The Bible, The Church, Tradition, Authority, and the Canon - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 11:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

From the other thread.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#2 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 12:21 PM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
lurk.gif here to learn!

Here are some of the main questions that came up for me as I was reading in the other discussion:
-Is the Bible inerrant? Should all of it be interpreted literally and given equal weight? What happens when passages disagree? What happens when the message isn't clear, as in interpreted one way by one group and the total opposite by another?
-What was the Church like before the canon of the Bible was fixed? How does that influence how Christians today should practice, if at all?
-Should all aspects of Christian practice be easily described in the Bible (as in, the average reader could justify them)?
-What is the role of Tradition?
-If orthodox (small o!) Christians do not interpret the Bible literally and/or do not adhere to sola scriptura, how do they interpret it and where do they get the theological justification for their practices?
-What is the deal with Sola Scriptura? Is it good/bad/neutral? What is the theological justification for it? What are the arguments against it?

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
#3 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Thanks Bluegoat!  notes2.gif

 

la mamita has some good questions.  I'd also like to ask about Bible versions.  Which one is the most accurate and how do you come to that conclusion?

Purple Sage is offline  
#4 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 02:12 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:
-Should all aspects of Christian practice be easily described in the Bible (as in, the average reader could justify them)?
-What is the role of Tradition?

Not all Christian practices are outlined in the Bible, even when those practices are recommended by the Bible itself. For example, Christ says that when the Bridegroom (himself) is gone, then his disciples will fast, and told them not to fast ostentatiously "as the hypocrites do". However, neither the Gospels nor any other part of the NT explains how or when Christians should fast. We know the early Christians fasted in a specific way; the practice of fasting from specific foods on Wednesdays and Fridays is mentioned in the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents - but is never described in the NT. The practice was established through oral instruction, apparently, and is part of Church Tradition, but could not be arrived at purely by reading Scripture. 

 

 

Quote:
-What is the deal with Sola Scriptura? Is it good/bad/neutral? What is the theological justification for it? What are the arguments against it?

I suppose one argument against Sola Scriptura is that the concept does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

mamabadger is offline  
#5 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 04:13 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:

I suppose one argument against Sola Scriptura is that the concept does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

That's only an argument that works from a solo Scriptura point of view. I'm not sure we have any MDC members who believe that.

 

I'll start by clarifying a few things about sola Scriptura, just because it's a HUGELY misunderstood doctrine and tends to attract strawmen like a candle attracts moths. :p

 

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible alone (generally applied to the Protestant canon, although in theory the concept could apply to the Catholic canon or indeed any set of religious texts) is to be used as the "rule of faith", against which all doctrine is to be judged.

 

It does not mean that explicating doctrines that are not explicit in the Bible is wrong (the Trinity, for instance).

 

It does not mean that oral teaching is wrong; nor discussing Biblical teachings in commentaries and the like.

 

It was not a concept that applied before the formation of the canon.

 

Oral teachings that are in accord with the Bible are authoritative, whether they were preached by Paul before the Scriptures were written or preached today by a pastor in Singapore. However, the teachings are only considered authoritative insofar as they accord with Biblical teaching (according to the usual methods of textual interpretation - hermeneutics, logic, cross-referencing and so on). According to sola Scriptura, no one body of believers or single believer have special revelation or the sole right or ability to interpret Scriptures infallibly. So a Christian who holds to sola Scriptura should never believe a doctrine simply because the Pope said it, or Don Carson said it, or her pastor said it; even if those people are generally reliable. All teachings should be tested against Scripture. (On the flip side, no sola Scriptura advocate should reject a doctrine that is Biblically supported just because it comes from an authority they disagree with on other areas.)

 

I gotta go for a driving lesson. Be back later. :p


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#6 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible alone (generally applied to the Protestant canon, although in theory the concept could apply to the Catholic canon or indeed any set of religious texts) is to be used as the "rule of faith", against which all doctrine is to be judged.

 

Thanks for this definition, Smokering.  Where did the doctrine originate and what were the reasons behind it? 

Purple Sage is offline  
#7 of 300 Old 12-18-2010, 07:16 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Er, Bluegoat's more up on church history than I am, but it developed during the Protestant Reformation. It was one of the five "solas" that were kind of the battle-cry of the Reformation - sola fide, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola (or soli?) Deo gloria... and one other one that I forget. :p Oh, Solus Christus. It developed largely because the Reformers rejected the Catholic claim that it, as a denomination, was the church Christ founded, and thus had the authority and ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. The Reformers believed there were serious Scriptural and logical problems with the way the Church was interpreting the Scriptures, and thus started to question the very concept and necessity of an infallible Tradition. Honestly though, I'm not sure what each individual Reformer thought about the matter - they didn't all believe exactly the same things, and had different emphases in their work in any case.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#8 of 300 Old 12-19-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

So, what evidence is there that Scripture alone was intended by God to be the "rule of faith" against which all doctrine is to be judged?  When the canon was formed and agreed upon, did those who did this do so with the knowledge and intent that it would become the ultimate and final say in matters of faith AND not be subject to the authority of the Church for its proper interpretation?

 

I'm sure there are no easy answers.  I just tend to think that the people who had the Holy Spirit to guide them to form the canon of Scripture are the same people we should trust to interpret those Scriptures.  If there is disagreement over what certain passages mean, there needs to be (in my opinion) an authoritative source that knows what the true meaning is.  And if the Church at the time the Scriptures were written and canonized had the protection of the Holy Spirit to do that, then why do they not have that protection now to interpret them properly?  Why would God abandon the Church like that?

 

I guess that is why there are different definitions of what the Church/church is.

Purple Sage is offline  
#9 of 300 Old 12-19-2010, 11:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

Er, Bluegoat's more up on church history than I am, but it developed during the Protestant Reformation. It was one of the five "solas" that were kind of the battle-cry of the Reformation - sola fide, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola (or soli?) Deo gloria... and one other one that I forget. :p Oh, Solus Christus. It developed largely because the Reformers rejected the Catholic claim that it, as a denomination, was the church Christ founded, and thus had the authority and ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. The Reformers believed there were serious Scriptural and logical problems with the way the Church was interpreting the Scriptures, and thus started to question the very concept and necessity of an infallible Tradition. Honestly though, I'm not sure what each individual Reformer thought about the matter - they didn't all believe exactly the same things, and had different emphases in their work in any case.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Sage View Post

So, what evidence is there that Scripture alone was intended by God to be the "rule of faith" against which all doctrine is to be judged?  When the canon was formed and agreed upon, did those who did this do so with the knowledge and intent that it would become the ultimate and final say in matters of faith AND not be subject to the authority of the Church for its proper interpretation?

 

I'm sure there are no easy answers.  I just tend to think that the people who had the Holy Spirit to guide them to form the canon of Scripture are the same people we should trust to interpret those Scriptures.  If there is disagreement over what certain passages mean, there needs to be (in my opinion) an authoritative source that knows what the true meaning is.  And if the Church at the time the Scriptures were written and canonized had the protection of the Holy Spirit to do that, then why do they not have that protection now to interpret them properly?  Why would God abandon the Church like that?

 

I guess that is why there are different definitions of what the Church/church is.


Yes, Smokering's correct, it is a reformation idea.  You will sometimes get people trying to argue that it is what the Early Church believed, but there is absolutely no historical evidence for that.  Really nada.  She's also right that the different parts of the Reformation had different theological views.  A lot of people think there was one Reformation.  In actuality the Western Church had quite a few break-away groups all around the same time. 

