|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 5:02:28 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 5:53:51 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10981
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
How do you equate the tradition which was received from the apostles themselves with those of non-apostles (popes, councils, etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 8:34:12 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
As I notice ta_mosquito has already noted, one issue is how one distinguishes between apostolic traditions and the traditions of popes and councils.
There's another issue as well: why must "the tradition which he received from us" be something other than Scripture?
In point of fact, both issues collapse into one, because the only authentic (or authenticatable) apostolic traditions are those found in Scripture.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 11:10:08 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan and Ta mosquito
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epistle.
Tradition can be word of mouth or eqistle, and they are clearly passing something, because they ar supposed to hold on to it.
1 Thess 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The oral word of God also worketh in people.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 11:14:25 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Accidently hit the OK button:
On the second verse they passed things down orally, and is given to them as truth, from God.
So from scripture, tradition was passed down from apostles to non-apostles. They are to keep the traditon that they learned. And on the second verse, the word of God was passed down orally as his truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 6:25:12 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan and Ta mosquito
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epistle.
Tradition can be word of mouth or eqistle, and they are clearly passing something, because they ar supposed to hold on to it.
I find it interesting how we are playing Bible verse hopscotch here, jumping from verse to verse as the verses don't hold up to the burden that is being placed on them. But I'll play along for the moment and look at this one as well.
In context, that's simply referring to the gospel.
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
They, like us, preached the gospel. The Thessalonians were supposed to stand fast and hold the traditions which they were taught whether by word or epistle.
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
1 Thess 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The oral word of God also worketh in people.
Oh, it surely does, which is why we preach the gospel, just like Paul. But the whole Gospel is in Scripture. And again, this additional verse you identified is just before the one I just pointed out above:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact, there is nothing in 2 Thessalonians that suggests that the Thessalonians were taught even one doctrine that is not found in Scripture. They were being told to hold fast to the Gospel.
-TurretinFan
< Message edited by turretinfan -- 8/27/2008 6:32:09 PM >
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 6:31:03 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Accidently hit the OK button:
On the second verse they passed things down orally, and is given to them as truth, from God.
So from scripture, tradition was passed down from apostles to non-apostles. They are to keep the traditon that they learned. And on the second verse, the word of God was passed down orally as his truth.
Undoubtedly it was passed on orally and in written form. The oral passing on of the word of God is called preaching. But Paul was not suggesting some kind of "whisper in the ear" Kabbalistic/Gnostic passing on of secret knowledge about God from bishop to bishop down through the centuries.
In fact, Paul is addressing not the bishop of Thessalonica but the brethren.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 9:32:30 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan:
In 2 Thess 2:15 the key is "or" the say the traditions passed down orally or from epistle.
Or represents the alternative, so paul is saying just because it is not written, doesnt mean you can ignore what you learned orally.
And my goal wasnt to scripture hop, you said that my previous verse didnt address a concern of yours, so I made sure to use some that did.
As far as the Gospel, it is both written and oral.
Also, it is not a whisper in the ear, there are many teachings, such as the eucharist, mary, oral tradition and salvation, which are all passed down from the early church fathers. I dont really feel like pulling up all the names and what they taught, and there is still a lineage of who passed what and whom they learned it from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/28/2008 12:32:07 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan:
quote:
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
So if Paul is only talking to the Thessalonians, then in his letter to to Tim (regarding scripture being profitable and so forth), why do say that is meant to have univerisal meaning, and this is only subject to the Thessalonians? Do you have proof that this was only meant for the Thessalonians and not meant to be taken as a universal meaning as well?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/28/2008 5:24:31 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan:
In 2 Thess 2:15 the key is "or" the say the traditions passed down orally or from epistle.
Or represents the alternative, so paul is saying just because it is not written, doesnt mean you can ignore what you learned orally.
Just "taught" - not "passed down." But no one is saying that the Thessalonians were permitted to ignore the gospel, regardless of the form in which they were given it. That's a straw man.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
And my goal wasnt to scripture hop, you said that my previous verse didnt address a concern of yours, so I made sure to use some that did.
I'm not questioning your motives - just noting a pattern.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
As far as the Gospel, it is both written and oral.
It can be conveyed either way.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Also, it is not a whisper in the ear, there are many teachings, such as the eucharist, mary, oral tradition and salvation, which are all passed down from the early church fathers.
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
I dont really feel like pulling up all the names and what they taught, and there is still a lineage of who passed what and whom they learned it from.
I've already pointed out that no one from your church can identify/document even one doctrine that Paul taught the Thessalonians that is not in the Bible. I'm not sure if you imagine that there is a list out there that provides such documentation ... but as far as I know, no serious apologist for Catholicism claims to be able to do that.
Which puts us right back to where we started from. Scripture is the one inspired source of information that we have, because we don't have the living Paul the apostle teaching us. Instead, we have his epistles. We don't know of anything that Paul taught that didn't make it into the Bible - even if someone were to mistakenly conclude from 2 Thess 2:15 that Paul taught them things that never made it into the Bible.
In other words, if 2 Thess 2:15 means that Paul taught the Thessalonians certain doctrines that were never put anywhere in Scripture (I don't think we have any reason to think that's what it means, but just consider for the sake of the argument) AND Paul considered those certain additional doctrines to be part of "the Gospel" he references in verse 14 (which is necessary from the context, if we grant the first assumption), THEN we simply cannot identify what those certain doctrines are, and Scripture provides us with only an incomplete Gospel.
But that would seem to be a nearly blasphemous claim - and it is certainly not a claim that was made in the early church by Christians.
Continuing ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan:
quote:
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
So if Paul is only talking to the Thessalonians,
He is certainly is speaking to the Thessalonians. His words have value to us, but he did not come and preach to us personally. There is also value for us in this:
2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
But the value for us is not that we need to go on a cloack hunt in Troas, or try to find Paul's lost books.
Getting back to the verse at hand, the value of the point that we need to hold fast the Gospel that we have been taught is essential and enduring. Paul teaches us only by epistle, because he is now in heaven.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
then in his letter to to Tim (regarding scripture being profitable and so forth), why do say that is meant to have univerisal meaning, and this is only subject to the Thessalonians?
Well, you have to read the verses in context. As illustrated by 2 Timothy 4:13 above, when we read the letter in its historical context we recognize that Paul is not asking us to go to Troas. Same thing happens when we hear Paul asking the Thessalonians to hold fast what he preached to them. Paul didn't preach to us, so reading the letter contextually, we recognize that we are not being asked to hold fast what Paul preached to us.
In this passage:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Paul makes a general statement. There is nothing in the context to suggest that it is limited to Timothy, and - in fact - no serious exegetical scholars that I've ever heard of suggest that it is limited to Timothy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Do you have proof that this was only meant for the Thessalonians and not meant to be taken as a universal meaning as well?
a) See above. The passage has to be read in context, to be read properly.
b) If you want to say that the verse has "universal meaning" and that the meaning has something to do with multigenerational "oral tradition," then the onus is on you to prove that from the text, not on me to prove it isn't so.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/4/2008 7:27:43 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point. Only to one trying to dismiss the entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it...
In reading the last exchange, it always surprises me that people seem to presume printing presses and vulgar language "Scriptures" before the 16th century. The only way to deal with Scriptures in the 6th century was to have been taught by someone under the authority of Church what the Latin translation meant. If you teach a child that "red" is "green" that child will still stop at the stop signs in the road, even though the signs are "green" in his use of the language. That teaching is authoritative for the child - he can't question it at the time of learning, and that teaching can only be tested against others who have been similarly instructed. In the case of conflict, the "green stop sign" child must either continue on with what he has been taught, or abandon that teaching and assent to a different authority (the one in this case that teaches that stop signs are actually "red" in English) for the definition of the color of stop signs.
This recognition of the flaw of the original teaching authority might cause the child to further test and challenge that authority.
You are dismissing the authority of one who viewed, lived and taught Christianity in the first few centuries of Christianity, in favor of one that attempted to "extra-polate" the Deposit of Faith 16 centuries removed from the action of the Deposit, from texts representing part of that Deposit. Furthermore, you have since diverged from the instruction of that extrapolation to a more personal view, because Calvin didn't have to deal with stem cell research and cloning.
I don't find much authority in the personal view of a single Christian reading an English Bible. I find an awful lot of authority in a 2,000 year old institution specifically created and charged with the mission of defense and teaching of faith for the faithful.
And if I have to choose which one is correctly identifying the color of the stop signs, I am picking the older and wiser of the two options outlined in the last paragraph.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/4/2008 10:38:41 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point. Only to one trying to dismiss the entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it...
That sounds ad hominem to me, but perhaps that's not how you meant it. Please explain how the fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is anything more than a minor point to someone other than the person you describe.
And, of course, your comment itself begs the question. The question is whether your church actually has this mythical "Deposit of Faith." Obviously, if it does not, then someone opposing your church is not trying to dismiss the "entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it."
What's more, the fact that your church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant early church fathers is a significant historical problem for your church. In short, it is not only reasonably doubted that a "Deposit of Faith" beyond Scripture was given to the churches, but it is reasonably held that the Scriptures are the entire rule of faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
In reading the last exchange, it always surprises me that people seem to presume printing presses and vulgar language "Scriptures" before the 16th century.
Printing presses were a technology novelty.
Scriptures in the common tongue have been around since Moses' time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
The only way to deal with Scriptures in the 6th century was to have been taught by someone under the authority of Church what the Latin translation meant.
By the 6th century, the Scriptures had been translated into many languages that we know of.
Armenian,
Coptic (both Sahidic and Boharic dialects),
Ethiopic (Abyssinian),
Frankish (hard to be precisely sure about the dates from the limited manuscript remains),
Georgian,
Gothic,
Greek (The OT was already in Greek before Jesus time ... and the NT was written in Greek),
Latin (which you already mentioned), and
Syriac.
So, no, your claim is not true.
Furthermore, there are many language groups for which we simply don't have conclusive evidence. For example, ancient Gaelic versions are found as early as the seventh century ... but it is hard to know how much earlier the Scripture began to be translated into Gaelic. So, while we have plentiful evidence of the widespread translation of the Bible into the common tongues of men by the 6th century, there may be even more versions that had been made, of which we simply lack existing copies today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
If you teach a child that "red" is "green" that child will still stop at the stop signs in the road, even though the signs are "green" in his use of the language. That teaching is authoritative for the child - he can't question it at the time of learning, and that teaching can only be tested against others who have been similarly instructed. In the case of conflict, the "green stop sign" child must either continue on with what he has been taught, or abandon that teaching and assent to a different authority (the one in this case that teaches that stop signs are actually "red" in English) for the definition of the color of stop signs.
