This is a misunderstanding of the idea of the church. No one believes the people are infallible. The scriptures say Christ leads the church. I believe that. I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church precisely because I have faith in Christ and His promises… not in addition to them.
Protestant feeling the pull of Catholicism questions
11,261 Views |
181 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Captain Pablo
I actually agree with your comment about the Bereans. That is the model, that is exactly how it should work. But that's not individuals, that is a community. Thats no different than the Church, as I described earlier.
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
Zobel said:
shrug. it is literally what you said.
It's literally not.
Lets take a tangible example.
Do you agree with this definition of an Ecumenical Council from OrthodoxWiki?
"At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers."
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters. Or for your proper exegesis, I assume you are leaning on someone somewhere who has read the texts in the original language. Bottom line, you're leaning on someone's expertise outside of your own reading of the Bible
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
It's right there in what you said. If you can't even stand by your words from one post to the next, what's the point?
You said:
And I said there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
Then you said:
I assume that you think 1 represents my view (it doesn't) and that 2 represents yours.
If that's the case, scripture as understood by tradition, reason, and experience is your scripture + xyz. In which case, xyz is the actual authority per your own structure.
You said:
Quote:
The argument is that while someone can claim they are equally balanced or whatever the claim is, in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority. "
And I said there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
Then you said:
Quote:
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
I assume that you think 1 represents my view (it doesn't) and that 2 represents yours.
If that's the case, scripture as understood by tradition, reason, and experience is your scripture + xyz. In which case, xyz is the actual authority per your own structure.
Jabin said:Where did I say that God didn't want us to understand his revelation? I don't believe that God needs men in funny robes and hats for us to correctly understand His revelation. Especially when, at times, some of those men were sleeping with and having children by their own daughters.Bob Lee said:
Why would God have bothered to reveal Himself to us unless He wants us to correctly understand His revelation?
My uncle converted to Roman Catholicism. I visited him and my aunt at their home in Florida once and attended mass with them. Their priest was fantastic. However, my uncle and aunt told me that the diocese hated the priest because the priest was pro-life and the diocese was very strongly pro-choice (and theologically and politically liberal on many other matters, as well). The only reason that the diocese tolerated that priest was because the church paid the diocese $1 million per year for the priest.
You want me to trust an organization like that to interpret God's word for me?
I believe that God wants each of us to read the Scriptures for ourselves to determine if our teachers are teaching correctly, just like the Bereans in Acts 17:11. The Bible is replete with example after example of people reading God's word for themselves and being held accountable for it.
I understand your hesitancy with the authority and structure. But that same structure, shrub the protection of the Holy Spirit, protected us from a number of dangerous heresies. I'm willing to take the good with the bad. If the church is right about things like the Eucharist, contraception, and a whole host of hot topics today, we can thank the spirit for using this structure to protect the faith.
ETA: have to apologize to the OP again. Can't believe how bad this thread was hijacked but I can't help myself
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
Zobel said:
It's right there in what you said. If you can't even stand by your words from one post to the next, what's the point?
You said:Quote:
The argument is that while someone can claim they are equally balanced or whatever the claim is, in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority. "
And I said there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
Then you said:Quote:
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
I assume that you think 1 represents my view (it doesn't) and that 2 represents yours.
If that's the case, scripture as understood by tradition, reason, and experience is your scripture + xyz. In which case, xyz is the actual authority per your own structure.
I know you like to try and play fast and loose, as you have throughout this, to try and sneak one by, but no.
You, for some reason, want to keep everything abstract, so you can make vague references to try and slip by. Hence I said, lets talk about Ecumenical Councils to see if your accusation holds up (it wont).
So again, do you agree with the definition of what an Ecumenical Council is per the OrthodoxWiki or are you wanting to provide a secondary definition?
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
it's not fast and loose. It's literally your own words. no interest in changing subjects. Feel free to make whatever point you like.
Where exactly do you find a specific reference to a "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" in the Bible or in Christ's promises?Quote:
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church precisely because I have faith in Christ and His promises… not in addition to them.
And your support for that statement is found where?Quote:
But that's not individuals, that is a community. Thats no different than the Church, as I described earlier.
