Who Has the Final Authority?

[Nicea325]

Your question is flawed since you are asking me to prove something based on what I believe, when I have already stated I don’t believe what you claim I believe.

Maybe someone else can explain it to you since you are obviously unwilling to discern what I write.

Good luck,

Ginger

Nice side-stepping their Ginger2. Good luck with Dancing with the Stars!

 

[E.E.N.S]

E.E.N.S. - Thanks for the reply. I will look further into the references you made as I have zero familiarity of them at this time.

You are more than welcome! And I apologize for not sourcing the scripture verses in my previous post directed at you, as 1)I assumed you knew them coming from a Catholic background, and 2) they are used around here so often that I took it for granted for the sake of brevity. Again, my apologies.

I ask you 2 follow-up questions. What do you make of the Bereans being noble-minded? Why didn’t Paul slap them up the side of the head with some importance of tradition talk or explain that they can’t possibly think that scripture is going to back up all his teachings?

I hope I didn’t give you the impression that the Church (myself included) is against searching the Scriptures in this manner. I merely meant to state that the Scriptures aren’t the final authority, (as per the OP.) There is no dichotomy between Paul praising the Bereans, and Christ establishing a Church and giving it His authority.

What do you make of the book of Galatia and Paul getting all fired up at the addition to the gospel? Even Peter was being swayed by the Judaizers but Paul did not back down and the gospel remained salvation through faith alone…

Technically Paul said that we are “saved by grace, through faith, working in love/charity…” but I digress. In Galatians, Paul was fired up because they were regressing back toward a legalistic faith, and as we clearly see in Scripture the law was given to us, not so that we can make some wort of a legal claim to God for our salvation, but to show us that we are sinners in need of His mercy. Many people will try to falsely claim that this is what the Catholic Church does today, but this is incorrect, and specifically taught against by the Church herself. In my opinion, as a convert myself, it’s not really that hard to see, but personal bias (on both sides of the fence) can make having a good, honest dialogue quite difficult.

I guess it’s a perspective thing but I can almost feel/see/imagine Paul getting very upset with this notion of adding to the gospel message which is SIMPLE; SALVATION through faith in the work of Christ. People were being SAVED right out of the gate BEFORE scripture was written (I know this is typically a catholic point in the debate) but I do not shy away from it because I think its a better point for the argument that salvation is through faith alone. In my opinion, if faith PLUS works saved, the Pharisees and Jews of the first century would NOT have struggled with the gospel so much.

Don’t forget that Paul also said, “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” (Phil 2:12), and James at the end of his second chapter writes the following:

" [14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: [16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
[26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."

Hope that helped somewhat.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, 7 of the 27 books were on the fringe (IIRC 2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews, the Johannine Letters and Revelation), but were never, as far as I know, specifically excluded. But these questions had more to do with authorship than with content (with the possible exception of Revelation).

My point that there was widespread agreement with the vast majority of the NT, that disagreements were minor and that the councils were affirming rather than dictating the canon stands, though.

And, with all due respect, the early catholic church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. “The Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible” is not a correct statement. The RCC as we know it today grew out of the 11th Century.

Are you claiming the Church of Rome did not come into existence into the 1000’s?

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

[QUOTEre you claiming the Church of Rome did not come into existence into the 1000’s?]

If by “Church of Rome” you mean the Diocese of Rome, no, that’d be an absurd statement to make. But the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, as an institution, dates to the 11th Century and the Great Schism (as does the EOC lest anyone think I’m making any special claims for them).

 

[E.E.N.S]

And, with all due respect, the early catholic church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. “The Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible” is not a correct statement. The RCC as we know it today grew out of the 11th Century.

You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church, for the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite) is just one of the rites within the Catholic Church.

As for the Church growing out of the 11th century, (oh boy, here we go…), let’s see some credible evidence. Present something, and we’ll discuss it.

 

[pablope]

You did, but as I looked back, I was not very clear, either.

Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done.
Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read

 

[E.E.N.S]

If by “Church of Rome” you mean the Diocese of Rome, no, that’d be an absurd statement to make. But the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, as an institution, dates to the 11th Century and the Great Schism (as does the EOC lest anyone think I’m making any special claims for them).

I just wanted to add a request, when you are referring to the Catholic Church in general, just say Catholic Church, (not RCC, or Roman Catholic Church, etc…unless you truly mean only the Latin Rite within the Church), as too many people use the term pejoratively.

 

[Nicea325]

[QUOTEre you claiming the Church of Rome did not come into existence into the 1000’s?]

If by “Church of Rome” you mean the Diocese of Rome, no, that’d be an absurd statement to make. But the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, as an institution, dates to the 11th Century and the Great Schism (as does the EOC lest anyone think I’m making any special claims for them).

