Sola Scriptura?

kelly1

Greetings all.

I have a couple of questions for non-catholics who say they accept only scripture as the source of truth and not tradition. i.e. Sola Scriptura.

1. How to you deal with 1 Tim 3:15? "...in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

2. When it comes to interpreting scripture, how do you know your own interpretation is in agreement with God's interpretation? I mean if I take John 6:51 literally and others don't, how can we settle the debate with any degree of certainty? Who has the authority to interpret scripture?

Also, before the printing press came along at around 1450 A.D, bibles were not easily accessible and were written in latin in greek, requiring a high degree of education to read assuming you could afford a bible in the first place! Does this therefore mean that God's faithful were without the truth for ~1400 years if you take the sola scriptura position?

God bless, Noel.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Greetings all.

I have a couple of questions for non-catholics who say they accept only scripture as the source of truth and not tradition. i.e. Sola Scriptura.

1. How to you deal with 1 Tim 3:15? "...in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice. It does not mean that we cannot find truth in many different places.

1. 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the function of the church (a group of people, not an institution or denomination) as holding up the truth of the Gospel so that people might respond to it and be saved.

When it comes to interpreting scripture, how do you know your own interpretation is in agreement with God's interpretation? I mean if I take John 6:51 literally and others don't, how can we settle the debate with any degree of certainty? Who has the authority to interpret scripture?

We should all humbly trust the Holy Spirit to lead us in our interpretation of Scripture. Jesus did also say that 'By their fruit they shall be known'. This would indicate that we should never trust interpretations that others try to force upon us in order to protect their own privileges and power. We should also reject those who have used anti-Christian practices (eg killing and persecuting those who disagree with them) as untrustworthy guides.

The parts of the Bible we need to know in order to be saved and enter into a relationship with God are clear enough to any open-minded reader to understand. Beyond that, we should be able to discuss different interpretations with Christian love and humility, bearing in mind that we might be wrong, others might be right, and no one organisation or individual has a monopoly on the truth. We won't always agree on everything - and that's OK.

Also, before the printing press came along at around 1450 A.D, bibles were not easily accessible and were written in latin in greek, requiring a high degree of education to read assuming you could afford a bible in the first place! Does this therefore mean that God's faithful were without the truth for ~1400 years if you take the sola scriptura position?

The Bible was intended to be read frequently and often. This is why the New Testament (eg in Revelation) speaks about 'those who read and those who hear' - all people, whether literate or not, were supposed to have access to the Bible in their own tongue.

Unfortunately, a group of men deliberately prevented people from hearing the Bible in their own language, sometimes going to the extreme of burning people at the stake for translating the Bible. Therefore God's people were frequently denied access to much of Scripture, only being spoon-fed the parts that those in power allowed them to have, and that frequently mixed in with unbiblical error.

Thinkingaboutit

Nick Park wrote: »

Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice. It does not mean that we cannot find truth in many different places.

1. 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the function of the church (a group of people, not an institution or denomination) as holding up the truth of the Gospel so that people might respond to it and be saved.



We should all humbly trust the Holy Spirit to lead us in our interpretation of Scripture. Jesus did also say that 'By their fruit they shall be known'. This would indicate that we should never trust interpretations that others try to force upon us in order to protect their own privileges and power. We should also reject those who have used anti-Christian practices (eg killing and persecuting those who disagree with them) as untrustworthy guides.

The parts of the Bible we need to know in order to be saved and enter into a relationship with God are clear enough to any open-minded reader to understand. Beyond that, we should be able to discuss different interpretations with Christian love and humility, bearing in mind that we might be wrong, others might be right, and no one organisation or individual has a monopoly on the truth. We won't always agree on everything - and that's OK.



The Bible was intended to be read frequently and often. This is why the New Testament (eg in Revelation) speaks about 'those who read and those who hear' - all people, whether literate or not, were supposed to have access to the Bible in their own tongue.

Unfortunately, a group of men deliberately prevented people from hearing the Bible in their own language, sometimes going to the extreme of burning people at the stake for translating the Bible. Therefore God's people were frequently denied access to much of Scripture, only being spoon-fed the parts that those in power allowed them to have, and that frequently mixed in with unbiblical error.

Protestants should give heed to sola scriptura for those very words destroy Protestant heresy.

'You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.' James 2:24

Unbiblical error?

The Protestant Bible was the result a good deal of editing and alteration by the heresiarch Martin Luther.

The word 'alone' was added to Romans 3:28 to support the sola fide which itself is contracted baldly by James 2:17-24:

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

See too Matthew 25:31-46, where Our Lord pronounces damnation on those who do not do good works.

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

Seeing how the Epistle of James contradicts his errors, Luther derided it as an 'Epistle of straw' and as the Book of Maccabees supported truths such as purgatory and prayers for the souls of the dead, that was ripped out entirely.

The examples of translators being burnt cannot be given. John Wycliffe's Lollard followers like Sir John Oldcastle perished for rebellion primarily, heresy to a lesser degree, but not for translation.

William Tyndale, a translator whose work underlies the Authorised Version and the earlier Great Bible (together with the Catholic Douay-Rheims of Fr Gregory Martin SJ which KJV repeated referenced in order to criticise) was strangled and burnt at the stake by officers of Henry VIII for his opposition to the royal efforts at annulment of the King's marriage to Katherine of Aragon and efforts to marry Anne Boleyn, not for translation. He detected a plot by Cardinal Wolseley to increase Papal authority over England. Deriding the King's weak scriptural justification (Katherine had been married to his late brother Arthur) probably assured his end, for Henry did not forgive, and could not endure being mocked.

The Council of Trent temporarily barred translations except with authorisation from the competent authorities. Long before there were translations in Old English and German (which Luther needed as he lacked the linguistic skills with Koine Greek). Latin was known to all literate men. Latin was the mark of literacy. Until the eighteenth century, serious scientific and philosophical works were published in Latin, Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal being but two examples. The Latin of the Vulgate was no barrier, with both glosses and translations readily available to those whose Latin was weak.

antiskeptic

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

Two things have happened here.

The first is that the sheep and goats are separated out. Then the two parties are given something. The word "for" means "because" in this case.

What they are being given is tied to their works. The effect (what they are being given) is connected with the cause (their works)

Their being separated into sheep and goats precedes this cause and effect No reason is given in the passage for their being separated into sheep and goats.


-

Whilst it's not a proof verse for salvation by faith (alone), it does fit within the workings of the faith alone position: that works done by the saved whilst "in the body" will find reward in heaven.

It's not a proof verse for salvation involving works - since it doesn't address why folk have been split into sheep and goats. Sheep being a picture of the saved and goats being a picture of the lost.

So, God splits the saved and unsaved and awards the saved for work done in the body .. is the way this can be read.


-

Proof positive, if proof were necessary, that a critical look at what you're being fed, is necessary

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

2. When it comes to interpreting scripture, how do you know your own interpretation is in agreement with God's interpretation?

I don't know. There is no way for anyone to know in any absolute/prove-it-to-anyone sense. All there is is your best attempt to arrive at what the scripture means - God can ask no more of anyone.

If your best attempt leads you to arrive at the Roman Catholic Church for their interpretation then so be it. You might be swayed by the arguments in that direction (e.g. it makes sense that God would have done it this way, setting up an ongoing authority to teach all a common message).

[Ironically, (for someone in your position), it takes a certain amount of personal interpretation to evaluate the Roman Catholic argument for it being the one true church). I mean, they rely on scripture to support their position and you've to evaluate their interpretation in investigating their argument. There's a bit of bootstrap pulling going on there!!]

If your best attempt leads you to personal interpretation (see a comparison in my post above this) the so be it.

I can't see how God can expect you to head in a direction which strikes you as less than optimal.

Who has the authority to interpret scripture?

Only God knows that. Which leaves us with the authority resting with whoever supposes themselves to have authority.

Also, before the printing press came along at around 1450 A.D, bibles were not easily accessible and were written in latin in greek, requiring a high degree of education to read assuming you could afford a bible in the first place! Does this therefore mean that God's faithful were without the truth for ~1400 years if you take the sola scriptura position?

One would

a) question why this state of affairs came about and whether it lay within God's optimal idea

b) Folk seemed to get along fine before the NT (I'm supposing people could be saved prior to Christ). The Bible is important. But not essential to salvation or knowing God.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

1. 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the function of the church (a group of people, not an institution or denomination)...

What led you to this conclusion. Where in the NT does it say the Church can't be an institution? And who are members of this group of people and how are they organized?

Nick Park wrote: »

We should all humbly trust the Holy Spirit to lead us in our interpretation of Scripture.

