Author Topic: By What Authority?  (Read 19310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14050
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #105 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 17:52:57 »

You can tell you're getting the right interpretation of the Bible because of parallelism in the writing.  Parallelism is the defining literary device of Hebrew writing.

Basically, because ancient Hebrew (proto-Semitic) contained only about 8000 'words,' (and the Masoretes' vowel pointings didn't yet exist), virtually every statement contained SOME ambiguity.  The solution to the dilemma was simple - say everything twice, in two different ways.
Nice try.  But if you get the first one wrong, even if the second appears to affirm it, you're still wrong.

Try Psalm 51:5.  If you read the first line as David himself being sinful before he could commit sins, then you're going to read the second as an affirmation of that.  And you'd still be twice as wrong.  (And besides, the sins he speaks of were of his mother, not himself.)
It's not totally foolproof...but really good.  The verse you gave is a good example of why it works.

Psa 51:5a Behold, I was shapen in iniquity...

=

Psa 51:5b  ...and in sin did my mother conceive me.

For the translation and interpretation to be valid they have to be equal.

In this case, David IS in fact talking about his own problem with sinning.  Review the context before and after to see that this is the theme of the Psalm.  This statement says that it's always been this way.  Trying to use it outside of the context for something to do with, say...Augustine or Pelagius, would be an error all by itself for ignoring the larger context.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #106 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 17:57:29 »
After running through these posts I see why posting "Safe Houses" were created. Those of us who understand the scriptures need to have a place to get away from Tu, CD, Jake and the others who want to complicate simple first century Christianity. My wife doesn't understand why I get nervous whenever I walk into a catholic church. It's because they aren't like the rest of us. I don't agree with my brethren about whether or not elders have to be married or if IM is acceptable but at least we all use the same rule book and are trying to follow the example of the people who walked the earth when Jesus did. The church started to apostatize when Paul and John were writing their epistles and the church of Rome has been misleading people since the 2nd or 3rd century. CD has some valid points but he argues like a big city lawyer with fancy words and I was brought up by people who worked in a factory during the week and taught bible class on Sunday. They used a KJV bible (I use NIV now) and explained how Jesus died for my sins, how I symbolically touch Jesus' blood in baptism, and how the elders look out for my soul. No fancy words, just scripture that God and the holy spirit delivered to us. Why do so many people try to make this complicated?

This is my only response to this thread. It has been about as enlightening as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Actually, Tu, CD, and I are trying to show how easy it is: Christ chose and trained men to serve as Apostles, and He gave them all authority on this earth for the one church He founded. They were instructed to train men to replace them. Even in the 1st century, men, for whatever reasons, rebelled against and rejected the authority established by God Incarnate: see John and Diotrephes.

What is complicated is 20,000 Protestant denominations. What is complicated is the dozen or so sets of major theological divisions that each arose from the Reformation revolt against the historic church in the names of salvation by faith only and the absolute clearness of the Bible. What is complicated is that the faith-only Baptist Pastor and the anti-faith-only Church of Christ preacher each point to the Bible and swear they are correct because the Bible says so. What is complicated is that the pro-women-elders Disciple of Christ minister and the anti-women-elders Church of Christ minister each point to the Bible and swear they are correct because the Bible says so.




Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14050
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #107 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 18:17:29 »
Actually, Tu, CD, and I are trying to show how easy it is: Christ chose and trained men to serve as Apostles, and He gave them all authority on this earth
You see it this way...he delegated his authority in his absence.

I see it this way...he isn't absent because he works through us.

See the difference?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #108 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 18:24:50 »
It's not totally foolproof...but really good.  The verse you gave is a good example of why it works.

This verse is a great example of why it DOESN'T work, to wit:

Psa 51:5a Behold, I was shapen in iniquity...

First of all, "shapen" is not a great translation.  "Brought forth" is both a better translation of the Hebrew and is what the Greek means.  And, again, if we're going to go by the parallelism argument you're proposing, the second couplet is "conceived," so what we're talking about is David's conception and birth.

