of Acts ALSO said, “it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit” WITHOUT directly appealing to Sacred Scripture too.

ACTS 15:28 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things . . .

And part of the context of ACTS 15, is doing away with the requirement of circumcision!

If you know the Old Testament, you can see WHY the Jews would get excited about this circumcision issue.

This Apostolic decision (united to the Holy Spirit of course) was done with their God-given, God-protected AUTHORITY. Yet it seemed to some, to contradict the Scriptures (it doesn’t, but it “seems” to).

As a matter of fact, the Scriptures that the Apostles had at that time-frame of Acts, explicitly teaches (what) about the requirement of circumcision? The Scriptures the Apostles had at the time of Acts had instructed (this) . . . .

GENESIS 17:9-14 9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

The only time Jesus mentioned “circumcision” in the Gospels was not doing away with it, but matter-of-factly talking about circumcision as it relates to the Sabbath.

If the Apostles were sola Scriptura (under any definition) Christians, you would expect some at the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) to appeal to Genesis 17 (but nobody apparently does).

So it is quite clear, this authoritative Apostolic authority is not drawn from the Scriptures ALONE. There is MORE.

 

[Tomoko]

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.

No worries, whenever you have the time. I know the posts are getting quite long!

Yes, unity and schism are very difficult. Where do you draw the line? Jesus prayed earnestly for unity and yet S. Paul says division is bound to happen, mainly because we think we know better than God (as has been the case since Eden!) or we find his teachings too hard and try to remake him in our own image (as so many deserted Jesus over his hard sayings).

Paul, like all Scripture, is indeed double edged! The Didache is right to urge unity and pacification as schism is not something to be desired or taken lightly. Our Lord urged reconciliation (Mt 18), but there has to be somewhere where the line is drawn. Would it be acceptable for people to start preaching that Christ was an alien, for example? St. Paul says that they should be corrected “with gentleness” (2 Tim 24-26), but also that dissent can also be dangerous for the faith: “watch out for those who cause division and put obstacles in the way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” (Rom 16:17,) and “some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith and been handed over to satan” (1 Tim 1:19f).

St. John is even firmer: “if anyone comes to you and does not bring this * teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” (2 Jn 10-11).

So, yes, while striving to live together is important there comes a point where it’s not, with integrity, possible.

As for the Reformation, yes it is much more complicated than just doctrinal matters. There were politics and earthly ambition thrown into the mix on both sides (and that could be its own thread!). Undoubtedly there were abuses within the CC at the time, but the abuse of something doesn’t invalidate its correct use, any more than abuses of Scripture invalidate Scripture.

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.

By the way, Ben, would you mind me asking what part of the world you’re in? I know that my experiences of Protestantism in the Church of England (and the way that the reformation happened here) are going to be very different to someone who’s grown up in a German Lutheran church, for example. It would just help to add a bit of context *

 

[unstoppable_II]

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

Then why does the Lord’s Prayer say, “give us this day our daily bread” and not “give us this day Your daily word”?

 

[benhur]

Benhur. You appealed to:
That’s fine. But you can’t toss the word “ONLY” into Luke 1:3-4 (or anywhere else) when it is not there. That just is not good Scripture exegesis.

Don’t have to put in the word “only”. Nothing like “certainty”. “to write it out for you… that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:4

St. Luke in the book of Acts ALSO said, “it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit” WITHOUT directly appealing to Sacred Scripture too.
ACTS 15:28 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things . . .

So for 10 years you infallibly needed circumcision, maybe, then all of a sudden you didn’t need it ?

SS does not negate seeking the HS for things not written, only that they not contradict or must be cohesive . This is what happened at Jerusalem. You want to call that “tradition” ok.? But it was "approved "also by scripture.

"Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.
the words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:" Acts 15:14

I would not deny that they looked or saw the authenticating God’s actions with God’s writing. Both were authoritative . Interestingly Peter was not "rock “here , but his testimony to the obvious sufficed as ''Simon”.

Scripture never had it wrong .

God’s actions never had it wrong.

The Holy Spirit got the mesage right to St. Peter and Paul

The Church did not have it totally right (for 10 years ?), until they aligned with God’s actions, visions, inspiration and scripture thru the Holy Spirit.

And part of the context of ACTS 15, is doing away with the requirement of circumcision!