But clearly this hasn't worked in the past! What makes my interpretation correct and yours incorrect? The way I look at it, God provides everthing we need and he understand very well that people are liable to interpret scripture incorrectly. So don't you think God would have devised a way to avoid the confusion and division?

Nick Park wrote: »

Jesus did also say that 'By their fruit they shall be known'. This would indicate that we should never trust interpretations that others try to force upon us in order to protect their own privileges and power. We should also reject those who have used anti-Christian practices (eg killing and persecuting those who disagree with them) as untrustworthy guides.

Sorry, I don't really see the relevance of 'fruit' in this discussion. The integrity of truths revealed by God cannot rest on human integrity.

Nick Park wrote: »

The parts of the Bible we need to know in order to be saved and enter into a relationship with God are clear enough to any open-minded reader to understand. Beyond that, we should be able to discuss different interpretations with Christian love and humility, bearing in mind that we might be wrong, others might be right, and no one organisation or individual has a monopoly on the truth. We won't always agree on everything - and that's OK.

That's just far too loose an approach, I think. During the time of the apostles, they were there to settle disputes that broke out over matters of theology/doctrine. Are we supposed to accept that that authority ended with the death of the apostles and that no authority exists on earth to decide doctrinal disputess? Were all the Vatican Councils false?

I've heard the arguments before that the original and true Church was taken over by Constantine. It's nonsense. Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea but did not have an input into the theological decision making. The result of that council was the Nicene Creed.

Nick Park wrote: »

The Bible was intended to be read frequently and often.

How was this possible before the printing press was invented? And what about illiterate people?

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then the two parties are given something. The word "for" means "because" in this case.

You can't go changing scripture to suit your bias. If what you are saying is true, then verse 42 makes no sense: "For/[because] I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat". This implies malicious intent and not just neglect.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What they are being given is tied to their works. The effect (what they are being given) is connected with the cause (their works)

Doesn't this contradict salvation by faith alone?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Their being separated into sheep and goats precedes this cause and effect No reason is given in the passage for their being separated into sheep and goats.

This makes no sense. Matthew 25 refers to the Last Judgment so how can the sheep and the goats be separated prior to work being done or not done?

And how can you say no reason is given for the separation when it's blatantly clear that the two groups are being separated based on their degree of charity towards the poor, needy etc.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't know. There is no way for anyone to know in any absolute/prove-it-to-anyone sense. All there is is your best attempt to arrive at what the scripture means - God can ask no more of anyone.

Think of the implications of what you're saying here. We know that God knows the future and therefore knew there would be disputes over doctrine/theology e.g the Eucharist, confession, Purgatory, the role of Mary etc. So we're supposed to believe God no provision for this situation, that he left us with no authority on earth to settle disputes? Why let that authority die with the apostles? It makes no sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

[Ironically, (for someone in your position), it takes a certain amount of personal interpretation to evaluate the Roman Catholic argument for it being the one true church). I mean, they rely on scripture to support their position and you've to evaluate their interpretation in investigating their argument. There's a bit of bootstrap pulling going on there!!]

The authority of the Church is recorded in scripture but it's not based on scripture.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


And I'm aware that some claim that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock. But this holds no water because Jesus first names Peter and then calls him the rock. Also when Jesus first met Simon, he changed his name to Peter:

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).


Cephas means rock in Aramaic. Peter is the rock, not Jesus.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Only God knows that. Which leaves us with the authority resting with whoever supposes themselves to have authority.

Do you not find that unsatisfactory?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Bible is important. But not essential to salvation or knowing God.

The what is essential for knowing God if not the bible? I'm not clear on your theological position. Do you not hold to sola scriptura?

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

What led you to this conclusion. Where in the NT does it say the Church can't be an institution? And who are members of this group of people and how are they organized?

The language of the New Testament in relationship to the church is organic. People receive the Gospel, enter into an experience with Christ, and are joined with one another in relationships of fellowship and love. Churches meet in people's homes among other places. To try to read this as referring to an institution is to ignore the entire context of the New Testament.

But clearly this hasn't worked in the past! What makes my interpretation correct and yours incorrect? The way I look at it, God provides everthing we need and he understand very well that people are liable to interpret scripture incorrectly. So don't you think God would have devised a way to avoid the confusion and division?

It's worked very well in the past for the billions of people who have read the scripture, understood the call of the Gospel, and enjoyed a fulfilling relationship with Jesus Christ.

It hasn't worked so well for those who have felt justified in forcing their interpretations upon others.

Healthy disagreement over non-essentials isn't something to be afraid of.

Sorry, I don't really see the relevance of 'fruit' in this discussion. The integrity of truths revealed by God cannot rest on human integrity.

Jesus did see the relevance of 'fruit'. Quite simply, the truth of God is transformational. It makes you more loving, more gracious, kinder, gentler - you know, the kind of qualities that the Bible describes as 'the fruit of the Spirit'.

Conversely, those who reject the truth become hateful, less gracious, abusive etc - the kinds of things the Bible calls 'the works of the flesh'. Harassing, persecuting and killing those who disagree with someone's interpretation is a sure sign that the truth is not in them.

How was this possible before the printing press was invented? And what about illiterate people?

They still had books before the printing press was invented. People who could read would read the Bible out loud (in a language that the hearers could understand). That was an important component of early Christian gatherings.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

The language of the New Testament in relationship to the church is organic. People receive the Gospel, enter into an experience with Christ, and are joined with one another in relationships of fellowship and love. Churches meet in people's homes among other places. To try to read this as referring to an institution is to ignore the entire context of the New Testament.

How do you know you're entering into a relationship with Christ in the way He intended? If you have innumerable groups all over the world with no central authority, what's to stop these groups falling into heresy? How does the global Church maintain unity of doctrine?

Gal 1:8 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!

Nick Park wrote: »

It's worked very well in the past for the billions of people who have read the scripture, understood the call of the Gospel, and enjoyed a fulfilling relationship with Jesus Christ.

Which period of history are you talking about?

Nick Park wrote: »

Jesus did see the relevance of 'fruit'. Quite simply, the truth of God is transformational. It makes you more loving, more gracious, kinder, gentler - you know, the kind of qualities that the Bible describes as 'the fruit of the Spirit'.

You seems to be confusing the fruits of the spirit with doctrine. I'm talking here about correct interpretation of scripture. i.e. sound theology and doctrine.

Nick Park wrote: »

They still had books before the printing press was invented. People who could read would read the Bible out loud (in a language that the hearers could understand). That was an important component of early Christian gatherings.

Why are you only referring to early gatherings? What about later time periods?

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you know you're entering into a relationship with Christ in the way He intended? If you have innumerable groups all over the world with no central authority, what's to stop these groups falling into heresy? How does the global Church maintain unity of doctrine?

You know because the Spirit Himself bears witness within us that we are the children of God (Romans 8:16)

Some people will fall into heresy. That's part and parcel of the human condition. Heresy will happen whether you try to control things centrally or not. Having a centralised institution doesn't prevent heresy - it simply makes it possible that the centralised institution itself has a greater power to spread heresy if it goes off the rails.

Gal 1:8 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!

So let's allow God (not us) to do the cursing. The gospel Paul preached was justification by faith. That's bad news for those who preach a different method of salvation. Our response should be to preach the true Gospel and trust that it has the power to reach others. From where I'm standing, I see that happening in people's lives every week as they turn to Christ and accept Him.

Which period of history are you talking about?

From the Day of Pentecost to the present day.

You seems to be confusing the fruits of the spirit with doctrine. I'm talking here about correct interpretation of scripture. i.e. sound theology and doctrine.

You cannot separate doctrine from practice. Sound doctrine produces Christian love in action. 'Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.' (1 John 4:8). Therefore, those who practice hate and violence are untrustworthy guides to truth.

Why are you only referring to early gatherings? What about later time periods?

In early periods the Scriptures would be read in the language of the hearers.

Sadly, in later time periods people in some parts of the world were denied the opportunity to hear the Word of God because men abused authority and insisted that the Bible should be read in a language that many no longer understood.

This happened more in the western empire. In the eastern empire many people spoke Greek for a thousand years after the fall of Rome, and there were translations into Syriac and other tongues.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

You can't go changing scripture to suit your bias.

Replacing "for" with "because" isn't changing scripture (if that's the change you mean). It merely inserts a modern word for a rather archaic version of the same word so as to help highlight the cause and effect coupling going on here.

Leave "for" if you like - the cause effect coupling remains.

Aside from that there is no changing scripture. The cause and effect is there.

If what you are saying is true, then verse 42 makes no sense: "For/[because] I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat". This implies malicious intent and not just neglect.

There is no difference to the meaning irrespective of which word you use (for/because).