Be that as it may, not the passiveness of the verb "was shapen" (or "was brought forth")  This is not something David did.  It was done to him.

Psa 51:5b  ...and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Again, this is passive.  Something David had nothing to do with whatsoever.

For the translation and interpretation to be valid they have to be equal.

On your own argument, you've not kept them equal.

In this case, David IS in fact talking about his own problem with sinning.

No, in fact, in these verses he is not talking about his own personal problem with sinning.  He is saying his conception and birth happened in the context of sin.  While I'm not suggesting this, this could quite naturally be interpreted something like perhaps David was conceived out of wedlock (for which I admit there is no evidence, but I'm trying to get at the option of a simple prima facie reading), or perhaps his father and/or mother were in a state of sin when he was conceived.  Similarly, perhaps his mother cursed in delivering him (woman do that sometimes, you know), or in someway commited some type of sin.

In other words, one has to come to these verses with a presupposition that this is about David's infection with personal sin and personal guilt to be able to read these verses in this way.

I'll say more about the context in a second.

Review the context before and after to see that this is the theme of the Psalm. 

Indeed, the context of the Psalm is important.  This is a man bemoaning his personal guilt in the sins of adultery and murder.  It is a poem.  The context demands a hyperbolic expression.  So even though above I point out that a simple and natural reading of the text in no way suggests that David himself was sinful from his conception and/or birth, when one takes into account the context of the Psalm it is clear that David is not making a theological claim about original sin, but exagerrating the circumstances of his origin so as to highlight his sense of guilt and how sinful he now pictures himself to be.

This is precisely why simple parallelism is no guarantee of interpretive correctness.

This statement says that it's always been this way.

It doesn't (on a simple reading) and it doesn't (when one factors in the hyperbolic nature of the literary construction and content).  So, no it doesn't.

  Trying to use it outside of the context for something to do with, say...Augustine or Pelagius, would be an error all by itself for ignoring the larger context.

Indeed it would.  And David gives neither St Augustine or the heretic Pelagius any purchase here.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #109 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 18:28:16 »
Actually, Tu, CD, and I are trying to show how easy it is: Christ chose and trained men to serve as Apostles, and He gave them all authority on this earth for the one church He founded. They were instructed to train men to replace them. Even in the 1st century, men, for whatever reasons, rebelled against and rejected the authority established by God Incarnate: see John and Diotrephes.

What is complicated is 20,000 Protestant denominations. What is complicated is the dozen or so sets of major theological divisions that each arose from the Reformation revolt against the historic church in the names of salvation by faith only and the absolute clearness of the Bible. What is complicated is that the faith-only Baptist Pastor and the anti-faith-only Church of Christ preacher each point to the Bible and swear they are correct because the Bible says so. What is complicated is that the pro-women-elders Disciple of Christ minister and the anti-women-elders Church of Christ minister each point to the Bible and swear they are correct because the Bible says so.

Actually, ole Jake, I would quibble with the "He gave them all authority on this earth for the one church He founded."  It is the Orthodox position that Christ's authority has never departed from this earth because he is incarnate in his Church.  For the Orthodox it is the Body of Christ who has the authority--which is why in Orthodoxy a Council is not Ecumenical until it is declared so by the laity.  Which is why the Council of Florence is rejected by the Orthodox.  So what if some bishops signed (St. Mark of Ephesus didn't)?!  The people threw them off their ships when they sailed back into harbor.  So much for the bishops having all authority.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #109 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 18:28:16 »



Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #110 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 19:05:55 »
Sorry, Jimmy, you first.  I asked you a direct question.  It's not very persuasive of you assertions for you to keep avoiding it, then throwing it on me.

But once you answer my question, with some followup questions if necessary, then I'll answer yours.

(In point of fact, I *have* answered that question on these boards, which a search on your part can turn up.  But you still have to answer my question.)