 

As far as their reasoning: most of them actually felt they themselves were The Church, and the Catholics were the ones who had fallen away.  Luther for example was really rather reluctant and only left when he was excommunicated.  The English Reformation just felt they were the same Church but had ditched the Pope and some problematic doctrines.But it seemed quite clear to them that the Catholic Church could not be the arbiter or interpreter of truth as it claimed.  So the perception is that they, the reformers, represented the true remnant of the Church, returning to a truer expression of what the early church believed (although expressed differently).  I am not sure what the other reformers felt specifically about the remaining Catholics, but the Lutherans I believe initially were unsure whether they were still part of the Church or not; after Trent however they affirmed that they were not - they had separated themselves from it.

 

The reformers in all cases were however left in a quandary. None of them were modern sola scriptura fundamentalists; they still thought the Church must interpret doctrine (so they were confessional) and used the lens of tradition to do that.  They were also by no means proponents of religious freedom - looking at England and Geneva shows that clearly. But they could not affirm that Tradition could be the guide to determining true doctrine - that after all is what had been the justification for many of the Catholic positions they rejected.  They then turned to Scripture, as understood by the Church through the lenses of tradition and reason, to be the final guide to doctrinal correctness.  (Interestingly, the same thing has happened in modern times with Scripture, with people losing faith in its place due to higher criticism.  This is where the new liturgical movement which sought to use early church historical documents as a basis for faith comes from.)

 

The Catholic Church has of course maintained that although the Church was indeed corrupt, its protection in doctrinal matters and authority were never lost. 

 

The E.Orthodox on the other hand usually maintain the whole thing was a total dog's breakfast that was the natural result of the Western Christians leaving the true Church (themselves) in the schism.  They would say the Catholics were indeed promulgating heresy and the reformers were correct in that.  Unfortunately when they became separate the reformers kept the basic Catholic structure based on hierarchical leadership, the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine, and although they re-framed it still thought of salvation in terms of merit.  As well, because there was no longer any real understanding of Tradition they were left with only Scripture, which was inadequate to be a guide.  Hence the unfortunate results we see today, the divisions of Christians who are meant to be One.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#10 of 300 Old 12-19-2010, 03:00 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:

So, what evidence is there that Scripture alone was intended by God to be the "rule of faith" against which all doctrine is to be judged?

I can think of a few answers to that. God doesn't contradict Himself; so any extra-Biblical teachings would have to be consistent with Scriptural teachings. God gave us reason, so it is possible for us to look at an extra-Biblical teaching and compare it to the Biblical text, thus determining whether or not it is accurate; and I see no reason to believe God wouldn't want us to do that. The Bereans were commended for it in Scripture, and Paul and Jesus and other NT writers heavily quote the OT scriptures to prove their positions.

 

The attitude of Scripture to Tradition is rather less positive. One of Jesus' main ministry focuses was to demonstrate how legalistic, hypocritical and plain unbiblical the oral traditions of the Jews had become. There were bits of Jewish knowledge the NT writers had no problem believing were factual - the names of a few figures not named in the OT itself, and so on - just as most Protestants are happy to accept bits of extra-biblical historical knowledge, such as the way in which Peter died. But Jesus made it clear he was fulfilling the Jewish law and Jewish prophecies - not the official interpretations of those prophecies. (Indeed, according to the Oral Torah it is impossible Jesus was the Messiah - the interpretations of the Messianic passages required Jesus to do things He did not do, like being accepted by all Jews.) Clearly God gave one set of moral precepts and Biblical documents without establishing an infallible interpretation system, and was extremely displeased when the religious leaders claimed that authority and started putting a hedge around the Torah and so on.

 

In terms of Tradition in the New Testament: God never promised that the church would be infallible - indeed, He promised that false teachers and false doctrine would enter the church, and much of the NT letters are devoted to combating errors that had already crept in. And that was while the Apostles were still alive! Nor did the Scriptural rebuttals rely on authority - "Believe what we teach because we're apostles and we know best" - but provided clear logical proofs for their positions, which could be analysed for accuracy and consistency with other Biblical doctrines. The term "tradition" in the NT is generally used disparagingly, of myths and unbiblical traditions of men; the few instances it is used positively (I think there are only two or three such instances?), it is referring to oral teachings, with no implication that these teachings differed in content from what was written in Scripture.

 

The thing to remember about sola Scriptura is that it is simply the attitude any scholar adopts to the interpretation of any other text. If we're studying Pride and Prejudice, the text itself is our basis for deciding what the author meant. We may view other sources as legitimately historical and of great scholarly value -  contemporary reviews, a few hundred years of critical scholarship, feminist interpretations of the text and so on - but we would never say that Jane Austen must have meant XYZ simply because a certain critic declared it to be so, even if that critic wrote his review a few years after the book was published and with a far greater knowledge of Austen's time and influences. (I suppose we could make an exception for Austen's own writings, which doesn't really fit in with my analogy - but then, she was known to be flippant in her letters, so even those should probably be taken with a grain of salt!) A scholar hellbent on proving a Marxist or feminist reading of the text will certainly twist the writing out of all hermeneutical and historical context; but reason allows other scholars to rebut such claims.

 

Quote:
When the canon was formed and agreed upon, did those who did this do so with the knowledge and intent that it would become the ultimate and final say in matters of faith AND not be subject to the authority of the Church for its proper interpretation?

Not as far as I know. But for the record, sola Scriptura advocates do believe the Church has authority - insofar as its teachings are Biblical.

 

 

Quote:
I'm sure there are no easy answers.  I just tend to think that the people who had the Holy Spirit to guide them to form the canon of Scripture are the same people we should trust to interpret those Scriptures.  If there is disagreement over what certain passages mean, there needs to be (in my opinion) an authoritative source that knows what the true meaning is.  And if the Church at the time the Scriptures were written and canonized had the protection of the Holy Spirit to do that, then why do they not have that protection now to interpret them properly?  Why would God abandon the Church like that?

I don't trust the people who formed the canon because I believe them to be infallible. I trust the canon because the arguments of those who formed the canon, as to its contents, are good arguments, and I can see no reason to dispute their findings (other than the apocryphal writings, if they were initially included). Insofar as their arguments on other matters of doctrine are demonstrably logical and Scriptural, I believe them too. Insofar as they aren't, they are clearly wrong no matter how venerable their proponents. And I'm amused that you phrased it as "God abandoning the Church" - for one thing, God never defined "the Church" as the Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox, and for another, why not assume they are abandoning Him when they start to distort and add to the doctrines He made plain in the Bible?

 

The trouble with church leaders who claim infallibility is that they don't just operate on authority. If they said "X text means Y, regardless of reason and Scriptural consistency, because we say so and we're the boss", I'd have less of a problem with them. (I wouldn't agree with them, but their position would make a certain blunt sense.) But they don't. The official pronouncements on various subjects - birth control, free will, Marian dogmas - use Scripture and logic to defend their positions. And once they do that - once they admit the necessity of logic and Scriptural harmony, and ally their positions with their arguments - they open the doors for someone to say "Well, hang on, that bit doesn't make sense, and you've ignored these three passages, and the Greek in this verse shouldn't really be interpreted that way". If it can be argued, it can theoretically be refuted. And once someone has exposed holes in the logic or flaws in the exegesis, what should he do - believe it anyway? Of course not. God NEVER tells us to believe what is irrational.

 

Of course, that's all academic if you believe the Catholic Church (or the EO church, or the Anglican church) always does have flawless logic and comes up with the most likely and scholarly expositions of the texts. Having familiarised myself with some of those doctrines, I don't. Hence (among other things), Protestantism, and indeed the specific subset of Protestantism to which I belong. Now, there's no infallible guarantee that my denomination is right, but by belief in sola Scriptura and the reliability of logic, it does at least have a system of self-correction, and doctrines can be corrected or dismissed on the basis of rational argumentation, unhindered by claims of infallibility. I think that's a Good Thing.