Are you saying "for" has a different meaning to "because"?

Doesn't this contradict salvation by faith alone?

Not. Being saved is one thing. What is to become of the saved is another. What is being described here is what is to happen to the saved: they inherit the kingdom of God. It could have been that they got something else, but this is what it is.

The point you have to deal with is the cause and effect - there is no tie in with salvation in this verse. What is to happen to the already split out saved is another

This makes no sense. Matthew 25 refers to the Last Judgment so how can the sheep and the goats be separated prior to work being done or not done?

Because the splitting doesn't depend on works?

And how can you say no reason is given for the separation when it's blatantly clear that the two groups are being separated based on their degree of charity towards the poor, needy etc.

First, the separation occurs. Second, they are given what they are each given. Third, they are given a reason.

You could argue that the "for" refers to the reason for their being split and the reason for their being given what they are given. I hold that the for refers only to what went before: the reason they are being given what they are being given.

Let's call it a tie then. It could be one or the other. So a proof verse for neither view.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Think of the implications of what you're saying here. We know that God knows the future and therefore knew there would be disputes over doctrine/theology e.g the Eucharist, confession, Purgatory, the role of Mary etc. So we're supposed to believe God no provision for this situation, that he left us with no authority on earth to settle disputes? Why let that authority die with the apostles? It makes no sense.

I don't think God is all that concerned with whether everyone has the same theology. I think God is concerned with the individual and his direct connection with God: such that God can guide, can forgive, can help sanctify, can love, can use, can relate to..

I don't think he care's one jot whether the person relates to him via this way or that .. or whether he is a Christian at all.

The authority of the Church is recorded in scripture but it's not based on scripture.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


And I'm aware that some claim that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock. But this holds no water because Jesus first names Peter and then calls him the rock. Also when Jesus first met Simon, he changed his name to Peter:

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).


Cephas means rock in Aramaic. Peter is the rock, not Jesus.

Whatever: the point is that you are in the same position as everyone else. You have to decide for yourself which way you will go. It can be a combination of what makes sense to you (per above), your reading of scripture (per above) and whatever else causes you to arrive at the conclusion you do.

No different a process to the one I follow. Contrary to this..

Do you not find that unsatisfactory?

I find it very satisfactory. Everyone is responsible directly to God for the theology they adopt. You, me, everybody. One to one.

It's as it ought to be.

The what is essential for knowing God if not the bible? I'm not clear on your theological position. Do you not hold to sola scriptura?

Abraham didn't have the Bible - yet he's the model of how one is saved and how one relates as an individual to God.

Sola scriptura in terms of external authority (albeit scripture infinitely vast and not necessarily ever fully penetrable). But of course the spirit and the wisdom of others.

Indeed, it is debates such as these .. and with atheists which have helped forged my view and opened scriptures to me

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

You know because the Spirit Himself bears witness within us that we are the children of God (Romans 8:16)

What does this have to do with interpretation of scripture and the doctrine that comes from that? I don't see a coherent argument here.

Nick Park wrote: »

Some people will fall into heresy. That's part and parcel of the human condition.

Yes, agreed! We fall into heresy when we depart from the Gospel taught by the apostles (Gal 1:8). But the bible can't speak for itself, it has to be interpreted *authoritatively* to understand God's objective truth. The only way this can happen is through a living body (institution) on earth, with the authority of Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. This cannot come from all individual Christians. History clearly shows the individual approach doesn't work.

Nick Park wrote: »

So let's allow God (not us) to do the cursing. The gospel Paul preached was justification by faith.

James 2:24 says "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone". How do you reconcile that with Paul? Paul didn't say faith *alone* did he?

Nick Park wrote: »

From the Day of Pentecost to the present day.

Can you quote any historical sources for these people who lived according to scripture and not tradition? Who were they and where did they live? Did they have any connection with the Early Church Fathers?

Nick Park wrote: »

You cannot separate doctrine from practice. Sound doctrine produces Christian love in action. 'Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.' (1 John 4:8). Therefore, those who practice hate and violence are untrustworthy guides to truth.

I don't agree. I know it's a sin to commit adultery but that couldn't stop me doing it. Just because you commit your life to Christ, it doesn't mean you become incapable of sin!

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

What does this have to do with interpretation of scripture and the doctrine that comes from that? I don't see a coherent argument here.

There is a coherent statement there (I'm not arguing with anyone, just answering questions that you are asking).

You asked how we know that we are entering into a relationship with God in the way He intended. I answered by quoting the Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit provides us with assurance of faith.

Yes, agreed! We fall into heresy when we depart from the Gospel taught by the apostles (Gal 1:8). But the bible can't speak for itself, it has to be interpreted *authoritatively* to understand God's objective truth. The only way this can happen is through a living body (institution) on earth, with the authority of Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. This cannot come from all individual Christians. History clearly shows the individual approach doesn't work.

One problem here is that a particular denomination claims to be the ones who can interpret it authoritatively. I don't believe them.

A second problem is is your statement that "it has to be interpreted authoritatively". I don't see that you've produced any reason why that should be so. Particularly since no denomination (including my own, btw) has demonstrated itself to be worthy of such trust.

James 2:24 says "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone". How do you reconcile that with Paul? Paul didn't say faith *alone* did he?

I wasn't aware that I had said 'faith alone' either.

I see no conflict whatsoever between Paul and James. We are justified by faith when we repent of our sins, place our trust in Christ, believe in His finished work on the Cross, and invite His Holy Spirit to come into our hearts and regenerate us.

That faith is much more than simple mental assent. But, unfortunately, some were acting as if it were. They were saying "I have faith" but were not demonstrating the fruit of saving faith in their lives. James tells them that their 'faith' is useless and is not the saving faith that justifies. If it were genuine faith then their regenerated heart would produce the fruit of repentance - good works.

This is where the parable of the sheep and the goats is so important. The goats said they were children of God, but they were not, because their lives did not display the fruits of a regenerated life - the fruit of compassion, mercy and justice.

And that is why I reject the claim of those in the past who claimed to be custodians of the faith, yet were men of violence and oppression. They were goats, not sheep, otherwise they would have been compassionate and merciful to those who disagreed with them.

Can you quote any historical sources for these people who lived according to scripture and not tradition? Who were they and where did they live? Did they have any connection with the Early Church Fathers?

The Book of Acts for a starter - a little bit earlier than the early church fathers.

I don't agree. I know it's a sin to commit adultery but that couldn't stop me doing it. Just because you commit your life to Christ, it doesn't mean you become incapable of sin!

And I defend your right not to agree.

If you do choose to commit adultery then that does not mean that you cannot be forgiven. But it would give me cause not to listen to any claims you might make to have spiritual authority or that your interpretations of Scripture should be treated as authoritative. I might as well be guided by a goat.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

You asked how we know that we are entering into a relationship with God in the way He intended. I answered by quoting the Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit provides us with assurance of faith.

Your quote from Rom 8:16 is about our adoption as children of God, not about *how* God wishes us to enter into a relationship with Him. i.e. what do we need to do to fulfill the terms of the New Covenant between God and His people.

Nick Park wrote: »

One problem here is that a particular denomination claims to be the ones who can interpret it authoritatively. I don't believe them.

You're basically saying that God left us with no provision for safeguarding the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. I don't accept that and I would say it would be negligent of God not to make such a provision.

Nick Park wrote: »

A second problem is is your statement that "it has to be interpreted authoritatively". I don't see that you've produced any reason why that should be so.

To me it's pretty straightforward. In order to interpret scripture correct, i.e. to discern God's will in the text, we must rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you accept the Apostles were guided into truth by the Spirit (John 16:13). So what you seem to be saying is that the office of Peter and the Apostles died with them and we no longer have any authority on earth to interpret scripture. But if you look at the book of Acts, you'll see examples of the "laying on of hands" e.g Acts 6:5-6 (the ordination of Stephen).

Nick Park wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had said 'faith alone' either.

I see no conflict whatsoever between Paul and James. We are justified by faith when we repent of our sins, place our trust in Christ, believe in His finished work on the Cross, and invite His Holy Spirit to come into our hearts and regenerate us.

That faith is much more than simple mental assent. But, unfortunately, some were acting as if it were. They were saying "I have faith" but were not demonstrating the fruit of saving faith in their lives. James tells them that their 'faith' is useless and is not the saving faith that justifies. If it were genuine faith then their regenerated heart would produce the fruit of repentance - good works.

I asked about faith alone because you said "That's bad news for those who preach a different method of salvation". Yes, we are saved by faith but I believe we can lose salvation but not being charitable. Works is our side of the bargain, salvation is God's.

Nick Park wrote: »

The goats said they were children of God...