I'm not sure how this analogy applies ... It seems to me to be mostly irrelevant to the issues presented ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
This recognition of the flaw of the original teaching authority might cause the child to further test and challenge that authority.
That makes sense, I think. But again, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
You are dismissing the authority of one who viewed, lived and taught Christianity in the first few centuries of Christianity, in favor of one that attempted to "extra-polate" the Deposit of Faith 16 centuries removed from the action of the Deposit, from texts representing part of that Deposit.
That's not true.
Instead, I am dismissing the authority of modern Catholicism (20 centuries removed from the apostles) in favor of the authority of Scripture itself. Modern Catholicism is not the same in terms of its views, way of life, or teachings as either Tridentine Catholicism or pre-Tridentine Western Christianity, and we could go on and on.
The Scripture itself is the pure tradition of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, uncorrupted by human innovations. Even from a purely historical perspective, it is the only things we can definitively say were held and taught by the apostles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
Furthermore, you have since diverged from the instruction of that extrapolation to a more personal view, because Calvin didn't have to deal with stem cell research and cloning.
Calvin is not the issue. I don't believe anything on Calvin's authority. Calvin is not to me as your church is to you, instead Scriptures are to me what your church is to you. I happen to agree with a lot of what Calvin said, but that's simply because he was a gifted student of the Bible who was immersed in Scripture. He preached from Scripture almost every day - and his Biblical commentaries are enormous. But there is a one-stop thread for Calvinism ... if you want to discuss Calvinism, I suggest you take the discussion there. As I said at the start of this paragraph, Calvin is not the issue.
What's more - no mysterious "deposit of faith" handed down from the apostles is going to deal with stem cell research and cloning, beyond how those issues are addressed in Scripture. If the 16th century did not know of those technologies, neither did the 1st century. It should be obvious, therefore, that the apostles did not secretly hand down information on these future technologies that was concealed from the rest of the world until the technologies arrived.
In fact, I cannot think of any notable proponent of Catholicism that would claim the apostles handed on such secret teaching in a "deposit of faith." So, actually, the issue of modern technologies (like stem cell research and cloning) are not really helpful to your position.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I don't find much authority in the personal view of a single Christian reading an English Bible. I find an awful lot of authority in a 2,000 year old institution specifically created and charged with the mission of defense and teaching of faith for the faithful.
Even if I were to grant the assumption that modern Catholicism is a "2,000 year old institution" (which it is not), its authority pales in comparison to the authority of Scripture itself. There is a reason: Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The teachings of modern Catholicism are not on that same level.
It also important to reiterate that the comparison is not properly between modern Catholicism and the views of Pastor Calvin or Pastor Wesley or those of any other pastor or teacher, but between modern Catholicism and the Scripture itself.
We do have churches, and we do agree that the church has a measure of authority and responsibility for defense and teaching of the faith. Its authority, however, is subservient to that of God. Thus, when any church goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, it has exceeded its authority.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
And if I have to choose which one is correctly identifying the color of the stop signs, I am picking the older and wiser of the two options outlined in the last paragraph.
Again ... this kind of claim is built on a foundation of false assumptions, some of which are already identified above. It's also built on the false and mistaken comparison between your dogmatic authority (your church - with those faulty historical assumptions) and our persuasive authority (Christian teachers) instead of being a proper comparison between your dogmatic authority (the current teachings of Catholicism) and our dogmatic authority (Scriptures themselves).
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/5/2008 3:05:51 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
That sounds ad hominem to me, but perhaps that's not how you meant it. Please explain how the fact that some teachings that your Church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the Church fathers is anything more than a minor point to someone other than the person you describe. Because I believe that it establishes a relativism of the practice of faith that says that some things are really important, and something things we may dismiss, or consider to be "minor points".
I don't believe this. Neither does my Church. There is an ideal that is the reality of the Deposit of Faith and how we are asked to participate in relationship with God through Jesus, strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Every jot and tittle of the Deposit IS important.
As far as ad hominem, the remark was meant to convey the fact that within Christendom, there are segments that allow the dismissal or trivialization of some aspects of the practice of and participation in faith. I view this differently - where we fall short (by choice or by omission) in our practice has a bearing on the quality of our relationship and its fullness. We cannot achieve a full relationship by relegating aspects of faith to minor points, in my opinion.
quote:
And, of course, your comment itself begs the question. The question is whether your Church actually has this mythical "Deposit of Faith." This of itself is a matter of personal consideration. As we have no living eye-witness to Jesus and the early Church, we cannot "prove" the content of the Deposit of Faith in its entirety, but we may draw a conclusion as to the robustness of the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages. We note that what seem to be the important bits of it were written down, but just as you cannot define the word "lean" for me without seeing me use that word in a sentence to gain insight into the context of my particular use of that word, we have to rely on the the passage of the meanings of those words and their proper rendering, from the instruction about those words that has been passed down before us. It is in the robustness and accuracy of this mechanism and its ability to guard and preserve in which we find authority.
You say have made several comments about "Scriptural Authority". What gives Scripture its authority is the belief of the believer that this indeed IS the word of God. The words of Scirpuitre bear witness and an account of the definition of and the calling to participation in the relationship in which God has asked us to participate. There is a matter then of interpretation and application, and my hypothesis is that within this interpretation, and the conversion of the words of Scriptural instruction to an understanding of how it applies to cloning, for example - is an action of the exercise of authority. In my case, I assent to the authority for that interpretation that has existed along with Christianity and has preserved and defended it. You side with the authority of a personal rendering of those same Scriptures, in disagreement with my rendering.
My exercise of my personal authority is to realize that have neither the gifts, nor the tools, nor the preparation to properly develop a personal rendering of Scriptures, and I assent to that authority which I believe has all of those qualities. You apparently believe that you are suitably equipped, gifted and have the tools to accomplish this for yourself. If we are both Spirit led in our endeavors, then the Spirit is telling me that I am lot more stupid than the Spirit is telling you that you are.
I would also charge that your way (personal interpretation) smacks of an acceptance of relativism of faith. The depth and breadth of participation for each of us is limited to our one ability to cope with Scriptures, whether that be learning Koine Greek, Shakespearean Middle English or rolling the dice with one of the "modern" translations. As our abilities are God-given and Spirit-led, its okay to have an errant understanding of faith, because that is what God has given us, and that is where the Spirit has led us.
I contrast that to the view that God gave us Jesus and Jesus gave us Church, whose role and point of existence is for God to reveal faith to the faithful. Everyone has an equal shot at the ideal of faith, and the depth and breadth to which people actually participate and realize the relationship offered by God is dependent on personal discipline, strength, character, will and alignment of that will with the will of God. The relativism that may exist is due to the variability of people's willingness to participate in the entire Deposit which has been made available, and not limited by some personal specialized abilities to actually define that ideal for themselves.
quote:
What's more, the fact that your Church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant early Church fathers is a significant historical problem for your Church. In short, it is not only reasonably doubted that a "Deposit of Faith" beyond Scripture was given to the churches, but it is reasonably held that the Scriptures are the entire rule of faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles. I suppose the opinion of the first sentence is a matter of opinion. The Deposit of Faith is conveyed in the authority of the magisterium. It is not hard to imagine me telling my child a story about my father, and having my child pass that story to their child. One has to guard against embellishment or exaggeration, which I believe has been done by the Church. By this simple means of conveyance, if there is persistence, the story of my father passed to my child might very well survive 2,000 years - especially if it had the relevance of the message that is found in the magisterium.
I contrast that to an extrapolation or reinvention of the deposit removed from the magisterium. If the position of "correct" is occupied, the only ground to squabble about is various shades of "error". This is a genuine problem for some, I believe. The only course of discussion is to insist that "correct" has shifted and moved and made its way to "error". That becomes a matter of opinion, not proof. And that takes the discussion back to "Spirit led".
quote:
Scriptures in the common tongue have been around since Moses' time. Conveyed by people specifically trained by those before them for that task. It is in that preparation and ordination that the authority of these oral Scriptures lie. If someone tells me a story that is almost too good to be true, the first thing I ask is where they heard it from...
That is an appeal to authority. Is the story teller for real, or just blowing smoke at me?
quote:
Instead, I am dismissing the authority of modern Catholicism (20 centuries removed from the apostles) in favor of the authority of Scripture itself. Your understanding of it or mine? Should I just abandon the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation and follow you? Okay...sure. Who in the world are you...?
That appeal to authority is what I believe is missing from the Churches outside the ancient communions. We don't follow the pastor, because he might be wrong (we have to check him against Scripture...our personal standard and interpretation of it), therefore, the Church has no meaning or relevance of authority within the Protestant Church, other than being where we go gather, read a little Scripture, pray together a little, and have coffee and donuts afterwards. It is not a place where we participate in the Church universal in a common order of worship, hearing together the same liturgical readings and hearing the relevance and application of those readings to our modern lives from the authority established to indeed instruct us in these matters. We do not uniformly participate in a common Sacrament of sharing the single everlasting sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our salvation. At least...that's how I see it.
quote:
Calvin is not the issue. He was easy to pick on in the moment in order to make a point. Given my feelings towards Calvin's works, you won't be seeing me anytime soon in the Calvin thread...I concede, he is not the issue, except that he does seem to be a genuine authority for shaping the interpretations of Scripture for some in Christendom, given the numbers who seem to subscribe to his version of Scriptural interpretation.
quote:
Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The teachings of modern Catholicism are not on that same level. They are if they agree with the Deposit of Faith, or in your case - Scriptures.
quote:
Thus, when any church goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, it has exceeded its authority. Within this frame of reference, the authority is an individual decision as to how to accept the instruction of faith, and what I think we are discussing is the position of having a go at Scriptures all by one's self, versus assenting to an authoritative instruction that has been made accessible to us by an institution prepared and gifted for that task.
quote:
Again ... this kind of claim is built on a foundation of false assumptions, some of which are already identified above. It's also built on the false and mistaken comparison between your dogmatic authority (your church - with those faulty historical assumptions) and our persuasive authority (Christian teachers) instead of being a proper comparison between your dogmatic authority (the current teachings of Catholicism) and our dogmatic authority (Scriptures themselves). My signature adequately describes the relationship that I believe exists between Dogma, Scripture and the Church. Scripture is authoritative because a Church or body of believers says so...Catholic or Protestant. The KJV has 66 Books because somewhere at some time some Church decreed it to be so, and to be valid for the development and practice of faith, unless you have that authorization coming from King James himself.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/5/2008 4:06:55 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse:
You are one "tough nut to crack". I have read your post in it's entirety today and you make valid and evidently well thought out points. Although I do not agree with your position on 98% of it, it does make interesting reading.