 

I'll add that in practice, Tradition and/or claims of infallibility doesn't seem to result in noticeable unity anyway. The sola Scriptura position is "Words have meanings, and meanings can be understood; therefore Scripture, being comprised of words, can be understood". The Catholic position requires a mediator, to infallibly interpret the words (I'm not quite sure on what basis, epistemically speaking). But that infallible interpretation must still be interpreted by the fallible minds of the laypeople - and sometimes through several "layers" of fallibility, priests and the like. And in the process, misinterpretations and disagreements with the original interpretation still arise. (It probably doesn't help that they're often written in a very dense legalese that's very hard to make sense of.) It's easy to write off dissenters as not "counting" as proper Catholics, but eliminating all the dissidents isn't really unity. And of course, even theoretically agreeing on a teaching doesn't mean having the moral strength to carry it out - look at the birth control issue. So in practice, there is HUGE disagreement among Catholics, even over doctrines that are very clearly laid out - the ordination of women, the Catholic position on homosexuality, and so on - to say nothing of the Vatican II disagreement, or cultural practices which depart from the official teachings of the church (such as the attitude to statues and icons in some European countries). I would say the Catholic Church could easily be split up into hundreds of "denominations" as doctrinally and practically distinct as many of the Protestant denominations - some of which, despite Catholicism's claims of splintering and schism, are actually extremely similar (Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist-ism spring to mind). So any claims to unity need to be viewed with a skeptical eye. Anglicanism, too, is hardly a solid front these days (I can't speak for Orthodoxy, because I'm not familiar enough with it). And indeed, by Jesus' day Judaism - despite the fact that nearly all the sects believed in the authority of rabbinical intepretation - had an incredible divergence of views, and continues to do so today. In other words: if there's a way to reliably make sure everyone agrees, apparently Tradition ain't it.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#11 of 300 Old 12-19-2010, 11:51 PM
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Just subbing...

genifer is offline  
#12 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 06:10 AM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Smokering, thanks for your long and detailed response.  I'm still in the process of learning, and I do agree with quite a lot of what you're saying.  God does not contradict himself. 

 

 

Quote:
Of course, that's all academic if you believe the Catholic Church (or the EO church, or the Anglican church) always does have flawless logic and comes up with the most likely and scholarly expositions of the texts. Having familiarised myself with some of those doctrines, I don't. Hence (among other things), Protestantism, and indeed the specific subset of Protestantism to which I belong. Now, there's no infallible guarantee that my denomination is right, but by belief in sola Scriptura and the reliability of logic, it does at least have a system of self-correction, and doctrines can be corrected or dismissed on the basis of rational argumentation, unhindered by claims of infallibility. I think that's a Good Thing.

From what I'm learning elsewhere, I am coming to the conclusion that the CC also has a system of self-correction (and the EO does as well).  Upon my research, I'm finding quite logical and not un-Biblical explanations of doctrines which did not make sense to me at first.  Of course, I have four kids and a job and do not have time to study every single detail of every single doctrine, as the vast majority of people on earth also do not have the time and/or the inclination to do this.  It makes sense to me that God would set up a capital-C Church to do this for us, one that we can trust to have the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide them.  Not that mistakes will never be made or that there would never be false teachers to correct, but that on the most important issues we can have certainty that they will not lead us astray.  And I believe that it is said so quite specifically in the Bible that He did set up such Church.  I'm sure that you've read these Scriptures, and of course you interpret them differently.

 

I do realize that there is not 100% unity within the CC (or EO), but that doesn't really mean much.  Disagreement amongst the people does not make the Truth any less true, as I'm sure you agree. 

 

 

Quote:
The sola Scriptura position is "Words have meanings, and meanings can be understood; therefore Scripture, being comprised of words, can be understood".

This may be true, but if it was that easy to do, then there would be much more agreement over the meanings of words than there is.   Many people who are much smarter than I am, and have spent much more time studying than I have, do not all come to the same conclusion on much of what is written in the Bible.  This is the basic problem that (for me, anyway) would logically necessitate a source we can trust to settle these disputes.

Purple Sage is offline  
#13 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 09:51 AM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I may be pointing out the obvious, but the next issue I see is that we would have to define what or WHO the church is in order to say who has authority to interpret. 

 

For new comers, if I must have a label, then I am a conservative Protestant type, phooey on labels.

 

My very brief, off the top of my head, definition of the the church is:

 

Any person who believes in the Lord Jesus, that He died and resurrected and forgave us our sins, and that person has accepted Him as their personal Lord and Savior.  Once this has occurred then that person is a member of the body of Christ, the church, the called out ones, the saints.  Off of memory, I think the Greek is ecclesia?? which literally means the called out ones? I take this to mean called out of the world and into Christ.

  No time to look it up

 

In addition, the Holy Spirit flows among ALL the members of the body of Christ, the church, and can grant ANY member wisdom and revelation concerning the divine.  Our check system is the Bible itself and any other believer that cares to 'check us'.  Our elders or leading ones are a major part of that check system.  I am being very brief here.

 

I also believe that the invention of the printing press was timed perfectly so that the Bible could be in every home for every believer to receive daily nourishment in the word, once they learned to read that is.

 

I shutter to think of all the Truths we would be missing out on if this didn't occur. 


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#14 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 12:20 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:
It makes sense to me that God would set up a capital-C Church to do this for us, one that we can trust to have the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide them.  Not that mistakes will never be made or that there would never be false teachers to correct, but that on the most important issues we can have certainty that they will not lead us astray.  And I believe that it is said so quite specifically in the Bible that He did set up such Church.

By "capital-C Church" do you mean one particular denomination?

 

I believe the Catholic Church is very wrong on a number of very important, fundamental issues, so I can't agree with you there. But we can debate the texts you mention if you want. Where do you get the "capital-C Church" thing from Scripture? Where do you get a promise from God that the capital-C Church will always be correct on the most important issues of doctrine? (Also, you seem to be conceding that mistakes can and possibly are being made - even if these are being made on less important issues of doctrine, isn't that a rather severe problem for the doctrine of Magesterial infallibility? If the individual still has to discern when the Church is right and when it is wrong - including deciding for himself which issues ARE the important ones - then what's the point? Individual interpretation hasn't been eliminated, and you've made a tacit admission that reason can override an official teaching.)

 

 

Quote:
This may be true, but if it was that easy to do, then there would be much more agreement over the meanings of words than there is. 

I don't see why. Humanity is prone to intellectual sins and failings - sloppy logic, eisegesis, the twisting of texts to suit their political purposes, and so on. That isn't a fault of the text or indeed of sola Scriptura. Remember my analogy to secular texts - there are plenty of people who disagree on the meaning of Hamlet, but no scholar throws up his hands and says "Blow it all, it's impossible to find out; it's clear we need an infallible interpreter of this text". Why should the Bible be treated any differently? It's not written in "mystical" words - there's nothing magic about its reasoning or expressions. Unless you go in for the Bible Code thing, with hidden meanings derived from numerology and suchlike, there is no reason to believe the meaning of the Bible is inherently or intrinsically unknowable, any more than any other text. (Specifically, any other ancient text, which does complexify how we understand it - but again, there's no reason to think that's an insurmountable problem.)

 

Also, as I said before, Catholic teachings do not result in unity among Catholics. So your objection cuts both ways. (And you'd have to prove that those who make infallible pronouncements in the Catholic Church weren't also prone to the same intellectual sins as Protestants. Some of those can be determined objectively - bad logic - while history certainly gives us clues as to political motives behind the formation of certain doctrines.)