Would you have verse(s) to support this?

Nick Park wrote: »

And that is why I reject the claim of those in the past who claimed to be custodians of the faith, yet were men of violence and oppression. They were goats, not sheep, otherwise they would have been compassionate and merciful to those who disagreed with them.

If the safeguarding of the deposit of faith relied on the integrity of men, we'd be in a lot of trouble.

Nick Park wrote: »

The Book of Acts for a starter - a little bit earlier than the early church fathers.

ok, apart from the book of Acts and those faithful to the Catholic Church, who were these groups you mentioned?

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Your quote from Rom 8:16 is about our adoption as children of God, not about *how* God wishes us to enter into a relationship with Him. i.e. what do we need to do to fulfill the terms of the New Covenant between God and His people.

The way that we enter into a relationship with God is by regeneration - where we are born again as children of God. Romans 8:16 tells us that the Holy Spirit gives us the inner witness that has occurred.

You're basically saying that God left us with no provision for safeguarding the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. I don't accept that and I would say it would be negligent of God not to make such a provision.

I'm saying no such thing. God left us with the Scriptures and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Given a choice between them and a denominational leadership with a chequered past, I will choose the Word and the Spirit every time.

To me it's pretty straightforward. In order to interpret scripture correct, i.e. to discern God's will in the text, we must rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you accept the Apostles were guided into truth by the Spirit (John 16:13). So what you seem to be saying is that the office of Peter and the Apostles died with them and we no longer have any authority on earth to interpret scripture. But if you look at the book of Acts, you'll see examples of the "laying on of hands" e.g Acts 6:5-6 (the ordination of Stephen).

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us to interpret Scripture correctly.

The Apostles were guided by the Spirit. We can be guided by the same Spirit.

What I am saying is that the first apostles died, and that every child of God has the authority to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We also have the power to lay hands on people to commission them to spiritual leadership. Btw, I will be doing just that this Sunday evening in a church service.

Works is our side of the bargain, salvation is God's.

The 'bargain' is that we accept God's free gift of salvation by faith. If that faith is genuine saving faith, then good works will inevitably follow. Even these good works are God's activity in us and a blessing to us, not us fulfilling some kind of bargain.

"For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill His good purpose." (Phil 2:13)

If the safeguarding of the deposit of faith relied on the integrity of men, we'd be in a lot of trouble.

Exactly. And you are.

ok, apart from the book of Acts and those faithful to the Catholic Church, who were these groups you mentioned?

Who were the people who could either read the Bible for themselves or hear it being read in their own language? Impossible to name them all - but here are a few.

Anyone who spoke Greek (the language of the Roman Empire for over 1000 years of the Church age).

Anyone in the west from the 2nd Century onward who spoke Latin.

Anyone who spoke Syriac from the 2nd Century onward.

The first converts in China who were evangelised by Nestorian Christians who also translated Scripture into Chinese.

Slavs who were evangelised by missionaries from Constantinople from the 8th Century.

Before the invention of the printing press, the Bible was being read in gatherings for the edification of the hearers in any number of languages: Arabic, Arpitan, Bulgarian, Catalan, Croatian, Czech, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Spanish.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm saying no such thing. God left us with the Scriptures and the presence of the Holy Spirit

...Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us to interpret Scripture correctly

*sigh*, you're still missing my point. You just can't see it because you're ideologically opposed to Catholicism.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

*sigh*, you're still missing my point. You just can't see it because you're ideologically opposed to Catholicism.

So, start a thread asking non-Catholics about their beliefs. Then, when a non-Catholic answers, you accuse them of being blinded by an ideological opposition to Catholicism. Meanwhile you think it highly unlikely that any argument whatsoever could ever convince you that the Catholic Church's position on anything is wrong.

Are you getting the irony here?

For what it's worth, when formulating my beliefs, I couldn't give two hoots about Catholicism one way or the other. I am no more ideologically opposed to Catholicism than I am ideologically opposed to eating salt and vinegar crisps. No strong feelings - just can't see any reason why I should bother.

For me, knowing Jesus Christ and living for Him is all important. The Bible helps me do that in a way that is immensely fulfilling. I am happy to draw insight from many traditions and denominations. I work closely with a number of Catholic priests and I preach in Catholic churches.

Not ideologically opposed - just unconvinced.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Your quote from Rom 8:16 is about our adoption as children of God, not about *how* God wishes us to enter into a relationship with Him. i.e. what do we need to do to fulfill the terms of the New Covenant between God and His people.

The whole point of using the adoption device answers the question you ask. You don't ask how someone enters relationship when you say someone is a son of someone else. The entry has occurred and the convenant (agreement) is in place. God has agreed to be our father and we have agreed to be his son.

How we are to continue in that relationship is a question of course, but not entry to the relationship.

-

We have discussed the basis for our respective positions to an extent. We have found that we both utilize:

- that which makes sense (you say, for example "surely God would have instituted an authority to ensure accurate propagation of his message".

- interpret the scriptures personally both to extract theology and to cross check theological building blocks obtained elsewhere (your contention, for example: the Church saying it is the One True Church)


Three things haven't been mentioned:

1. Constructing a god in own image and likeness. Or as someone says "your pathology informs your theology. I've a friend who operates according to what psychologists call a "give to get" pathology. He gives and gives and expects that in his giving to others, others will give back to him. It's a conditional giving. And his view of God (although he's not a Catholic) is the same: although convinced of salvation by Grace, he can't help supposing that if he get's his act together and follows the rules, God will be pleased with him and bless him.

I myself had, to an extent, an absent father, one who didn't put me and the family first. My model of God is off kilter and the form that finds is my shrugging my shoulders when he doesn't attend to my needs in the way I'd want him to. And supposing that he's just an absent father.

In both cases, all the scripture in the world which points to God being neither of these models doesn't break through the pathology. The head understands it, but the heart simply can't help conforming God to a skewed image and likeness.

It is unlikely to you escape this powerful influence.



2. The nature of the personal experience of God informs the theology

My wife has a different kind of relationship with God than me. One that was hard fought for but which is very close and personal. She hears regularly and "walks with God in the cool of the evening".

My experience is much more patchy. I haven't "heard" directly anything like to the extent she has. But I have had up front and personal interaction with him. Sometimes through scriptures when it comes alive in my hands, sometimes in prayer, sometimes just out of the blue when he intervenes with a word or a picture which too, is alive beyond compare.

And the experience of God in this direct way is only one of grace and truth and compassion and love. So when I am inclined to suppose him an absent father and get angry with him, there is something there which knows this isn't true. The crooked pathology has cracks in it - God-experience induced cracks.

And so, I know I am his son. Forever his son. Loved to a degree my own love for my own son (who I would never cast out and abandon) is but a partial mirror of.

It is this direct experience of God which helps inform my reading. I have eyes to see (the experience) and so I can see in scripture, that same God reflected. Even if a verse here or a verse there would seemingly indicate otherwise. My experience (and all the scripture which supports the experience) has me approach the problematic piece knowing it doesn't fit from the outet. And because I know it doesn't fit, I know I'll find out why it doesn't fit if only I'm prepared to look.

Such a thing occurs with that passage about the splitting of sheep and goats. We have seen that the "for" can be applied back to the splitting. Or can be applied to that which went immediately before: the reason for the particular consequences given to both sheep and goats, who have been split for other reasons.

Since the latter fits within the whole, I move on, content again that a "problematic" verse isn't actually problematic.


3. Roman Catholicism is like every other religion, bar grace (alone)

Morgan Freeman has a series on Netflix about God. It's not great but the set up looks at the worlds religions. He's looked at Christianity, Hinduism, The Aztecs, Judism, etc.

Under the packaging of each, which differs wildly, there is fundamental commonality. The product is the same and shares the same ingredients. The belief in an afterlife. The sense of a God needing pleasing, both for blessing in this life and a happy afterlife outcome. Sacrifices to that end, in one form or another. A priesthood in one form or another to intercede between God and man. An impersonal God with whom there is no direct contact. A God who is angry and capable of giving us a thrashing.


In his assessment of Christianity, Morgan is drawing this commonality out: whether the commonality points to a larger truth than any of the religions can answer (i.e. god must exist in some form) or whether the commonality simply supposes a human need to invent a god).

He supposes that Christian rebirth gives the opportunity for a person to hencefort get on the right road with God such that a happy afterlife outcome follow. He was, of course, talking about Catholicism - not the Christianity known by others.

That's a fatal trouble with RC. It's packaging differs from other religions but the product inside is the same in essence. Your position with God in relation to blessings in this life and a happy afterlife outcome depend on what you do. There is sacrifice, there is a priesthood, there is lack of certainty, there is lack of direct relationship, there is fear, there is the possibility of an unhappy afterlife outcome, no matter how hard you work.