In another post, on another thread, and perhaps on another board, you stated that YOU decided to join the EOC after YOU visited it and it just felt right to YOU. Seems a lot of decision making by YOU as an individual. Similarly, on this thread, you and the RCC folks are advising a guy to visit an RCC church and if it feels right to HIM, then that's the Holy Spirit guiding him. Seems like a lot of personal autonomy and decision making in that advice.
One - John 10:16, John 17:11, John 17:21, 1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 12:12, Colossians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 12:5
Holy - 1 Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:7, Joel 2:16, Ephesians 1:4, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 1:22, Revelation 14:5, Zephaniah 3:12-13
Catholic - means universal, complete, lacking in nothing; see One. This does not mean a sum, but a whole.
Apostolic - Matthew 10:1, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, John 16:13-15, John 17:18, John 21:15, Acts 1:22, Acts 6:6, Acts 2:42, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:6, Ephesians 2:20, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Revelation 21:14
And of course the promises are myriad - they start in Genesis and work their way through the whole of the scripture. But directly and explicitly - Matthew 16:18, and other places like Jeremiah 3:15, Jeremiah 23:4, Jeremiah 31:10, Ezekiel 34:23 and so on.
I do find it kind of interesting that the result of a few centuries of protestantism is to call into question the very most basic confession of faith that the Church has always had in common since 381.
My support for the statement about Berea is in the scriptures. "Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true." We don't know any individual Bereans. We know them as a community.
The Holy Spirit lives in us, and actively animates the Body of the Church. Christ is our Head, our High Priest, and leads the Church (Ephesians 5:23, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 4:14). Christianity is not an individual activity.
Holy - 1 Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:7, Joel 2:16, Ephesians 1:4, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 1:22, Revelation 14:5, Zephaniah 3:12-13
Catholic - means universal, complete, lacking in nothing; see One. This does not mean a sum, but a whole.
Apostolic - Matthew 10:1, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, John 16:13-15, John 17:18, John 21:15, Acts 1:22, Acts 6:6, Acts 2:42, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:6, Ephesians 2:20, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Revelation 21:14
And of course the promises are myriad - they start in Genesis and work their way through the whole of the scripture. But directly and explicitly - Matthew 16:18, and other places like Jeremiah 3:15, Jeremiah 23:4, Jeremiah 31:10, Ezekiel 34:23 and so on.
I do find it kind of interesting that the result of a few centuries of protestantism is to call into question the very most basic confession of faith that the Church has always had in common since 381.
My support for the statement about Berea is in the scriptures. "Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true." We don't know any individual Bereans. We know them as a community.
You have kind of a habit of turning everything into some kind of referendum on me. I'm not sure why. But at any rate, what of the above detracts from anything I am saying? Where have I every said there is no personal autonomy and decision making? Christ calls each of us as people, but not to remain as people but to become one with Him, as a part of His Body, which is the Church, which literally means Assembly. That is the message of the scriptures.Quote:
In another post, on another thread, and perhaps on another board, you stated that YOU decided to join the EOC after YOU visited it and it just felt right to YOU. Seems a lot of decision making by YOU as an individual. Similarly, on this thread, you and the RCC folks are advising a guy to visit an RCC church and if it feels right to HIM, then that's the Holy Spirit guiding him. Seems like a lot of personal autonomy and decision making in that advice.
The Holy Spirit lives in us, and actively animates the Body of the Church. Christ is our Head, our High Priest, and leads the Church (Ephesians 5:23, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 4:14). Christianity is not an individual activity.
You're taking disparate truths and tying them together in a way that the Bible does not. No one disagrees with those characteristics of the Church. The disagreement is over your tying of them together and the definition you attach to that new, non-Biblical combined phrase.Quote:
One - John 10:16, John 17:11, John 17:21, 1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 12:12, Colossians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 12:5
Holy - 1 Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:7, Joel 2:16, Ephesians 1:4, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 1:22, Revelation 14:5, Zephaniah 3:12-13
Catholic - means universal, complete, lacking in nothing; see One. This does not mean a sum, but a whole.
Apostolic - Matthew 10:1, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, John 16:13-15, John 17:18, John 21:15, Acts 1:22, Acts 6:6, Acts 2:42, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:6, Ephesians 2:20, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Revelation 21:14
What an incredible argument from silence. Completely lacking in persuasive power.Quote:
We don't know any individual Bereans. We know them as a community.
