The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just because there are many that insist scripture is the final authority doesn't mean they actually behave in this way. This is why we have dozens and dozens of borderline false teachers out there in churches with tens of thousands of congregants.

---

Are not those "false teachers" using the same Scriptures your teachers are?

The point is, Scripture can be interpreted by people in a million different ways. To me, that is why the Creeds are so important as a fundamental basic definition of the Christian faith. And the Creeds are tradition and Scripturally based.

I think as Christians we often spend too much time on theology instead of focusing on Jesus. And strange that Jesus accused the Pharisees of the same thing.
John 5 39

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about Me.

---

To be fair, the theology typically comes from challenges to the current authority. If the response was "our teachers said this is the way we should understand the scriptures/morals/liturgy? Ok", then I think there would be a lot less time spent of theology. And prior to the printing press, that's pretty much how it went. The higher ups debated over what the scriptures meant and the rest of us just went along with it.

---

Zobel said:

---

Where did the lanes come from? You can't start the story 1600 years after Christ came.

---

Zobel said:

---

Sorry, no. You don't have to have an infallible authority to have an accepted authority. Pharisees and Sadducees had different canons and as far as I know neither claimed infallibility. But the canon is part of the authority structure of the group that has those particular writings as canon. It's descriptive. If a book functions as scripture for your group it's canon, and that group has an authority structure.

And by necessity you need <<some>> authority structure to even determine what is and isn't going to function as scripture in your community. Some entity, even if diffuse, is going to decide what is read aloud in your meetings.

What doesn't work is having a scripture function as the authority, because you can have multiple authority structures functioning with the same writings. This is a simple observation of fact.

Books don't DO anything. They are inanimate objects. The people who use them make them canonical or not by how they use them.

Protestants making the claim that the scriptures are their authority are making a de facto appeal to authority of the early Church writ large, that whatever scriptures functioned in those churches is canon for them. But at the same time they reject the same authority structure which chose those writings to function as canon. It's nonsensical, and tail-chasing.

---

The Banned said:

---

This is probably one of the weaker arguments I've seen. Are you really asking how did Jesus (literally God) know what was true in the OT?

The next issue that we run into is that the majority of the OT is historical records. Yes, God moves in several moments in time, but in terms of subject matter, there is far less teaching and much more documentation of events.

Lastly, there was disagreement on what did or didn't belong in Jewish times. If you'd like us to return to a time when we could all disagree about what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't, then authority isn't needed. Do you believe we can challenge if a particular book truly belongs? Even if a "huge portion" was simply widely accepted, that means some wasn't. How do we know those even belong?

Lastly, a "huge portion" of the early church accepted Arianism. A "huge portion" of Christians currently accept contraception. More and more are beginning to accept abortion. I don't really care what a "huge portion" of people accept. Something being widely accepted doesn't make it true. There has to be some authority to determine what is true.

---

Zobel said:

---

Let me phrase my observation about authority in a different way. If the scripture was the actual authority, all the diverse Protestant groups would be in communion with each other. They're not, so it is not. QED.

---

Quote:

---

Of course protestants appeal to the early church. We are all children of it. The key difference is we do not hold any council or person or group as infallible. We are all human and fallible.

The only infallible item we or anyone can point to is the Scriptures.

---

The Banned said:

---

I'm curious: if the EO bishops got together and removed a book, would that pass muster for you? I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical that would never happen. I'm just interested in what it looks like for a fallible authority to have decided on canon.

---

The Banned said:

---

I'm curious: if the EO bishops got together and removed a book, would that pass muster for you? I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical that would never happen. I'm just interested in what it looks like for a fallible authority to have decided on canon.

---

Zobel said:

---

It's more or less not in our canon already.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

My wife and I joke sometimes about the fact there are a lot of churches today that would be getting letters.

---

The Banned said:

---

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Of course protestants appeal to the early church. We are all children of it. The key difference is we do not hold any council or person or group as infallible. We are all human and fallible.

The only infallible item we or anyone can point to is the Scriptures.

---

You didn't address the point. You said that an infallible church was required to know what the scriptures are. That is not correct. You're still talking about infallibility, and I never said anything about it.

Again, you don't have to have an infallible authority, just an accepted authority.

You're accepting the authority of the early church by accepting their canon. You also actively reject the authority of the early church on various topics. You can't have both. Their authority either supersedes yours, which makes the canon authoritative and not subject to change, or it does not. If your current authority structure has sufficient authority to say where they were wrong, that must extend to the question of scripture, which books are to be read aloud in church.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a lazy and retread argument.

---

It's not lazy, its factual. What's lazy is handwaving it away without addressing it.

Quote:

---

Likewise, I could say that "If "Tradition" was the actual authority, all the diverse "Tradition" groups would be in communion with each other."

You and Rome have the exact same problem as any protestant group.

---

Yes - that is the point. That is exactly where Rome and Orthodoxy part ways - over different traditions. The communities have a difference in praxis which comes from a difference in tradition, which ultimately resulted in schism. In the end it is a question of authority.