I am not certain just what you are looking for in an answer.  There are several theories or techniques that are used in interpretation.  There are various hermeneutical schemes and various approaches to exegesis of the scriptures.  But whatever scheme you might elect to use or whatever you believe to be the right one, it is clear that such schemes are not limited to some Church ordained group. Infallibility is not a prerequiste to the ability to read and understand the writings of the scriptures.  And although much of what appears in the Scriptures may require some serious study to uncover the meaning of it, it is not a message written in some theocode that can only be interpreted by a select few.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #111 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 19:52:06 »
I am not certain just what you are looking for in an answer.

You said that you know you understand the Scripture rightly when it "rings true."  I'm just wanting to know how you know when something is "ringing true."

You do not clarify the matter, indeed you complicate the matter for yourself, when you write:

There are several theories or techniques that are used in interpretation.  There are various hermeneutical schemes and various approaches to exegesis of the scriptures.

So, how do you know a particular approach, or combination of approaches, is appropriate for one or another particular passage of Scripture?  How do these approaches get you to an interpretation of the Scripture that "rings true"?  (And again, what are the characteristics of an interpretation that "rings true"?)

But whatever scheme you might elect to use or whatever you believe to be the right one, it is clear that such schemes are not limited to some Church ordained group. Infallibility is not a prerequiste to the ability to read and understand the writings of the scriptures. 

This is not what the doctrine of papal infallibility teaches, nor is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches such that no one can read the Scriptures for themselves.  Indeed, no one in either Church is prohibited from interpreting the Scripitures for themselves.

Again, you do not, it does not appear, understand what the teaching on infallibility actually is.  It is not about biblical interpretation per se.

And although much of what appears in the Scriptures may require some serious study to uncover the meaning of it, it is not a message written in some theocode that can only be interpreted by a select few.

A) This is not the position of those who hold to papal infallibility (nor is it the position of the Orthodox).
B) What do you mean by "serious study" and how does one know when one is engaging in it, and is it a prerequisite for understanding the Scriptures?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #112 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 20:08:31 »

Again, you do not, it does not appear, understand what the teaching on infallibility actually is.  It is not about biblical interpretation per se.

I guess I don't. Why don't you tell us what it actually is.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #113 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 20:28:37 »
You need to answer my question first. 

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #114 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 20:42:43 »
Actually, Tu, CD, and I are trying to show how easy it is: Christ chose and trained men to serve as Apostles, and He gave them all authority on this earth
You see it this way...he delegated his authority in his absence.

I see it this way...he isn't absent because he works through us.

See the difference?

Ah ha, so you see all Christians as being just like the Apostles.

If you are consistent in that view, you will interpret 'prebyteros' to mean nothing but 'elder' and thus be something other than a church office.

And that does not mean the absence of men acting with authority; it means that all men can, and will, act as their own authority, act as their own bishops and priests.

How close is your view to that of Quaker founder George Fox?


Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #115 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 07:29:49 »
Again, you do not, it does not appear, understand what the teaching on infallibility actually is.  It is not about biblical interpretation per se.


From

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

This sounds a lot like it has to do with interpretation.  But I could be wrong.

In any case, I guess I am not really all that interested in your view of interpretation or understanding of the Bible.

You have deflected any serious discussion of the subject with nit picking of some of the phrases that I used such as "serious study" and "ring true".  

Since it is largely my own salvation that I am concerned with in this regard, I shall continue to rely on my own ability to read and understand the English translation(s) of the Bible.  I have no problem with seeking help wherever I can find it to get me through the tougher aspects of interpretation and connprehension.  I actually do consider opposing views quite often. Occasionally those might even consist of RCC or Orhtodox kinds of sources, though not very often since they are wrong on so many foundational aspects.  ::smile::.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #116 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 08:08:14 »
Again, you do not, it does not appear, understand what the teaching on infallibility actually is.  It is not about biblical interpretation per se.


From

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

This sounds a lot like it has to do with interpretation.  But I could be wrong.


My point was, which you apparently missed, papal infallibility is not about simply biblical interpretation, which your cite demonstrates it's not.  You keep flogging Roman Catholics with this canard that the Pope has infallibly to interpret the Bible for them.  That is not what Roman Catholics believe.  So, once again, you are asserting something to be the case that isn't true, then trying to make hay with it.  (That's why they call them straw man arguments.)