You are begging the question and, as usual, trying to deflect body blows. Of course everyone agrees with what you just wrote. The question is what does it mean and what is its import as to the "Church" and the "Assembly". What you've written is simply a tautology.Quote:
Christ calls each of us as people, but not to remain as people but to become one with Him, as a part of His Body, which is the Church, which literally means Assembly. That is the message of the scriptures.
The reason I brought you up is not to make in a referendum on you (don't flatter yourself), but to demonstrate your own inconsistency. You defer to the EOC "Church" on every issue but the most important one, that being leaving the SBC and joining the EOC in the first place. By doing so, you demonstrated that the most important decisions are those made between the individual and God. You then, strangely and inexplicably, seemingly argue for deference to your church or the RCC for all further decisions and guidance eliminating any further role of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God in guiding the individual's decisions or conscience.
And with that, good night.
i'm really confused man, was it possible to answer that question correctly? does the bible not say all of those things about the Church? do some of those adjectives somehow cancel or interact in a way that they are all true separately but not together?
the only statement i've made is that authority does not belong to an individual in and of themselves. authority is derived from Christ (Matthew 28:18, John 19:11, Romans 13:1) as head of the community that is the Church, and within that community each person has a different role and function as an individual. not everyone gets to be in charge - "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" And we who are not in charge are called in the scripture to submit to those appointed over us (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12).
what definition is that, exactly?Quote:
the definition you attach to that new, non-Biblical combined phrase
the irony here is that i'm actually arguing from evidence. the image we get is of the group of people. talking about how any particular individual is speculation without any evidence whatever.Quote:
What an incredible argument from silence. Completely lacking in persuasive power.
begging what question? do you actually disagree, or do you just not like what i'm writing? which part do you want to examine as to meaning?Quote:
You are begging the question and, as usual, trying to deflect body blows. Of course everyone agrees with what you just wrote. The question is what does it mean and what is its import as to the "Church" and the "Assembly". What you've written is simply a tautology.
you really need to show your work as to how me joining the Orthodox Church is not deferring to the Orthodox Church.Quote:
The reason I brought you up is not to make in a referendum on you (don't flatter yourself), but to demonstrate your own inconsistency. You defer to the EOC "Church" on every issue but the most important one, that being leaving the SBC and joining the EOC in the first place.
and again - i literally just asked you - where have I every said there is no personal autonomy and decision making?Quote:
By doing so, you demonstrated that the most important decisions are those made between the individual and God.
this is a strawman. where did I deny the agency of the Holy Spirit or the scriptures in guiding individual decision?Quote:
You then, strangely and inexplicably, seemingly argue for deference to your church or the RCC for all further decisions and guidance eliminating any further role of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God in guiding the individual's decisions or conscience.
the only statement i've made is that authority does not belong to an individual in and of themselves. authority is derived from Christ (Matthew 28:18, John 19:11, Romans 13:1) as head of the community that is the Church, and within that community each person has a different role and function as an individual. not everyone gets to be in charge - "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" And we who are not in charge are called in the scripture to submit to those appointed over us (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12).
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
Zobel said:
it's not fast and loose. It's literally your own words. no interest in changing subjects. Feel free to make whatever point you like.
Good. You saw where it was going and backed off. Have a good night!
I really didn't
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
The alternative is that we're all a magisterium unto ourselves. Who granted us our teaching authority? If there's one faith, how have even the ones of us who agree on the veracity of scripture arrived at different conclusions? Who or what should safeguard God's revelation, assuming you think it's important that His revelation is rightly understood.
I've probably watched all the same debates, and I have never heard anyone make a compelling argument for the formal sufficiency of scripture ever. Usually, they will conflate formal and material sufficiency and pretend they're the same thing.
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
You said the Bible is the authority. I give an example of that not being the case, yet somehow I've proven your point? I think it shows clearly that an authority outside of the Bible exists. It's an authority that exists WITH the Bible: the church that Jesus left us.
The teaching authority of the bishops and councils have been around since literally the very beginning. The very men whose documents you would use to settle a debate are a part of the magisterium. The teaching authority of the church didn't just magically appear because Rome said so. Go read up on the Arian heresy. If you haven't before. Without the magisterium, the church doesn't make it to its 300th birthday without falling into heresy.
