"The Main Things are the Plain Things" Biblical?

[EA_Man]

michaelgazin:

First…your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:15-17 is a little misleading. The Greek word for ignorant is not the same as ours…it literally means unlearned. Peter is saying there are unlearned people reading the Scriptures who misinterpret it. How did one become “learned?” Through the Apostles teachings…a.k.a. Traditions. When someone learns from the Apostles, they can then approach Scriptures and understand what the author meant. Peter was not necessarily speaking of non-believers however.

As for your opinion that this was an appropriate spot to debunk sola Scriptura, or at least assert the authoritative Magisterium, the argument just doesn’t follow. Scripture’s weren’t even complete then for one thing…therefore Bible alone would have left out Revelation and other books we believe are necessary for salvation. Second, they were readily teaching everyone. It should be assumed that if someone is teaching…they are probably hoping that the audience is listening and learning. The very writing of this letter asserts a form of an interpretive and authoritative Magisterium. In fact this portion of the letter Peter writes to them was meant to help them with the Scriptures…well Peter’s very letter became Scripture!

Was he originally writing it to include in the New Testament canon…or did he think he was giving them extra-biblical help in understanding the Bible? I think the latter is the most reasonable. Again…no Church I can think of says don’t interpret Scripture on your own…especially not the Catholic Church. Peter clearly understands that they need to be reading Scripture, and that it is his job to teach its appropriate meaning and message. There is only one Church that claims to maintain the same Apostolic Tradition to help the same believers properly interpret the Bible, and this was Peter’s intent as well…making “unlearned” people learned.

If Revelation and other books are required for Salvation, Paul was not saved. Nor was Peter.

As far as your assertion that Peter considered this letter (2 Peter) extra-biblical help, why does Peter say that Paul wrote with God’s wisdom? Does Peter consider what Paul was writing was divinely inspired but what he was writing was not? He says he (Paul) “also” wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. Doesn’t that imply that Peter was writing with the wisdom that God gave him as well?

2 Peter 3:15
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

 

[John_Henry]

EA_Man:

I’m sure the objection will be proffered that this was done to counter a specific “heresy” - the Albigenses. But if that is so, how much more reason should the RCC have to limit access to scripture today considering that there are “30,000” denominations teaching all sorts of “heresy” rather than only one other denomination?

Ah, but you’re only looking at the problem. The problem is heresy. A solution to a problem must also take into account times and places. And as times and places are much different than they were in France in 1229, the solution must also be different. Hence, our Lord gave the Church a Magisterium to ensure that the applications of the correct remedies would always occur at the right time.

Just like St. Paul told St. Timothy to use wine as a remedy for his stomach. No doubt a fantastic remedy in the first century. Not as good in the 21st. So the Church now tells everyone to use Peptobismol instead. I love Holy Mother Church!

 

[John_Henry]

EA_Man:

As far as your assertion that Peter considered this letter (2 Peter) extra-biblical help, why does Peter say that Paul wrote with God’s wisdom? Does Peter consider what Paul was writing was divinely inspired but what he was writing was not? He says he (Paul) “also” wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. Doesn’t that imply that Peter was writing with the wisdom that God gave him as well?

Just because Peter asserts that Paul wrote with wisdom that God gave him, doesn’t mean he or Paul were conscious of being inspired by the Holy Spirit in the special sense people mean when speaking of the writing of the Scriptures. God has given me and you wisdom. Don’t mean we’re writing inspired writings, though.

 

[michaelgazin]

EA_Man:

If Revelation and other books are required for Salvation, Paul was not saved. Nor was Peter.

No, the books weren’t required…the teachings and doctrines *in *the books were. Paul and Peter taught what was necessary for salvation. They were saved. However if you only follow what was written at the time…and reject extra-scriptural Apostolic Traditions…then unfortunately you would not have the complete Word of God.

As far as your assertion that Peter considered this letter (2 Peter) extra-biblical help, why does Peter say that Paul wrote with God’s wisdom? Does Peter consider what Paul was writing was divinely inspired but what he was writing was not? He says he (Paul) “also” wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. Doesn’t that imply that Peter was writing with the wisdom that God gave him as well?

