M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Good for you. You’ve got something right!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
alwayswill
Guest
Alwayswill>
Recognizing the what writings are of Scripture is completely different than
"The authority that the Bible carries is due entirely to the Church. IOW, it is the authority of the Church which makes the Bible have ANY authority whatever. “”
mackbrislawn>
mackbrislawn>
mackbrislawn>
And once again, even if these platitudes were true, so what? After all, “what Scripture is” is of no avail unless you know “what is Scripture.”
My starting point on the authority of Scripture is “what Scripture is” (it characteristics and attributes)
Your starting point on the authority of Scripture is “what is Scripture.” (what writings are Scripture)
** My starting point on the authority of Almighty God is "who Almighty God is " (His characteristics and attributes)**
** Is your starting point on the authority of Almighty God is “what did God say?”** (what are His words)
Recognizing the what writings are of Scripture is completely different than
"The authority that the Bible carries is due entirely to the Church. IOW, it is the authority of the Church which makes the Bible have ANY authority whatever. “”
mackbrislawn>
How is it different? You need to do more than simply make an assertion. Because to me the statements are much the same, even though I wouldn’t phrase the latter in quite the same way.
this is how (by example)
Recognizing what paintings are of Picasso’s is completely different than
"That a painting is a PicassoPainting is due entirely to the Group of Picasso Experts. IOW, it is the authority of the Group of Picasso Experts which makes a painting a Picasso Painting.
mackbrislawn>
I mentioned mystics because they would be the only humans who have God speak directly to them. Otherwise He would speak to the angels and maybe demons. But otherwise this all seems beside the point and a diversion.
God spoke audibly dozens and dozens of times in Scriptures
mackbrislawn>And once again, even if these platitudes were true, so what? After all, “what Scripture is” is of no avail unless you know “what is Scripture.”
My starting point on the authority of Scripture is “what Scripture is” (it characteristics and attributes)
Your starting point on the authority of Scripture is “what is Scripture.” (what writings are Scripture)
** My starting point on the authority of Almighty God is "who Almighty God is " (His characteristics and attributes)**
** Is your starting point on the authority of Almighty God is “what did God say?”** (what are His words)
G
guanophore
Guest
No, but I think where we might disagree is whether God gave the Church the ability to discern which writings that were seen by others are actually theopneustos.nope : All Scriptures are inspired ( I prefer the term God breathed; aka theopneustos) the moment the are penned; regardless of whether another set of human eyes ever see the writings or not.
No tradition or Tradition can cause a writing to be God breathed.
Do you agree with that?
A
alwayswill
Guest
is that a typo?No, but I think where we might disagree is whether God gave the Church the ability to discern which writings that were seen by others are actually theopneustos.
what did you not agree with?
All Scriptures are inspired
the moment the are penned;
regardless of whether another set of human eyes ever see the writings or not.
No tradition or Tradition can cause a writing to be God breathed.
G
guanophore
Guest
No. Because every Christian from Pentecost to the Reformation was Catholic, and received the Scriptures as theopneustos because the Church handed them down that way.that would be true if every Christian was since Pentecost in the Book of Acts was a Capital C Catholic.
I disagree that is a truth.
Of course we now embrace non-Catholic Christians as our siblings, where the early church called them heretics or apostates (no longer Christian). Groups that were deemed to be such were not considered to have valid collections of sacred writings.
There was no separation between the two until the Reformation. At that time, the Reformers became disconnected from Sacred Tradition, and continue to wander further and further away from the visible sign of unity established by Christ.I would agree that if it were not for the testimony (small t tradition) of the universal, small-c catholic church we would not have recognized which writings were God breathed.
No, but He gave His word on earth so that His authority could be made manifest through the Church. He established how that authority would operate.and what if God spoke from His throne and no one heard it?
does that in any way diminish the authority of God’s spoken word?
We are in agreement on this point. Where we seem to disagree is that God established authority in His Church outside of the Scriptures and it was that authority that validated which writings were theopneustos.No one ever can grant authority to Scripture anymore that someone can grant authority to God Himself.
It is impossible for any authority to be higher than God.
and writings breathed out by God (scriptures) have the same authority as God.
That authority does not change whether anyone heard it, knows it, understands it, likes it, follows it, or approves of it.
In an objective sense, of course, but to the extent that people on earth reject the authority He established, one can certainly diminish His authority over themselves.God’s authority cannot never be diminished.
A
alwayswill
Guest
do you agree with this?We are in agreement on this point. Where we seem to disagree is that God established authority in His Church outside of the Scriptures and it was that authority that validated which writings were theopneustos.
.