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
You said the Bible is the authority. I give an example of that not being the case, yet somehow I've proven your point? I think it shows clearly that an authority outside of the Bible exists. It's an authority that exists WITH the Bible: the church that Jesus left us.
The teaching authority of the bishops and councils have been around since literally the very beginning. The very men whose documents you would use to settle a debate are a part of the magisterium. The teaching authority of the church didn't just magically appear because Rome said so. Go read up on the Arian heresy. If you haven't before. Without the magisterium, the church doesn't make it to its 300th birthday without falling into heresy.
You may be acquainted, but you seem to think it's a gotcha to say that it allows an appeal to tradition. Tradition is important to Sola Scriptura, the difference is the appeal is done from historical purpose, not from an authoritative or infallible position.
But your example is what proved the point. For the majority of Christian history the scenario you laid out of Person A believes the Bible teaches X and Person B believes the Bible teaches Y was the norm.
In your example, what you failed to mention is that typically, both people are appealing, not just to Scripture, but to traditions and historical viewpoints.
The point is, the introduction of the Pope/Magisterium was a novelty to bypass the real struggle that Church history is messy and the struggle to understand what the Scriptures say and what the father believed is complicated. Instead of wading into that mess, you want someone to decide the answer for you, even if the answer doesn't make sense or doesn't align with tradition.
The nonsense about the magisterium being around in the first 300 years, to no surprise is nonsense and not historical.
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
You said the Bible is the authority. I give an example of that not being the case, yet somehow I've proven your point? I think it shows clearly that an authority outside of the Bible exists. It's an authority that exists WITH the Bible: the church that Jesus left us.
The teaching authority of the bishops and councils have been around since literally the very beginning. The very men whose documents you would use to settle a debate are a part of the magisterium. The teaching authority of the church didn't just magically appear because Rome said so. Go read up on the Arian heresy. If you haven't before. Without the magisterium, the church doesn't make it to its 300th birthday without falling into heresy.
You may be acquainted, but you seem to think it's a gotcha to say that it allows an appeal to tradition. Tradition is important to Sola Scriptura, the difference is the appeal is done from historical purpose, not from an authoritative or infallible position.
But your example is what proved the point. For the majority of Christian history the scenario you laid out of Person A believes the Bible teaches X and Person B believes the Bible teaches Y was the norm.
In your example, what you failed to mention is that typically, both people are appealing, not just to Scripture, but to traditions and historical viewpoints.
The point is, the introduction of the Pope/Magisterium was a novelty to bypass the real struggle that Church history is messy and the struggle to understand what the Scriptures say and what the father believed is complicated. Instead of wading into that mess, you want someone to decide the answer for you, even if the answer doesn't make sense or doesn't align with tradition.
The nonsense about the magisterium being around in the first 300 years, to no surprise is nonsense and not historical.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I'm aware of how the word games go with sola scriptura vs solo scriptura. I'm aware that you appeal to history to help you. But at the end of the day if the conclusion reached on position X vs Y comes from a source outside of the Bible itself, that source is authoritative. The perfectly logical conclusion of saying that the extra source is not authoritative is that both X and Y can be true or we can never know for sure what is right because they both cite the Bible and anything else carries no authority. If one of those positions are yours, then the confusion I have makes much more sense. Jabin has made a soft appeal to it
Here's a good example. Catholics say the Bible sets Peter up as the first pope. Protestants say the Bible teaches there is no pope. How would one settle this? I guess we read church history and the fathers. If the fathers lead us to a conclusion one way or the other, how are they not the authority on the matter? And if they are not the authority, would you suggest both sides can be right because they're both using the Bible? Or maybe we can never know and just take our best guess and hope we don't commit heresy?
Secondly, did you check into the Arian heresy and First Council? It's important to note here that many, maybe even the majority, of the faithful, both lay and clergy, agreed with or were leaning towards Arius. The BISHOPS (not anyone who felt like it) convened and sought discernment. The BISHOPS declared that Arius was wrong. Arius used biblical sources for his argument. The other side used biblical sources for their argument. The BISHOPS through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (who leads the Church to truth) were the authority on the situation. That is how the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church works. Or are we ok in believing in Arianism because we can't really know and he used the Bible to defend his views? So yes, the magisterium (again, teaching authority) of the church was around in 300 and right at the very beginning, in fact. How you can reference church history and call that nonsense is beyond me, unless you don't understand what the magisterium actually is. The magisterium doesn't wave away any of the struggles to understand our faith throughout history. It is merely how we can have confidence that the conclusions reached are true and not leading us into heresy.