 

 

Quote:

Many people who are much smarter than I am, and have spent much more time studying than I have, do not all come to the same conclusion on much of what is written in the Bible. This is the basic problem that (for me, anyway) would logically necessitate a source we can trust to settle these disputes.

Can you explain the logical process by which you come to that conclusion? As I said, it's a conclusion that seems rather specific to the Bible - not one of millions of scholars has reached the conclusion for the necessity of an infallible source of interpretation for secular texts. God didn't set up an infallible Magesterium to interpret the Old Testament - and before you say "Yes, but look how wrong they got it", that was largely due to the rulings of those who claimed a similar authority. Are the words of the New Testament qualitatively different from the words in the Old - or indeed in any other text ever written? If so, how?

 

Look at it like the justice system. The law exists in an authoritative state, comprised of words with meanings that can be understood. That doesn't mean it's easy to understand, but it's possible to understand, particularly by someone with experience reading those kinds of text. Nevertheless, the law can be twisted, different laws appear to conflict with each other from time to time (or must be kept in tension with each other), and it is certain that lawyers often manipulate the law in dishonest ways. Even when it is presented correctly, the jury, being comprised of fallible human beings, may vote against what they know to be the law. It's not a perfect system, and nobody ever claimed it was.

 

Nevertheless, we don't say that the law is functionally useless without infallible interpreters. We don't appoint judges who claim a paranormal ability to interpret the law correctly; a verdict given on insufficient evidence, or one that is found to ignore certain laws or misinterpret them is open to being revoked. There is a hierarchy in the justice system, but it is based (in theory, at any rate) on the higher-ups' track record of delivering good verdicts, and they must still justify their verdicts in a way that is open to public scrutiny. We recognise that the system is good - not perfect, because this isn't a perfect world - open to abuse, certainly - but the best alternative we have at present.

 

That's how I see sola Scriptura. It doesn't guarantee that everyone will interpret the Bible correctly - no system does, whether or not it claims infallibility, because all beliefs are filtered by fallible, sinful human minds. Christ promised false teachers for that very reason. But when Apollos was preaching incorrect doctrine, Priscilla and Aquila explained the Way more fully to him - presumably using Scripture and reason. When Paul railed against the Judaisers, he used Scripture and reason. When Jesus was told He was breaking Jewish law, he countered with Scripture and reason (and indeed, a rebuke to his accusers for not knowing their Scriptures better!). To prove the necessity of an infallible source, you would have to explain why Scripture and reason are theoretically  insufficient for obtaining truth - and pointing out differing opinions doesn't count. If you believe that Scripture is infallible and that the laws of logic are infallible, we have an infallible methodology for interpreting an infallible text. In a vacuum, as it were, it should work; and in real life, the alternative is a system which adds a (claimed) infallible mind, but this would only be an improvement if all the minds which received the information were likewise infallible. Short of us all reaching perfection or individual Divine revelation, I can't think of a system which would guarantee all Christians believed the Bible correctly; and I don't see any Biblical evidence that we should expect such a system anyway.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#15 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 01:12 PM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Also, as I said before, Catholic teachings do not result in unity among Catholics. So your objection cuts both ways. (And you'd have to prove that those who make infallible pronouncements in the Catholic Church weren't also prone to the same intellectual sins as Protestants. Some of those can be determined objectively - bad logic - while history certainly gives us clues as to political motives behind the formation of certain doctrines.)

Ok, people love to cite the statistics of Catholics using birth control to say "look! disunity in the Church!" but I, even as a pretty liberal Catholic, don't see it that way. The Church hasn't willy-nilly changed doctrines. It's not like there were 500 years of saying no birth control and all of a sudden the Church started handing out the pill. I am mentioning this because it's a pretty common example here on these discussions.

I think most examples of Catholics not following Catholic doctrine is actually due to poor catechism. The teachings, with scriptural and logical backing, are there for everyone. If you ask a Catholic why condoms are not acceptable as birth control according to the Church, I would bet that most could not answer the question. That's a failure of religious education and formation....or just willful disobedience, but the vast majority are not making some sort of educated disagreement over the basis for the teachings. They simply don't know or don't understand or don't bother trying to learn.

There is definitely a small group of minority voices who question aspects of Church doctrine, like the very conservative folks who don't accept Vatican II and think there's currently no Pope or the very liberal folks who are advocating for women priests or affirmation for GLBT folks. Within these groups, I would argue you will still find a deep understanding of Church doctrine and practices and many people who fundamentally disagree with the teachings end up leaving. It's not a completely monolithic institution, but you don't get a major Catholic movement to eliminate the Trinity or revoke transubstantiation. Fundamental Catholic doctrines have not changed and probably never will. Thank God. I have seen a lot of Catholic unity from the rural and non-literate parishes in Peru to the socially liberal student parish I attended in the US to the socially conservative traditional parish I was confirmed in...same Mass, same teachings, same liturgical calendar...

ok, continue with the deep theological stuff and I'll go back to lurking smile.gif

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
#16 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 01:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

That's how I see sola Scriptura. It doesn't guarantee that everyone will interpret the Bible correctly - no system does, whether or not it claims infallibility, because all beliefs are filtered by fallible, sinful human minds. Christ promised false teachers for that very reason. But when Apollos was preaching incorrect doctrine, Priscilla and Aquila explained the Way more fully to him - presumably using Scripture and reason. When Paul railed against the Judaisers, he used Scripture and reason. When Jesus was told He was breaking Jewish law, he countered with Scripture and reason (and indeed, a rebuke to his accusers for not knowing their Scriptures better!). To prove the necessity of an infallible source, you would have to explain why Scripture and reason are theoretically  insufficient for obtaining truth - and pointing out differing opinions doesn't count. If you believe that Scripture is infallible and that the laws of logic are infallible, we have an infallible methodology for interpreting an infallible text. In a vacuum, as it were, it should work; and in real life, the alternative is a system which adds a (claimed) infallible mind, but this would only be an improvement if all the minds which received the information were likewise infallible. Short of us all reaching perfection or individual Divine revelation, I can't think of a system which would guarantee all Christians believed the Bible correctly; and I don't see any Biblical evidence that we should expect such a system anyway.


Do you feel the same way about the EO and the OO?  Personally I think their case is much stronger than the Catholic one.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#17 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 01:25 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
The sola Scriptura position is "Words have meanings, and meanings can be understood; therefore Scripture, being comprised of words, can be understood".

I agree with Purple Sage on this one; this position is just too simplistic. In fact words have multiple meanings. Trying to understand which meaning was intended, particularly for words in letters that were written thousands of years ago to people that shared with the writer knowledge of culture, facts and circumstances that we don't share... I don't think it is always possible. I'm a professional translator and I run into this problem all the time. In my case, fortunately, I can go back the person who produced the document I'm translating and ask for clarification. We can't do that with the Bible.

 

Now I expect you'll say that there is a lot of scholarship about the facts and circumstances of NT book and we can reason it out based on context and hermeneutics, but I disagree. I just ain't enough.

 

Quote:
Look at it like the justice system. The law exists in an authoritative state, comprised of words with meanings that can be understood. That doesn't mean it's easy to understand, but it's possible to understand, particularly by someone with experience reading those kinds of text.

Actually, this analogy disproves your point, since the justice system does rely on an ultimate authority to interpret laws i.e. the Supreme Court. When a dispute cannot be resolved by the lower courts it goes to the Supreme Court and their word becomes law.

Thao is offline  
#18 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 01:34 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Do you feel the same way about the EO and the OO?  Personally I think their case is much stronger than the Catholic one.