Quote:

---

I'll speak for Lutheranism and simply say this. The issue is never the Scriptures. The issue is always that man, in our fallen state, apply our biases onto Scripture and those biases cause division.

The most obvious example being the Lord's Supper. Calvin, for example, said the "finite cannot contain the infinite." His way of saying that Jesus human body could not be in the Lord's Supper because a human body can only be in one place at one time. Is that a Scriptural point? No, it's a philosophical point.

---

Right. Because for both Lutherans and followers of Calvinism their respective traditions have authority over the scriptures, to interpret and apply.

A writing in and of itself has no power whatever. It's an inanimate object. People make that writing function as scripture, function as authoritative within their communities. And people interpret and apply the content of that writing within their communities.

---

Quote:

---

Yes - that is the point. That is exactly where Rome and Orthodoxy part ways - over different traditions. The communities have a difference in praxis which comes from a difference in tradition, which ultimately resulted in schism. In the end it is a question of authority.

---

Quote:

---

Right. Because for both Lutherans and followers of Calvinism their respective traditions have authority over the scriptures, to interpret and apply.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

---

Just so I understand your position

Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?

When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?

Bold claim.

---

Jabin said:

---

Another perspective is that the books of the Bible are self-authenticating, just like Christ himself was self-authenticating. Christ did not need the seal of approval from the church to verify that he was the son of God and that his words were perfect. Similarly, the inspired written words from the Holy Spirit do not need a seal of approval from any church.

The RCC seems to have a circular argument. It appears to derive its authority and the role of Peter from the words of the scripture. However, it claims that scripture derives its authority from the church.

---

Quote:

---

It cannot self authenticate because it is not a being/person.

---

Quote:

---

It is the early Church who told you which of these were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which ones weren't.

---

Quote:

---

Speaking of Jesus, He never commanded anyone to write anything down. He commanded His apostles to teach. That's what they did. Some of their teaching happened to be written, hence we have a NT. Why was their spoken word not as authoritative as their written word?

---

Quote:

---

Your last paragraph is off by a bit. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equals. Tradition gave us scripture and scripture preserves and guides our tradition.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

And here's the problem. You both claim to be looking back to an unwritten tradition. How do you ever know who is right? You don't. At least for Protestants, we can point to the Scriptures and then debate/argue over different interpretations. In yours and Rome's case, you don't even have that. It's honestly kind of gnostic in the approach of pointing to "secret traditions" to justify your claims.

---

My friend, you would do well to stick to talking about your own confessions. The Orthodox do not make a claim to "unwritten" tradition. The tradition of the Church is fully contained in the public teaching and ministry of the Church. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, which is why you err.

Quote:

---

Do I believe Lutherans have the correct interpretation, or at least the most correct? Yes of course, but that's not because we bring authority over it. Instead we argue that Scripture interprets Scripture and that other groups turn to other methods of interpreting.

---

This is saying the same thing without saying it. Calvinism is also a sola scriptura tradition, as are the Baptists. You don't like saying you have authority over the scripture, but you certainly claim authority to interpret it - as do the Calvinists and Baptists.

The point is that scripture can't interpret itself. NO sola scriptura group would agree with you that they're interpreting the scripture incorrectly or "using philosophy" to add or change the meaning of the text. So you're back at square one, which is why you remain in schism, and why the Protestant movement can only add schism to schism.

But this was all a nice digression away from the point at hand. Where'd you get the canon from at all?

At time zero there was no canon. At the time of the Reformation there was. Someone had to have authority over the text to sift scripture from not. Who was that? For what it is worth, it is perfectly fine to say "the Church writ large" - it doesn't have to be any one person or even any one group.

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

---

Just so I understand your position

Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?

When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?

Bold claim.

---

Again with the ridiculous "did Jesus need the Church" nonsense. You're the only one saying that and it's disingenuous. I'm not responding to posts like that anymore.

According to modern scholarship, Jewish canon was closed in 150-250 AD. So there has to be a body of people that were checking off on what stays and what goes well after the final book was written. Let's say it's only 10% of the OT. If I were Jewish, how could I know they picked they right ones? What if 2% is wrong? Or 2% more should have been included?

The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue

Luther made some changes over 1000 years later. How can we know he chose the right ones? Same issue.

His Protestant offspring completely removed the deuterocanonical books not long after. Were they right to do so? Or was Luther's middle ground correct? Or were the bishops over 1000 years before him correct?

You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.

In your framework, we have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. You take scripture as some sort of brute fact, but scripture very clearly does not tell us which books do and do not belong. It's either a judgement call for each individual/church group OR that job belings to a divinely inspired Church (or Levitical lineage for Jews) that has the authority to do so. So my primary question still stands: by what authority do I know for certain that I can't remove the deuterocanonical books or even the book of James (as Luther so hotly detested)? If tradition is merely helpful in matters of interpretation of scripture, I see no reason to elevate it to some special status in determination of what scripture is. If tradition can tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt what belongs when the Bible itself does not, then you clearly have a second authority outside of the Bible. And if that authority has the ability to determine what is IN the Bible, how can it not authoritatively determine what the biblical texts mean?

---

Quote:

---

You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.

---