The Church of Rome is one rite out of many. The term “Roman” became more distinct much later,especially during the Reformation and with the Anglicans. As for the 11th century? Present empirical evidence for such a claim?

 

[Nicea325]

Ginger2:

Hmmm… then I have a question:

The split between the Orthodox and Rome came long after Jerome’s Vulgate and relatively shortly before Trent. If the canon was already known and accepted by the entire church by the fifth century, and only officially re-affirmed at Trent, Why are the bibles different?

This is a very complex issue and cannot be answered in a few words. However,what I can state is that people are always going to deny or reject doctrines. Did the Arians accept the doctrine of the Trinity? Do Mormons? Jehovah Witnesses? Other heretical sects had their view about Christ divinity,wills,etc,etc.

However, you are correct in stating the canon for the Old Testament was set long before Trent - even before Jesus!

Incorrect! I stated it was NOT FIXED before Jesus.

The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

When,where, and by WHOSE authority was it fixed? BTW: Josepheus never mentions which books by name or a fixed canon being established.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”

List is does not equate into fixed canon.

Since the earliest Jewish canon agrees with the current Jewish canon, the Jews obviously never removed books.

Of course it agrees because they fixed it much later and had issues with the Christians using their books.

Since the earliest Christian canons agree and the deuteros were not included,

And since they were contested when first being considered for inclusion, as states the CE, they were not originally part of the canon …

Not true. The LXX was larger and as stated,please tell me when the Jews fixed their canon and by whose authority?

Therefore it is evident they were added to the Bible - not removed as Catholics claim.

Wrong! Nothing was added and even my NIV Study Bible states the early church used the LXX which included a larger list of books.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I just wanted to add a request, when you are referring to the Catholic Church in general, just say Catholic Church

The Catholic Church means the universal church. ALL orthodox Christians are members of the universal Church. Oh yeah:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Right from the Nicene Creed, read out of the Book of Common Prayer every Sunday.
Speaking of orthodox, do you say “Orthodox Church” or “EASTERN Orthodox Church”? Orthodoxy, like catholicity, is part of being Christian, not exclusive to only one Church within the family of Christendom.

 

[Ginger2]

I understand Luther’s argument, however it presupposes that the original intent of the author was to include it. While it is perfectly good German to include the word allein, it is just as good German to not include it.

For example Romans 3:28

So halten wir es nun, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben. (Luther’s version)

Denn wir urteilen, daß ein Mensch durch Glauben gerechtfertigt wird, ohne (Eig. außerhalb, getrennt von) Gesetzeswerke. (Elberfelder’s version)

Notice how the latter did not include the word allein? Again, Luther did add the word (as he admits), and while he does give his defense, it presumes the original author’s intent to include it.

(sigh) The original author was writing in Hebrew, not German, not English. Your answer fails miserable. If all grammar rules for all languages were the same, it would makes sense, but that is not the case.

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Catholic Church means the universal church. ALL orthodox Christians are members of the universal Church.

I am fully aware of what “catholic” means, but unfortunately, long after that term was coined, there have been significant splits, of which many are no longer properly part of that ONE, holy, catholic and APOSTOLIC Church.

 

[Ginger2]

Which Apostle and which Letter? Only two or three apostles are known to have written letters, the others maybe did not even know how to write.

Ha, ha, ha, ha,…

 

[E.E.N.S]

(sigh) The original author was writing in Hebrew, not German, not English.

Of course, but what does that have to do with my post? How does that present any problem whatsoever to what I was saying?

Your answer fails miserable. If all grammar rules for all languages were the same, it would makes sense, but that is not the case.

I was comparing Luther’s German to Elberfelder’s German, showing how Luther’s argument was based on the presumption that the original author (Hebrew) intended for it to say “alone”, and if that was truly the case, why didn’t Elberfelder include it in his German translation?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstood my post.

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=Ginger2;8466378]Ha, ha, ha, ha,…

Y

ou forgot the latter part of my response…the Roman persecution…that is one factor, and the fact that copies had to be handwritten, done undercover, difficulty in disseminating the letters…copies had to be hand delivered…so this took several days…and some had to be shipped by sea most likely…messages had to had delivered too…so it took awhile for an epistle to actually become widespead…so my comment stands. The Apostles were indeed long dead before these were circulated and well known in all places where the christians were.

Truly the response of someone with nothing coherent to say…:byzsoc:

 

[Ginger2]

I was comparing Luther’s German to Elberfelder’s German, showing how Luther’s argument was based on the presumption that the original author (Hebrew) intended for it to say “alone”, and if that was truly the case, why didn’t Elberfelder include it in his German translation?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstood my post.

Ahhh, I see what you are saying!! I did misunderstand. However, that is not what Luther was claiming. Luther acknowledged the word “alone” would not be accurate if inserted into the Greek or the Latin, but that it was appropriate in the German language.