ETA: sorry if I'm coming across confrontational. This stuff seems so black and white to be, that I may come across as uncharitable. That's not my goal
Church Tradition is the lens that you HAVE to look at scripture with. Otherwise, your 21st century mind will not understand what Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Polycarp, etc., were taught by the apostles. Tradition is the key...
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
I'm well acquainted with sola scriptura. I just believe that if you're going to attack the Catholics for using tradition to interpret the Bible and matters of faith, it's hypocritical Sola scriptura, the perpiscuity of scripture, sufficiency of scripture, etc are not specifically outlined in scripture all require extra-biblical authorities to teach it. I've listened to a half dozen debates on this and each and every time the Protestant side takes for granted that the sola scriptura is some brute fact because any biblical references to it are tangential at best
Protestant A says the Bible teaches X. Here is the passage
Protestant B says the Bible teaches Y. Here is the passage
Both are genuine in their belief and use scripture as their authority. No agreement can be reached. We go to the writings of the fathers and decide that Y is actually correct. What was the true authority here?
And you just proved my point. Thank you for that.
The history of the church has been exactly what you described, right up until Rome says "we'd rather a magisterium decide the Scripture for us."
You said the Bible is the authority. I give an example of that not being the case, yet somehow I've proven your point? I think it shows clearly that an authority outside of the Bible exists. It's an authority that exists WITH the Bible: the church that Jesus left us.
The teaching authority of the bishops and councils have been around since literally the very beginning. The very men whose documents you would use to settle a debate are a part of the magisterium. The teaching authority of the church didn't just magically appear because Rome said so. Go read up on the Arian heresy. If you haven't before. Without the magisterium, the church doesn't make it to its 300th birthday without falling into heresy.
You may be acquainted, but you seem to think it's a gotcha to say that it allows an appeal to tradition. Tradition is important to Sola Scriptura, the difference is the appeal is done from historical purpose, not from an authoritative or infallible position.
But your example is what proved the point. For the majority of Christian history the scenario you laid out of Person A believes the Bible teaches X and Person B believes the Bible teaches Y was the norm.
In your example, what you failed to mention is that typically, both people are appealing, not just to Scripture, but to traditions and historical viewpoints.
The point is, the introduction of the Pope/Magisterium was a novelty to bypass the real struggle that Church history is messy and the struggle to understand what the Scriptures say and what the father believed is complicated. Instead of wading into that mess, you want someone to decide the answer for you, even if the answer doesn't make sense or doesn't align with tradition.
The nonsense about the magisterium being around in the first 300 years, to no surprise is nonsense and not historical.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I'm aware of how the word games go with sola scriptura vs solo scriptura. I'm aware that you appeal to history to help you. But at the end of the day if the conclusion reached on position X vs Y comes from a source outside of the Bible itself, that source is authoritative. The perfectly logical conclusion of saying that the extra source is not authoritative is that both X and Y can be true or we can never know for sure what is right because they both cite the Bible and anything else carries no authority. If one of those positions are yours, then the confusion I have makes much more sense. Jabin has made a soft appeal to it
Here's a good example. Catholics say the Bible sets Peter up as the first pope. Protestants say the Bible teaches there is no pope. How would one settle this? I guess we read church history and the fathers. If the fathers lead us to a conclusion one way or the other, how are they not the authority on the matter? And if they are not the authority, would you suggest both sides can be right because they're both using the Bible? Or maybe we can never know and just take our best guess and hope we don't commit heresy?
Secondly, did you check into the Arian heresy and First Council? It's important to note here that many, maybe even the majority, of the faithful, both lay and clergy, agreed with or were leaning towards Arius. The BISHOPS (not anyone who felt like it) convened and sought discernment. The BISHOPS declared that Arius was wrong. Arius used biblical sources for his argument. The other side used biblical sources for their argument. The BISHOPS through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (who leads the Church to truth) were the authority on the situation. That is how the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church works. Or are we ok in believing in Arianism because we can't really know and he used the Bible to defend his views? So yes, the magisterium (again, teaching authority) of the church was around in 300 and right at the very beginning, in fact. How you can reference church history and call that nonsense is beyond me, unless you don't understand what the magisterium actually is. The magisterium doesn't wave away any of the struggles to understand our faith throughout history. It is merely how we can have confidence that the conclusions reached are true and not leading us into heresy.