The pathology that drives the whole world into gods like these suggests a common ancestor. And that common ancestor, according to the one "religion" which offers an stark alternative to the rest, is the Fall. A Fall which saw man's pathology skewed such as to forever after deal with God in a crooked way. A way that supposed God other than a God of grace and love. A way which dealt with God not as father but as someone from which to extract what we want by way of working for it.

Nick Park

Something happened yesterday that made me think of this thread and the whole discussion about who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

I was on a flight, and the chap travelling with me had downloaded a book of mine (on Church History) onto the Kindle app on his iPhone. He said, "I thought it made sense to read the book while I was sitting beside the author, that way I can ask questions about stuff in the book."

And that, in a nutshell, is the best way to make sure that we interpret the Bible correctly. We maintain a living relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, so that He is beside us to help us understand His book.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

And that, in a nutshell, is the best way to make sure that we interpret the Bible correctly. We maintain a living relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, so that He is beside us to help us understand His book.

By your logic, Nick, you would need to talk to the four evangelists and St Paul. Of course we can't do that now. And it should be pretty obvious that interpreting the scriptures for ourselves results in a plethora of different interpretations.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

By your logic, Nick, you would need to talk to the four evangelists and St Paul. Of course we can't do that now. And it should be pretty obvious that interpreting the scriptures for ourselves results in a plethora of different interpretations.

I doubt if you really believe what you're saying here.

I'm quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church understands that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the best one to interpret Scripture.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I doubt if you really believe what you're saying here.

I'm quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church understands that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the best one to interpret Scripture.

I do believe what I'm saying! And I agree with your point about the Holy Spirit. But clearly different people interpret scripture differently so they can't all be led by the Spirit. This is my whole point in a nutshell. Wgat makes your interpretation more valid than mine or vise-versa.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

What makes your interpretation more valid than mine or vise-versa.

Nothing. Yours is as valid as his save for God gathering you in the same room and adjudicating on the matter.

Outside that it's just your interpretation vs. his.

There's nothing to elevate his method of arriving at an interpretation over yours. And vice versa. God would have to adjudicate on that too to resolve it to your mutual satisfaction

So. What you find best for you is all anyone has.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Wgat makes your interpretation more valid than mine or vise-versa.

Theoretically, your interpretation is just as likely to be right as mine, since you have the same opportunity as me to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and to listen to the Holy Spirit.

Practically, I think your commitment only to accept the interpretations endorsed by one particular human institution is more likely to lead you into false interpretations than if you were more questioning. Human institutions, such as denominations, have track records of missing the leading of the Holy Spirit, sometimes spectacularly so when they have endorsed sinful behaviour and attitudes or championed violence.

Bob_Marley

kelly1 wrote: »

What makes your interpretation more valid than mine or vise-versa.

Therein lies the problem, from Arianism to JW's to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Atheism, all will equally claim their own Sola Scriptura personally preferred interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one . . . Or not really a problem if you want your interpretation of scripture to suit your own needs, simply dump the traditional Christian interpretation. Ironically you wont find the self contradicting doctrine of Sola Scriptura anywhere in scripture . . . But don't sweat it . . . inventing stuff like Sola Scriptura, and whatever interpretation you want, is an important part of, and an important proof of free will, which is all part of God's plan as well.

But instead Kelly, sweat the fact that because we've been graced enough to feel and understand this deeply and spiritually, there is far more onus on us to deal with the Planks in own eyes, that the splinters in others.

antiskeptic

I'm at a loss to understand why you're thanking this Kelly.

All Bob has done is suppose his particular way of arriving at the correct interpretation the correct one. Without actually demonstrating why that should be so.

"It's always been this way" isn't particularly convincing - especially when it hasn't always been this way, according to Bob himself. I mean, claiming its "always been this way" then pointing out times when it hasn't always been this way is hardly an inspiring stance to take.

Didn't you notice his writing off the schism of the 11th century as but a storm in a teacup elsewhere? For that is what he does and is forced, by his "it's always been this way" figleaf, to do.

Did you compare his claim regarding sola scriptura having scant biblical warrant with the equally scant biblical warrant for the One True Church. One this rock = biblical warrant for the Catholic Church?

-

You might, perhaps, ratchet up the level beyond reliance on assumption of your position as a defence of your position.

You've got a rational (so has everyone else). You suppose your rational the best (so does everyone else). So where's the killer blow to come from?


I think folk generally, need to suppose they've landed on solid rock. They will tend to cling to their theology as a drowning man does to a liferaft. The long standing of the RC church is your main motivation for clinging on so, even when you can't elevate your rational above anyone else. To you, its a rock. And you need to suppose it so, more than you need to examine whether better alternatives exist

For alternatives means movement. It means not resting on a spot supposing the end of the need to question.

Bob_Marley

Kelly, as per the usual modus operandi, there's so many ad nauseam and strawmen fallacies, misrepresentations, and false assumptions in that post it's not even worth taking the time to take each one line by line. Ironically the only person they are kidding are themselves. I wouldn't waste your time if I were you.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

As per the usual modus operandi, there's so many ad nauseam and strawmen fallacies, misrepresentations, and false assumptions in that post it's not even worth taking the time to take each one line by line.

Your answer is already known: tradition uber alles. It's Kelly's too but there's a chance (s)he might break out of the unfounded
supposition that tradition necessitates correct. Not so you.

Would you have defended a flat earth in its day. Probably

Bob_Marley

Still the ad nauseum straw manning and misrepresentation of Catholicism, no matter how many times the actual teaching is pointed out, followed again by the ad nauseum misrepresentation/ignoring of what was actually posted . . see how it works Kelly ? . . over and over the same tactic. You'll notice the same one being employed by Anti-Theists / Anti-Christians. Also notice the zero interest or focus in talking about or pursing what Christians have in common. Attempting any constructive dialogue with fallacious arguments is a waste of time, no point in continually feeding it again when you've given it the benefit of the doubt once already . . and again ironically it's their own loss, but good proof that God grants free will less anyone try's to claim later they didn't have any.

Nick Park

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Therein lies the problem, from Arianism to JW's to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Atheism, all will equally claim their own Sola Scriptura personally preferred interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one . .

This is quite ironic since there's only one side in this thread that is insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one. Kelly1 and yourself think that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one, and Kelly1 has even stated elsewhere that he thinks it highly unlikely that anything could convince him otherwise.

The non-Catholics in this thread believe that each Christian can interpret Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and that should provide sufficient clarity for each person to know how to be saved and enter into a relationship with God. However, we freely admit that we are never going to be 100% correct in our interpretation of other aspects of Scripture.

Also notice the zero interest or focus in talking about or pursing what Christians have in common.

Nonsense. I have politely answered Kelly1's questions - even though they appear to be nothing more than a bait for him to tell us how the Catholic Church is right and the rest of us are all wrong. Meanwhile, I will continue to spend the majority of my time talking about and pursuing what Christians have in common, which is why, among my other commitments, I will in the next few weeks be speaking about the Eighth Amendment at a number of Sunday masses in Catholic churches and also speaking at a Symposium on the Family at Clonliffe College as part of Ecumenical Bible week.

antiskeptic

Bob Marley wrote:

Therein lies the problem, from Arianism to JW's to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Atheism, all will equally claim their own Sola Scriptura personally preferred interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one . .

The problem, I think, lies in your misunderstanding of what the point of the thread is from the perspective of those being challenged by the OP

Your own preferred interpretation is simply tacked onto the list above and is asked the question: how are you to differentiate your own means of arrival at the conclusion you do from all the other methods.

Just as with the most elemental of exams, the interest isn't in you posting what you feel is the correct answer, it lies in you "showing your work".

All you seem capable of is the attempt to extract yourself from the exam by claiming to have already passed the exam.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing. Yours is as valid as his save for God gathering you in the same room and adjudicating on the matter.

Outside that it's just your interpretation vs. his.

There's nothing to elevate his method of arriving at an interpretation over yours. And vice versa. God would have to adjudicate on that too to resolve it to your mutual satisfaction

So. What you find best for you is all anyone has.

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

If our salvation depends on correct interpretation of scripture, then I'm sure God would make provision for that need. And I think 1 Tim 3:15 answers that question ("...in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth). Note Timothy does not say Scripture is the foundation of truth. Hence this thread.

I'm trying my best here to point out that self-interpretation is seriously flawed but it appears the issue is being brushed off as a non-issue. History has shown what happens different interpretations take hold and divide the Church.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

I think this post demonstrates how bizarre your argument is.