What about my recent PM to you? Answered it yet? I am waiting.
One small point I must make. The Scriptures are the written Word of God. Their authority comes from HIM. At no time in the past were they not HIS WORD. When one argues with them, he / she is arguing with God himself.
Man may have his interpretations. The Church may have theirs. NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE. The Bible is still and always will be, the everlasting Word of the living God. It's authority comes directly from the author himself and is proven by prophecy made, fulfilled, and recorded within its pages. A claim no other book can make.
As I have said in my posts before - "God said it, that settles it, no discussion required." Our part is to simply believe ( give assent) to what the Bible says. Nothing more. Nothing less.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/7/2008 7:45:23 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
Although I do not agree with your position on 98% of it, it does make interesting reading. I suppose if you agreed with more of what I said, I'd see you at Mass on Sundays...
I don't mind disagreement and constructive dialog.
quote:
What about my recent PM to you? Answered it yet? I am waiting. I had a client cancel an appointment Friday, so I had 2 1/2 hours free to do some posting - what you see above is one of them. I didn't get the "You have a PM" notice on your PM's, so I am just now seeing your 4 PM's from the 27th and the 29th. I'll try to get to them during this week.
quote:
The Scriptures are the written Word of God. Their authority comes from HIM. Amen to this, but we both accept that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture, and that it is not the authoritative word of God. So somewhere, God appears to have a deputy or a vicar running around...this 2nd shelf authority is the one I am speaking of when referring to Church authority.
If the only writings that were ever found or that ever existed were all "of God", then you might have a point. But someone sifted through the whole pile of all the documents that are there and dictated 27 of them to be the inspired Word of God. Accepting this dictation is assenting the the authority represented by the one doing the choosing and dictating, whether you believe that to be ecclesiastical council, the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus or King James...
I find that most people outside the ancient communions deny this authority exists, but have difficulty answering why the Christian Bookstore doesn't have have all 114 or whatever books claiming to be inspired Scripture sitting on the shelf, and allowing shoppers to compile their own New Testament from among them. Obviously, some high-standing or authoritative Protestant somewhere said that the Protestant NT shall have 27 Books and the OT shall have (...6 minus 7, carry the 1...) 39 Books, and the NT Books shall be Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and the various Epistles etc...(hey, the same ones I use...)
And most Protestants have followed this authority ever since.
A Catholic accepts that this authority is "Church", and that the Church is led from error by the Holy Spirit.
A Protestant usually has not thought about this, and when confronted, will change the subject (at least on this website). Actually, to be fair, many Protestants practice under faiths that do provide enough central guidance to state the the KJV is the "real" Bible. Where did these faiths get this central guidance? And why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?
Again, noting that some do meet annually and do define some level of instruction (my mind drifts back to the Episcopals meeting in New Orleans last year...to tackle openly gay clergy and the schism from the Anglicans, among other sticky wickets...)
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 1:03:29 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
this 2nd shelf authority is the one I am speaking of when referring to Church authority.
quote:
But someone sifted through the whole pile of all the documents that are there and dictated 27 of them to be the inspired Word of God. Accepting this dictation is assenting the the authority represented by the one doing the choosing and dictating, whether you believe that to be ecclesiastical council, the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus or King James... most people outside the ancient communions deny this authority exists
quote:
A Catholic accepts that this authority is "Church", and that the Church is led(kept???) from error by the Holy Spirit.
Doghouse:
I agree. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if it weren't for the "Church" with its Monks, Scribes, and copyists- working through the centuries, we would not have the Scriptures in their present form. Some of my contemporaries may disagree, but we owe a huge debt to those who spent their lifetimes copying the Scriptures and distributing them within the first few centuries of Christianity and yes, they were Catholic.
These are issues of TRANSMISSION AND PRESERVATION.
I am a PRESERVATIONIST and as such, believe that God through the above processes of transmission and preservation has kept his Word pure and free from error. In the case of the OT he did that by granting singular responsibility for these tasks to the Jewish people. In the case of the NT he gave the responsibility to the early church.
When it comes to CANNONIZATION of Scripture, we are speaking, not of transmission and preservation, but RECOGNITION of AUTHORITY as the True Word of God. This is a process of elimination based on certain criteria as to which of the writings truly belong in the Cannon of Scripture.
(see my post #377 for a list of the criteria).
As to the OT, with the exception of the Apocryphal Books, there is very little question as to which books belong. The writings of the Hebrew Scriptures have always (with rare exception) been accepted as belonging by the people of God.
The books of the NT are backed by and even greater number of extant copies than the OT. There are over 5000 manuscript copies and fragments of the twenty seven books of the NT. These manuscripts agree on all major points of doctrine and what variations do exist, due to copyist error, do not affect any major point of doctrine.
God used the church councils to aid in the preservation of His Word. He guided them as to which books to include and which to reject. Men such as ERASMUS, the KJV Translators, etc. were used to translate and compile the books. The books of the Apocrypha were rejected from protestant Bibles based on the SAME criteria that the 39 OT and 27NT were accepted on.
(I should have some info on this around in my library. I will look for it and cite it for you later).
quote:
many Protestants practice under faiths that do provide enough central guidance to state the the KJV is the "real" Bible. Where did these faiths get this central guidance? And why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?
As to "where did these faiths get this central guidance?" I believe that the answer would be God himself through the Holy Spirit. Again, Doghouse, you must remember that I do not consider my Baptist faith to be "protestant" but Biblical. ( not in the sense that Baptist is in the Scriptures, but that our doctrine agrees most closely with the Bible IMHO)
I know that last line sounds a bit exclusive, but it does describe my personal belief. When Baptist doctrine fails to be Biblical doctrine, I will cease to be Baptist.
As to " why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?" I am not quite sure. Most protestant faiths agree on the FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Some churches do have written confessions and creeds which were written on the authority of their individual denomination.
Baptist are an odd lot. They are not as rigid as some other groups. Generally they adhere to the New Hampshire Confession as a broad statement of faith. Most groups will trace their doctrinal statements directly to the Scriptures as well. Where the two (the confession and the Scriptures) differ, the Scriptures are generally given preference. As an individual, I base my belief squarely on the Scriptures as the authoritative word of God.
The instruction of faith for Baptists begins in early childhood and continues through adulthood. It is done through a variety of means including worship services (Sunday (2) and Wednesday), Sunday Bible study for all ages, and through discipleship programs in each local church.
Admittedly, there is much to be desired sometimes in these methods because of human involvement. Humans not being perfect. Some instructors are well educated and others are less educated. It is for this reason that a UNIFORM set of literature is used to instruct and disciple which is based on the Scriptures.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:17:54 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
and yes, they were Catholic. I would say they were catholic (little "c") referring to the universal church as stated in the Apostles' Creed. There was essentially only one universal early church during the "first few centuries of Christianity" until sociopolitical changes in the 300-400s led to the distinct separation between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I realize this is a bit over-simplified but definitely more accurate than your assertion.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:33:12 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Drmark:
My friend thank you for your correction. I too meant 'catholic' in the sense of universal rather than "Catholic" as in the RCC. There is a distinct difference between the church of the NT (catholic) and the RCC of today.
I appreciate your attention to detail. Everyone makes mistakes. I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. Thanks again.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:59:39 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. I don't know, 2preacher, you seem pretty knowledgeable to me! That may be another mistake. 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 1:23:10 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Drmark:
quote:
I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. (mine)
"I don't know, 2preacher, you seem pretty knowledgeable to me! That may be another mistake." (yours)
I hope I am not taking your comment the wrong way. I am just an ordinary guy whom God has granted a relatively good mind to and allowed me the opportunity to gain a good education. It is all because of Him. I am no one special and I am continuously learning. That's why I like corresponding in these forums. They are a good place to sharpen ones skills. "Iron sharpeneth Iron".
I appreciate your comment. Some times people have "too much knowledge" . To put it another way, as Jerry Clower says, they are "educated beyond their intelligence". I sincerely hope that I am not one of those folks.
I only desire to know Christ and my faith better so that I can serve him better.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 2:12:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I only desire to know Christ and my faith better so that I can serve him better. Amen! As it should be for all of us.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 7:49:06 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
That sounds ad hominem to me, but perhaps that's not how you meant it. Please explain how the fact that some teachings that your Church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the Church fathers is anything more than a minor point to someone other than the person you describe. Because I believe that it establishes a relativism of the practice of faith that says that some things are really important, and something things we may dismiss, or consider to be "minor points".
I see. You simply misunderstood my point. My point was that a few scattered teachings from the ECF's do little to substantiate historically the massive body of doctrines presently taught in Catholicism.
quote:
I don't believe this. Neither does my Church. There is an ideal that is the reality of the Deposit of Faith and how we are asked to participate in relationship with God through Jesus, strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Every jot and tittle of the Deposit IS important.
See above.
quote:
As far as ad hominem, the remark was meant to convey the fact that within Christendom, there are segments that allow the dismissal or trivialization of some aspects of the practice of and participation in faith. I view this differently - where we fall short (by choice or by omission) in our practice has a bearing on the quality of our relationship and its fullness. We cannot achieve a full relationship by relegating aspects of faith to minor points, in my opinion.
That's interesting. But this "minor points" is an issue addressed above. What I had meant is that finding a few selected teachings in the ECFs was a minor accomplishment. Considering that you consider every point <b>not</b> minor, it makes my argument all the stronger.
quote:
quote:
And, of course, your comment itself begs the question. The question is whether your Church actually has this mythical "Deposit of Faith." This of itself is a matter of personal consideration.
Is it a matter of personal consideration? And how does one evaluate the claim that your church makes to having a "deposit of faith"?
quote:
As we have no living eye-witness to Jesus and the early Church, we cannot "prove" the content of the Deposit of Faith in its entirety, but we may draw a conclusion as to the robustness of the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages.
a) Again, the statement "the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages," assumes that this "Deposit" exists. That's not been established yet.
b) What is the mechanism? The usual answer is "succession," but succession is not a mechanism by which information is passed on from a bishop to his successor. Another answer sometimes is the ECFs, but - as previously noted - their writings do not support the full breadth of doctrines found in modern Catholicism.
c) And - aside from Scripture - no mechanism for transmission has been seen to be robust.
quote:
We note that what seem to be the important bits of it were written down, but just as you cannot define the word "lean" for me without seeing me use that word in a sentence to gain insight into the context of my particular use of that word, we have to rely on the the passage of the meanings of those words and their proper rendering, from the instruction about those words that has been passed down before us.