2 Peter 3:15
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Wisdom and inspiration are completely different things. In defining the Bible as inspired…we commonly understand that the Holy Spirit was the primary author of the text. Now did Peter and Paul have this understanding of what they wrote? I doubt any writer of the NT thought of their works as divinely inspired…(with the exception of possibly Revelation).

How does Peter know that Paul had God-given wisdom? Well Paul made clear his conversion story on the road to Damascus. Paul was given the wisdom to know and understand the essence and meaning of Christianity. Does this mean his works were inspired because of this…not necessarily. Does this mean his works aren’t inspired…no. Also note that Paul is *not *said to write with God’s wisdom…which would be inspired…but Paul’s own personal wisdom…that was given to him by God. God can give wisdom…however I suppose no one can have God’s wisdom.

As far has Paul’s wisdom goes…it can’t be distinguished from the text whether Peter thinks of Paul’s writings as inspired, or simply “trustworthy,” 1 Cor. 7:25

 

[EA_Man]

michaelgazin:

Wisdom and inspiration are completely different things. Now did Peter and Paul have this understanding of what they wrote? I doubt any writer of the NT thought of their works as divinely inspired…(with the exception of possibly Revelation).

How does Peter know that Paul had God-given wisdom? Well Paul made clear his conversion story on the road to Damascus. Paul was given the wisdom to know and understand the essence and meaning of Christianity. Does this mean his works were inspired because of this…not necessarily. Does this mean his works aren’t inspired…no. Also note that Paul is *not *said to write with God’s wisdom…which would be inspired…but Paul’s own personal wisdom…that was given to him by God. God can give wisdom…however I suppose no one can have God’s wisdom.

As far has Paul’s wisdom goes…it can’t be distinguished from the text whether Peter thinks of Paul’s writings as inspired, or simply “trustworthy,” 1 Cor. 7:25

Thanks for your opinion on this. Let’s see what the apostle Paul says.

2 Corinthians 2:6-7
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

Paul says that the message from him of wisdom is God’s wisdom.
If it’s God’s secret wisdom, how could Paul be in possession of it?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

John_Henry:

Just because Peter asserts that Paul wrote with wisdom that God gave him, doesn’t mean he or Paul were conscious of being inspired by the Holy Spirit in the special sense people mean when speaking of the writing of the Scriptures. God has given me and you wisdom. Don’t mean we’re writing inspired writings, though.

See Post #25 for the response.

Peace

 

[michaelgazin]

EA_Man:

Thanks for your opinion on this. Let’s see what the apostle Paul says.

2 Corinthians 2:6-7
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

Paul says that the message from him of wisdom is God’s wisdom.
If it’s God’s secret wisdom, how could Paul be in possession of it?

Peace

Notice what 1 Cor. 2:7 says:

“No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom”

as opposed to

“No, we speak God’s secret wisdom”

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

Scripture has always been read at mass. If the Church truly wanted to discourage scripture, then don’t you think the liturgy would have been arranged differently?

Also, as for discouraging scripture, I happen to remember something about Martin Luther taking scripture away from people forever.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

Scripture is read at Mass (which I can do also), but it is hardly ever exegeted at Mass as I can attest through painful experience.

As far as Martin Luther goes, do you have a citation or some other source that you can provide.

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Scripture is read at Mass (which I can do also), but it is hardly ever exegeted at Mass as I can attest through painful experience.

As far as Martin Luther goes, do you have a citation or some other source that you can provide.

Peace

They expect us to exegete it ourselves at home EA_Man. Actually I don’t know when the last time was that the priest didn’t speak on the scriptures of the day. It doesn’t happen often at the two parishes I go to. Perhaps you were at one of those liberal parishes. My brother attended one of them for a while and the priest did nothing more than a fluffing of scriptures. I’ve heard of Protestant Chuches that don’t speak on the scriptures either so this is not just a Catholic problem.