I'm much less familiar with their epistemology. We have some EO MDCers, don't we? I'm hoping some of them will chime in.

 

Quote:
I think most examples of Catholics not following Catholic doctrine is actually due to poor catechism. The teachings, with scriptural and logical backing, are there for everyone. If you ask a Catholic why condoms are not acceptable as birth control according to the Church, I would bet that most could not answer the question. That's a failure of religious education and formation....or just willful disobedience, but the vast majority are not making some sort of educated disagreement over the basis for the teachings. They simply don't know or don't understand or don't bother trying to learn.

Sure, and the same could be said for the vast legions of Protestants who don't follow Biblical teachings. My objection is that Catholics tend to regard that as a failure of sola Scriptura, not a moral or educational problem. (I do think the current school system has a HECK of a lot to answer for - and I don't mean teaching evolution or banning prayer in schools, I mean failing to teach kids how to reason logically. If I ever become a fascist dictator, I'll make sure no kid graduates without passing a class in basic logic and another in philosophy. But anyhoo.) So it cuts both ways - either dissent/disagreement has no impact on the validity of Tradition or sola Scriptura, or it applies equally to both systems. One of the commonest Catholic objections to sola Scriptura is that it doesn't result in unity, so it's relevant to the issue.

 

Quote:
There is definitely a small group of minority voices who question aspects of Church doctrine, like the very conservative folks who don't accept Vatican II and think there's currently no Pope or the very liberal folks who are advocating for women priests or affirmation for GLBT folks. Within these groups, I would argue you will still find a deep understanding of Church doctrine and practices and many people who fundamentally disagree with the teachings end up leaving. It's not a completely monolithic institution, but you don't get a major Catholic movement to eliminate the Trinity or revoke transubstantiation. Fundamental Catholic doctrines have not changed and probably never will. Thank God. I have seen a lot of Catholic unity from the rural and non-literate parishes in Peru to the socially liberal student parish I attended in the US to the socially conservative traditional parish I was confirmed in...same Mass, same teachings, same liturgical calendar...

 

I don't believe that's true. Go back 800 years and tell a Catholic that you don't have to be Catholic to be saved. Go back 2000 years ago and explain the Church's attitude to Mary to the church fathers. Go back 200 years ago and tell a priest that it's OK to use NFP. Development of doctrine is admitted as a phenomenon by the Catholic Church.

 

I'd also question the real unity that using the same rituals implies. It's a common boast of Catholics that you can go to any Catholic Mass anywhere in the world and it will be the same - or would, back when all the services were in Latin - but that doesn't necessarily reflect a unity in the - here it is - individual interpretation or understanding of those teachings. For instance, Catholics in Spain apparently have an attitude to statues which other Catholics find blasphemous. At first blush, it's people around the world kissing the feet of a statue of Mary, and probably paying lip service to the teachings about latria and dulia and hyperdulia - but the actual practices are quite different.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#19 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 01:49 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:

I agree with Purple Sage on this one; this position is just too simplistic. In fact words have multiple meanings. Trying to understand which meaning was intended, particularly for words in letters that were written thousands of years ago to people that shared with the writer knowledge of culture, facts and circumstances that we don't share... I don't think it is always possible. I'm a professional translator and I run into this problem all the time. In my case, fortunately, I can go back the person who produced the document I'm translating and ask for clarification. We can't do that with the Bible.

 

Now I expect you'll say that there is a lot of scholarship about the facts and circumstances of NT book and we can reason it out based on context and hermeneutics, but I disagree. I just ain't enough.

Which words in particular do you find unknowable in the Bible? I can think of one - "parbar" - in the Old Testament, possibly meaning something like "crossroads" - but it's not a word that impacts any doctrinal teaching (nor, indeed, has the Catholic Church bothered to make an infallible pronouncement on its meaning). There are a few words coined in the Bible itself, so without historical precedent - "excruciating", for instance - but I can't think of any offhand that have particularly controversial meanings.

 

Quote:
Actually, this analogy disproves your point, since the justice system does rely on an ultimate authority to interpret laws i.e. the Supreme Court. When a dispute cannot be resolved by the lower courts it goes to the Supreme Court and their word becomes law.

That would make it a bad analogy, not disprove my point. :p But even a Supreme Court verdict can be overturned - by the Supreme Court (or by rewriting the Constitution). In other words, the Supreme Court doesn't claim infallibility, and is willing (in theory, at least) to reverse its rulings if they can be shown to be based on poor reasoning or a bad understanding of the law - or presumably bribery and corruption, etc. They are a concession to practicality, to prevent appeals going on forever; but they don't claim to be infallible. By contrast, nobody in Catholic Church is considered able to reverse a previous ex cathedra statement, even if it could in theory be shown to be flawed (the assumption being, of course, that it would never happen).


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#20 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 03:09 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Which words in particular do you find unknowable in the Bible? I can think of one - "parbar" - in the Old Testament, possibly meaning something like "crossroads" - but it's not a word that impacts any doctrinal teaching (nor, indeed, has the Catholic Church bothered to make an infallible pronouncement on its meaning). There are a few words coined in the Bible itself, so without historical precedent - "excruciating", for instance - but I can't think of any offhand that have particularly controversial meanings.

I didn't say any words were unknowable, Smokering. Read my post again. I'm talking about cases where words have multiple known meanings and it is not clear which one was intended by the author. There have been many unresolved debates on this forum surrounding the meaning of certain words and phrases.

 

Quote:
That would make it a bad analogy, not disprove my point

Well, no analogy is perfect :). But again I am wondering if I'm just spectacularly bad at expressing myself or if you aren't really trying to understand what I'm saying -  I didn't say that your point is categorically disproven, simply that this particular analogy does not prove your point and in fact illustrates the opposite i.e. that the words used in our laws (written in our own language by people of our own time and culture, so in theory should be an easier nut to crack than scriptures written 2,000 years ago) carry multiple meanings and require a final authority to interpret them. Honestly was surprised to see you use it as an analogy, as I had been thinking of using it myself to prove my point.

Apparently we can't even understand each other's words! lol.gif

 

PS - I did want to tell you though, that I really love your siggie. You clearly have a talent with words...

Thao is offline  
#21 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 03:28 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:
I didn't say any words were unknowable, Smokering. Read my post again. I'm talking about cases where words have multiple known meanings and it is not clear which one was intended by the author.

How is that different from "unknowable", if you're implying that it is impossible to determine the author's meaning (as opposed to simply difficult)?

 

Quote:
There have been many such debates on this forum surrounding the meaning of certain words and phrases.

Sure, but that's only a problem if you believe the opposing contributions to such debates were of equal intellectual legitimacy, and representative of all the extant scholarship on the topic, and so on.

 

Actually, I just remembered a few more words whose meanings we don't know in the Bible - mostly botanical terms and the like. But they don't tend to impact on doctrine. "And the key to religion is holy [word that could mean either "charity" or "warfare"]" - potentially problematic, if no other verses in the Bible clarify its likely meaning. "And the breastplate of the priest was decorated with jasper and onyx and [word that presumably means some kind of gemstone]" - not such a problem, unless there's good reason to believe the word means "holy images of Ba'al" or something.

 

Quote:

Well, no analogy is perfect :). But again I am wondering if I'm just spectacularly bad at expressing myself or if you aren't really trying to understand what I'm saying -  I didn't say that your point is categorically disproven, simply that this particular analogy does not prove your point and in fact proves the opposite i.e. that even laws written in our own language by people of our own time and culture carry multiple meanings and require a final arbiter to interpret them. So I was surprised to see you use it.