Nobody in a million years would ever, by reading Scripture, come up the ideas of going to a priest to receive absolution, going to 'Mass', or receiving Jesus in 'the Bless Sacrament' being necessary for salvation.

These are extra-biblical requirements, and, in my opinion, demonstrate the folly of trusting a man-made institution or denomination to interpret Scripture on our behalf.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I think this post demonstrates how bizarre your argument is.

Nobody in a million years would ever, by reading Scripture, come up the ideas of going to a priest to receive absolution, going to 'Mass', or receiving Jesus in 'the Bless Sacrament' being necessary for salvation.

Nothing bizarre about it at all.

In John 20:23, we see the institution of the sacrament of penance. Though it doesn't explicitly say that this authority would be handed down through ordination/apostolic succession, it's pretty clear that the apostles were given the power to forgive sins. Why would this end with the death of the apostles? Why make this authority temporary?

The first Mass was the Last Supper (Mt 26:26) and we see that this continued in 1st Corinthians 11.

The problem is that "protestants" have thrown out Tradition which is one of the pillars of the Church (1 Tim 3:15), along with Scripture.

antiskeptic

I'll quote myself first:

Nothing. Yours is as valid as his save for God gathering you in the same room and adjudicating on the matter.

Outside that it's just your interpretation vs. his.

There's nothing to elevate his method of arriving at an interpretation over yours. And vice versa. God would have to adjudicate on that too to resolve it to your mutual satisfaction

So. What you find best for you is all anyone has.

Let me set out the hierarchy facing all who suppose there to be an absolute truth.

1. The Truth

2. A black box (the mechanism by which an individual accesses the truth)

3. The individual


We are discussing the workings of the black box. How does it work, is it two way (e.g. the truth comes down through it / we go up through it to get to truth). We can argue all we like about the merits of our black box over another's black box but we are ultimately left with the last line in my quote: we ultimately go with the black box which we figure best.

kelly1 wrote: »

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

1. Sola scriptura for me means all scripture is God breathed. It is the sole God-source identically available to all men, insofar as it's available to men.

2. I don't believe scripture is necessary in order that a person be saved. Nor do I believe that a person needs scripture in order to commune with God or follow his ordinances. Doesn't the RC church suppose people, who've never heard of Christ and who've never been exposed to the scriptures, can yet avail of salvation? I gather the precise mechanism whereby this occurs goes a little light on detail, but the point holds - no scripture necessarily required according to RC.

I'd point to the case of Abraham, who had no scripture (or Jesus) to rely on, which undergirds my own view on this.

So: a disagreement about the workings of the black box at the very outset. My own view supported by the RC church, I gather.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

You have one view, I have another. There's no argumentation supporting your view presented here so we move on.

If our salvation depends on correct interpretation of scripture, then I'm sure God would make provision for that need.

We're back to the question: is scripture necessary for salvation. I say no. How do you develop your position here?

then I'm sure God would make provision for that need. And I think 1 Tim 3:15 answers that question ("...in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth). Note Timothy does not say Scripture is the foundation of truth. Hence this thread.

I'm trying my best not to quote scripture given the inevitable tendency for each side to try to show how what's written weaves in perfectly with their own view.



The core thing being demonstrated here is your presentation of how you suppose the black box to work for you. You suppose something: an accurate reading of scripture needed for salvation. Ergo, it makes sense (to you) that God would provide a source of accurate interpretation > it's clear that self-interpretation leads to a whole range of views > ergo there must be a one true church to circumvent these problems > you look for what you think is the best established church > you arrive at RC. It's perfectly logical, given the suppositions that get you started.


But where did you get these suppositions - say the one about scripture being required for salvation? If you say "from the one true church" then you are into circular reasoning - you've taken as true, something the church has said, in an effort to determine whether that same church is the one true church

If you read scripture to arrive at this supposition on scripture's necessity, or to arrive at the conclusion that the RC church is God-appointed, then you've used personal interpretation to arrive at a conclusion. Which puts you in the same boat as me.

I'm trying my best here to point out that self-interpretation is seriously flawed but it appears the issue is being brushed off as a non-issue. History has shown what happens different interpretations take hold and divide the Church.

I've been trying. for quite a while now, to get you to realize that you yourself are either:

- blindly accepting the RC claim about it's own authority and ability to interpret scripture. In which case you've hitched yourself to circular reasoning: the one true church interprets scriptures which allow it to conclude it is the one true church.

- are interpreting scriptures for yourself / applying own reasoning such as to arrive at the conclusion that the RC church is God-appointed. In which case you are self-interpreting such as to form the root of your theology. All springs from the root you yourself establish.

I'd appreciate that if neither of these applicable, then you provide an alternative undergirding for your position - one that doesn't put you in the same boat as me.


-

My black box has no issue with the fact of division. Or indeed, (from my perspective) the existence of a powerful and longstanding institution like the RC church - which I consider to be on a seriously wrong track. I get the reasons why you figure the need for a nice, neat, linear route from God to today - but I don't share them. I don't share them because I've got a black box which can accommodate messy alternatives.

I think humanity is messy and divisions inevitable. I think God works around this fact, rather than steamrollering over it with a One True Church. Given the big picture being his saving and forming relationships with individuals, he can accommodate partially correct/ incorrect views people have of him. They have their education, their social conditioning, their religions, their intelligence all working for/against a correct view of him. And he works with that, easing the person onwards.

I can accommodate, in my black box, that which yours cannot. My black box doesn't worry if people have the wrong end of the theological stick: be it Fred Phelps, the JW's, the Muslims, the Roman Catholics and ultimately, flaws/incompleteness in my own thinking. God is bigger and better than people having to go through a narrow theological gate.

I think God is interested in the heart and insofar as the heart wants him, he will enlighten. He's forming relationships with his children - not setting theology/performance exams.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem is that "protestants" have thrown out Tradition which is one of the pillars of the Church (1 Tim 3:15), along with Scripture.

"15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"

No mention of traditions here.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

"15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"

No mention of traditions here.

So what? How can you conclude from that the tradition didn't/doesn't exist??

2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Let me see you wriggle out of that one.

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

This is quite ironic since there's only one side in this thread that is insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one.

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Nick Park wrote: »

Kelly1 and yourself think that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one, and Kelly1 has even stated elsewhere that he thinks it highly unlikely that anything could convince him otherwise.

Well I can't speak for Kelly, but personally, I'd be extremely open to being convinced that the Catholic Church and the centuries of saints, scholars and theologians have it wrong, but I've yet to see or feel anything to convince me otherwise. After God intervened and brought me kicking and screaming back to Christianity, I looked everywhere. I vowed to let the truth lead me to wherever it went no matter what. To my great surprise, and actual consternation if truth be told, I discovered that the Catholic doctrines are the ones that are anchored in logic, reason and history, and it was in the Catholic Church and sacraments that I had the intense in-describable in-explainable spiritual experiences. The Catholic Church attracts the greatest Saints, but also the greatest sinners, and the greatest hatred. I have not found, despite looking extremely hard, anywhere else to go, or even one that comes close. Like the Lord I may be crucified for sticking with and pursuing the truth, but that's a price I'm completely willing to pay. Truth is important to me, and not how I would like things to be.

Nick Park wrote: »

The non-Catholics in this thread believe that each Christian can interpret Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and that should provide sufficient clarity for each person to know how to be saved and enter into a relationship with God. However, we freely admit that we are never going to be 100% correct in our interpretation of other aspects of Scripture.

Personally I won't settle for any argument or claim that does not hold up to 100% scrutiny. I've yet to find a Catholic doctrine that does not stand up to deeper study, logic, reason, and prayer. Life would be alot easier and more pleasant for me if it was any other Church, and they stood up to the same rigor I impose on their claims as I do upon Catholicism, but unfortunately they don't, and so I find myself in the Catholic Church. If I ever found one that did, I'd be happy to switch, because personally, I have go to where the truth leads, wherever that may be. To thine own self be true above all else.

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. I have politely answered Kelly1's questions - even though they appear to be nothing more than a bait for him to tell us how the Catholic Church is right and the rest of us are all wrong. Meanwhile, I will continue to spend the majority of my time talking about and pursuing what Christians have in common, which is why, among my other commitments, I will in the next few weeks be speaking about the Eighth Amendment at a number of Sunday masses in Catholic churches and also speaking at a Symposium on the Family at Clonliffe College as part of Ecumenical Bible week.

Firstly the post wasn't directed at you personally, but now you mentioned it, looking at your post history, there is no sign of any great ecumenism from your posts. In fact not much in the way of anything about actual Christianity or Jesus at all from you on this forum. I can only go by your own post/thread creation history here, and apart from your recent posts on the abortion thread, the vast majority of your posting history is taken up with making sectarian digs at Catholicism.