"The important bits of it"? As opposed to unimportant bits of it? Doesn't that seem to contradict your earlier remark?
But regardless, Scripture provides context, and - in many cases - usage examples. Obviously, one must generally know the language in which anything is written in order to understand what is written, and the Bible is no exception to that rule of reading.
quote:
It is in the robustness and accuracy of this mechanism and its ability to guard and preserve in which we find authority.
Again, the mechanism in question hasn't even been identified, so that a judgment could be rendered as to whether it is, as you claim, robust or accurate.
quote:
You say have made several comments about "Scriptural Authority".
True.
quote:
What gives Scripture its authority is the belief of the believer that this indeed IS the word of God.
No. Objectively, what gives Scripture its authority is the fact that it is indeed the word of God. Subjectively, we believe what the Scriptures say, because we believe that they are God's word. The fact that they are God's word, however, is unchanged, whether or not a person accepts that fact.
quote:
The words of Scirpuitre bear witness and an account of the definition of and the calling to participation in the relationship in which God has asked us to participate.
Scriptures are God communicating truth to those whose ears are open to hear it. It is the royal proclamation of our King.
quote:
There is a matter then of interpretation and application, and my hypothesis is that within this interpretation, and the conversion of the words of Scriptural instruction to an understanding of how it applies to cloning, for example - is an action of the exercise of authority.
The question is not whether it is an exercise of authority, but an exercise of what kind of authority. In other words, has God given each believer both a responsibility and a corresponding authority to read, understand, and interpret the word of God, applying it to his life? Or is that responsibility and authority reserved for a few people?
An investigation of Scripture demonstrates that such responsibility and authority is given to all believers.
An investigation of the ECFs confirms that they (at least many of them - perhaps all, I cannot recall any that speak to the contrary) recognized this responsibility and authority was given to all believers.
quote:
In my case, I assent to the authority for that interpretation that has existed along with Christianity and has preserved and defended it.
Well, let's be careful about equivocation here. You assent in the teachings of your church, as a matter of principle, even if you do not know what those teachings are. (Correct me if I am wrong about that - but I think you'll agree.)
The teachings of your church, however, are not an interpretation of Scripture - in fact your church has rarely ever claimed to infallibly interpret Scripture. In short, your church's teachings are not (usually) interpretations of Scripture. They are, quite simply, your church's teachings.
Furthermore, your church today may have some connection to the pre-Tridentine church of Rome, but the further back in history we go, the less your church and the church at Rome look alike. I mean, frankly, your church today looks very unlike the way it looked just 50 years ago, before Vatican II.
And, of course, the bishops that lead your church today (whether as bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc.) were not around preserving or defending anything a century ago (I can think of only one or two bishops who are over 90) - or if a few were - let's bump it back to 200 years ago, and you will surely admit that none of those around today had been conceived at that time.
Claiming that your church is somehow historically coextensive with Christianity is a grandiose claim, but it is not one that history bears out ... if one defines your church by what it holds doctrinally and how it practices its religion. Both the doctrines Rome holds and the discipline of life that Rome practices has fluctuated dramatically over the centuries.
quote:
You side with the authority of a personal rendering of those same Scriptures, in disagreement with my rendering.
Again, there is a bit of equivocation that needs to be swept away.
I have God-given authority to interpret the Scriptures. I exercise that authority. That's not quite the same thing as "sid(ing) with the authority of a personal rendering of" the Scriptures.
Nor is your rendering your own (at least, according to your first claim). If we understand your first claim correctly, your rendering is that of your church. But your church is not engaged in interpreting Scriptures in the first place (at least, it very rarely does so <b>infallibly</b>).
So it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. The apples to apples comparison is:
You trust whatever your church teaches, even if you do not know what your church teaches, as a matter of principle; but
I trust whatever Scriptures teaches, even I do not know what Scripture teaches, as a matter of principle.
In other words, your church is your rule of faith, whereas Scripture is my rule of faith.
But it goes beyond that:
You believe that you lack authority to interpret Scripture; and
I believe that I possess authority to interpret Scripture.
And also:
You believe that the role of the Church is to infallibly teach; and
I believe that the role of the Church is to teach (without any guarantee of infallibility).
quote:
My exercise of my personal authority is to realize that have neither the gifts, nor the tools, nor the preparation to properly develop a personal rendering of Scriptures, and I assent to that authority which I believe has all of those qualities.
That sounds very humble. In fact, it is laudable that you recognize your limitations. On the other hand, to take such humility to far is explicitly condemned in some of the strongest possible words, by Scripture:
Isaiah 29:9-14
9Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. 10For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
13Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
quote:
You apparently believe that you are suitably equipped, gifted and have the tools to accomplish this for yourself. If we are both Spirit led in our endeavors, then the Spirit is telling me that I am lot more stupid than the Spirit is telling you that you are.
That is a big "if." The same Spirit cannot be infallibly guiding your church's teachings and telling me that those teachings are wrong. Truth is an objective reality.
quote:
I would also charge that your way (personal interpretation) smacks of an acceptance of relativism of faith.
That would be a false charge. I reject relativism wholeheartedly, as you can see from comment above.
quote:
The depth and breadth of participation for each of us is limited to our one ability to cope with Scriptures, whether that be learning Koine Greek, Shakespearean Middle English or rolling the dice with one of the "modern" translations.
That may be, but that's not really the issue here. Metaphorically, the issue is not how well you play the game, but whether you are even on the playing field. If you refuse to engage in interpretation of Scripture, leaving that to your church, you're not in the game. If you are simply careful about being overly dogmatic about the less clear things in Scripture, you are playing the game cautiously. There's a world of difference between those two things.
quote:
As our abilities are God-given and Spirit-led, its okay to have an errant understanding of faith, because that is what God has given us, and that is where the Spirit has led us.
It is ok, certainly. In fact, its unavoidable. Even if one tries to place one's brain in a jar on the shelf, and leaving the interpreting up to one's church, one still has to interpret what one's church says. Maybe that's an easier task, maybe it is actually more complex, because the enormous volume of church teachings by some churches (particularly yours) are vast. You can say that you, in principle, accept everything that your church teaches - but again - the comparison is to my principled acceptance of Scripture.
So, whether or not we want to, we are going to have errors in our understanding of theology - it's simply an inescapable part of our fallen and fallible humanity.
quote:
I contrast that to the view that God gave us Jesus and Jesus gave us Church, whose role and point of existence is for God to reveal faith to the faithful.
Jesus is God. Those who follow Jesus are the New Testament church. Within the church, there are those who are called to teach and preach the Word of God.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
quote:
Everyone has an equal shot at the ideal of faith, and the depth and breadth to which people actually participate and realize the relationship offered by God is dependent on personal discipline, strength, character, will and alignment of that will with the will of God.
I offer the contrasting view that it is also of Grace, lest any man should boast. If all have an equal shot and some excel because of "personal discipline, strength, character, will and alignment of that will with the will of God," then it sounds like those caused themselves to be different from the others. In fact, that's unavoidable: if it is all of God's will, then it is not of man's will. Thus, I attribute differing abilities to differing gifts God has given. Some are given great understanding of Scripture (John Owen and Jonathan Edwards come to mind) others are given far less magnificent gifts.
Nevertheless, the work of the Spirit in the heart is one that opens the spiritual eyes and unstops the spiritual ears of a person, so that he can see the truth, at least in its most rudimentary form.
quote:
The relativism that may exist is due to the variability of people's willingness to participate in the entire Deposit which has been made available, and not limited by some personal specialized abilities to actually define that ideal for themselves.
The truth is an objective reality. God has blessed some people to see more of the truth than others.
quote:
quote:
What's more, the fact that your Church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant early Church fathers is a significant historical problem for your Church. In short, it is not only reasonably doubted that a "Deposit of Faith" beyond Scripture was given to the churches, but it is reasonably held that the Scriptures are the entire rule of faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles. I suppose the opinion of the first sentence is a matter of opinion.
No. It is an historical reality that your church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant ECFs, and - from an historical perspective - that is a problem. That is a significant problem, because of the claims (the historical claims) your church makes.
quote:
The Deposit of Faith is conveyed in the authority of the magisterium.
The authority of the magisterium is a characteristic of a governing body - it is not a mechanism for conveying anything (and certainly not for conveying any deposit of faith).
quote:
It is not hard to imagine me telling my child a story about my father, and having my child pass that story to their child.
No, it is not. Yet it would be unrealistic to compare your church's "deposit of faith" to a story that is passed down. Even leading apologists for your church no longer make such a claim, if they ever did.
quote:
One has to guard against embellishment or exaggeration, which I believe has been done by the Church.
a) You don't have a particularly good reason to suppose that a story handed down orally would be preserved in that way.
b) If someone wanted to preserve a story from that kind of change, one would set it down in writing. In fact, that's exactly what God did: it's called the Bible.
quote:
By this simple means of conveyance, if there is persistence, the story of my father passed to my child might very well survive 2,000 years - especially if it had the relevance of the message that is found in the magisterium.
See above.
quote:
I contrast that to an extrapolation or reinvention of the deposit removed from the magisterium.
That's an interesting comparison ... but it's not a comparison to the real alternative. It's not a comparison to Scripture.
quote:
If the position of "correct" is occupied, the only ground to squabble about is various shades of "error".
There's plenty of squabbling about whose position is correct. There would be even more squabbling if the religious standard were an unwritten story handed down over hundreds of generations. Instead, we have it all in black and white, and there is still some squabbling.
quote:
This is a genuine problem for some, I believe. The only course of discussion is to insist that "correct" has shifted and moved and made its way to "error". That becomes a matter of opinion, not proof. And that takes the discussion back to "Spirit led".
See above.
quote:
quote:
Scriptures in the common tongue have been around since Moses' time. Conveyed by people specifically trained by those before them for that task.