The authority that the Bible carries is** due entirely to **the Church. IOW, it is the authority of **the Church which makes **the Bible have ANY authority whatever. "
post 83
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Alwayswill>
Recognizing the what writings are of Scripture is completely different than
"The authority that the Bible carries is due entirely to the Church. IOW, it is the authority of the Church which makes the Bible have ANY authority whatever. “”
mackbrislawn>
How is it different? You need to do more than simply make an assertion. Because to me the statements are much the same, even though I wouldn’t phrase the latter in quite the same way.
this is how (by example)
Recognizing what paintings are of Picasso’s is completely different than
"That a painting is a PicassoPainting is due entirely to the Group of Picasso Experts. IOW, it is the authority of the Group of Picasso Experts which makes a painting a Picasso Painting.
Your insistence on all this is puzzling, because I don’t see where it is going. But, let’s deal with it anyway. Your latter statement, “That a painting is a Picasso Painting is due entirely to the Group of Picasso Experts” is partially true. Picasso is dead now so we don’t have Picasso himself to tell us what he painted. But, some of his friends are still around to tell us that he painted them, and we have his signature on them as a sign he painted them. That’s a couple of ways. We also have his style that has been studied by Picasso experts that may help determine what is a forgery or not. A painting may have his signature on it but still be a forgery. Picasso experts hopefully can tell a forgery.
This is even more true of a Rembrandt. A picture may look like a Rembrandt, but we need experts to authenticate it.
The same is true with Scripture. We need experts who know what Scripture is. All authors who wrote Scripture are dead, so they aren’t around to tell us what they were. However, they did have friends who knew what they wrote, and we have their testimony. This is called Tradition. Also, some of the writings are signed, so we know who wrote them. But, just like a forged painting that is signed, we need an expert to know what is a forgery or not. The same with scripture. A writing may be signed, but we need experts (the divinely guided Church) to tell if it is a forgery. And then there are the paintings or writings that aren’t signed at all. We need “Picasso experts”, the Church, to determine if these are inspired writings. The Church knows what Scripture is, and uses this knowledge to determine what is Scripture. Only the Church knows what Scripture is.
So, you are right.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
The Greeks would beg to differ. And the Copts. And the Syriacs. Etc.No. Because every Christian from Pentecost to the Reformation was Catholic, and received the Scriptures as theopneustos because the Church handed them down that way.
Not to mention that there’s evidence to suggest that there was a period in the middle of the first millennium when the largest single body of Christians was the Nestorian church of the Middle East.
You can claim that they all had no claim on Scripture, or no real relationship to it, but to suggest that all Christians until the sixteenth century were Catholics in communion with Rome is just demonstrably untrue.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I think very few Christians of whatever denomination would disagree with this!No, but I think where we might disagree is whether God gave the Church the ability to discern which writings that were seen by others are actually theopneustos.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Authority, according to definition is: “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”I think your claim, which I’ve bolded, is probably true. But I’m not sure why. Could you spell out why you think personhood is a necessary condition of authority?
Secondly, what do you mean when you claim personhood for the Church’s magisterium? My understanding was that magisterium is, pretty literally, the teaching office of the Church; or the-Church-in-respect-of-teaching, if you will.
Therefore, a book has no personhood, and therefore cannot OF ITSELF have any authority. The Authority of Scripture is founded on the author (authority) Himself. So BECAUSE the Church has Canonized the Sacred Scriptures WITH the Authority of God Himself, SS has (by the Church’s canonization) the authority of God. But only AS EXPOUNDED by the Church. Until the 16th century no Christian ever DARED rob the Church of its Bible as a SOLE Authority. The Ancient Hersiarchs considered their own interpretation of SOME isolated verses as meaning something other than what the Church considered Orthodox. But they NEVER would have considered robbing the entire Bible away from the Church and setting it up as their own Authority for Everything as was done in the 16th century!
As far as the Magisterium of the Church is concerned, it is really just a fancy term for the LIVING SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES (all people) in whom is invested BY DIVINE APPOINTMENT, the teaching AUTHORITY of God Himself. That is WHY they are protected from teaching any errors by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ Himself, the King and Head of the Catholic Church.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I realize that must seem absolutely shocking to someone who has been immersed in error (perhaps since infancy.) When one grows up hearing Bible thumpers exclaim this book is MY AUTHORITY (for whatever I am about to say.)do you agree with this?