Agreed. Very good point . Who did away with the requirement first ? The council, the apostle as an authoritative unit ? NO. In fact they were last to get on board, with what God already approved . Approved by the vision to St. Peter , that the Gentiles were cleansed by God (without any Jewish ritual, but with the new testament “ritual” of baptism in the Holy Ghost). St. Peter knew this, witnessed this, and “ate” with the Gentiles, obediently , for awhile (had to be rebuked by St. Paul when St. Peter later backed down on obedience due to the Jewish legalists).

So, thru a vision to St. Peter and the salvation of Cornelius, and the conversion of Gentiles before St Paul also, all without Jewish rituals, testified to the correct interpretation of the vision ,the Lord’s words and OT scriptures.

Again, agreed that the Lord used apostles , who had authority , to discern the matter.

SS should not rule out God’s “visions”, “actions” and Holy Spirit inspirations, councils even apostolic authority, and all these will be cohesive and authenticated with His written Word.

Remember, scripture, visions, God’s actions and inspirations never failed but “tradition” took time to finally align with it.

 

[benhur]

Then why does the Lord’s Prayer say, “give us this day our daily bread” and not “give us this day Your daily word”?

I know , as if His Word can be bread.

Don’t trust a fat SS advocate.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said:

So for 10 years you infallibly needed circumcision, maybe, then all of a sudden you didn’t need it ?

No. It was done away with right away (ALSO not explicitly in Scripture incidentally). Doing away with the need for circumcision was already being taught before Acts 15–based on the AUTHORITY of the Apostles and AUTHORITATIVE Oral Tradition that the Apostles already had. The Council of Jerusalem was just to clarify this as dissensions had crept in.

You said:

Scripture never had it wrong .

God’s actions never had it wrong.

The only thing worse than putting words into my mouth benhur, is putting the wrong words there.

This is straw-man argumentation benhur.

Go back and re-read what I said:

Yet it seemed to some, to contradict the Scriptures (it doesn’t, but it “seems” to).

As I said: Don’t ADD the word “only” to Scripture when it isn’t there.

You tired to add “alone” to Luke, and now you seem to be trying to add “alone” in Acts 15:15 when they talk of the prophets writings.

The “prophets” that you cite even in Scripture, were handed down ORALLY AND in WRITING because as I pointed out, the ancient Hebrew text themselves were all consonants. So you NEEDED oral Tradition.

When you appeal to Scripture alone in the Old Testament, you ARE appealing to Oral Tradition too to a certain extent (only you don’t admit it).

Try as you may, you cannot separate this from an oral handing on.

Yes writing too, but orally and authoritatively orally.

You referred to Acts 15:15, as Scriptural evidence of apparently doing away with circumcision.

If you mean Acts 15:15 does away with circumcision via a sola Scriptura method, go ahead and tell me from Acts 15:15-18 how?

Incidentally, I agree it does away with circumcision, but I might not agree with how you think it does.

I will say Authority along with Scripture in conjunction with authoritative oral Tradition.

• Oral Tradition
• Written Tradition (Scripture)
• Magisterium

I think you might be trying to say Scripture ALONE authoritatively, so go ahead and support it benhur (if that is what you are putting forth).

This is going to be interesting how you reconcile Genesis 17 with Acts 15 authoritatively using a Scripture alone method. I will be waitingopcorn:.

Here are the verses. If you want to use the Old Testament prophets they cite, go ahead.

GENESIS 17:9-14 9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

ACTS 15:15-18 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’

The problem is benhur, is you cite Acts 15:15 and add “Alone” in your mind to it (again) when the “alone” isn’t in the verse. And you HAVE to do this stuff.

Or now you are going to have to admit the need for some other AUTHORITY (Oral Tradition, Magisterium or both) which will undermine the whole “house of cards” of sola Scriptura.

This will further highlight what this thread is all about . . . that the Bible . . .is NOT “all we need”.

 

[benhur]

No. It was done away with right away (ALSO not explicitly in Scripture incidentally). Doing away with the need for circumcision was already being taught before Acts 15–based on the AUTHORITY of the Apostles and AUTHORITATIVE Oral Tradition that the Apostles already had. The Council of Jerusalem was just to clarify this as dissensions had crept in.

Hi Holic. I think so and it’s why I put “maybe” and" infallibly". I stated that was Paul’s revelation and Peter’s also with his vision way before the council. Perhaps I was overreacting to your words, “And part of the context of ACTS 15,* is doing away with the requirement of circumcision!*”
WE are both agreed, I think, that the council “clarified things”, got everybody on board, to what had already been revealed to authoritative apostles (Peter and Paul).