Blessings

 

[EA_Man]

michaelgazin:

Notice what 1 Cor. 2:7 says:

“No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom”

as opposed to

“No, we speak God’s secret wisdom”

Keep reading -

1 Corinthians 2:7-10
No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
None of the rulers of this age understood it (the wisdom), for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him” but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

It still sounds like Paul is speaking of God’s wisdom because it has been spoken TO him.

He confirms this in verse 13:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

Keep reading further and Paul says that I can interpret scripture on my own as well:

1 Corinthians 2:14-16
The man without the Spirit (unbeliever) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man (believer) makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:“For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Therefore, if I am a believer, I have the mind of Christ. And if I have the mind of Christ, what is there about scripture that I may not understand that God wants me to understand?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

They expect us to exegete it ourselves at home EA_Man.
Blessings

Great, because that’s exactly what I do.

Peace

 

[michaelgazin]

EA_Man:

Therefore, if I am a believer, I have the mind of Christ. And if I have the mind of Christ, what is there about scripture that I may not understand that God wants me to understand?

I suppose that question should be asked to each of the whatever-thousand denominations that also have the “mind of Christ.”

God has revealed it to us by his Spirit…what is “it?”

“It” = “what God has prepared for those who love him”…i.e. heaven. Therefore, Paul knows the splendors of Heaven that one might attain through Christ. Amen to that. I however don’t see any apparent relation between that verse and it referencing Scripture.

“the things (or “gifts” in RSV) that come from the Spirit of God”…this seems to be referring to grace that is imparted to us that we may have faith in the Lord. No one can have faith in God, without God giving us the grace to do so.

What happens when someone responds to the grace that God has given him? They “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior,” and become a believer…i.e. “that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God”…

The “unspiritual man” does not recognize this grace and therefore does not heed the call.

I again don’t see these passages as referencing Scriptures. I don’t believe there was an issue with interpreting the Scriptures at that time, because the recipients of the Scriptures had the meanings of the Scriptures explained to them in person by the Apostles. The only people who “twist” the Scriptures are those who are “unlearned,” or untaught by the Apostles.

We however don’t have the luxury of the Apostle’s explaining to us in person what they meant in certain parts of the Scriptures. What we do have however, is their Traditions with us, which allow us to see how exactly they interpreted what they wrote.

Now, would you agree that if you had distinct records of what the Apostles taught about what they wrote…that you would then have the utmost certainty with regards to your interpretation of those Scriptures? In other words…if you found absolute certain evidence that the Apostles baptized babies…then you would be left with little doubt as to whether or not they should be baptized now. Or if you found the same explicit evidence…where an apostle was explaining that the Eucharist was not a symbol but the real thing…there would be little left to argue since it must be true if that is what the Apostle is teaching. In fact…there is no certain way to determine whether or not babies should baptized strictly from the Bible…but the belief on this must be defined by every Christian…when do we baptize? Since we can’t ignore this topic…how in the world can we determine what the true teaching is on this? Only can we know, by examining what the Apostles did. Without this, all we can do is guess.

In this same sense, you think Paul had God’s wisdom…I think Paul was given wisdom by God. It is a small difference, but who is right? We can never know for sure, because at the fundamental level, it is simply our differing interpretations…we can never determine who is right for certain because certainty on the subject just isn’t something to be found in Scripture. The *only *way we could ever know for sure, is if we knew what exactly the Apostles taught about this.

Whether or not you agree that Rome has the true Traditions of the Apostles, it can’t be denied that such Tradition, if we knew it, would be invaluable to aiding our interpretations of Scriptures. Furthermore, regardless of if you agree with Rome’s Tradition, it must at least be acknowledged that Apostolic Tradition *does *exist…somewhere. The issue isn’t whether or not there is Tradition…it is simply, where *is *this Tradition? Because, ultimately…there will always be differing interpretations that are irreconcilable at the fundamental level…and the only way to reach the truth is to determine ultimately, what the Apostles taught about it. Only in this way, can we become “learned.” The first Christians were instructed by the Apostles…and we can be instructed by their Traditions.