In-other-words, to give the German translation the same meaning as the original and the Greek and the Latin, the word “alone” was needed in the German.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the Elberfelder German Bible translation first published in Germany in 1871? If so that would not necessarily be a good comparison as dialects change with time. Just look at colonial English compared to English spoken today.

Also, Luther was trying to make the Bible easily understood to the reader whereas, some translations are literal, or word for word which can make them more difficult to understand for today’s reader.

Ginger

 

[joe370]

Ginger…

One thing I noticed is the Pope allowed Jerone to make this comment denying the deuteros within the pages of the Bible!! I think that is very significant.

I was referring to the 7 disputed NT books. I know of no other church today that existed in the 4th century so it must have been the CC that settled the matter - correct?

Regarding those other 7 OT books, let’s assume for the moment that you are right and the CC was wrong to include the 7 deuterocanonical books. Certainly, if that was the case then they could have been wrong to include the 7 disputed NT books - right? It’s illogical to claim that the CC was absolutely wrong to include 7 OT books in the canon and then claim that the CC was absolutely right to include the 7 dispute NT books in the canon, at least to me.

Surely you concede that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired scriptural status as the other OT books and that the CC had always embraced the deuterocanonical books, long before the 16th century?

Jerome, in his later years, did indeed come to embrace the deuterocanonical books of the bible. In fact, Jerome strongly defended their inspirational status!!! Jerome never called the deuterocanonical books un-scriptural; he was speaking of the Jews that he knew, claiming that they did not regard them as canonical. They also strenuously rejected the entire NT. What he did do was acknowledge the authority of the CC in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanonical books in the canon, Jerome deferred to their judgment.

It wasn’t until after Martin Luther that the CC held a council to determine which books would officially be canonized - and there was some dispute at that council where a vote had to be taken!!!

And did the CC possessed the right/authority to settle the dispute, just as they did with the 7 NT books as well as the deuterocanonical books? Or did ML possess the right/authority to settle the dispute?

I would have to research this information to make a decision. And as I already said, I am not that ambitious these days. In the past I have found the claims to lack credibility, so I don’t see any reason to waste the time.

OK…Let me know what think?

However, if you want to point me to the specific sources, I will try to find time to look them over. Afterall, this seems to be new information.

A simple google search will yield all kinds of results. Stick with protestant sources; that way you won’t feel like you are getting hoodwinked.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Ahhh, I see what you are saying!! I did misunderstand. However, that is not what Luther was claiming.

Good! I had a feeling that was the case.

Luther acknowledged the word “alone” would not be accurate if inserted into the Greek or the Latin, but that it was appropriate in the German language.

In-other-words, to give the German translation the same meaning as the original and the Greek and the Latin, the word “alone” was needed in the German.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the Elberfelder German Bible translation first published in Germany in 1871? If so that would not necessarily be a good comparison as dialects change with time. Just look at colonial English compared to English spoken today.

Also, Luther was trying to make the Bible easily understood to the reader whereas, some translations are literal, or word for word which can make them more difficult to understand for today’s reader.

Ginger

I understand Luther’s argument, but I still feel as though it is still presumed, however, since I will admit that I am no German scholar by any sense of the word, and this is really material for another thread, I will just mosey on over to the topic of authority, (of which I really have nothing to add in this particular post. )

 

[joe370]

Ginger2:
Ginger, virtually every protestant admits that the catholic church had the authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to define the following dogmas:

*The Hypostatic union, Theotokos, the Trinity and the Filioque
*

And the CC deferred to both sacred tradition and sacred scripture to draw their conclusions, meaning that they also had the authority to interpret scripture. From this we can logically infer that the CC had the authority to speak on the behalf of the church universal regarding the interpretation of scripture, the hypostatic union, theotokos, the trinity and the filioque.

When did the CC lose the authority? And who now possesses it, to make similar authoritative judgment calls if the arise?

 

[Erich]

Erich;8462890:

Galatians 1:8 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should **preach **

a gospel other than the one we **preached **to you, let them be under God’s curse!" Nothing there about any written Scriptures!

As for 1 John 5:13, …1 John 5:13 **I write these things **to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

And what are the “these things” referred to in verse 13? Not the entire Bible, because John didn’t write the entire Bible. At the very least, the “these things” are mentioned in the previous 12 verses:
1 John 5:

1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

At most, the “these things” are what’s mentioned in 1 John 1:1 through 1 John 5:12 and his earlier Gospel (including, of course, chapter 6).

But I must ask… did you not see the questions I asked in my earlier posts? Here they are again, in case you missed them:

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

Did Jesus establish an invisible, abstract, spiritual church in which all believers, regardless of denomination, are members and that doctrine does not matter or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable? Or did Jesus establish one Church, which is visible and in which doctrine matters and does not conflict, and which contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God (all others having partial truth at best)?