Nick Park

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Now you're playing silly beggars.

I didn't say denominations' interpretations aren't authentic. I said that most denominations don't claim that their's is the authentic one.

Firstly the post wasn't directed at you personally, but now you mentioned it, looking at your post history, there is no sign of any great ecumenism from your posts. In fact not much in the way of anything about actual Christianity or Jesus at all from you on this forum. I can only go by your own post/thread creation history here, and apart from your recent posts on the abortion thread, the vast majority of your posting history is taken up with making sectarian digs at Catholicism.

Sorry, life doesn't work like that. Disagreeing with your denomination during a discussion, or expressing a different viewpoint, doesn't equate to 'sectarian digs'.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Science isn't inauthentic. It takes the same approach that theologies other than your own does. A tentative, best-fit of the observations - realising that new observations will mature the view.

Your own ecumenism doesn't seem up to the task of appreciating that that's the approach

Well I can't speak for Kelly, but personally, I'd be extremely open to being convinced that the Catholic Church and the centuries of saints, scholars and theologians have it wrong

Nobody is saying they are wrong. They are saying they are like everyone else - capable of not being 100% right.

but I've yet to see or feel anything to convince me otherwise. After God intervened and brought me kicking and screaming back to Christianity, I looked everywhere. I vowed to let the truth lead me to wherever it went no matter what. To my great surprise, and actual consternation if truth be told, I discovered that the Catholic doctrines are the ones that are anchored in logic, reason and history,

You accuse of others of utilising straw men. Do you know what that also involves: to argue the weakest elements of anothers case, rather than the strongest.

You ignore that others are like you:

- they too have been brought kicking and screaming (thieves on crosses) to God.

- they too utilise logic, reason and history to draw conclusions

- they too are after the truth

Rather than deal with that difficulty, you suppose others take the view they do merely because that's "how they would like things to be."

and it was in the Catholic Church and sacraments that I had the intense in-describable in-explainable spiritual experiences.

On it goes: others have had similar experiences outside the Catholic church. Whilst the others can accept you've had those experiences and would have no issue with them being authentic, you appear to have to denigrate others and their experiences because they don't fit into your view.

The Catholic Church attracts the greatest Saints, but also the greatest sinners, and the greatest hatred. I have not found, despite looking extremely hard, anywhere else to go, or even one that comes close.

Can you see the pattern: others will cleave to their view / their church for the exact same reasons you do to yours. They have found a church that fits them.

You somehow manage to suppose that your choice of church is immune to internal influence guiding you, lending preference to .. a church that fits you. You might simply be a type that likes certainty, rigidity, settledness (not that these are bad traits in themselves). And so, gravitate towards that which offers you that.

Would you not grant others the same privilege? I mean, I'm quite comfortable with the tentative approach. I mean, I used to be a YEC for crying out loud!

Truth is important to me, and not how I would like things to be.

And so say a lot of us. Does it occur to you (if you put on your "I'll argue the strongest part of the opponents case, rather than it's weakest" hat again) that a theology which is settled and fixed is an easier thing to deal with than one which has fluidity?

Personally I won't settle for any argument or claim that does not hold up to 100% scrutiny

Which supposes the scrutinizer omniscient, such as to detect an error in the claim.

The safer bet is to suppose your scrutinizing somewhat less that perfect. As a faculty which can be honed and modified. And as it is honed and modified, it see's things in former scrutinized claims which it didn't see before.

This leads naturally to an evolving theology, sometimes requiring significant shake up (a function of how improved the scrutinizing ability becomes). You seem closed at the outset.

I've yet to find a Catholic doctrine that does not stand up to deeper study, logic, reason, and prayer.

As I say, a lot of the folk whose approach you denigrate would say the same thing of the non-Catholic doctrines they've studied. That ought to give pause for thought. But doesn't seem to.

Life would be alot easier and more pleasant for me if it was any other Church

Indeed. You wouldn't, for a start, have to occupy this impossible position: finding others sit in the same boat as you regarding their rigorous approach, their deep spiritual experience, their prayer life, their search for truth .. and having no option (due to the rigidity of your theology) to denigrate them and their approach.

You don't seem to realise that in the measure you torpedo holes in their boat, you sink your own. If their logic, reason, their honest search for truth, their 100% scrutiny, their deep spiritual experiences, etc. led them down the garden path then what's going to keep lil' ol you afloat.

The only option remaining, should you chose it, would appear to be extreme arrogance. That you were brighter, more truth-searching, more logical and reason-utilizing than they.

I have go to where the truth leads, wherever that may be. To thine own self be true above all else.

Godspeed with that. Fortunately, in my view, God is accommodating of our child like efforts to wrestle with the Truth.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

So what? How can you conclude from that the tradition didn't/doesn't exist??

I didn't say anything about it not existing. You said tradition was a pillar of the church and cited a verse which didn't mention tradition being a pillar of the church.

I was merely pointing that out.

2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Let me see you wriggle out of that one.

1. Tradition. I've no issue with things said/done by Christ and the apostles forming tradition which is passed on by Christ and the apostles. Do this in memory of me .. for example.

That doesn't mean Tradition in the somewhat more overblown RC sense however.

Interestingly, in the article linked below, the appearances of the word "tradition" in scripture most often have to do with a warning against or an admonition in the face of adherence to them. In essence:"beware the traditions of men".

Apparently, there are only three uses of the word in the whole of scripture by which RC builds the case for sacred tradition being a biblical concept. One of them is your example.




2. The trouble with these snippets of scriptures (a.k.a. by many as "proof verses") is the lack of context.

From CARM.org. https://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-testament-2Thess-3-6

The context shows us that the tradition Paul is speaking of is the tradition of working hard and not being idle. This admonition is presumably related to what he wrote about in the preceding chapter (chapter 2) regarding the false teaching that Jesus had already returned. People had probably decided to give up their livelihoods and stop working. Paul warns them not to do that. Instead, they are to keep the traditions that they have been taught; namely, to work hard and not be idle.

2 Thess. 3:6 has nothing to do with the "Sacred Tradition" claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. It is about not being idle and failing to work. But that hasn't stopped the Roman Catholic church from reading into the scripture the idea that "tradition" means apostolic pronouncements that were orally deposited to the Roman Catholic Church which then releases them over time. They should stick with what the text actually says, and not what it does not.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say anything about it not existing. You said tradition was a pillar of the church and cited a verse which didn't mention tradition being a pillar of the church.

I was merely pointing that out.

Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction, I see your point now.

Why I'm trying to say is that according to 1 Tim 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I think "protestants" of various denomination have it backwards because the New Testament came from the Church, not the other way around. Therefore it is the Church which is in possession of the truth and the bible is a record of that truth. The dog wags the tail.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. Tradition. I've no issue with things said/done by Christ and the apostles forming tradition which is passed on by Christ and the apostles. Do this in memory of me .. for example.

That doesn't mean Tradition in the somewhat more overblown RC sense however.

Overblown? I don't think there is any reason to suppose the NT records every article of truth which the Church possesses. So for instance, while we see Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins, it doesn't mention the successors of the apostles being given the same authority. I would expect this was taken as a given.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently, there are only three uses of the word in the whole of scripture by which RC builds the case for sacred tradition being a biblical concept. One of them is your example.

Again, this is the tail wagging the dog. The Church is the source of truth and the bible records that truth taught by the Church.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. The trouble with these snippets of scriptures (a.k.a. by many as "proof verses") is the lack of context.
From CARM.org. https://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-testament-2Thess-3-6

2 Thess 2:15 "so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

2 Thess 3:16 ""Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."


The above two verses clearly show the positive aspect of tradition, as opposed to the "traditions of men". These traditions were communicated by word of mouth and by letter. They are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction, I see your point now.

An apology on boards. The angels are smiling down Cheers.

Why I'm trying to say is that according to 1 Tim 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Okay. And we both agree that the church is capable of being flawed. Whether the institutional church or the church consisting only of the body of believers.

I don't see how you progress here: whether my view or yours we must suppose nuance to this verse.

I think "protestants" of various denomination have it backwards because the New Testament came from the Church, not the other way around. Therefore it is the Church which is in possession of the truth and the bible is a record of that truth. The dog wags the tail.

God breathed the scriptures > the church, imperfect though it is is the channel for them. We are more interested in the electricity which enters our home than the cables it come along.

The church (the body of believers church) doesn't place itself above scripture.

Overblown? I don't think there is any reason to suppose the NT records every article of truth which the Church possesses. So for instance, while we see Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins, it doesn't mention the successors of the apostles being given the same authority. I would expect this was taken as a given.