The only thing worse than putting words into my mouth benhur, is putting the wrong words there.

Sorry, did not know that what I say put’s words in your mouth. Perhaps we are in such “debate mode” that we misunderstand. Like if I say it is black does not always mean you are saying it is white.

Totally agree, you did not say scripture got it wrong, and your word “seem” was perfect and I got what you were saying , even said it was a “good point”.

As I said: Don’t ADD the word “only” to Scripture when it isn’t there.

Agree. However, will stick with Writ being more of a certainty than evolving tradition. But so you make no mistake, Writ is never “alone”.

You tired to add “alone” to Luke, and now you seem to be trying to add “alone” in Acts 15:15 when they talk of the prophets writings.

Still in “debate” mode? Did not try to add alone. That is why I included, God’s action (saving gentiles), and vision to Peter and revelation to the him and Paul, authoritative figures and OT scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Only debate mode glasses will see an alone there.

The “prophets” that you cite even in Scripture, were handed down ORALLY AND in WRITING because as I pointed out, the ancient Hebrew text themselves were all consonants. So you NEEDED oral Tradition.

Thank you again for that , would have to look at that closer(the authoritative oral necessity).

When you appeal to Scripture alone in the Old Testament, you ARE appealing to Oral Tradition too to a certain extent (only you don’t admit it).

Again, OT Writ is also not alone, and or apart from it’s receivers, Israel , as NT is not apart from its receivers, the Church. Just that Israel nor the Church are “above” nor equal to God’s Word , written or oral. Almost different functions. Like the boat telling the water, we are equal to you ??? Mold the boat any way you want, for it’s riders have that authority and privelege, just gotta make sure the boat is still water worthy.

Yes writing too, but orally and authoritatively orally.

Again, SS does not do away with oral transmission of truth, even authoritatively. But for this Tradition to be correct it must be aligned to Holy Writ. This is very Catholic for the most part.

You referred to Acts 15:15, as Scriptural evidence of apparently doing away with circumcision.

Old stuff now but you posted,“And part of the context of ACTS 15,* is doing away with the requirement of circumcision!*” .

We both agree it was done before the council,

If you mean Acts 15:15 does away with circumcision via a sola Scriptura method, go ahead and tell me from Acts 15:15-18 how?

Hopefully you see I did not post that, at all.
Hopefully, you see that scripture had to be reconciled, and not just because of the Judaizers(Pahrisees), but because of a long standing tradition , of being “scriptural”.

I will say Authority along with Scripture in conjunction with authoritative oral Tradition.

Cool.

Or now you are going to have to admit the need for some other AUTHORITY (Oral Tradition, Magisterium or both) which will undermine the whole “house of cards” of sola Scriptura.

This will further highlight what this thread is all about . . . that the Bible . . .is NOT “all we need”.

The very question ,the way it is posed is already a very strong channeling , a setting up of a paradigm , requiring only one correct conclusion. Is that what Luther proposed, no authority outside of Writ ? No more popes (but he said everyone is his own pope ,I think) ? No more pastors/presbyters, teachers, (but he remained one, as did some of his companions). No more traditions from councils, church fathers to learn from to quote from ? Did he never positively quote from other sources ? I think so.

What did he mean then when confronted with papal, some councilar, some tradition that said he was wrong on his 95 points to then only to rest in his conviction based on revelations from Holy Writ ?

 

[Cathoholic]

Thanks for the admonition benhur. Perhaps I am in “debate mode”. I will take it to heart what you say.

You mentioned,

But for this Tradition to be correct it must be aligned to Holy Writ. This is very Catholic for the most part.

You are right it MUST be aligned that way (and vice versa–it would never have been Canonized if it were not united to Oral Tradition either).

But for this Tradition to be correct it must be aligned to Holy Writ. This is very Catholic for the most part.

But that’s the point though. WHOSE interpretation of “Holy Writ”?

 

[benhur]

You are right it MUST be aligned that way (and vice versa–it would never have been Canonized if it were not united to Oral Tradition either).

I refrained from saying vice versa. I can’t say Scripture must align with and to Tradition. I can not say Scripture must align with and to the Oral. The only thing that comes close is that Scripture acceptance became a tradition, that scripture needs an obedient “receptor”, an authoritative receptor. Still can not say Scripture bows to this authoritative receptor (Church,Church tradition). As another poster agreed that Scripture is Scripture before any canonization, without any obedient receptor even (though it will not come back void).