In any case, I guess I am not really all that interested in your view of interpretation or understanding of the Bible.


I never suggested that you should be.  I'm simply pointing out that you don't understand papal infallibility, which you once again demonstrated, and yet you're trying to beat up Roman Catholics on it.

You have deflected any serious discussion of the subject with nit picking of some of the phrases that I used such as "serious study" and "ring true".


How can one have a serious discussion of biblical interpretation when you use words and terms relating to knowing an interpretation to be correct that you won't define?  You expect us to just operate with these fuzzy concepts--into which are poured everyone's competing and contradictory personal definitions--and that somehow we can have a serious discussion?

No, since you are using these as fundamental terms by which to argue that you can come to a correct interpretation of the Scriptures, then you are obligated (since it's your argument) to define what you mean by those terms.  If you don't want to offer a definition, fine.  But then you can't expect to have a serious discussion.

Since it is largely my own salvation that I am concerned with in this regard, I shall continue to rely on my own ability to read and understand the English translation(s) of the Bible.  I have no problem with seeking help wherever I can find it to get me through the tougher aspects of interpretation and connprehension.


But if you will not or cannot define what it is that makes an interpretation "ring true," or what constitutes "serious study" in seeking such help (listening to any teacher on TBN or CBN or EWTN?), and if, as you say, it is your own salvation you're concerned with here, then how is it that you could ever know that the help you're seeking is actually going to go toward your own salvation or going to go toward your damnation and lead you astray?

I actually do consider opposing views quite often. Occasionally those might even consist of RCC or Orhtodox kinds of sources, though not very often since they are wrong on so many foundational aspects.  ::smile::.


But how do you know an opposing view is wrong (I know there's a tiny bit of joshing going on but I'm addressing the serious part)?  Is it wrong just simply because it opposes your view?  How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation (as you describe it above)?

Look, I ultimately don't care whether or not you give me a definition of "rings true" and "serious study," or whether somehow I "win" this little contretemps with you.  You could just simply choose to ignore me and go about with your willful ambiguity on what you admit are salvation-centered issues.  I will lose no sleep.

But I press you on your own claims because you have raised the stakes yourself, and you should therefore recognize the implicit danger you've place yourself in.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #117 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 08:21:28 »

But how do you know an opposing view is wrong (I know there's a tiny bit of joshing going on but I'm addressing the serious part)?  Is it wrong just simply because it opposes your view?  How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation (as you describe it above)?

CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

If that is in fact the real situation, then it is not likely that any will be saved.  It is akin to keeping the law as a means to salvation.  And that we know, based upon Paul's teaching, that is not going to happen. 

By the way, the absense of ambiguity is not an indication of truth in spite of what any notion of infallibility might imply.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #118 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 09:37:43 »

But how do you know an opposing view is wrong (I know there's a tiny bit of joshing going on but I'm addressing the serious part)?  Is it wrong just simply because it opposes your view?  How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation (as you describe it above)?

CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

If that is in fact the real situation, then it is not likely that any will be saved.  It is akin to keeping the law as a means to salvation.  And that we know, based upon Paul's teaching, that is not going to happen. 

By the way, the absense of ambiguity is not an indication of truth in spite of what any notion of infallibility might imply.

Are you aware of what you have just acknowledged with this statement: "Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute."

Protestantism began when Martin Luther concluded from his reading of Paul that salvation is by faith only. Luther, though not in any sense a philosophic thinker who could grasp long term consequences of ideas, recognized that if sola fide were true, then the Church would need to be making amends for having failed to teach the truth for some 1400 years.

Luther declared sola scriptura as the best way to make his case for sola fide for two reasons: (1) he had come to believe in faith ONLY while studying Galatians and Romans and he had a fierce pride in his interpretive skills (which is the reason that Luther automatically declared heretical any other Protestant who disagreed with him on any issue he deemed major, and (2) he knew that Church history was filled with documents that in various ways would refute sola fide even though none of them were attempts to disprove sola fide because no one had ever proposed faith ONLY before Luther.