Peace :tiphat:

 

[EA_Man]

michaelgazin:

I suppose that question should be asked to each of the whatever-thousand denominations that also have the “mind of Christ.”

I grow exceedingly tired of having to explain this particular misconception to seemingly otherwise intelligent Catholics.

But, once more into the breech dear friends…

Barrett’s definition of denomination is essentially that any church body that governs itself is a denomination. So if there are ten churches in your town and they all govern themselves, you’ve got ten denominations.

His classifications do not seek to define the number of denominations based on doctrinal criteria. How could it?

michaelgazin:

Now, would you agree that if you had distinct records of what the Apostles taught about what they wrote…that you would then have the utmost certainty with regards to your interpretation of those Scriptures?

The first Christians were instructed by the Apostles…and we can be instructed by their Traditions.

Peace :tiphat:

Protestants do not disregard tradition, we don’t regard it as inspired. We do regard it as edifying, and it can be instructive.

However, I am still waiting for an explaination from the RCC, and perhaps you can help me understand this; How does the Magesterium decide which traditions are inspired on which doctrinal issues? In other words, when two church fathers’ have written on a particular topic and their “traditions” differ, how do they determine which to use or side with? Also, is there a document which defines this process or at least a listing of which church father’s writings are consider infallible on which subjects?

Peace

 

[TheGarg]

EA_Man:

So the situation is this: God has proclaimed His Good News to all the world because He desires all Men to come to Him so that they may receive forgiveness and have Eternal life. But He did so in a manner that requires constant guidance by a specialized teaching organization because the mind that God gave us is insufficient to understand the Word that He gave us?
Peace

NO, we are not born with a sufficient mind to understand the Word, and yes that is EXACTLY why he gave us a “specialized teaching organization” to make sure it stays the same, and is givin to all whom wish to learn it.

Also,
NO, God has NOT proclaimed His Good News to ALL the world. That is our job as Christians.

He proclaimed it to many, but appointed 12 men, whom He started His Church with, Peter being the leader, appointed by Christ.

They carried the Word out in the world, and almost 2000 years later we are still fufilling that mission.

Peace of the Lord be with you!

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

Scripture is read at Mass (which I can do also), but it is hardly ever exegeted at Mass as I can attest through painful experience.

As far as Martin Luther goes, do you have a citation or some other source that you can provide.

Peace

As far as having exegises of scripture at mass, I suppose this is a subjective question and experience. I find scripture most fully explained at mass since it is always accompanied with what Christ did for us on the cross. Was this the “painful experience” that you were content to abandon?

Also, you asked for references pertaining to my assertion that Martin Luther completely forbade certain scriptures entirely. It’s known as the protestant Bible, brother! Conspicuously missing are several books of scriptures from the Old Testatement.

EA_Man also said:

However, I am still waiting for an explaination from the RCC, and perhaps you can help me understand this; How does the Magesterium decide which traditions are inspired on which doctrinal issues? In other words, when two church fathers’ have written on a particular topic and their “traditions” differ, how do they determine which to use or side with? Also, is there a document which defines this process or at least a listing of which church father’s writings are consider infallible on which subjects?

Your very questions betray your approach to your spiritual life in Christ: first, decide for youself what you want to believe, and then look for scripture verses that support that belief. Fortunately the Holy Catholic Church does not operate that way!

If I write a biography of your life based on my observations of you, and Janet writes a biography of your life based on her observations of you, and there are some contradictions between the two biographies, you select the “true story” based on what you already know of yourself. You don’t need to rely on either of those stories to affirm your existence. The Church Fathers do not “propose” Church teaching.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[Philthy]

thessalonian:

I hear this phrase on Hank Hanagraph alot and it was quoted to me yesterday. I don’t see it in the Bible.:

"As the colloquial saying goes, “the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.”