ETA: sorry if I'm coming across confrontational. This stuff seems so black and white to be, that I may come across as uncharitable. That's not my goal
You run into the same issue that zobel would have run into.
There is a difference between appealing to tradition, authority, reason, experience, etc., as means of understanding Scripture vs setting up one of those as a dual infallible source. That's the difference you miss.
For Rome, you've elevated the "other" to be on par with Scripture and it is the protestant contention that the "other" then guides your theology. For proof: On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent in its Fourth Session on Scripture and Tradition decreed, "This truth and rule [of the Gospel] are contained in written books and [et] in unwritten traditions."
This is the key distinction and the arguments over Mary are a good example. Rome used "unwritten traditions" to make a claim about Mary. That in turn leads to people like Thaddeus "searching the Scriptures" for Mary...or said different, you are letting the unwritten traditions steer your understanding of the Scriptures.
-----------
Lets clarify the Pope argument. It's not just Protestants, but the ENTIRE Church outside of Rome that does not see the Pope in Scriptures. That means that not only Protestants, but at least one other group with "unwritten traditions" (the EOdox) do not see any justification for the Pope in its current form. Which provides a more interesting conversation because now you see the problem with "unwritten tradition." Because it's defined as unwritten, we have no idea who is correct and yet, as with above, that's what's steering your system.
That should raise concerns for you...
------------
Your last piece is just you trying to insert the word magisterium, in a Rome context, into the historical picture. Sure anybody, protestant or other, see the value of councils. However, the councils themselves are only valid and worth anything if they can show they are correctly holding to Scripture. So, an Ecumenical Council, such as Nicaea 1, is not infallible by itself or more holy than other councils. Instead, Nicaea 1 is Ecumenical because it spoke the Word of God correctly. It also doesn't mean we have to hold to every decree if they don't meet that threshold.
No one is saying there is a dual infallible source. You continue to misunderstand the actual position.
Without a Church that can infallibly define matters of DOCTRINE AND DOGMA (not everything they do is perfect), every interpretation of every verse is subjective. That's the fact of the matter. It may not rear its ugly head on every single verse of the Bible, but many Christian denominations are now using the Bible to contradict long standing Christian teaching. If any person of opposing view points states a verse means something other than what you think it means, there is absolutely no way to tell them they're definitively wrong.
That is your position. You may not want to concede that it is your position, but the logic dictates this. You, your pastor, your denomination or even the church fathers have no authority over anyone to tell them their understanding of the Bible is wrong. One may get as close to reasonably conclude they're wrong, but one can not definitively say it. The insane amount of denominational splits show this to be true.
You claim there is no "other" that goes hand in hand with scripture. Do you hold this to be 100% true (aka infallible)? It doesn't state that in the Bible, so how does one conclude that? If you're getting there by anything other than a crystal clear verse in scripture alone, why can I not ignore that? If there is any amount of interpreting whatsoever or any sort of personal view you bring into the discussion, how are you any different? You're doing the biblical version of "there is no absolute truth". Are you absolutely sure that's true?
What you are missing is that you have some undefined infallibility hidden in your faith. You don't recognize it as one, so you do not label it, yet it must certainly exist. Otherwise I am free to believe the Bible teaches exactly what I currently believe and there is absolutely NO WAY that you can say I'm wrong. You can try to reason with me, weigh different versus or appeal to history/tradition, but by your own admission none of those holds any authority over me or my interpretation of the Bible because no one can infallibly tell me what it means.
I'm trying to show you that you appeal to unwritten traditions just as I do. You appeal to a magisterium just as I do, it's just an invisible one. And please, let's define terms. Magisterium is the TEACHING AUTHORITY of the church. Do you believe your church has a teaching authority? If so, your church has a magisterium. It may not be as well defined or as formal as mine, but it's there. Otherwise how can you say they were correct in Nicea? They made a decision that you say correctly spoke the Word of God, but by what criteria can you possibly measure that? How would one have been able to decide if they were wrong in their judgement? Why am I not free to hold to Arianism, as the exact nature of Jesus is not spelled out perfectly in the Bible and those men at that time may have gotten it wrong? If their interpretation of scripture and tradition is something we are held to, then the magisterium was present at that time. I'm not inserting anything.