Conveyed in writing. That's the nature of Scriptures, namely to be written.
quote:
It is in that preparation and ordination that the authority of these oral Scriptures lie.
a) "Oral Scriptures" is an oxymoron.
b) The authority of Scriptures derives solely from its author: God.
quote:
If someone tells me a story that is almost too good to be true, the first thing I ask is where they heard it from...
indeed ...
quote:
That is an appeal to authority. Is the story teller for real, or just blowing smoke at me?
Right. The authority that matters is God's authority, not human authority, when it comes to matters of religion.
quote:
quote:
Instead, I am dismissing the authority of modern Catholicism (20 centuries removed from the apostles) in favor of the authority of Scripture itself. Your understanding of it or mine?
No. Scripture itself. I'm not sure how to make that more clear to you. I hope you are willing to accept the fact that my position is that I accept Scripture over the teachings of modern Catholicism. If you continue to characterize in some other way, I will have to ask myself why you do that.
quote:
Should I just abandon the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation and follow you? Okay...sure. Who in the world are you...?
Again, that is not my request. My request is for you to follow Scripture, not the RCC. I am not interested in having my own followers - in fact, I remain pseudonymous, never relying on my own authority, but only pointing to Scripture.
quote:
That appeal to authority is what I believe is missing from the Churches outside the ancient communions.
There is a world of difference between appealing to the authority of Scriptures and appealing to the authority of one's church, I'll grant you that. But,
a) there are divisions among the "ancient communions;" and
b) other churches (like Mormons for example) make similar claims of authority for their own church.
quote:
We don't follow the pastor, because he might be wrong (we have to check him against Scripture...our personal standard and interpretation of it), therefore, the Church has no meaning or relevance of authority within the Protestant Church, other than being where we go gather, read a little Scripture, pray together a little, and have coffee and donuts afterwards.
I find that "Protestant" is way too broad a category. I am Reformed, and that narrows things down a bit. We do follow the elders, but not blindly. They are teachers for us, not merely coffee-and-donuts buddies. They have spiritual discipline over us, and they exercise that discipline far more effectively and regularly than modern Catholicism does. But the point is not to compare the churches.
Instead, the point is to understand the fact that Scripture warns us that there will be false teachers. If people are to follow their church without using any private judgment, what good is such a warning in Scripture?
quote:
It is not a place where we participate in the Church universal in a common order of worship, hearing together the same liturgical readings and hearing the relevance and application of those readings to our modern lives from the authority established to indeed instruct us in these matters.
Surely you are aware that there are multiple rites within your own church, and that the Traditional Latin Mass has not been abolished, even if it has been largely relegated to obscurity.
quote:
We do not uniformly participate in a common Sacrament of sharing the single everlasting sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our salvation. At least...that's how I see it.
"Participate" is a very vague word. I wonder if you could explain what you mean by it.
quote:
quote:
Calvin is not the issue. He was easy to pick on in the moment in order to make a point. Given my feelings towards Calvin's works, you won't be seeing me anytime soon in the Calvin thread...I concede, he is not the issue, except that he does seem to be a genuine authority for shaping the interpretations of Scripture for some in Christendom, given the numbers who seem to subscribe to his version of Scriptural interpretation.
If you like, visit that thread some time - see who is advocating "his version" and ask them frankly whether they believe it on Calvin's authority, or on Scripture's authority. I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority (and hopefully all) will answer you with the latter answer.
quote:
quote:
Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The teachings of modern Catholicism are not on that same level. They are if they agree with the Deposit of Faith, or in your case - Scriptures.
No. The authority of the teachings is based on their authorship. The fact that teachings happen to be true doesn't make those teachings authoritative.
quote:
quote:
Thus, when any church goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, it has exceeded its authority. Within this frame of reference, the authority is an individual decision as to how to accept the instruction of faith, and what I think we are discussing is the position of having a go at Scriptures all by one's self, versus assenting to an authoritative instruction that has been made accessible to us by an institution prepared and gifted for that task.
"having a go at Scriptures all by one's self," is not an accurate picture
The question is what is to serve as one's rule of faith: an infallible, unchanging book - or a fallible changing magisterium?
quote:
quote:
Again ... this kind of claim is built on a foundation of false assumptions, some of which are already identified above. It's also built on the false and mistaken comparison between your dogmatic authority (your church - with those faulty historical assumptions) and our persuasive authority (Christian teachers) instead of being a proper comparison between your dogmatic authority (the current teachings of Catholicism) and our dogmatic authority (Scriptures themselves). My signature adequately describes the relationship that I believe exists between Dogma, Scripture and the Church. Scripture is authoritative because a Church or body of believers says so...Catholic or Protestant. The KJV has 66 Books because somewhere at some time some Church decreed it to be so, and to be valid for the development and practice of faith, unless you have that authorization coming from King James himself.
Your signature reads, "...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)" Placing your church over Scripture as though it were the judge is shocking to me.
The 66 books are the Bible, because they were inspired by God, not because man judged them to be of God. When man judges otherwise, it is because man is unaware of the objective reality of the truth.
-Turretinfan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 10:42:32 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
I see. You simply misunderstood my point. My point was that a few scattered teachings from the ECF's do little to substantiate historically the massive body of doctrines presently taught in Catholicism. An impressively long post. Thanks for the time.
If you don't mind - I'll brush on a couple of points...
quote:
And how does one evaluate the claim that your church makes to having a "deposit of faith"? One has to begin by accepting that Jesus didn't write a journal. We know what we know from the witness of those who saw Jesus. Some of these folks wrote stuff down. Many more claimed to be these folks and also wrote stuff down. Some who were there didn't write stuff down. Some who were there had written materials attributed to them or wrote stuff down, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These will be important facts to consider in a minute, and nothing slays a beautiful theory like a couple of relevant facts...
quote:
Again, the statement "the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages," assumes that this "Deposit" exists. That's not been established yet. What then is the NT? Did Jesus pen the NT? Or is it a witness to the faith that Jesus placed in the able minds and hearts of the Apostles?
quote:
"The important bits of it"? As opposed to unimportant bits of it? Doesn't that seem to contradict your earlier remark? Just throwing a bone here. As you well know, I accept tradition in addition to the black and white of Scriptures, and believe that tradition is an important context that interprets Scriptures for us.
quote:
Obviously, one must generally know the language in which anything is written in order to understand what is written, and the Bible is no exception to that rule of reading. You were raised speaking Koine Greek in your house...cool. Must have been hard to start kindergarten...
The point being that we Americans and other English speakers can't read Koine Greek without help. Look at the different ways Luke 1:28 is rendered into English. We can try to reconstruct the Deposit and extrapolate it from what manuscripts we have today - or we can seek it in the folks who have been passing it down through the ages.
quote:
Again, the mechanism in question hasn't even been identified, so that a judgment could be rendered as to whether it is, as you claim, robust or accurate. I believe I identified it for me as the magisterium. I agree that you don't accept one. The question I have is if you feel you need one.
quote:
It is the royal proclamation of our King. Interpreted a hundred different ways by His loyal subjects...
quote:
In other words, has God given each believer both a responsibility and a corresponding authority to read, understand, and interpret the word of God, applying it to his life? Or is that responsibility and authority reserved for a few people? Every believer does have the responsibility to use what God has provided to participate in relationship with Him. Some of us recognize Church as that means and resource.
quote:
You assent in the teachings of your church, as a matter of principle, even if you do not know what those teachings are. A mature Catholic assents to the authority of the Church BECAUSE he knows what those teachings are.
quote:
The teachings of your church, however, are not an interpretation of Scripture - in fact your church has rarely ever claimed to infallibly interpret Scripture. They are a discernment of the meaning of the Deposit of faith in a world of nuclear weapons and stem cell research...
quote:
but the further back in history we go, the less your church and the church at Rome look alike. I guess I'll just have to disagree with this statement.
quote:
Both the doctrines Rome holds and the discipline of life that Rome practices has fluctuated dramatically over the centuries. There was a time when many Protestants supported slavery as a reflection of the predestination and selection of the elect by God. This error was the result of culture and social norms that were also different in different times. The Church must have relevance for the times in which it lives, and must interpret, discern and be open to revelation of how faith is to be lived - whether it be in 1817 or 2008.
quote:
I have God-given authority to interpret the Scriptures. I exercise that authority. ...so does the Church that handles snakes and drinks strychnine...Does this type of self discernment guard against error, or help promote it? If the discerners do not come together and sort it out, and authoritatively communicate their findings to the flock, there is nothing but a great mechanism for heresy and schism introduced into the function of Christianity. If the flock does not assent to that authority, and subordinate their their own personal discernment ("hmmm...maybe I got it wrong...") , the result is chaos and anarchy.
Everyone is a student at one time or another. The student is in no position to be the teacher, although a great student may one day become a teacher. Therein lies the authority of the magisterium.
quote:
So it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. The apples to apples comparison is:
You trust whatever your church teaches, even if you do not know what your church teaches, as a matter of principle; but
I trust whatever Scriptures teaches, even I do not know what Scripture teaches, as a matter of principle. I am thinking you may just have triple-deeked yourself...
I trust my Churches instruction because the Church has been at it for a couple of thousand years now, not 500 years taken 50 years at a time (with no magisterium, one can only hope to learn what one can in a single lifetime).
quote:
In other words, your church is your rule of faith, whereas Scripture is my rule of faith. We seek the instruction of Christ as fully as we can. I believe it resides in a dynamic living organization made up of all faithful, with some suitably equipped to help the rest of us; you believe it lies in a fixed number of English words subject to your own personal understanding using your own limited gifts.