But in my previous post I pointed out how the "final arbiter" is not analogous to the Catholic Magesterium. Even the highest arbiter has the ability to overturn its previous decisions, which is an admission that its decisions are not infallible simply because they're the Supreme Court, but rely on their knowledge and logical application of the law to be true and thus authoritative. And in theory, any old yokel could point out to a Supreme Court judge that a ruling was based on a misinterpretation, and that judge could get the ruling overturned. So it's not that bad an analogy for sola Scriptura, although it wasn't really where I was going with it.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#22 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Smokering, I don't have time to get into this as much as I'd like but I'd like to briefly say a couple of things.

 

 

Quote:
By "capital-C Church" do you mean one particular denomination?

Yes I do, but I'm not sure which one yet!  orngtongue.gif 

 


I'm not sure which part of your posts to quote next....so I'll just say what's on my mind.

 

I find the concept of an infallible Church (which would have to be more than just the sum of so many fallible minds) much more plausible than saying there is no way to infallibly interpret Scripture or define doctrine.  Why?  Because that is not something I think God would do - give us no means of assurance that we're on the right path other than only our own "fallible, sinful human minds."  Not that people won't decide to reject such assurance in favor of using their own minds - people do that all the time.  But I know enough about myself that I can't depend on my own mind to find my way.  And I think that God wouldn't leave me or anyone else hanging like that because I believe that He wants all of us to find Him and spend eternity with Him.  So that leads me to think that there is a mystical Body of Christ, the Church, that holds the key, and I think that it is a visible Church with defined infallible doctrines.

 

And that's all I've got right now.  lol.gif

Purple Sage is offline  
#23 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 04:42 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I'm in a hurry too, but it seems you're creating a false dichotomy - either "infallibility" or "absolutely no idea". I don't see why the latter is the consequence of not having infallibility, especially if you grant that Scripture (the source) and logical laws (the methodology) are both infallible. We accept that we can learn other things reasonably accurately without the benefit of infallibility (things about the physical world, things contained in books we've read, and so on), so why not things contained in the Bible? Again, you need to prove that Biblical knowledge is qualitatively different to all other knowledge.

 

Further, if you doubt your own intelligence to that extent, an infallible Magesterium can't really help you. You still have to interpret its teachings with your "fallible, sinful human mind", and there's no guarantee you'll get it right. So it seems you have an unsolvable epistemic problem. But infallible knowledge seems an unreasonably high benchmark anyway: on what basis do you think it's necessary?


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#24 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 05:22 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post

 

Quote:
The sola Scriptura position is "Words have meanings, and meanings can be understood; therefore Scripture, being comprised of words, can be understood".

I agree with Purple Sage on this one; this position is just too simplistic. In fact words have multiple meanings. Trying to understand which meaning was intended, particularly for words in letters that were written thousands of years ago to people that shared with the writer knowledge of culture, facts and circumstances that we don't share... I don't think it is always possible. I'm a professional translator and I run into this problem all the time. In my case, fortunately, I can go back the person who produced the document I'm translating and ask for clarification. We can't do that with the Bible.

 

Now I expect you'll say that there is a lot of scholarship about the facts and circumstances of NT book and we can reason it out based on context and hermeneutics, but I disagree. I just ain't enough.

In fact - speaking from the perspective of my own church - the problem is more basic than multiple or confused meanings. The NT was written not only by the early Church, but to and for the Church members. The Epistles, in particular, were epistles after all (letters) to people who were already Christian: the epistle to the Church at Rome, to the Church at Corinth, etc.

If we were to come across a series of letters from, for example, a man to his son, the words might be perfectly clear, but there would be a lot we could make no sense of. They would be full of comments like, "Remember what I told you last week at the barbecue," and "Don't forget about your brother's special event," and "The last report card was certainly a change from the previous one." The son himself, on the other hand, would understand the letters easily. 

The NT is full of references like this, a few direct, but many indirect. Start with the existence of an epistle "to the church at ______." When the epistle was written, there was already a church in place. It was already holding services, apparently on the first day of the week, providing Eucharist to its members, keeping prescribed fasts, baptizing, ordaining clergy as needed. Where did this local church learn the correct way to do all these things, and more? Not from Scripture; it contains no such information. The content of the NT only makes real sense in the context of the Church itself. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

I may be pointing out the obvious, but the next issue I see is that we would have to define what or WHO the church is in order to say who has authority to interpret. 

 

For new comers, if I must have a label, then I am a conservative Protestant type, phooey on labels.

 

My very brief, off the top of my head, definition of the the church is:

 

Any person who believes in the Lord Jesus, that He died and resurrected and forgave us our sins, and that person has accepted Him as their personal Lord and Savior.  Once this has occurred then that person is a member of the body of Christ, the church, the called out ones, the saints.  Off of memory, I think the Greek is ecclesia?? which literally means the called out ones? I take this to mean called out of the world and into Christ.

  No time to look it up

 

In addition, the Holy Spirit flows among ALL the members of the body of Christ, the church, and can grant ANY member wisdom and revelation concerning the divine.  Our check system is the Bible itself and any other believer that cares to 'check us'.  Our elders or leading ones are a major part of that check system.  I am being very brief here.

 


The idea of the invisible Church, as opposed to the more clearly defined membership of the Church is another major division between Protestant and RC/EO theology. For us, the Ecclesia has fairly clear, visible boundaries, just as in OT times it was clear who was an Israelite and who was not. 

The uncomfortable aspect of this doctrine is that there must, therefore, be people who identify themselves as Christian yet are not members of the Church. This idea existed in the earliest days of Christianity, when opposing doctrines were already circulating, and Christians were warned to treat anyone who taught an alternate Gospel as "anathema." (Galatians 1:8-9) In fact, the Gospel account of Christ speaking to the Samaritan woman could be taken as an example of the same belief.  The Samaritans had doctrines which differed from those of the Hebrews only slightly, by modern "fellowship" standards, yet the woman at the well was not told "we believe basically the same thing, no big deal." Because of their alterations in worship, the Samaritans were outside the Ecclesia, and she was told not only that she was mistaken, but "you do not know what you worship." 

mamabadger is offline  
#25 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 06:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Quote:

So, what evidence is there that Scripture alone was intended by God to be the "rule of faith" against which all doctrine is to be judged?

I can think of a few answers to that. God doesn't contradict Himself; so any extra-Biblical teachings would have to be consistent with Scriptural teachings. God gave us reason, so it is possible for us to look at an extra-Biblical teaching and compare it to the Biblical text, thus determining whether or not it is accurate; and I see no reason to believe God wouldn't want us to do that. The Bereans were commended for it in Scripture, and Paul and Jesus and other NT writers heavily quote the OT scriptures to prove their positions.


You can't use the idea that Tradition must be consistent with Scripture as an argument for the use of Scripture along.  If you break it down, you are saying something quite different than what the non-Protestants are saying.

 

You are saying this as far as I can tell.:

Everything that is correct is consistent with Scripture.

Therefore to any tradition that is inconsistent with Scripture is incorrect.

 

What the Church is saying is that Tradition and Scripture are two equally authoritative parts of revelation, and therefore they are consistent.  Just like the gospels and the Epistles and Revelation are all authoritative parts of the NT, and therefore are consistent.  But would you say that one can look at what is written in the Gospels, and if it doesn't seem to square with the Epistles we can dispense with them, they must be wrong?  Of course not!

 

It is only when you have all the information that you are going to be able to look at it and see how it fits together.  And sometimes it may in fact be difficult (we see people trying to dismiss Paul as incompatible with Christ all the time.) 