The authority that the Bible carries is** due entirely to **the Church. IOW, it is the authority of **the Church which makes **the Bible have ANY authority whatever. "
post 83
But to thinking Christians, who have examined the results of this mentality; viz: the incredible fragmentation of Protestant sects ALL CLAIMING the Bible for their authority, it must seem contradictory or at least paradoxical. That ALONE should be enough to warn Protestants of a latent error somewhere…
I fear that in the final judgement, the Bible itself will condemn Protestants, just as the Assyrians of Nineveh would rise up and condemn the Jews at the time of Jesus.
G
guanophore
Guest
There are two levels here. Scripture, as the Word of God, stands authoratively alone, even if human beings ceased to exist.I don’t think it is odd at all:
It often seems that when I bring up the authority of Scripture the Catholic response inevitably turns to interpretation.
Does misinterpreting/ misunderstanding what God states diminish His authority?
Does misinterpreting/ misunderstanding what Scripture states diminish its authority?
But Scripture was created by, for, and about human beings, who require interpretation to function. So yes, God’s intention and authority can be thwarted misusing the scriptures. They can be used to defend killing, slavery, corporal punishment, etc, etc. They can be used to defend doctrines that are contrary to what Christ committed once for all to the Church.
If the use of the scriptures has distorted Christ’s intention for HIs church, which He wanted to be One, then His authority has not been recognized and obeyed because they were misinterpreted.
The Scriptures were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. They are a collection of early writings made for different purposes by various authors. They were never intended to be separated from the faith that produced them, as occurrred during the Reformation.
Jesus founded a Church, and gave to that Church the authority to interpret the Scriptures. Jesus does not do anything unnecessary or frivolous.
G
guanophore
Guest
The exercise of authority requires acts of the will, a property not posessed by texts, however Holy.I think your claim, which I’ve bolded, is probably true. But I’m not sure why. Could you spell out why you think personhood is a necessary condition of authority?
Secondly, what do you mean when you claim personhood for the Church’s magisterium? My understanding was that magisterium is, pretty literally, the teaching office of the Church; or the-Church-in-respect-of-teaching, if you will.
It requires responsibility for the consequences of choices, which texts cannot have.
It requires discernment, a property of persons, not writing.
Yes. History demonstrates that Jesus founded a Church, and that he left no writings.do other Catholics agree with this?
"The authority that the Bible carries is due entirely to the Church. IOW, it is the authority of the Church which makes the Bible have ANY authority whatever. "
I think your statement may not be worded in the best way, as the Church teaches what you have received from her, that the Scriptures are inspired and authorative as soon as they are penned.
The issue is the EXERCISE of that authority, which is a gift Jesus gave to persons, not to books.
How might it change your life, if you were to discover that Jesus gave the Church authority to interpret the Scripture?
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you in prinicple, but you are forcing Scripture into a role it was never meant to play. Scripture does not exercise authority apart from a person. If one rejects the authority put in place by Christ, then one becomes their own authority (to interpret and apply to life).the granter of authority has greater authority than the receiver.
follow this:
The authority of God is greater than the authority of the Church
The authority of Scripture is equal to the authority of God
therefore
The authority of Scripture is greater than the authority of the Church
Yes, Scripture is the Word of God.
Yes, Scripture is authorative.
No, Scripture is not a person, and does not exercise authority as only a person can do.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you have misunderstood, alwayswill. What the Church did, through the guidance of God, was discern which of the hundreds of documents floating around claiming to be scripture. The Church was able to recognize which documents were theopneustos by matching them to the Sacred Tradition that was entrusted to her.just so you know:
In my opinion, i consider this statement nearly blasphemous,
"The authority that the Bible carries is due entirely to the Church. IOW, it is the authority of the Church which makes the Bible have ANY authority whatever. “”
I do not understand How can anyone think that the very writings breathed out by God Himself are subject to anyone’s approval for their authority.
The Bible is a collection of holy writings assembled by the Church. God did not assemble it Himself! He used people! It us authorative because the Church has ratified that it contains only those books that are consistent with the deposit of faith Jesus gave to the Church.
I think you are confusing the assembly of the Bible with the nature of theopneustos writings. They are not the same.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course they can! That is the nature of free will. People can say “God ain’t the boss of me!”. Naturally, there will be consequences for such a choice. Their rejection of his Kingship does not negate it.Jesus speaking from His throne :
‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Do you think someone not accepting the authority of Jesus gets to say “I reject your authority”
Whether we feel it is necessary or not , this is the way God fashioned His Church. He gave Peter the Keys, and the responsibility to feed and care for the flock. He intended for salvation to come to humankind through His One Church.and do you think that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff; and submit to the authority of the Pope?
Rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff do not subtract from the authority given him by God, any more than rejecting the authority nature of Scripture changes the nature of Scripture.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.