Your source has correctly identified the saying as non-biblical - do you not know what a colloquialism is? You should have it looked it in a dictionary…I mean a LITTLE effort on your part…

thessalonian:

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek the language of the “blue collar” man of the ancient world. It was written to be understood, not hidden, the reading and interpreting of it was encouraged

No one claims it was meant to be hidden - certainly not the Catholic Church - more Scripture is covered in Mass than most other Worship services.
No one claims reading and interpreting are not encouraged either - just that the final say goes to the Magisterium of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.
There are matters contained in the bible which are ambiguous - the necessity of Baptism and infant Baptism, for example. It is not written in an organized, logical fashion with the purpose of unambiguously informing us of all elements of the faith - anyone who is remotely honest will admit the apparant contradictions and lack of clarity regarding many messages. Even documents which are written with the express intent of clear communication require interpreters: The role of the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution of the US is a perfect example.

thessalonian:

Is it Biblical?
Seems contradictory to me.
Defend - Protestants

No one claimed the verse was biblical.
The specific intent of the speakers message is ambiguous. And please don’t ignore the word “specific” in my last sentence like you ignored “colloquial saying” from Hank Whoever’s statement - the word is there for a reason.
You would be wise to specifically(there’s that word again) address the exact issue you wish to have defended by Protestants. Is it that we are all free to read and interpret the Bible? Catholics wouldn’t disagree necessarily( Here again, be critical in reading my last sentence - what difference does the word “necessarily” add? Does it change the meaning or is it simply a colloquialism? ). We are free to interpret when our interpretation is not in conflict with revealed Truth.

Phil

 

[Gene_C]

Hi E.A. Man,

(Is your handle a sly take on Eamon? Are you Irish?)

Since you interpret the Scriptures for yourself, and humans are infallible, how do you know you are interpreting correctly, and why should anyone here take you seriously since you are not infallible?

Thanks,
Gene

 

[Philthy]

Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father.

I submit that is not the case. I submit that those who say that, are relying on tradition to guide their interpretation, though they may not acknowledge it. Reading some of your posts, I know you are intelligent. And therefore I know you know the history of the Arian movement in the early Church. And how those who denied that Jesus was God denied it with explicit reference to Scripture. Now that we live in the aftermath of those disputes, we know the authentic interpretation of Scripture, as did many people before the disputes, but that is the point. They knew it because that is what the Church had always taught. They interpreted Scripture in light of the teaching tradition.

In addition to the excellent points you have made, the assumption that " Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father." unfortunately doesn’t “close the deal” of actually bringing them to salvation. Or is that your claim EA_Man? To make such a claim you would need knowledge of someone who as actually been granted access to Heaven by the means you proposed. Do you have such evidence? Or are we going to circle back and argue that the Scripture, which remains to be proven as formally sufficient to communicate fully its message, is the source of this clear teaching? That seems to defy logic to me.

 

[EA_Man]

Philthy:

Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father.

I submit that is not the case. I submit that those who say that, are relying on tradition to guide their interpretation, though they may not acknowledge it. Reading some of your posts, I know you are intelligent. And therefore I know you know the history of the Arian movement in the early Church. And how those who denied that Jesus was God denied it with explicit reference to Scripture. Now that we live in the aftermath of those disputes, we know the authentic interpretation of Scripture, as did many people before the disputes, but that is the point. They knew it because that is what the Church had always taught. They interpreted Scripture in light of the teaching tradition.

In addition to the excellent points you have made, the assumption that " Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father." unfortunately doesn’t “close the deal” of actually bringing them to salvation. Or is that your claim EA_Man? To make such a claim you would need knowledge of someone who as actually been granted access to Heaven by the means you proposed. Do you have such evidence? Or are we going to circle back and argue that the Scripture, which remains to be proven as formally sufficient to communicate fully its message, is the source of this clear teaching? That seems to defy logic to me.

I submit that it is more logically cohesive and coherent than accepting de fide, the attribute of infallibility from the claimant.

You also offer a singularly illogical “rebuttal”. If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word, why does it need another further infallible revelation? The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with.

Peace

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

You also offer a singularly illogical “rebuttal”. If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word, why does it need another further infallible revelation? The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with.

Peace

Bwahahahaha!!!
Do you know the difference between “infallibility” and “inerrancy”?

In Jesus and Mary

Fiat