I don't deny the power and authority of Scripture, and neither does my Church. To say otherwise is to put words in someone's mouth. But to know and understand the relevance of Luke 1:28, I yield to and assent to the instruction of my Church. You.......don't.
quote:
That is a big "if." The same Spirit cannot be infallibly guiding your church's teachings and telling me that those teachings are wrong. Amen to this. This wouldn't be much of a website if everyone would just yield to the Spirit...now would it?
quote:
That may be, but that's not really the issue here. Metaphorically, the issue is not how well you play the game, but whether you are even on the playing field. If you refuse to engage in interpretation of Scripture, leaving that to your church, you're not in the game. That would be one opinion. Another would be to realize that the game is about seeking the bat that is going to hit the ball the farthest - finding a pinch hitter, if you will. You go up to the plate and face the pitcher; I'll send Babe Ruth to hit for me.
quote:
Even if one tries to place one's brain in a jar on the shelf, and leaving the interpreting up to one's church, one still has to interpret what one's church says. Maybe that's an easier task, maybe it is actually more complex, because the enormous volume of church teachings by some churches (particularly yours) are vast. You can say that you, in principle, accept everything that your church teaches - but again - the comparison is to my principled acceptance of Scripture. The harbor has to be deep enough to float the ship with the deepest hull, now doesn't it? Your last sentence presumes that the teachings of my Church are not in lockstep with Scriptures, which I believe is an erroneous statement. So...we have two opinions staring each other down.
quote:
then it sounds like those caused themselves to be different from the others. Only God causes good and righteousness. People don't scrape that up out of their own nature. You read that way because you hope that's what it is saying.
quote:
The authority of the magisterium is a characteristic of a governing body - it is not a mechanism for conveying anything (and certainly not for conveying any deposit of faith). The magisterium is a means of conveying faith. Its authority lies in its pedigree and its longevity - its connection to the Apostles.
quote:
b) If someone wanted to preserve a story from that kind of change, one would set it down in writing. In fact, that's exactly what God did: it's called the Bible. There are many books beyond the 27 NT Books that lay claim to the Apostolic See. So writing something down, of itself, is not particularly valid for a claim of authenticity.
quote:
It's not a comparison to Scripture. Its a description of how one might view the task of taking a "fresh" view of faith, removed from the context in which it was originally instructed and described.
quote:
"Oral Scriptures" is an oxymoron. This point is conceded. The oxy-moron operating the keyboard meant "oral traditions".
quote:
Right. The authority that matters is God's authority, not human authority, when it comes to matters of religion. I think we define "authority" differently. The acceptance of the KJV as Scriptures is an assent to human authority. Martin Luther's, King James, King Henry the VIII, the Church of England. The index and codex of Scripture is not contained within Scripture itself, anymore than the Webster dictionary definition of "door" does not contain the word "door".
quote:
If people are to follow their church without using any private judgment, what good is such a warning in Scripture? I use private judgment...to decide that the fullest relationship I can have with God through Jesus is by being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. You decide differently - I question how one arrives at that conclusion. That's a lot of self-confidence in my book. And one has to be careful that self confidence is not being prideful, arrogant, or delusional, in my opinion.
quote:
Surely you are aware that there are multiple rites within your own church, and that the Traditional Latin Mass has not been abolished, even if it has been largely relegated to obscurity. Indeed...I have participated in several of them (Maronite, in particular).
quote:
"Participate" is a very vague word. I wonder if you could explain what you mean by it. Faith is both a personal relationship with God, and a relationship with others and with the faith community. I do not see "community" in the notion of personal discernment. I see "individual".
quote:
"having a go at Scriptures all by one's self," is not an accurate picture Then lay it out...and allow me to punch holes in that.
quote:
Placing your church over Scripture as though it were the judge is shocking to me. The words "stem cell research", "personal computer" and "nuclear weapon" are not to be found within Scripture. Someone must referee the interpretation that is gleaned from the Scriptural texts. To me, this is "Church". To you, it seems to me to be "self". And if 100 "selfs" interpret different meanings, then there is chaos, and there is no authority.
If a painter leaves a crew instructions to paint the house red, and some think light red, and some think dark red, and some think pink, and the color blind accidentally apply green, then the house is a mess.
quote:
The 66 books are the Bible, because they were inspired by God, not because man judged them to be of God. When man judges otherwise, it is because man is unaware of the objective reality of the truth. To ignore the fact that somebody had to pick the 27 out from the 120+ that were laying claim to Apostolic authorship is to have selective amnesia, in my opinion. And the fact that most accept 27 and not 26 or 28 is a nod to the authority of Spirit led work of human beings in that pursuit.
That was a nice post you put up. I appreciate the time and thought that went into it. I don't get the stubbornness on an insistence of personal interpretation and discernment. I have no doubt that your gifts far exceed many here. Surely, you recognize that some who have not considered some of what you have brought up here might take what you have presented as authoritative for their faith development.
I just submit to a different teacher, that's all...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/10/2008 6:35:36 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse quote:
And how does one evaluate the claim that your church makes to having a "deposit of faith"? One has to begin by accepting that Jesus didn't write a journal. We know what we know from the witness of those who saw Jesus. Some of these folks wrote stuff down. Many more claimed to be these folks and also wrote stuff down. Some who were there didn't write stuff down. Some who were there had written materials attributed to them or wrote stuff down, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These will be important facts to consider in a minute, and nothing slays a beautiful theory like a couple of relevant facts... I'm not sure how these are relevant facts, and they certainly don't seem to answer the question. Let's proceed, however, to evaluate the rest of what you say, before we decide.
quote:
quote:
Again, the statement "the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages," assumes that this "Deposit" exists. That's not been established yet. What then is the NT? Did Jesus pen the NT? Or is it a witness to the faith that Jesus placed in the able minds and hearts of the Apostles? Well, if the claim is simply that the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages by being inscripturated (i.e. placed into writing as the NT), then we have no disagreement. We agree that the Scripture is the mechanism by which Christ's teachings are handed down to us. But everyone knows that this is not your church's claim.
quote:
As you well know, I accept tradition in addition to the black and white of Scriptures, and believe that tradition is an important context that interprets Scriptures for us. Using a 20th century council (e.g. Vatican II) as a "context" for a document written 1900 years earlier seems rather odd, to say the least. The same goes for using even a 4th century council as a "context" for a document written more than two hundred years before the council convened - it's just a little less extreme in that example.
quote:
quote:
Obviously, one must generally know the language in which anything is written in order to understand what is written, and the Bible is no exception to that rule of reading. You were raised speaking Koine Greek in your house...cool. Must have been hard to start kindergarten... 
quote:
The point being that we Americans and other English speakers can't read Koine Greek without help. Look at the different ways Luke 1:28 is rendered into English. We can try to reconstruct the Deposit and extrapolate it from what manuscripts we have today - or we can seek it in the folks who have been passing it down through the ages. (a) We English speakers didn't learn English without help. This is not a compelling argument. If someone wants to learn the original language, teachers are available. (b) The fact that Luke 1:28 is rendered different ways in English is an interesting topic that deserves further discussion, but it is not particularly due to there being something inscrutable about Koine Greek. (c) Even your church acknowledges the providential preservation of Holy Scriptures. Obviously, we don't have the original manuscripts, but we have such a multitude of ancient copies and translations that we can confidently speak as to the content of the originals. (d) And, as hinted at elsewhere, the passing down through the ages has been accomplished by (i) documentary transmission both in copies of the text, translations of the text, and commentary on the text, and (ii) the folks whose work such documentary transmission was are not around today - they died long ago.
quote:
quote:
Again, the mechanism in question hasn't even been identified, so that a judgment could be rendered as to whether it is, as you claim, robust or accurate. I believe I identified it for me as the magisterium. I agree that you don't accept one. The question I have is if you feel you need one. That doesn't seem to me to be a "mechanism" for transmitting a supposed deposit of faith. Please explain:
How does the magisterium transmit the deposit of faith from Christ and the apostles to 2008? Let me provide two alternatives: (1) the magisterium is a secret organization that holds weekly meetings at which oral teachings known by the older members are taught to and memorized by younger members, thereby transmitting the deposit; or (2) the magisterium is a library that keeps sacred scrolls in a catacomb-like vault hidden deep beneath the Vatican palace, the scrolls containing the entire deposit of faith that was written down in the apostle's time, but never revealed to the public eye. Now, granted, neither of these two alternatives is your church's position. But have you stopped to think whether your church has actually identified any mechanism at all?
quote:
quote:
It is the royal proclamation of our King. Interpreted a hundred different ways by His loyal subjects... Not really. At least, as Chrysostom says, "All things are clear and open that are in divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain." Unlearned and unstable men do pervert Scriptures, but those surely are not the "loyal subjects" you have in mind. Of course, there are things that people disagree about, but that's just part of being imperfect human beings.
quote:
quote:
In other words, has God given each believer both a responsibility and a corresponding authority to read, understand, and interpret the word of God, applying it to his life? Or is that responsibility and authority reserved for a few people? Every believer does have the responsibility to use what God has provided to participate in relationship with Him. Some of us recognize Church as that means and resource. That doesn't really answer the question.
quote:
quote:
You assent in the teachings of your church, as a matter of principle, even if you do not know what those teachings are. A mature Catholic assents to the authority of the Church BECAUSE he knows what those teachings are. (a) I'm not questioning your maturity, just stating a fact. As the founder of the Jesuits stated: “We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.” That's really an acknowledgment of the fact that the hierarchy of the church was that man's rule of faith, and yours as well if you follow his example. (b) Contrary to your statement, I think it would be fair to say that a mature adherent of Catholicism realizes how much of the teachings of his church he does not know. Nevertheless, in principle, he would assent to even those things he doesn't know. (c) Assenting to the authority of one's church because one knows what the church teaches sounds a bit odd. Are you suggesting that "a mature Catholic" renders his judgment that "the Church" has authority, because he agrees with her doctrines?
quote:
quote:
The teachings of your church, however, are not an interpretation of Scripture - in fact your church has rarely ever claimed to infallibly interpret Scripture. They are a discernment of the meaning of the Deposit of faith in a world of nuclear weapons and stem cell research... That's a typical claim, but there are holes. (a) Where is this is supposed Deposit? See my alternatives above. (b) It actually looks like people making up rules ad hoc. What makes you think it isn't simply that?
quote:
quote:
but the further back in history we go, the less your church and the church at Rome look alike. I guess I'll just have to disagree with this statement. May I suggest that you study history. If you do, you'll discover that my statement is correct. It's an historical fact that your church and the church of Rome of 100 years ago look quite dissimilar, and in each preceding hundred years, the dissimilarities grow. Even your own church's historians agree about this.
quote:
quote:
Both the doctrines Rome holds and the discipline of life that Rome practices has fluctuated dramatically over the centuries. There was a time when many Protestants supported slavery as a reflection of the predestination and selection of the elect by God. This error was the result of culture and social norms that were also different in different times. The Church must have relevance for the times in which it lives, and must interpret, discern and be open to revelation of how faith is to be lived - whether it be in 1817 or 2008. There was a time when the pope himself distributed slaves as gifts to his cardinals. If the Protestant error (according to you) was the result of cultural and social norms, what was the cause of the papal error?
quote:
quote:
I have God-given authority to interpret the Scriptures. I exercise that authority. ...so does the Church that handles snakes and drinks strychnine...Does this type of self discernment guard against error, or help promote it? How could we know whether it guards against error or helps promote it, unless we can discern truth from error? And if we can discern truth from error, then the use of snake-handlers as a counter-example wilts. It lacks force, because of the very fact that we can discern that they have erred.