Maybe all my beliefs are wrong. Maybe yours are. One thing we can certainly know is that if there is no authoritative body outside of the Bible itself, then neither of us can ever know if we're wrong or not.
Zobel said:
No one is saying there is a dual infallible source. You continue to misunderstand the actual position.
I'm not misunderstanding the actual position. I provided the exact wording.
By definition, Rome themselves is creating a dual souce. One that is written and one that is unwritten.
You can make the claim, "the source is the same," but as I already pointed out, Rome and the EOdox both exist and both hold differing "unwritten" traditions. Since it's unwritten, we don't have an actual source to test it...
So whose unwritten tradition is correct?
But more importantly, how is the unwritten tradition being used? This is the argument. When Rome says they have unwritten tradition that Mary is the co-redemptrix? Is the Pope the supreme leader of the Church? Rome's unwritten tradition says yes, and so they use that to interpret the Scriptures...
They're 2 sides of the same coin. We give the same deference to the deposit of faith that you give to scripture. If someone cites an apparent contradiction in scripture, we know, even if we can't reconcile the contradiction in our finite minds that it's not an ACTUAL contradiction.
I've never been able to move past the fact that you need an extra-biblical.source in order to define what scripture is in the first place.
I've never been able to move past the fact that you need an extra-biblical.source in order to define what scripture is in the first place.
Quote:
Without a Church that can infallibly define matters of DOCTRINE AND DOGMA (not everything they do is perfect), every interpretation of every verse is subjective. That's the fact of the matter. It may not rear its ugly head on every single verse of the Bible, but many Christian denominations are now using the Bible to contradict long standing Christian teaching. If any person of opposing view points states a verse means something other than what you think it means, there is absolutely no way to tell them they're definitively wrong.
That is your position. You may not want to concede that it is your position, but the logic dictates this. You, your pastor, your denomination or even the church fathers have no authority over anyone to tell them their understanding of the Bible is wrong. One may get as close to reasonably conclude they're wrong, but one can not definitively say it. The insane amount of denominational splits show this to be true.
You say you understand Sola Scriptura and then immediately make a caricature of it. I can also take it to the other extreme and say that the Roman Catholic position boils down to the Pope tells everyone what to think, and you just accept it blindly.
Both are caricatures, but I guess we can both play that game...
Quote:
What you are missing is that you have some undefined infallibility hidden in your faith. You don't recognize it as one, so you do not label it, yet it must certainly exist. Otherwise I am free to believe the Bible teaches exactly what I currently believe and there is absolutely NO WAY that you can say I'm wrong. You can try to reason with me, weigh different versus or appeal to history/tradition, but by your own admission none of those holds any authority over me or my interpretation of the Bible because no one can infallibly tell me what it means.
Yet you can't seem to prove what that undefined hidden thing is. Again, and I know you'll disagree, if you truly understood Sola Scriptura, you would see that this argument doesn't hold. I absolutely utilize the skills that God gave myself and the multitudes of others who came before me and are far smarter in every aspect than me. But none of those sources are infallible. All of those sources can be right or wrong when put up against a source that norms them. So far you've raised an unwritten source or the magisterium as your answer and my response is that the magisterium in the Roman Catholic sense is designed to fail. It's not the whole church, it's not even representative of the majority of the Church. It's one de facto denomination that pretends it speaks for the entirety of the church.
It seems to me like the only infallible source is the interpreter, whether that's one person or a group of people and the differences in opinion between prot vs. non-prot comes down to the individual's interpretation vs. the collection of individuals some call the church. Is that not right?
It seems self-evident that scripture is incapable of being infallible on it's own because information does not self-interpret, whether it's scientific data or the bible.
It seems self-evident that scripture is incapable of being infallible on it's own because information does not self-interpret, whether it's scientific data or the bible.
americathegreat1492 said:
It seems to me like the only infallible source is the interpreter, whether that's one person or a group of people and the differences in opinion between prot vs. non-prot comes down to the individual's interpretation vs. the collection of individuals some call the church. Is that not right?
