Faithful Ag said:

---

Frok said:

---

I appreciated the debate, it's good to see the charitable attitude from both men. I think both sides will think their guy "won" the debate.

My personal opinion on scriptural interpretation, there isn't a specific person or institution with the sole authority to interpretation. I live in the 21st century, I can use technology to read what any wise person has ever said on the subject. I have other believers who can correct me if I'm in error.

The Holy Spirit guides that whether it be your church or others around you.

SO I guess I do agree with the Catholics that you do need outside sources (other believers) to help walk you through it.

---

Catholics don't go to "outside sources". Catholics go to the source that Jesus and the Scriptures instruct us to listen to and promised the Holy Ghost to protect and guide until the end of the age.

Last time I checked the Bible does not instruct us to use AI or google to help us interpret scripture or for doctrinal guidance. Neither does Scripture instruct to rely on other professed Christians. The Bible instructs us. listen to the Church.

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

This has always rubbed be the wrong way. Obviously I'm biased, but it's hilarious when you're discussing Sola Scriptura with someone and they'll reference RC Sproul or Jan Hus or Wycliffe and then in the next breath tell you that it doesn't matter what Iranaeus or Ignatius or Polycarp said because it's extra biblical.

---

Frok said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

This has always rubbed be the wrong way. Obviously I'm biased, but it's hilarious when you're discussing Sola Scriptura with someone and they'll reference RC Sproul or Jan Hus or Wycliffe and then in the next breath tell you that it doesn't matter what Iranaeus or Ignatius or Polycarp said because it's extra biblical.

---

Just an FYI that is not at all what I was saying.

---

Quote:

---

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."663 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,664 who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

This has always rubbed be the wrong way. Obviously I'm biased, but it's hilarious when you're discussing Sola Scriptura with someone and they'll reference RC Sproul or Jan Hus or Wycliffe and then in the next breath tell you that it doesn't matter what Iranaeus or Ignatius or Polycarp said because it's extra biblical.

---

Just an FYI that is not at all what I was saying.

---

Irenaeus said the following:

Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, section 1:

Quote:

---

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."663 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,664 who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself

---

Thinking of this thread, there's are certainly some interesting arguments being made that fit what Irenaeus was arguing against.

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

This has always rubbed be the wrong way. Obviously I'm biased, but it's hilarious when you're discussing Sola Scriptura with someone and they'll reference RC Sproul or Jan Hus or Wycliffe and then in the next breath tell you that it doesn't matter what Iranaeus or Ignatius or Polycarp said because it's extra biblical.

---

Just an FYI that is not at all what I was saying.

---

Irenaeus said the following:

Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, section 1:

Quote:

---

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."663 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,664 who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself

---

Thinking of this thread, there's are certainly some interesting arguments being made that fit what Irenaeus was arguing against.

---

Don't forget section 2:

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

If your point is to prove there is no traditional authority outside of scripture, you have failed. It should be clear to all that Irenaeus is saying that you will deal with people slippery enough to say scripture isn't authoritative AND Tradition isn't authoritative.

Even more important, you will deal with men that see themselves wiser that those who received the tradition directly from the apostles. In full context, this is a fitting post.

I'll address your posts on the other thread when I have the time to. I don't want to do a disservice to the time you took creating lengthy and thought out responses.

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

My point about being in the 21st century is that I can read, and I have access to the Bible as well as other theologians, etc. In the early centuries I likely would not be able to read nor have access to scripture so I would have to depend on the church.

It's a different time now.

---

How do you determine which theologians to listen to when deciding on interpretations of a given passage?

---

This has always rubbed be the wrong way. Obviously I'm biased, but it's hilarious when you're discussing Sola Scriptura with someone and they'll reference RC Sproul or Jan Hus or Wycliffe and then in the next breath tell you that it doesn't matter what Iranaeus or Ignatius or Polycarp said because it's extra biblical.

---

Just an FYI that is not at all what I was saying.

---

Irenaeus said the following:

Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, section 1:

Quote:

---

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."663 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,664 who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself

---

Thinking of this thread, there's are certainly some interesting arguments being made that fit what Irenaeus was arguing against.

---

Don't forget section 2:

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

If your point is to prove there is no traditional authority outside of scripture, you have failed. It should be clear to all that Irenaeus is saying that you will deal with people slippery enough to say scripture isn't authoritative AND Tradition isn't authoritative.

Even more important, you will deal with men that see themselves wiser that those who received the tradition directly from the apostles. In full context, this is a fitting post.

I'll address your posts on the other thread when I have the time to. I don't want to do a disservice to the time you took creating lengthy and thought out responses.

---

Nothing to miss on it. It's actually great.

It should a couple interesting things. First, Irenaeus references to presbyters, which is more related to an elder than the formal structure Rome claims.

Second, note it's not the laying of hands that is important to Irenaeus, but the passing of the tradition.

Finally, as you pointed out, this is paragraph 2, so we must reference back to what I posted. The point still stands that Irenaeus is making the point that it was the Gnostics who claimed the Scriptures were obscure (some might say contradict), that traditions weren't delivered by written documents (oral tradition) and so forth.

So I'll thank you for following up with this one. I thought about posting it myself because of what it supports, but glad to have you do it as well.

---

I'm going to be brief and try to avoid offense: this is nonsensical to me.

You jump to claiming my definition of presbyter is wrong without either asking what my definition is nor offering one of your own.

You then jump to laying on of hands (I assume cutting against the sacrament of ordination) when that's not anywhere in the texts discussed.

Your last paragraph screams "I read this much differently than you", and that's enough for me. I don't care what AgLiving06 believes. I don't want you to care about what I believe. I genuinely want there to be one church.

The way you have gone about "proving" your points by claiming that writings clearly state something that I can not in any way, form or fashion recognize shows me that you and I both need an arbiter. That arbiter is Jesus. The question then becomes did Jesus leave you and I a way to hash out our differences, or does he want use to individually decide how to move forward?

---