But let me ask you, how could you ever tell if your church was wrong? If your church is your standard for the truth, you really couldn't. You'd be stuck with the same black-white mentality that Ignatius of Loyola had, as mentioned above.
quote:
If the discerners do not come together and sort it out, and authoritatively communicate their findings to the flock, there is nothing but a great mechanism for heresy and schism introduced into the function of Christianity. Let's tackle the "heresy" and "schism" issues separately, since they are separate issues. As to schism, Catholicism hasn't prevented it. Schisms have occurred, even according to Catholicism's definition of schisms. If Catholicism is supposed to prevent schisms, it has failed. Even if it sounds great in theory, it doesn't pan out in practice. As to heresy, who is to say whether Catholicism has adopted heresy or not? If you simply assent to Catholicism's teachings, you are not in a position to judge. And, once you place Catholicism under the higher authority of Scripture, and evaluate it that way, you find all sorts of things that it teaches that are not Scriptural.
quote:
If the flock does not assent to that authority, and subordinate their their own personal discernment ("hmmm...maybe I got it wrong...") , the result is chaos and anarchy. Lemmings do not impose their personal discernment on the situation. There may be no chaos or anarchy, but their march to the sea doesn't end well. Furthermore, Scripture requires us to exercise our personal discernment. Shutting off that part of our minds is not just irrational and lemming-like, it is contrary to the Word of God.
quote:
Everyone is a student at one time or another. The student is in no position to be the teacher, although a great student may one day become a teacher. Therein lies the authority of the magisterium. Human teachers are fallible. A teacher who refuses to be corrected by his students and to learn from them is an arrogant man. If both the teacher and the student are relying on the same copy of Hamlet, the student can legitimately point out where the teacher is misquoting the bard.
quote:
quote:
So it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. The apples to apples comparison is:
You trust whatever your church teaches, even if you do not know what your church teaches, as a matter of principle; but
I trust whatever Scriptures teaches, even if I do not know what Scripture teaches, as a matter of principle. I am thinking you may just have triple-deeked yourself... hmm ... as long as the puck is headed in the right direction, I don't have a problem with that. If the truth makes me look foolish, I'm willing to accept that. On the other hand, I don't really see how you reached your conclusion.
quote:
I trust my Churches instruction because the Church has been at it for a couple of thousand years now, not 500 years taken 50 years at a time (with no magisterium, one can only hope to learn what one can in a single lifetime). (a) Your church's claim is not unique. Eastern Orthodoxy claims its church has been at it for the same amount of time ... and yet it disagrees on the crucial issue of papal infallibility with your church. It also disagrees on the issue of the canon, though it is far less dogmatic about it. (b) The current teachers in Rome have not been doing this for longer than their own lives and the institution doesn't teach in some other way than through the men who are teachers. (c) Besides, rather than make the apples-to-apples comparison of your rule of faith to my rule of faith, you have compared your rule of faith to my aid in faith. In other words, you are trusting in the fact that your church claims an historical connection to the early church, but I am trusting in the Word of God itself: Scripture given by inspiration of God via the pen of the prophets from Moses to John the Apostle. I'm not investing my church with the same kind of trust that you are investing in your church - instead I'm investing that kind of trust in God's word.
quote:
quote:
In other words, your church is your rule of faith, whereas Scripture is my rule of faith. We seek the instruction of Christ as fully as we can. I believe it resides in a dynamic living organization made up of all faithful, with some suitably equipped to help the rest of us; you believe it lies in a fixed number of English words subject to your own personal understanding using your own limited gifts. That's not a fair characterization of the difference between us, and not a fair characterization of my position. Allow me to explain. We (Reformed followers of Christ) seek the instruction of Christ as fully as we can. We believe that the only reliable source for Christ's instruction is found in Scripture, since Scripture alone is described as theopneustas ("God-breathed"). Scripture itself teaches that it is a fixed number of words (it's not in English, of course, that's just a lampoon on your part) and Scripture itself teaches that we must try to understand it using our limited gifts.
quote:
I don't deny the power and authority of Scripture, and neither does my Church. To say otherwise is to put words in someone's mouth. But to know and understand the relevance of Luke 1:28, I yield to and assent to the instruction of my Church. You.......don't. Your method prevents you from ever identifying when your church has made a mistake, and consequently prevents you from identifying any corruption in the teachings of your church. That doesn't sound consistent with Scripture, and it isn't consistent with Scripture. In contrast, I can follow the noble example of the Bereans and search the Scriptures to see whether what your church tells me is true, is actually so.
quote:
quote:
That is a big "if." The same Spirit cannot be infallibly guiding your church's teachings and telling me that those teachings are wrong. Amen to this. This wouldn't be much of a website if everyone would just yield to the Spirit...now would it? Actually, that's not the way the Spirit works, namely to bring about a state of perfect harmony in this life among all those who yield to the Spirit. But, more importantly, how can one tell whether the Spirit that guides your church's teachings is the Holy Spirit? I would suggest that the answer is to open your Bible and compare what they teach to the doctrines found in that document. How else could one reliably judge the matter?
quote:
quote:
That may be, but that's not really the issue here. Metaphorically, the issue is not how well you play the game, but whether you are even on the playing field. If you refuse to engage in interpretation of Scripture, leaving that to your church, you're not in the game. That would be one opinion. No, the truth is not relative - it is absolute. If you refuse to engage in interpretation of Scripture, leaving that to your church, you're not in the game.
quote:
Another would be to realize that the game is about seeking the bat that is going to hit the ball the farthest - finding a pinch hitter, if you will. You go up to the plate and face the pitcher; I'll send Babe Ruth to hit for me. It's easy to see that the Babe is a good choice, because we can compare his stats to those of other players against an objective standard. If you refuse to examine your pinch-hitter according to an objective standard, you don't know whether you're sending in the Babe or simple a babe. All that the pinch-hitter does to the analogy is to push your reliance on personal judgment one step back. You pick the Babe, you get a homer - you pick a babe and he drools all over the plate. If you prevent yourself from being able to tell the difference, you are - in essence - just rolling dice.
quote:
quote:
Even if one tries to place one's brain in a jar on the shelf, and leaving the interpreting up to one's church, one still has to interpret what one's church says. Maybe that's an easier task, maybe it is actually more complex, because the enormous volume of church teachings by some churches (particularly yours) are vast. You can say that you, in principle, accept everything that your church teaches - but again - the comparison is to my principled acceptance of Scripture. The harbor has to be deep enough to float the ship with the deepest hull, now doesn't it? I really don't see how the harbour metaphor applies. Feel free to explain. We find harbour in Scripture: if that doesn't float your boat, perhaps that's a defect in your boat, not in the harbour.
quote:
Your last sentence presumes that the teachings of my Church are not in lockstep with Scriptures, which I believe is an erroneous statement. So...we have two opinions staring each other down. Actually, my sentence ("You can say that you, in principle, accept everything that your church teaches - but again - the comparison is to my principled acceptance of Scripture.") doesn't presume anything about the content of your church's teaching. Instead, it simply compares our (yours and mine) respective principles. Now, the issue of whether the validity of your church's teachings is certainly an interesting one, but your principles prohibit you from investigating that, preventing you from having an opinion based on reasoned judgment through comparison to some higher source of authority.
quote:
quote:
then it sounds like those caused themselves to be different from the others. Only God causes good and righteousness. People don't scrape that up out of their own nature. You read that way because you hope that's what it is saying. I think I read it correctly. There's something of a dilemma: either what distinguishes one man from another is God (in which case "equal chances" doesn't really apply), is man (in which case the man has something - however slight - to boast), some as-yet-unknown third party, or nothing (i.e. either everyone has the same outcome or its random and chaotic).
quote:
quote:
The authority of the magisterium is a characteristic of a governing body - it is not a mechanism for conveying anything (and certainly not for conveying any deposit of faith). The magisterium is a means of conveying faith. Its authority lies in its pedigree and its longevity - its connection to the Apostles. There is an important difference between "the deposit of faith" and "faith." To be clear, either way, the magisterium, as such, is not a mechanism for conveying either the truth or the belief of that truth. The latter is personal (people believe) and the former is informational: the content of what they believe. As for the authority, the pedigree and longevity and even the connection to the apostles may be an interesting and (perhaps) even an important factor: but one cannot logically conclude some kind of infallible authority from those factors.
quote:
quote:
b) If someone wanted to preserve a story from that kind of change, one would set it down in writing. In fact, that's exactly what God did: it's called the Bible. There are many books beyond the 27 NT Books that lay claim to the Apostolic See. So writing something down, of itself, is not particularly valid for a claim of authenticity. I wonder what you mean by "lay claim to the Apostolic See." Perhaps you mean that there are other books that claim to be of Apostolic origin. I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that if someone wants to preserve information from change, they set it down in writing and that's what God did. The fact that others tried to forge apostolic writings should come as no surprise.
quote:
quote:
It's not a comparison to Scripture. Its a description of how one might view the task of taking a "fresh" view of faith, removed from the context in which it was originally instructed and described. I'm not sure how such a description is relevant to the conversation we are having. I'll just move on, unless you think it to be relevant.
quote:
quote:
"Oral Scriptures" is an oxymoron. This point is conceded. The oxy-moron operating the keyboard meant "oral traditions". Ok. But what oral traditions? What is the content of those supposed oral traditions? Most importantly - does it contain anything that Scripture doesn't? If so, how do you know?
quote:
quote:
Right. The authority that matters is God's authority, not human authority, when it comes to matters of religion. I think we define "authority" differently. The acceptance of the KJV as Scriptures is an assent to human authority. Martin Luther's, King James, King Henry the VIII, the Church of England. The index and codex of Scripture is not contained within Scripture itself, anymore than the Webster dictionary definition of "door" does not contain the word "door". Presumably we do define "authority" differently, because your claims don't make any sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by authority, and more specifically, what you mean by "assent to authority." Is simply agreeing with someone else assenting to their authority?
quote:
quote:
If people are to follow their church without using any private judgment, what good is such a warning in Scripture? I use private judgment...to decide that the fullest relationship I can have with God through Jesus is by being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That is an interesting admission, and (I think) really gets to the crux of the matter. I question how "judgment" is involved at all in the process, if you have no way of checking whether your church has erred.