Luther seems to have believed sincerely that the Bible was, as he proclaimed, perspicuous: absolutely crystal clear and obvious in its meanings. From that belief, Luther was certain that the more that people read the Bible, the more that everyone would agree that the Bible is unquestionably perfectly clear that salvation is by faith only.

That is the best way to understand why Luther was always furious when any otehr Protetsant disagreed with him: if scriprture is perspicuous, which doctrine is necessary to assert sola scriptura without it creating endless chaos, then the masses of people would read it exactly like Luther.

The reality was that there were immediately all kinds of people who embraced sola fide and sola scriptura and began disagreeing with Luther, in great detail. The cahos was so great that if not for Lutheran princes using the sword to beat back and down the groups Luther referred to as mosquitos, forcing them to accept Lutheranism, there would have been dozens of different Protestant denominations in German speaking lands before the 1540s.

And here you are, a proponet of sola scriptura acknowledging that Peter is correct is asserting that there are some things in scripture that are vry tough to comprehend and certain people wrest them to their own damnation. Peter speaks specifically of the writings of Paul being so absued by men certain that their interpretive skills were excellent and who acted as if their interpretive skills were infallible. That is most important because just as Luther took paul out of context and isolated from the rest of the New Testament, so had Marcion and a large number of Gnostics. Indeed, some things Paul teaches inspire men with great egos and/or imaginations to feel that they finally have the Gnosis denied to men by the Church.

That is in a nutshell how and why Johann Eck, the man who did the most to show how sola fide was heretical, claimed that Luther was an unwitting ally of the Gnostics. I say that Eck was correct in that, as in seeing the errors of [sola  fide[/i].

But back to your confession: if you cannot know for certain that your interpretations of scripture are correct, then you must have full faith in them anyway to proceed as if they are correct. And that means that you have faith that your interpretive skills are at least sufficiently correct as to serve you toward Heaven.

That means that you are taking a stance for sola scriptura even though you know for certain that scripture is not perspicuous.

You take that stance, which Luther and Calvin and Zwingli would have declared a total contradiction, because you inherited it and can see no other way. You are culturally fully a part of the Protestant world (being in an English speaking nation), and the basics of seeing the world as a Protestant are second nature to you. Thus the chaos caused by sola scriptura is something you accept as a given, even as you rightly assert that Christ prayed for unity and that movements toward unity - without denying esentials of the one faith - should be paramount.

So, if scripture is not perspicuous, then how do we know what it means? Christ instituted a teaching Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Those are the only two choices: sola scriptura, which asserts the persicuousness of scripture and has delivered tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, or the teaching Church with the authority to adjudicate disputes and shepherd the flock.

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #119 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 09:59:37 »
Quote
Those are the only two choices: sola scriptura, which asserts the persicuousness of scripture and has delivered tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, or the teaching Church with the authority to adjudicate disputes and shepherd the flock.

Aren't you denying Christ's very words by not accepting the fact that divisions and antagonism is something that he foretold?

So it doesn't matter if you think you can bring Catholic and Protestants together under one authority.. it just isn't going to happen.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #120 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 10:04:34 »
CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

ole Jake has given an appropriate response to this, but to echo: You've proved my point by this admission.

But I would also like to point out that you have committed a reductio that is illegitimate (though it does go to my point overall): that knowledge only counts if it's absolute.  I never claimed that, and there is nothing in my questioning of you that requires of you to present absolute proof.  Though I think a) you cannot produce anything that would give absolute proof, which you concede, and b) this defeats your argument that it's enough to interpret the Bible on  your own without any concrete measurements as to whether what you're interpreting is right or not.

But look, it's really so much more simple than that: I didn't ask  you for absolute proof.  I simply asked you to delimit what are the characteristics of "rings true" and "serious study."  You threw out terms that need definition, which you refuse to provide, and then try to scurry back into the fogs of ambiguity and claim such ambiguity as your authority.