 

Perhaps a clearer way to describe it is to dispense with the separation of Scripture, as if it was something different than Tradition.  Rather, Scripture is just one part of Tradition, along with the practices of the Church like the Eucharist and the liturgy, or art, or hymns, or the writings of the Fathers, or even the stories of saints.  All of these things are part of the teaching of the Church.  They exist not to interpret Scripture for us - yes, they do that.  But their purpose is to give us the full truth of Christ and help us to unite ourselves to him in the Church.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#26 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 06:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Actually, I just remembered a few more words whose meanings we don't know in the Bible - mostly botanical terms and the like. But they don't tend to impact on doctrine. "And the key to religion is holy [word that could mean either "charity" or "warfare"]" - potentially problematic, if no other verses in the Bible clarify its likely meaning. "And the breastplate of the priest was decorated with jasper and onyx and [word that presumably means some kind of gemstone]" - not such a problem, unless there's good reason to believe the word means "holy images of Ba'al" or something.

 


It isn't that we don't know the meaning of the words, really.  I'm sure you've looked in a serious dictionary used for translation before - the Oxford English if not a foreign language one.  The way they are compiled is they look through all the examples of people using a given word and they tell you all the things that it seems to mean as used by the different author.  Often they give individual authors' uses, and how it is paired with other words and language structures, and in different periods.  And you make your best guess.  But all of this assumes that the compilers actually kind of know what all those other people were really trying to get at, and that your author was trying to get at the same kind of thing.  Which is pretty dicey when you are talking about people that are trying to use language to describe totally new ideas, and who were stretching the language they had to its limits to describe them.(and it is still possible your compilers could be wrong.)

 

It's really the same problem we have when trying to understand modern writers, an English text of this kind, but worse.  Think of the difficulties one has reading Heidegger, or even Hobbes.  Add to that a worldview that is very different, and takes things for granted that we don't even consider, and you have a difficult proposition indeed.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#27 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 07:49 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

Quote:

In fact - speaking from the perspective of my own church - the problem is more basic than multiple or confused meanings. The NT was written not only by the early Church, but to and for the Church members. The Epistles, in particular, were epistles after all (letters) to people who were already Christian: the epistle to the Church at Rome, to the Church at Corinth, etc.

If we were to come across a series of letters from, for example, a man to his son, the words might be perfectly clear, but there would be a lot we could make no sense of. They would be full of comments like, "Remember what I told you last week at the barbecue," and "Don't forget about your brother's special event," and "The last report card was certainly a change from the previous one." The son himself, on the other hand, would understand the letters easily. 

The NT is full of references like this, a few direct, but many indirect. Start with the existence of an epistle "to the church at ______." When the epistle was written, there was already a church in place. It was already holding services, apparently on the first day of the week, providing Eucharist to its members, keeping prescribed fasts, baptizing, ordaining clergy as needed. Where did this local church learn the correct way to do all these things, and more? Not from Scripture; it contains no such information. The content of the NT only makes real sense in the context of the Church itself.

Which doctrines do you find unclear in this manner? There are plenty of instances where Paul sends greetings to people, or refers to a dispute in a local church, where we can't be quite sure what he's getting at; but a), those things don't really impact doctrine and b), I don't believe the Catholic Church has made infallible pronouncements on such things in any case. I'm trying to think of more serious issues that come up, and the only one I can think of is the reference to baptism for the dead - but again, has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted this for us? If not, then you have the same problem as Protestants do; if so, and the Church followed its usual practice of describing the reasoning process behind it, then Protestants can either agree with them or not based on how Scriptural and logical their argument is - just as they would with any other teacher.

Quote:
Start with the existence of an epistle "to the church at ______." When the epistle was written, there was already a church in place. It was already holding services, apparently on the first day of the week, providing Eucharist to its members, keeping prescribed fasts, baptizing, ordaining clergy as needed. Where did this local church learn the correct way to do all these things, and more? Not from Scripture; it contains no such information. The content of the NT only makes real sense in the context of the Church itself.

Presumably they learned such things from the oral teachings of the apostles - which, as I've already said, is no problem for sola Scriptura advocates. They certainly didn't get it all right, though - many of the NT letters were written to address issues of doctrine, practice and morals. Presuming an infallible church is absolutely not necessary for explaining a flawed but functioning early church.

 

Quote:
It is only when you have all the information that you are going to be able to look at it and see how it fits together.  And sometimes it may in fact be difficult (we see people trying to dismiss Paul as incompatible with Christ all the time.)

(Sorry, snipped your quote for the sake of shortness) Yes, I realise Catholics view Scripture and Tradition as parts of the whole, but my problem is that it is not merely difficult, but logically impossible, to reconcile them. There are Catholic doctrines which I simply consider to be demonstrably at odds with Scripture, and I can't reconcile them without viewing Scripture in a way that goes against the plain meaning of the text, hermeneutical principles and in some cases logic itself. Yes, some people try to prove Paul's teachings contradicted Christ's, but I have yet to see an argument that convinced me it was the case. I see many that convince me that Catholic interpretations of Scripture are wrong.

 

So I would need, to say the least, a VERY compelling reason to believe that Tradition is necessary for understanding Scripture. And so far all I've received are attacks on sola Scriptura which undercut Catholicism as well, and would seem to doom us to utter ignorance about everything.

 

Quote:
It isn't that we don't know the meaning of the words, really.  I'm sure you've looked in a serious dictionary used for translation before - the Oxford English if not a foreign language one.  The way they are compiled is they look through all the examples of people using a given word and they tell you all the things that it seems to mean as used by the different author.  Often they give individual authors' uses, and how it is paired with other words and language structures, and in different periods.  And you make your best guess.  But all of this assumes that the compilers actually kind of know what all those other people were really trying to get at, and that your author was trying to get at the same kind of thing.  Which is pretty dicey when you are talking about people that are trying to use language to describe totally new ideas, and who were stretching the language they had to its limits to describe them.(and it is still possible your compilers could be wrong.)

An objection that cuts right back at Catholic theologians, who use those very "best guesses" and hermeneutical principles and so on to justify their teachings. They don't say "Forget the Greek, God came to me in a vision and said X means Y". Not to mention Catholics who follow Catholic teachings that were written several hundred years ago - in a different language and culture. This argument also ignores the fact that the Bible repeats and explains many of its core doctrines, and is largely written in very simple language.

 

 


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#28 of 300 Old 12-20-2010, 09:47 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote from Mamabadger:

 

"The NT is full of references like this, a few direct, but many indirect. Start with the existence of an epistle "to the church at ______." When the epistle was written, there was already a church in place. It was already holding services, apparently on the first day of the week, providing Eucharist to its members, keeping prescribed fasts, baptizing, ordaining clergy as needed. Where did this local church learn the correct way to do all these things, and more? Not from Scripture; it contains no such information. The content of the NT only makes real sense in the context of the Church itself."

 

My view is that none of the programmed, scripted, services make any sense according to NT scripture.   I believe that the reason that there aren't very clear ways to 'hold' a service is because it wasn't supposed to be so programmed.  In the beginning it was simple.  The Lord asked them to remember Him by taking the cup and the bread every week. He said that He would lead the praises to the Father.  Now what we see in both rcc, eo, protestant gatherings is a huge manufactured production.  Paul encouraged the church to do this:  speaking to one another with hymns, psalms, spiritual songs.  Paul also said that prophesying builds the church.  There wasn't any ordaining clergy because there was no clergy laity system.  It wasn't so complicated.  Keeping prescribed fasts?  They did fast and pray, but it was due to a need and not an arbitrary, fast on this day until that day.  I am speaking of the NT, not OT.