Again different paradigms,purposes.The boat and the water it floats on. The creator and the created. I do not think .

It is like God spoke a Word, but without an ear what good is it, therefore the ear is equally needed, even equally authoritative. I say ear does not equal Word.

I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of His Word can be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection of that Word. And it is not vice versa.

But that’s the point though. WHOSE interpretation of “Holy Writ”?

Bingo. That is the “Tradition”. Not just that scripture is supremely authoritative, but one’s (church’s) interpretation of it is equally supremely authoritative. Kind of like the Pahrisees declaring their interpretation correct, on all things, all the time, for all Judaism, almost in an institutional way. The fact is they did not do this, yet were held in high esteem by Judaism, for their allegiance to the Written Law, like no other group, or school, or sect but informally,allowing "other views’.’

So Luther and the Church agree to Writ ,and councils and offices. The disagreement was infallibility, and Tradition/Church/Councils overriding individual revelation. Authority was not automatic or institutional, but conditional, on being right, on having the right interpretation and the right conclusions and the right decrees.
To Luther, scripture was the least evolving and therefore the most reliable source for Holy Spirit revelation (at least for guidance on his 95 points).

So, yes, while striving to live together is important there comes a point where it’s not, with integrity, possible.

Totally agree. He wishes for oneness but also talks of brother against brother, and shaking the dust of your feet, of departing from us because they were not of us (John) etc etc.

As for the Reformation, yes it is much more complicated than just doctrinal matters.

I think it began about doctrinal stuff but ended being about how one determines doctrinal truth. Or infallibility or conditionality of being truth bearing.

Undoubtedly there were abuses within the CC at the time, but the abuse of something doesn’t invalidate its correct use, any more than abuses of Scripture invalidate Scripture.

Like living together and not , so it is here. Sometimes Truth stands despite apparent or real abuse , and sometimes truth is not full truth as evidenced by fruits.
I use your argument against those who say SS or individual revelation is invalid because of bad fruit of 30,000 denominations.

By the way, Ben, would you mind me asking what part of the world you’re in? I know that my experiences of Protestantism in the Church of England (and the way that the reformation happened here) are going to be very different to someone who’s grown up in a German Lutheran church, for example. It would just help to add a bit of context

Know very little of Anglican or Lutheran folk. Grew up in Northeast US and more familiar with Baptists, Pentecostals and Catholics.

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.

Actually I have not seen nor remember at least any real differing points or definition of. We may have seen different explanations, and some is posturing. Like a P will be afraid to say anything Catholicish and vice versa,so explanations get skewed.

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?

Actually no one usually puts those words “men to freely discern” with that question. Luther was freely deciding as a man also what was correct by inspiration from Writ

But you mean how could the Church/Tradition and councils get it right and then not so on some stuff thereafter. Fair question. The real question is when did she establish infallibility institutionally, and on such a growing, evolving scale ? One thing is declaring infallibly the gospel , as in the apostles creed, short and sweet, to infallibly lengthy and detailed canons of Trent?

That did not answer your question but I liken CC 's infallibility to OSAS once saved always saved, to ORAR. once right always right. Catholics see conditionality to salvation and I apply same thought to Church’s correctness, of being a pillar of truth. It is guaranteed to any office or successors or to any council or to any generation if they truly are walking in His light on the matter(s)-conditional.

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

I like it .Blessings

 

[Abu]

Tomoko
Undoubtedly there were abuses within the CC at the time, but the abuse of something doesn’t invalidate its correct use, any more than abuses of Scripture invalidate Scripture.

Correct.

benhur #489
I use your argument against those who say SS or individual revelation is invalid because of bad fruit of 30,000 denominations.

Such “use” is totally false, which is why it continues the error.

A misuse or abuse of doctrine distorts the doctrine and misleads. The Church has always sought to stop and correct the abuses by some, and history attests to this.

This is totally different to the reality of the correct doctrine being taught by Christ, The Way, the Truth and the Life, to His Apostles by founding His Catholic Church and no other, by mandating St Peter as His Chief Vicar to teach, rule and sanctify, with the four promises of supremacy to him alone in His Church, and sole authority to strengthen and feed the flock.

The unfortunate confusion that substitutes for Christ’s Church a multitudinous set of interpretations is what is left – which mislead.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said (bold and ul mine):

QUOTE:
I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of His Word can be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection of that Word.