If that is in fact the real situation, then it is not likely that any will be saved.  It is akin to keeping the law as a means to salvation.  And that we know, based upon Paul's teaching, that is not going to happen.

Now here's an interesting argument: You raise the specter of legalism and apply it to biblical hermeneutics.  Clearly, that's not what St. Paul is talking about in any of the passages in which legalism is decried.

But beyond that, the logical implication of what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what you know.  You could be wrong, but it doesn't matter because basing salvation on knowledge is legalism.

But if that's the case, then if you know that Jesus wasn't God, was just a man, according to your argument, it doesn't matter.  You'll be saved anyway.

On the other hand, if you react, "Oh, no, you have to know that Jesus is God," then you cut yourself by your own argument, since apparently you do have to know something, but this time it isn't legalism.

No, I'm afraid, Jimmy, that you keep cutting your legs out from under yourself.  You've taken a great deal of trouble to avoid answering two very basic and simply questions (what are the characteristics of "rings true" and "serious study").  And in so doing, you've now tied yourself into an (apparent) radical fideism.

It's like I tell my students in my classes: you actually have to work very hard to fail my class.  We'll you've worked very hard to avoid answering a couple of very simple questions.

By the way, the absense of ambiguity is not an indication of truth in spite of what any notion of infallibility might imply.

Didn't say it was and there is no logical necessity to such a conclusion from what I've been asking you.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #121 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 10:05:17 »
Are you aware of what you have just acknowledged with this statement: "Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute."

Yes I do.  I am aware that whoever you think is in possesion of knowledge in the absolute has flim flammed you to the possible detriment of your own soul.

Out of curiosity, who do think told the saints in Corinth the meaning of Paul's letters that he wrote to them?

Who told those in Rome what Paul really meant when he wrote them a letter?

Are you aware of just how ridiculous your position in all of this is?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #122 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 10:17:58 »
CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

ole Jake has given an appropriate response to this, but to echo: You've proved my point by this admission.


ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #123 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 10:31:07 »
Quote
Those are the only two choices: sola scriptura, which asserts the persicuousness of scripture and has delivered tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, or the teaching Church with the authority to adjudicate disputes and shepherd the flock.

Aren't you denying Christ's very words by not accepting the fact that divisions and antagonism is something that he foretold?

So it doesn't matter if you think you can bring Catholic and Protestants together under one authority.. it just isn't going to happen.

Jesus also said the poor would always be with us. Are you so foolish as to charge God Incarnate with wanting the sufferings of the poor? Unless you are, then the absurdity of the point you attempt to make should embarrass you.

Luther's two concoctions sola fide and sola scriptura were the Pandora's box to Christianity, and that means that the odds of even a bare majority of Protestants returning without divine intervention are very slim and virtually none. But that does not excuse us from trying.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #124 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:05:09 »
Yes I do.  I am aware that whoever you think is in possesion of knowledge in the absolute has flim flammed you to the possible detriment of your own soul.

On what do you base this awareness. Please substantiate with evidence and/or an argument.

Out of curiosity, who do think told the saints in Corinth the meaning of Paul's letters that he wrote to them?

Who told those in Rome what Paul really meant when he wrote them a letter?

You have an utter misunderstanding of my position. This question is utterly nonsensical at it pertains to what I espouse.

Are you aware of just how ridiculous your position in all of this is?

I am aware how ridiculous is the straw man you've constructed, but to my knowledge you have no clue what is my position.

I tell you what, while you're still trying to come up with the criteria for "rings true" and "serious study" why don't you answer another easy question: What is my position on biblical interpretation?  You've made several assertions that imply you know what it is, so why don't you state it clearly.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #125 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:05:50 »
ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

Please substantiate with evidence and/ or argument.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #126 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:19:32 »
ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

Please substantiate with evidence and/ or argument.

In this case, I am quite free to think what I will.  The reason that I think that is because it seems to me that you at least hint to the fact that none are able to understand what the Bible says without someone else providing that understanding.  Even though you apparently do not adhere to the same person (as RCs) as the infallible source of truth, yet it seems that you do adhere to someone or some group as that infallible source apart from the Bible itself without which you can't know what is truth.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #127 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:28:42 »
CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

ole Jake has given an appropriate response to this, but to echo: You've proved my point by this admission.


ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

You are persistent in revealing how little you understand.

The inspired authors can be relied on; what cannot be relied on is every man's ability to interpret them correctly. If it could be relied on, we would not have 20,000 or so Protestant denominations.

When preacher A, asserting sola scriptura, declares that faith-only is the Gospel and anybody who rejects it is a heretic and preacher B, likewise asserting sola scriptura, denies that faith-only is the Gospel, how do you know who is correct?

When those same preachers take opposite views on the ordination of women, how do you know who is correct?



Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #128 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:38:08 »
In this case, I am quite free to think what I will.

But of course.  But you are not free to call rational what is irrational.  You are not free to call valid what is invalid.  All of us submit to the contraints of logic, because that's how God made reason to work.

So yes, please, by all means, think what you will.  But if such thinking is irrational and illogical, it is up to us to point it out.

The reason that I think that is because it seems to me that you at least hint to the fact that none are able to understand what the Bible says without someone else providing that understanding.

Let's break this down.

the reason = it *seems* to you that I *at least hint* to a particular fact (on which more in a moment).

So the basis of your thought is a seeming hint.  Again: a seeming hint.  Not an obvious claim.  Not an outright statement.  Rather: a seeming hint.

Now what is the fact you claim is hiding behind this seeming hint?
"none are able to understand what the Bible says without someone else providing that understanding."

Can you point to where I've ever said this?  Can you provide the statements I've made which gives you this seeming hint? Have you ever just asked me whether anyone is able to understand the Bible without another giving that understanding?

This is yet another example of the straw man fallacy: creating an argument which your opponent has not uttered, claiming it is your opponent's argument, which it is not, and then banging about on the straw man, ultimately falsely claiming you've defeated your opponent.

  Even though you apparently do not adhere to the same person (as RCs) as the infallible source of truth, yet it seems that you do adhere to someone or some group as that infallible source apart from the Bible itself without which you can't know what is truth.

More seems.  Care to provide the basis/-es for your claims that my words "seem" to you a particular way?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #129 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:39:53 »
By the way Jimmy, we're all still waiting for your criteria for "rings true" and "serious study."

In the words of Inigo Montoya: You use that word but I do not think you know what it means.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #130 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:41:38 »
CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

ole Jake has given an appropriate response to this, but to echo: You've proved my point by this admission.


ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

You are persistent in revealing how little you understand.

The inspired authors can be relied on; what cannot be relied on is every man's ability to interpret them correctly. If it could be relied on, we would not have 20,000 or so Protestant denominations.

But your argument is not about numbers.  Whether it is one, two or 20,000 doesn't really change anything.

If the RCC has ever changed even one little aspect of its interpretation, your own argument goes against you.  

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #131 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 11:47:33 »
By the way Jimmy, we're all still waiting for your criteria for "rings true" and "serious study."

In the words of Inigo Montoya: You use that word but I do not think you know what it means.

Don't hold your breath.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #132 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 12:03:42 »
By the way Jimmy, we're all still waiting for your criteria for "rings true" and "serious study."

In the words of Inigo Montoya: You use that word but I do not think you know what it means.

Don't hold your breath.

Don't worry that was a few days and nearly fifty comments ago.  I'm breathing just fine.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #133 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 12:04:34 »
By the way Jimmy, we're all still waiting for your criteria for "rings true" and "serious study."

In the words of Inigo Montoya: You use that word but I do not think you know what it means.

Don't hold your breath.

Don't worry that was a few days and nearly fifty comments ago.  I'm breathing just fine.

Glad to hear it.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #134 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 12:13:06 »
If the RCC has ever changed even one little aspect of its interpretation, your own argument goes against you.  