 

Examine the cases in the NT.  How did Saul get saved and become Paul.  What happened at his conversion?  It was simple.  He believed in the Lord. Therefore, he became a member of the body of Christ.  No one ordained him, he didn't take classes, and wear special clothing so that he would stand out.  He did all that as a Jew, but not as a Christian.   It's not in the NT because it wasn't meant to develop into what it is now.  And just so you know, I feel the same about the ways of the Protestant gatherings.  And what about the Ethiopian who saw water and said, what prevents me from being baptized?  This supports Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized.  The early church was simple in their worship and focused on Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit.  All the Tradition (rcc, eo, protestant) is not in the NT and why is that?  If it was so important then why didn't the Lord make sure it got in there?

 

To be part of the invisible church, or the universal church, all one has to do is receive the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  Tradition (protestant, eo, and rcc) requires a person to jump through hoops, take this class, prove yourself, prove you will be a good religious person, etc.  Some places won't let you get baptized unless you have had a class.  That is so unscriptural.  Not to mention the potential stumbling block it places in front of a new believer, who just wants to go on, but instead must be proven to be worthy.  All the disciples had to do was receive the Holy Spriit (John 22).  The Lord asked Peter to feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep...not make sure all the sheep have had classes in order to be worthy to be in the C-hurch.

 

The cases in the scripture do not match what Tradition teaches.  I think it is a reasonable requirement that Tradition should match scripture and when it doesn't, which is the better source?

Quote from Mamabadger:

"The idea of the invisible Church, as opposed to the more clearly defined membership of the Church is another major division between Protestant and RC/EO theology. For us, the Ecclesia has fairly clear, visible boundaries, just as in OT times it was clear who was an Israelite and who was not. 

The uncomfortable aspect of this doctrine is that there must, therefore, be people who identify themselves as Christian yet are not members of the Church. This idea existed in the earliest days of Christianity, when opposing doctrines were already circulating, and Christians were warned to treat anyone who taught an alternate Gospel as "anathema." (Galatians 1:8-9) In fact, the Gospel account of Christ speaking to the Samaritan woman could be taken as an example of the same belief.  The Samaritans had doctrines which differed from those of the Hebrews only slightly, by modern "fellowship" standards, yet the woman at the well was not told "we believe basically the same thing, no big deal." Because of their alterations in worship, the Samaritans were outside the Ecclesia, and she was told not only that she was mistaken, but "you do not know what you worship."

 

I have a completely different view of the same passage.  My comments in blue, the scripture in black.

This whole passage is the Gospel to this woman.  First, He goes to the well and speaks to her in public. He offers her the living water, which is Himself.  He's not offended to take water from her.  He is Jesus, who reclines with the sinners and tax collectors.  Then He tells her of  her sinfulness because she needs to confess that she has had five husbands and now she is with one who isn't her husband, which she does confess.  Since He is God, He already knows her sinful condition.   Then He tells her to worship in spirit and truthfulness, not on a mountain or in Jerusalem, because the Father seeks true worshippers.

Here is a history footnote:

" Samaria was the leading region of the northern kingdom of Israel and was the site of its capital (1 Kings 16:24, 29). Around 700 B.C., the Assyrians captured Samaria and brought people from Babylon and other heathen countries to the cities of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6, 24). From that time the Samaritans became a people of mixed heathen and Jewish blood. History tells us that they had the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) and worshipped God according to that part of the Old Testament. But they were never recognized by the Jews as being part of the Jewish people."

 

  She was saying why would you, a Jew, have anything to do with me, a Samaritan.  It didn't have to do with Christian doctrines.  The Lord hadn't gone to the cross yet.  He was still on earth ministering to people, which is what He did to her.  He ministered to her.  He offered her the living water, which was Himself.

 

Then the part about worship:

 

20 1aOur fathers worshipped bin this mountain, yet you say that cin Jerusalem is the place where men must worship.

21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, aan hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.  

 

  Jesus letting her know that you won't need to worship in a particular place in order to worship properly.  This was a requirement of the Jews, and seems to be a requirement of rcc, eo.

 

22 aYou worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is of the Jews.

 

She was considered a heathen because of where she was from and Jesus let her know that she does not know what she is worshipping. He was saving her from it by telling her that.

 

23 But aan hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father bin spirit and truthfulness, for the Father also seeks such to worship Him.

 

Here, this is KEY,  the true worshippers will worship in spirit and truthfulness, not necessarily on a mountain or in Jerusalem, but IN spirit. 

 

24 1God is 2Spirit, and those who 3worship Him must worship ain 4spirit and 5truthfulness.

 

Just in case we didn't catch it the first time, He repeats that  we must worship in spirit and truthfulness, which is in contrast to on a mountain or in Jerusalem.

This also means that as long as I am worshipping in spirit and truthfulness then my worship counts  and I am not to be considered as 'anathema'  according to the NT scripture. Again, it does not match Tradition.  In addition, the Samaritan woman didn't need to take any classes, just believe and confess in the Lord Jesus, and voila!  You are now a member of the body of Christ, the church.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#29 of 300 Old 12-21-2010, 09:25 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
How is that different from "unknowable", if you're implying that it is impossible to determine the author's meaning (as opposed to simply difficult)?

Well, you keep giving examples of words where the meaning is not known, and that's not remotely what I'm talking about. So I guess I don't know what you mean by "unknowable". lol.gif I'm talking about the many passages where the meanings of the individual words are known, but when you put them together they could be understood in several different ways. The phrase "saved through childbearing" in 1 Timothy 2:15 is an example. And yes, I do think that there are equally intellectually valid arguments for different interpretations of that phrase. The only way you could definitely know what was meant by it would be to go back and ask the author - which we can't do.

 

Quote:
But in my previous post I pointed out how the "final arbiter" is not analogous to the Catholic Magesterium. Even the highest arbiter has the ability to overturn its previous decisions, which is an admission that its decisions are not infallible simply because they're the Supreme Court, but rely on their knowledge and logical application of the law to be true and thus authoritative.

Sure, but since I don't believe in and wasn't arguing for the infallibility of the Catholic Magesterium, I didn't think I needed to respond to that. Your original point was that words have meanings and people can reliably discern those meanings through the application of logic, and you gave the example of our justice system. My point is that words have meanings and people can often discern those meanings through the application of logic, but not always, and this illustrated by the fact that we have to have a Supreme Court in our justice system. Once the Supreme Court issues a decision it becomes the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not. Not because they are necessarily right - as you point out, they may come back later and change their decision - but simply because there is a recognition that some issues of interpretation cannot be definitely resolved with logic and so for the sake of order we just need to come down on one side or the other and call it good.

 

Quote:

And so far all I've received are attacks on sola Scriptura which undercut Catholicism as well, and would seem to doom us to utter ignorance about everything.

No, not utter ignorance, just a humble recognition that we still see through a glass darkly.

Thao is offline  
#30 of 300 Old 12-21-2010, 09:58 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
In fact - speaking from the perspective of my own church - the problem is more basic than multiple or confused meanings. The NT was written not only by the early Church, but to and for the Church members. The Epistles, in particular, were epistles after all (letters) to people who were already Christian: the epistle to the Church at Rome, to the Church at Corinth, etc.

Mamabadger, I agree! I often find that the hardest documents to translate are personal letters, because they are not expository in nature. They assume the knowledge shared by the reader and writer, but unfortunately not usually provided to the translator.

 

Just off the top of my head, I think an example where this sort of lack of context affects interpretation of a Biblical passage is the injunction for women to not speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14. The core issue with that passage - whether it was an injunction only to that particular church because of some sort of disorderly behavior among the women there, or an injunction to all women of all time - depends entirely on what the situation was at the Corinthian church at the time. I'm sure the people of the Corinthian church understood Paul's intent perfectly but we can spend weeks on a thread debating it and never arrive at a definitive conclusion orngtongue.gif

Thao is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off