It seems self-evident that scripture is incapable of being infallible on it's own because information does not self-interpret, whether it's scientific data or the bible.
That is why I smile when people talk about the inerrancy of the Bible.
The words are inerrant, the problem is the interpretation and who is the interpreter.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
americathegreat1492 said:
It seems to me like the only infallible source is the interpreter, whether that's one person or a group of people and the differences in opinion between prot vs. non-prot comes down to the individual's interpretation vs. the collection of individuals some call the church. Is that not right?
It seems self-evident that scripture is incapable of being infallible on it's own because information does not self-interpret, whether it's scientific data or the bible.
Scripture is infallible on its own, but it's capable of being misunderstood. The first part is right. If I assign meaning to scripture, and magisterial teaching says otherwise I can know that I'm wrong BECAUSE the magisterium has assured me that I'm wrong.
Yes, that's exactly right.
And it's not merely the collection of the individuals in a vague "wisdom of crowds" way, but the specific collection of individuals who are lead by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit.
And it's not merely the collection of the individuals in a vague "wisdom of crowds" way, but the specific collection of individuals who are lead by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit.
you have an unwritten tradition you follow which is the canon of scripture. again, you can't just have scripture. you have to have scripture + xyz.
being able to quote Trent does not mean you understand their position.
saying that the truth is contained in two places doesn't subordinate one to the other. two photographs of one item can both be true without one being more true than the other.
you keep imposing a dichotomy between scripture and tradition. the premise has to be challenged; they cannot be separated. you can see how easy this is by merely inquiring as to how we know what is scripture without accompanying tradition.
both scripture and tradition are witnesses to Christ, and we are commanded (in the scripture) to hold fast to the gospel we were taught by word or by letter.
the same exact approach is contained within the scriptures themselves. there is only one Gospel, but we have that Gospel according to four witnesses. would you say it is false to say that truth and rule are contained in all four books without bringing them into opposition?
this is like Plato brain on display. distinction does not imply opposition. we don't need to have relative worth to distinguish between Goods.
it's also important that tradition is not synonymous with 'unwritten'. St Paul himself includes the teaching of the gospel as one tradition with two parts, written or word of mouth.
being able to quote Trent does not mean you understand their position.
saying that the truth is contained in two places doesn't subordinate one to the other. two photographs of one item can both be true without one being more true than the other.
you keep imposing a dichotomy between scripture and tradition. the premise has to be challenged; they cannot be separated. you can see how easy this is by merely inquiring as to how we know what is scripture without accompanying tradition.
both scripture and tradition are witnesses to Christ, and we are commanded (in the scripture) to hold fast to the gospel we were taught by word or by letter.
the same exact approach is contained within the scriptures themselves. there is only one Gospel, but we have that Gospel according to four witnesses. would you say it is false to say that truth and rule are contained in all four books without bringing them into opposition?
this is like Plato brain on display. distinction does not imply opposition. we don't need to have relative worth to distinguish between Goods.
it's also important that tradition is not synonymous with 'unwritten'. St Paul himself includes the teaching of the gospel as one tradition with two parts, written or word of mouth.
Claim: the Bible is inerrant
Rebuttal: The Bible doesn't say that
We both agree the Bible is inerrant. I believe that was authoritatively and infallibly defined by The Church, led by the Holy Spirit. How do you arrive at this conclusion without any level of true authority and why should I believe you or whoever you're depending on to arrive at that conclusion? If they weren't given the charism of infallibility, why can't we review the words today for ourselves and arrive at conclusions that hold equal weight to theirs?
Appeal to tradition and history all you want. I can claim those guys were wrong. I can cite verses that give me reason to believe they're wrong. Under your theology we have no way to settle this, and even by appealing to church structure and authority, I can suggest that those passages have been misinterpreted as well.
How can we infallibly say the scriptures are infallible when they scriptures don't call themselves infallible without an infallible authority led by the Spirit? Any debater on sola scriptura I've heard accepts this as some sort of brute fact but that is still a fallible position if they want to be consistent.
Featured Stories
See All
Players to Watch: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Olin Buchanan
85:33
1d ago
6.1k
11:37
3h ago
1.3k
25:08
7h ago
1.1k