First of all, I am going to have to take issue with your built-in presumptions of “His Word” and reducing the authority of the Church and (Oral) Tradition down to mere “reflections” of what I think you mean as “The Bible”.

“His Word” includes Written and Oral Tradition to be sure, but “His Word” cannot be reduced down to Oral or Written Tradition.

• “His Word” cannot be reduced to the printed page.
• “His word” cannot be whittled down to the Bible ALONE.
• “His Word” cannot be re-defined! St. John tells us “the Word became flesh”, NOT “the Word became text”.

You said:

QUOTE:
I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of His Word can be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection of that Word.

Presumably (correct me if I am wrong):

What this essentially means is . . . .

I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of the Bible CAN be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on the Bible.

And I am saying that is not supported in Scripture.

Was Cain free of trouble because Moses hadn’t come along to write the Pentateuch yet? Or are you going to tell me Adam wrote it? How did Cain (of Cain and Abel fame) know he was wrong in murdering his brother?

(Hint: It was not “wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection” from Scripture)

Oral and Written Tradition, in the authoritative sense, draws from the SAME Divine wellspring. So the Oral aspect cannot be any more or less “conditional”, than the Written Tradition (Scripture).

But if you mean the Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, and the Magisterium are interdependent, I agree. (But it looks to me like that is not what you are saying.)

And that was my whole point about the circumcision issue. What IS clear in Scripture ALONE about circumcision requirements (at the time of the Council of Jerusalem and as you appropriately noted, even before the Council of Jerusalem), is . . .

. . . . “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14)

So if your paradigm matches what Jesus gave us, HOW do you defend:

“Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin is an optional item” . . .

. . . . . WITHOUT drawing AUTHORITATIVELY from not only Oral Tradition, but the teaching Magisterium??

Where would you have gotten this “optional” or “unnecessary” aspect, 2000 years ago that was “wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection” from Scripture?

I am not trying to do “debate mode” here benhur. These are real issues, and the Bible ALONE just doesn’t fit into the Biblical model.

 

[benhur]

benhur. You said (bold and ul mine):

QUOTE:
I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of His Word can be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection of that Word.

First of all, I am going to have to take issue with your built-in presumptions of “His Word” and reducing the authority of the Church and (Oral) Tradition down to mere “reflections” of what I think you mean as “The Bible”.

“His Word” includes Written and Oral Tradition to be sure, but “His Word” cannot be reduced down to Oral or Written Tradition.

• “His Word” cannot be reduced to the printed page.
• “His word” cannot be whittled down to the Bible ALONE.
• “His Word” cannot be re-defined! St. John tells us “the Word became flesh”, NOT “the Word became text”.

You said:

QUOTE:
I would say that a reflector (Church, Tradition) of His Word can be equally authoritative, but it it wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection of that Word.

Presumably (correct me if I am wrong):

What this essentially means is . . . .

And I am saying that is not supported in Scripture.

Was Cain free of trouble because Moses hadn’t come along to write the Pentateuch yet? Or are you going to tell me Adam wrote it? How did Cain (of Cain and Abel fame) know he was wrong in murdering his brother?

(Hint: It was not “wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection” from Scripture)

Oral and Written Tradition, in the authoritative sense, draws from the SAME Divine wellspring. So the Oral aspect cannot be any more or less “conditional”, than the Written Tradition (Scripture).

But if you mean the Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, and the Magisterium are interdependent, I agree. (But it looks to me like that is not what you are saying.)

And that was my whole point about the circumcision issue. What IS clear in Scripture ALONE about circumcision requirements (at the time of the Council of Jerusalem and as you appropriately noted, even before the Council of Jerusalem), is . . .

. . . . “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14)

So if your paradigm matches what Jesus gave us, HOW do you defend:

“Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin is an optional item” . . .

. . . . . WITHOUT drawing AUTHORITATIVELY from not only Oral Tradition, but the teaching Magisterium??

Where would you have gotten this “optional” or “unnecessary” aspect, 2000 years ago that was “wholly dependent, conditional on perfect reflection” from Scripture?

I am not trying to do “debate mode” here benhur. These are real issues, and the Bible ALONE just doesn’t fit into the Biblical model.