quote:
You decide differently - I question how one arrives at that conclusion. That's simple to answer: one compares the teachings of Rome with the teachings of Scripture, and observes significant differences.
quote:
That's a lot of self-confidence in my book. I'm not sure what you mean there.
quote:
And one has to be careful that self confidence is not being prideful, arrogant, or delusional, in my opinion. Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to refer to here.
quote:
quote:
Surely you are aware that there are multiple rites within your own church, and that the Traditional Latin Mass has not been abolished, even if it has been largely relegated to obscurity. Indeed...I have participated in several of them (Maronite, in particular). ok ... but if so, then you are aware that they are not all worshiping in the same way at the same time ... which suggests that your previous comment was not really relevant to the discussion.
quote:
quote:
"Participate" is a very vague word. I wonder if you could explain what you mean by it. Faith is both a personal relationship with God, and a relationship with others and with the faith community. I do not see "community" in the notion of personal discernment. I see "individual". I'm not certain I see how that clarifies your comment "We do not uniformly participate in a common Sacrament of sharing the single everlasting sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our salvation."
quote:
quote:
"having a go at Scriptures all by one's self," is not an accurate picture Then lay it out...and allow me to punch holes in that. Pretty much as described in Scripture, we have elders, parents, and brethren who teach us out of the word of God. They are a lesser authority to the greater authority of the inspired Scriptures. We're not alone, but our elders, parents, and brethren are not of equal authority with the Word of God. Thus, with the apostles we may reply:
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
quote:
quote:
Placing your church over Scripture as though it were the judge is shocking to me. The words "stem cell research", "personal computer" and "nuclear weapon" are not to be found within Scripture. That is a true, but not particularly relevant point to the discussion.
quote:
Someone must referee the interpretation that is gleaned from the Scriptural texts. You say "someone must referee." Who says someone must referee? The role of referee is Scripture's role. As one early Christian wrote: "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."
quote:
To me, this is "Church". To you, it seems to me to be "self". And if 100 "selfs" interpret different meanings, then there is chaos, and there is no authority. You know, I'd almost buy that ... except that on this issue you've already acknowledged that you picked "Church" using private judgment ... so if private judgment is unreliable and leading to chaos, I'm not sure how you would consider yourself ontologically in any better of a position. Furthermore, if Scripture said "pick a church and let the church decide," we'd be with you, but Scripture actually tells people to use their judgment to discern false teachers - something one cannot do if one turns over one's judgment to one's church.
quote:
If a painter leaves a crew instructions to paint the house red, and some think light red, and some think dark red, and some think pink, and the color blind accidentally apply green, then the house is a mess. God can speak clearly in Scripture. Surely you admit that. If the precise shade is important, he'll be sure to specify it. The God who can open the eyes of the blind will not be frustrated by the colorblind.
quote:
quote:
The 66 books are the Bible, because they were inspired by God, not because man judged them to be of God. When man judges otherwise, it is because man is unaware of the objective reality of the truth. To ignore the fact that somebody had to pick the 27 out from the 120+ that were laying claim to Apostolic authorship is to have selective amnesia, in my opinion. And the fact that most accept 27 and not 26 or 28 is a nod to the authority of Spirit led work of human beings in that pursuit. No doubt it is the Spirit that persuades men to accept the 27 books and not 26 or 28. The question is whether he does so one way or another way. What is interesting is that from the earliest records we have, there is no serious discussion about the vast majority of those extraneous and pseudographic books you mentioned, with the focus of debate centering on a handful of the inspired Scriptures (some of the catholic epistles, the Apocalypse of John, and the book of Hebrews) and a small number of uninspired works (the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistle of Barnabas, the epistles of Clement, and a few others). But the issue was always then (at least among the notable writers that remain), as it is now, are those books inspired? Not: what church or men have given their stamp of approval to those books. The Scriptures were Scriptures before any council accepted them as such. They were the inspired word of God as a simple matter of fact. Either a book of the Bible is inspired and consequently properly canonical, or else it is not.
quote:
That was a nice post you put up. I appreciate the time and thought that went into it. I don't get the stubbornness on an insistence of personal interpretation and discernment. I have no doubt that your gifts far exceed many here. Surely, you recognize that some who have not considered some of what you have brought up here might take what you have presented as authoritative for their faith development. Thanks for the compliments. On the other hand, I would tell anyone who would look to me as their rule of faith that they are looking in the wrong place: they need to look to the inspired Word of God in the Bible, not to the fallible teachings of a mistake-making human (me).
quote:
I just submit to a different teacher, that's all... Sadly, that statement may be true. That's not a good thing. I hope you would desire to say with the Psalmist:
Psalm 71:17 O God, thou hast taught me from my youth: and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works.
If so then, be instructed from the pure word of God! Make that your first authority, and let human authorities (while still useful) occupy a second tier of authority, below that of Scripture: not on a par with it and certainly not sitting in judgment over it.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/11/2008 2:31:22 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
I'm not sure how these are relevant facts, and they certainly don't seem to answer the question. Let's proceed, however, to evaluate the rest of what you say, before we decide. Only a couple of thoughts as I read through the ever-growning mountain of material here...
quote:
Well, if the claim is simply that the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages by being inscripturated (i.e. placed into writing as the NT), then we have no disagreement. We agree that the Scripture is the mechanism by which Christ's teachings are handed down to us. But everyone knows that this is not your church's claim. Apparently, I don't possess the words to convey the notion that there must be a difference between the Deposit of Faith (obtained by an Apostle, living in a personal witness of the earthly Jesus during His ministry here on earth), and the wrods of the New Testament, because of the evidence of the results. One can pick-up a set of NT Scriptures and discern the faith of Benny Hinn, Turretinfan, or the Roman Catholic Church. We know there is a diffeence of discernment, becuase Turretinfan claims the Roman Cathlic Church to be in error, and the Roman Catholic Church claims Turretinfan to be in error (at least in turretinfan's discernment of practice of faith...).
So - who's kidding who? Who is in error and who is correct? If Turretinfan is correct, then Turretinfan should teach the rest of us. If Turretinfan is unwilling to teach, because he may possibly be in error and make mistakes, then is it impossible to assent to the original Deposit of Faith, because it is lost, or is it preserved in some other place?
If I, as a lay person, am seeking assistance and direction from someone knowledgable about faith, who do I seek? You claim that the Roman Catholic Church is erroneous, because it does not follow Scriptures. I say - they don't? Maybe you just don't understand Scriptures very well, or maybe you just don't understand the Roman Catholic Church very well. Which is it?
Or, is the answer to tell me I don't know what I am talking about? Fine then, I'll concede that point. Who do we ask to be the judge of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church adheres to the message of Scriptures? Should we ask Turretinfan's pastor, or the Pope?
Where does this rabbit hole lead?
Again - I see a presumption that anybody can pick uop a copy of the NT and discern the Deposit of Faith. We have ample evidence all around us that this just is not so. And yet, you persist.
quote:
Using a 20th century council (e.g. Vatican II) as a "context" for a document written 1900 years earlier seems rather odd, to say the least. It would if they were starting from a clean slate, as the reformers did. But they didn't. They had the context and history of those who had gone before them from which to do their work.
quote:
If someone wants to learn the original language, teachers are available. Just out of curiosity, do you speak a second language fluently? Colloquially?
quote:
May I suggest that you study history. I have. We must be using different texts.
quote:
As to schism, Catholicism hasn't prevented it. Less than a dozen, compared to 30,000. I'd say they have a better handle on it than other parts of Christianity do.
quote:
You trust whatever your church teaches, even if you do not know what your church teaches, as a matter of principle; but
I trust whatever Scriptures teaches, even if I do not know what Scripture teaches, as a matter of principle. I thought I was being obvious here - perhaps not. I trust what my Church teaches, because it is what has been set up and left for us to provide us with our instruction. You trust what Scripture teaches, because it is what has been set up and left for us to provide us with our instruction. You look at my Chuch, and see error. My Church looks at your reading of Scriptures and sees error. So then - I appeal to authority. And in doing so - scrutinize the discerners. Do I trust the 2,000 year old institution, or the single Christian individual who has been at discernment for what - 20 years? What is the pedigree of these two entities? What are the histrorical roots?
At the end of the day, you claim error. And I ask how? Where? By what standard? You say "Scriptures", but we already know the results of self-discernment; we simply look all around us here. So - error according to your reading and study. Fine - who are you? I mean - the Pope has passed through quite a filter to get where he is. What filter have you passed through?
quote:
I would suggest that the answer is to open your Bible and compare what they teach to the doctrines found in that document. How else could one reliably judge the matter? Okay, I've done that, and all I find is error on your part. So - I guess I just roll the dice and stay Catholic? Or, am I in error to think you are mistaken? Then - convince me. You are going to have to use authority somewhere along the line. You were taught by the finest, masterful Biblical scholars of our day, and in fact have surpassed their insight and comprehension. Really? Which scholars?
quote:
There's something of a dilemma: either what distinguishes one man from another is God (in which case "equal chances" doesn't really apply), is man (in which case the man has something - however slight - to boast), some as-yet-unknown third party, or nothing (i.e. either everyone has the same outcome or its random and chaotic). ...or the man, utilizing his freewill choice, given him by God, to cooperate with God. No reason to boast - simply a selection of a choice from options, the result being to honor a relationship desired, and in so doing, living a holy life.
Boasting about it would be like boasting about mustard on your hamburger, instead of ketchup.
Why are the reformed so afraid to acknowledge choice and freewill?
quote:
Is simply agreeing with someone else assenting to their authority? No, obeying is. Obedi in latin is more accurate. Who said 66 books in the KJV? God? The Holy Spirit? King James? The English Parliament?
quote:
That's simple to answer: one compares the teachings of Rome with the teachings of Scripture, and observes significant differences. That's an opinion or a belief, not a fact.
quote:
That is a true, but not particularly relevant point to the discussion. What do you believe about stem cell research from embrionic stem cells? How did you arrive at this belief? Discerning the relevance of faith in the current setting is the point of the discussion.
quote:
They were the inspired word of God as a simple matter of fact. Either a book of the Bible is inspired and consequently properly canonical, or else it is not. "Canonical" requires decree and assent, does it not? This doesn't happen in the absence of people.
quote:
Make that your first authority, and let human authorities (while still useful) occupy a second tier of authority, below that of Scripture: not on a par with it and certainly not sitting in judgment over it. This would make more sense to me if the people making Scripture there first authority didn't have the far side of 20,000 variants of what it means and what it decreees and what it instructs.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