Why would you expect this - if not merely inserting what makes sense to you personally into the mix? It's as if you come to the end of a road and make a giant leap. Once you land where you expect you ought to land you're happy.

Can you not see the weakness in this?

The overblown-ness has to do with the scant scriptural support for very significant positions. Sacred Tradition is a very big position to hold (along with say, apostolic succession). A significant root into scripture is required, since all flows from that. But the roots aren't there: witness a mere three mentions of tradition, with contexts that can't support the weight of position which has been rested upon them.

2 Thess 2:15 "so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

2 Thess 3:16 ""Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."


The above two verses clearly show the positive aspect of tradition, as opposed to the "traditions of men". These traditions were communicated by word of mouth and by letter. They are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

And that's fine. So, how to determine a positive tradition when we know there is much warning against the tradition of men?

You can't say "The Church is the decider" on the grounds of circular reasoning: we are examining the case for The Church being in a position to assert Sacred Tradition. We cannot assume they are in this position in order to support the case for them being in this position.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

An apology on boards. The angels are smiling down Cheers.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. And we both agree that the church is capable of being flawed. Whether the institutional church or the church consisting only of the body of believers.

I don't see how you progress here: whether my view or yours we must suppose nuance to this verse.

The Church is the entire body of the faithful but it still has leaders (just like Peter, James, John and Paul). I wouldn't get hung up on the word "institutional".

Jesus said the Spirit would lead the apostles "into all truth" but He never guaranteed their impeccability. Hence the scandals we've seen down through the ages.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God breathed the scriptures > the church, imperfect though it is is the channel for them. We are more interested in the electricity which enters our home than the cables it come along.

The church (the body of believers church) doesn't place itself above scripture.

If the Church is merely a channel for truth, then how do you explain 1 Tim 3:15 ("the pillar and foundation of the truth")?

As you know, scripture cannot be changed. All we can do now is interpret it. But keep in mind that scripture came from the Church (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Church did not come from Scripture.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would you expect this - if not merely inserting what makes sense to you personally into the mix? It's as if you come to the end of a road and make a giant leap. Once you land where you expect you ought to land you're happy.

Can you not see the weakness in this?

I see weakness in the suggestion that the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins but not their successors. Why would Jesus make such a temporary provision? That is what needs explanation. It's more logical to assume that the authority to forgive sins was a lasting arrangements, just like the Holy Communion and baptism are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The overblown-ness has to do with the scant scriptural support for very significant positions. Sacred Tradition is a very big position to hold (along with say, apostolic succession). A significant root into scripture is required, since all flows from that. But the roots aren't there: witness a mere three mentions of tradition, with contexts that can't support the weight of position which has been rested upon them.

The tail wagging the dog again. Have you not read the Early Church Fathers about Tradition? It's an historical fact that the Apostles appointed successors! Of course you can stick your head in the sand at the expense of truth, that's up to you.

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

Now you're playing silly beggars.

I didn't say denominations' interpretations aren't authentic. I said that most denominations don't claim that their's is the authentic one.

You're the one making the false claim that only the Catholic Church claims their interpretation is authentic. Contradictoy interpretions cannot all be authentic, that's simple logic.

Nick Park wrote: »

Sorry, life doesn't work like that. Disagreeing with your denomination during a discussion, or expressing a different viewpoint, doesn't equate to 'sectarian digs'.

That's not what I said so you can drop the misrepresentation attempt, I couldn't care less with what you disagree with or believe in, what I do object to is making a sectarian dig or false claim about Catholics and Catholics while doing so.

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

Science isn't inauthentic. It takes the same approach that theologies other than your own does. A tentative, best-fit of the observations - realising that new observations will mature the view.

Your own ecumenism doesn't seem up to the task of appreciating that that's the approach





Nobody is saying they are wrong. They are saying they are like everyone else - capable of not being 100% right.




You accuse of others of utilising straw men. Do you know what that also involves: to argue the weakest elements of anothers case, rather than the strongest.

You ignore that others are like you:

- they too have been brought kicking and screaming (thieves on crosses) to God.

- they too utilise logic, reason and history to draw conclusions

- they too are after the truth

Rather than deal with that difficulty, you suppose others take the view they do merely because that's "how they would like things to be."




On it goes: others have had similar experiences outside the Catholic church. Whilst the others can accept you've had those experiences and would have no issue with them being authentic, you appear to have to denigrate others and their experiences because they don't fit into your view.




Can you see the pattern: others will cleave to their view / their church for the exact same reasons you do to yours. They have found a church that fits them.

You somehow manage to suppose that your choice of church is immune to internal influence guiding you, lending preference to .. a church that fits you. You might simply be a type that likes certainty, rigidity, settledness (not that these are bad traits in themselves). And so, gravitate towards that which offers you that.

Would you not grant others the same privilege? I mean, I'm quite comfortable with the tentative approach. I mean, I used to be a YEC for crying out loud!










And so say a lot of us. Does it occur to you (if you put on your "I'll argue the strongest part of the opponents case, rather than it's weakest" hat again) that a theology which is settled and fixed is an easier thing to deal with than one which has fluidity?








Which supposes the scrutinizer omniscient, such as to detect an error in the claim.

The safer bet is to suppose your scrutinizing somewhat less that perfect. As a faculty which can be honed and modified. And as it is honed and modified, it see's things in former scrutinized claims which it didn't see before.

This leads naturally to an evolving theology, sometimes requiring significant shake up (a function of how improved the scrutinizing ability becomes). You seem closed at the outset.







As I say, a lot of the folk whose approach you denigrate would say the same thing of the non-Catholic doctrines they've studied. That ought to give pause for thought. But doesn't seem to.




Indeed. You wouldn't, for a start, have to occupy this impossible position: finding others sit in the same boat as you regarding their rigorous approach, their deep spiritual experience, their prayer life, their search for truth .. and having no option (due to the rigidity of your theology) to denigrate them and their approach.

You don't seem to realise that in the measure you torpedo holes in their boat, you sink your own. If their logic, reason, their honest search for truth, their 100% scrutiny, their deep spiritual experiences, etc. led them down the garden path then what's going to keep lil' ol you afloat.

The only option remaining, should you chose it, would appear to be extreme arrogance. That you were brighter, more truth-searching, more logical and reason-utilizing than they.





Godspeed with that. Fortunately, in my view, God is accommodating of our child like efforts to wrestle with the Truth.

As predicted . . classic antiskeptic misrepresentation and straw manning yet again.

Do you really think people are stupid enough to waste time on this tactic and fallacious method of argumentation ?

As already stated over and over by me, and in direct contrast to your attempted misrepresentation above. . .I couldn't care less what denomination or brand of Christianity you or anyone else follows or what Church you do or don't go to, or what you believe or don't believe in. It's utterly irrelevant to me. The only think I object to is your ad nausuem constant strawmanning and misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs and Catholics, and continual misrepresentation of every post made in reply to you fallacious arguments about Catholicism.

Thinkingaboutit

Leaving aside how Luther edited the Bible on his own authority while in the process of paraphrasing existing German translation (this fairly young Wittenburg Augustinian Professor did not have sufficient contextual grasp of Koine/Alexandrian Greek to somehow translate anew, a fairly rare thing to have anyhow, rather how the translators of KJV appear to have roved between the Great Bible/William Tyndale's Bible/Bishop's Bible and Fr Gregory Martin SJ's Douay-Rheim text), and misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching in this thread, Sola Scriptura doesn't work.

Here's why.

There are certain Protestant mainstays (excluding Anglo and Old Catholics/Ultrecht Union obviously) like rejecting Maccabees (2 Maccabees was particularly awkward as it referenced praying for the souls of the dead and the intercession of the Saints, 15:11–17), deprecrating James' words on works, that Roman's 3:28 has the word alone in it, accepting as given Luther's ordering (James, 'an Epistle of straw' at the back etc.) of Scripture, as well as a venerable body of scholarly work(for instance Calvinism emphasised predestination which drew upon St Augustine's arguments for double predestination and St Jerome could support that limitation of human effort). Aside from that any Protestant denomination or community which lasts more than a year will form a body of accepted interpretations which might be informed by Protestant scholars, be solely subjective or personal of the pastor or followers, or mix the two. The meaning of Sola Scriptura is just very elastic, too elastic too be usable. Catholicism very much draws on Tradition, but so too does any Protestant community.

kelly1

It occurred to me recently that the gap between atheism and theism is similar to the gap between protestant/evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

It occurred to me recently that the gap between atheism and theism is similar to the gap between protestant/evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.

How so?