Hi Holic. I am afraid it is a bit “debate mode”
But thank you, and I am very,very,very aware that Word is not just Bible. Word is His spoken and written word. It can even be a rhema word, that some believe to be a personal utterance from God sometimes even audibly but sometimes a spiritual hearing.
Of course Jesus is the Incarnate Logos . Even Jesus did not make the Written fit Him, but he perfectly “fit”, fulfilled" any Logos, written or otherwise. He was one with Logos. Jesus the man was a perfect reflection of the Godhead and God’s Word. Jesus the God was not a reflection but the actual Word or source of that Word.

So likewise the Church and Tradition and Doctrine and scriptural interpretation is to reflect God and His Word perfectly , but is conditional on just how Christ-like those things are. I can not say that about His written Word , that it is conditionally perfect. It is perfect in itself, therefore the final authoritative norm. (not withstanding canonization/translation issues).

 

[benhur]

am not trying to do “debate mode” here benhur. These are real issues, and the Bible ALONE just doesn’t fit into the Biblical model.

Agreed. Have stated the Bible is never “alone”, nor works “alone”

 

[benhur]

Hi Holic. I am afraid it is a bit “debate mode”
But thank you, and I am very,very,very aware that Word is not just Bible. Word is His spoken and written word. It can even be a rhema word, that some believe to be a personal utterance from God sometimes even audibly but sometimes a spiritual hearing.
Of course Jesus is the Incarnate Logos . Even Jesus did not make the Written fit Him, but he perfectly “fit”, fulfilled" any Logos, written or otherwise. He was one with Logos. Jesus the man was a perfect reflection of the Godhead and God’s Word. Jesus the God was not a reflection but the actual Word or source of that Word.

So likewise the Church and Tradition and Doctrine and scriptural interpretation is to reflect God and His Word perfectly , but is conditional on just how Christ-like those things are. I can not say that about His written Word , **that it is conditionally perfect. **It is perfect in itself, therefore the final authoritative norm. (not withstanding canonization/translation issues).

meant to say** unconditionally **perfect

 

[benhur]

This is totally different to the reality of the correct doctrine being taught by Christ, The Way, the Truth and the Life, to His Apostles by founding His **Catholic Church **and no other,

" Kind of like the Pahrisees declaring their interpretation correct, on all things, all the time,** for all **Judaism, almost in an institutional way. The fact is they did not do this, yet were held in high esteem by Judaism, for their allegiance to the Written Law, like no other group, or school, or sect but informally,allowing "other views’.’’

 

[Tomoko]

Hi Ben, I was beginning to think you’d forgotten about me

I think it began about doctrinal stuff but ended being about how one determines doctrinal truth. Or infallibility or conditionality of being truth bearing.

Yes, and undoubtedly many reformers were genuinely seeking to redress abuses and seek the truth but a lot of this was lost when politics got involved. The English reformation, for example, had very little to do with religion (at least initially, under Henry), but provided an excuse for the crown to wrestle power and a substantial amount of land and wealth away from Rome. Even today, the Church of England is torn between its Christian heritage and its close association with the state; you can see that in the amount of pressure parliament excerted over ordaining female bishops. That, to me, is one of the dangers of removing a Magisterium; the church ends up bending to will and culture and tailors the Scriptures to fit.

I use your argument against those who say SS or individual revelation is invalid because of bad fruit of 30,000 denominations.

As above, in effect. If individual interpetstion is valid, who decides what is an abuse and what isn’t? Has Westboro Baptist Church interpreted Scipture correctly?

Know very little of Anglican or Lutheran folk. Grew up in Northeast US and more familiar with Baptists, Pentecostals and Catholics.

And I’m least familiar with Baptists and Pentecostals, so maybe we can both learn something

Actually I have not seen nor remember at least any real differing points or definition of. We may have seen different explanations, and some is posturing. Like a P will be afraid to say anything Catholicish and vice versa,so explanations get skewed.

Definition or explanation, the same thing really. You, for example, seem much more willing to view tradition in a supportive role in understanding Scripture than Taz was, which seems like a more nuanced view than I’ve previously encountered. I just struggle with the idea of how one can correctly interpret Scipture if one cannot even agree on the basis on which to do so?

But you mean how could the Church/Tradition and councils get it right and then not so on some stuff thereafter. Fair question. The real question is when did she establish infallibility institutionally, and on such a growing, evolving scale ? One thing is declaring infallibly the gospel , as in the apostles creed, short and sweet, to infallibly lengthy and detailed canons of Trent?

Yes, this is what I meant, and you ask a fair question in return. Why is declaring infallibility in the gospels one thing and the canons another? Neither the gospels or creed were short and sweet - they took many years to formulate. Which is more logical? That a church which would correctly discern the canon of scripture (which we both agree it did) would then lose that ability (and where do we find evidence for that?) Or that the church which had once acted as an infallible guide would continue to do so?

That did not answer your question but I liken CC 's infallibility to OSAS once saved always saved, to ORAR. once right always right. Catholics see conditionality to salvation and I apply same thought to Church’s correctness, [bold]of being a pillar of truth. It is guaranteed to any office or successors or to any council or to any generation if they truly are walking in His light on the matter(s)-conditional.[/bold]

Could you unpack that a bit more for me, I’m not sure I get what you mean.

Have a good weekend

 

[thetazlord]

Taz: you are already accepting what Scripture is, and assuming it’s theopneustos, and then comparing other texts to what you know is the Word of God (thanks to the discernment of MEN) to determine if these texts are inspired.

That is NOT Sola Scriptura.

Quote:
Circular reasoning isn’t going to be satisfactory thetazlord.

It’s just too bad that is not what I’ve been saying about how one discerns whether or not a piece of writing is Inspired or not. Your argument is strawman, because I have not been using this weak argument as discernment, which demonstrates that you aren’t comprehending what I’ve been writing. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have used it.

 

[thetazlord]

Secular evidence, please, for someone being cured by St. Peter’s shadow or St. Paul’s handkerchief.

Secular evidence, please, for St. Peter walking on water.

And secular evidence, please, for Jesus rising from the dead.

And I doubt that you have ever investigated the alleged healings by St. Peter’s shadow with corroboration from secular sources–you simply accepted it because you read it in the Word of God. That’s fine. That’s part of Sola Scriptura.

But what’s NOT part of SS is knowing that the Book of Acts is inspired.

You get that from Sacred Tradition.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t quote-mine fragments of what I say, because it gives a false impression of the points I make. To take into context of what I said, I’m reposting what I said in full, which was a response to your previous question about why 1 Clement isn’t Inspired:

Unlike Scripture writers & Jesus who affirmed claims of other Inspired writers, there are ZERO Inspired writings legitimizing 1 Clement’s “beliefs” of a phoenix being a real live animal - ever. Nor is there any secular evidence for it being true - ever. I see you are still using strawman arguments, & not getting what makes something Inspired or not.

You only quoted the middle part of my comment & completely twisted what I wrote. Unlike Peter’s miracles, the authenticity of the Hebrew OT Scriptures, & most of the NT Scriptures, not only is there ZERO evidence from Inspired Scripture that the claims of a Phoenix being a real-life animal, but also there is ZERO evidence from secular history as well. That is the point I was attempting to explain to you. But what you did was only reference “part” of what I said, & used this “part” in your example of Peter’s healings, which is both strawman & completely missed in context what I was attempting to get across.

The book of Acts is Luke’s continuation of his Gospel, which Paul stated that Luke’s writings are God-breathed Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7). And in addition to that, Acts has the exact same godly attributes that Luke’s Gospel has, as well as the rest of the NT (as well as the Hebrew OT Scriptures), such as inerrancy & lack of contradictions, as well as other godly attributes - which has been explained to you numerous times. Yet, you continue to use strawman arguments for what you “think” Protestants base their beliefs in sola scriptura & the canon of Scripture, which are nothing more than your imagination, & also prove you aren’t comprehending, despite numerous times of it being explained to you.

 

[thetazlord]

So let’s say you’re a pastor of a church and I am one of your congregants.

Am I bound to interpret these Scriptures in the same way you have professed here?

Or am I permitted my own private interpretations and can dissent from your view as my pastor?

Is this not the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation/Sola Scriptura movement–no magisterium is needed to tell me how to read the Bible and interpret it?

This is the part you’re not getting. The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text. For example, when Scripture says, “Jesus wept,” do I really need someone to explain to me what that verse means? And if I “permit” myself to “interpret” that “Jesus wept” has some greater allegorical or symbolic meaning, like “Jesus was really happy because Lazarus was going to Heaven,” then I’m imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there. Sola scriptura, not “Sacred (extra-biblical) Tradition” avoids imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there.

Again, as far as your analogy, you can “interpret” them any way you want, but that doesn’t mean you & your pastor who disagree with each other are right. One (or both) of you is wrong. And the way to discern this is by whoever is ADDING their interpretation INTO Scripture that’s not supported by Scripture is the one(s) doing the “interpreting.”