This once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility.  It is not about biblical interpretation of giving distinctive interpretations.  There are four well-recognized methods for interpreting the Scriptures: the literal/historical, the allegorical, the moral and the eschatological.  One could interpret the same passage of Scripture in these four ways and not offer contradictory interpretations.  So, an interpretation that differs from another is not necessarily a problem.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #135 on: Tue Jan 13, 2009 - 15:49:15 »
CD, You have pushed this to the point of absurdity.  Because in the limit, no one can know anything in the absolute.  You asked " How do you know your view is correct?  If your view is wrong and the opposing view is right, and yet for some reason you've missed that, haven't you then missed something that could be for your salvation".

ole Jake has given an appropriate response to this, but to echo: You've proved my point by this admission.


ole Jake has given nothing of consequence to this.  All he has indicated is that he doesn't know what is going on either, in spite of his reliance on someone or some group as an authority even though such authority can't be documented.

He decries the lack of perspicuity in the Scriptures but then seems perfectly happy to ignore the simple truth that is doesn't exist anywhere else either.  He thinks we can not rely on what the inspired authors of the Bible have written, yet can instead rely on what some johnny come lately pope has written.  As I said, it is not even rational.

That is a position which I think you fall into as well.

You are persistent in revealing how little you understand.

The inspired authors can be relied on; what cannot be relied on is every man's ability to interpret them correctly. If it could be relied on, we would not have 20,000 or so Protestant denominations.

But your argument is not about numbers.  Whether it is one, two or 20,000 doesn't really change anything.

If the RCC has ever changed even one little aspect of its interpretation, your own argument goes against you.  

Actually, numbers do matter. If sola scriptura had worked as Luther assumed - meaning, it would not have led to 10 new denominations but rather to the one Church deciding that sola fide is the Gospel - then sola scriptura would not have produced endless chaos.

But the exact opposite happened, immediately.

And that exact opposite has happened 100% of the time even when the best of men with the best of intentions operates it precisely to try to end divisions: see Alexander Campbell. His movement has several major churches, all of which have been founded within 200 years, none of which have effected any type slowing of the procession of new Protesatnt denominations founded (and existing protestant denominations rejecting more core Chrsitian doctrines).

The only fruit of sola scriptura is endless division.

And it, like all ideas, is not contained within its own borders. Sola scriptura is cited, or used without attribution, by every Catholic dissident, whether he wants women priests or an end to any talk of 'this is my body' or an endorsement of homosexual marriage or abortion.

The Catholic Church does not change doctrines. Defined doctrines remain defined. Defined scriptural passages remain defined. No Pope or Council, even voting 100%,  for example, can declare that Jesus is a created being.


MegaJedi

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #136 on: Sat Feb 14, 2009 - 23:18:52 »
So Jake how do you know your authority is right?  What proof do you have.  I guess we are all to accept the authority of an elected old man who may or may not be in full charge of his faculties>

We all have two choices: either we accept that Christ, God Incarnate, gave all authority to the Apostles, and gave the keys to the kingsdom to Peter, and He also taught them how to train their successors to lead the one church with one faith and one baptism and one body, which means that we subdue our egos and accept, or we reject the system that Christ prepared and the Apostles trained their successors to run until He returns.

The first choice means that you are Catholic or Orthodox, and the second choice means that you are Protestant and that you have replaced the Popes, Bishops, Councils, and Magisterium with your own private interpretations and/or your faith in the infallibility of Luther and/or some other Protestant leader.




See I do not think HE gave anything to Peter.  The man who would deny HIM 3 times and then be corrected by Paul (who I feel was a better deciple.)  If JESUS gave the Keys that only CHRIST could hold to anyone it would be to John the Beloved.

Offline artm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Manna: 2
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #137 on: Mon Feb 16, 2009 - 10:53:14 »
" Define by what Authority the Canon of Scripture was determined, And who had the Authority to decide what was in and what was out."

The Authority who determined the Canon of Scripture is " God Himself."

The Bible tells us that, " All Scripture " is given by Inspiration of God.( God Breathed )

Jesus Himself said, " For Man shall not live by bread alone, But by " Every Word " that proseeds from the mouth of God ."

The one who has Authority to decide what was in, and what was out, is " God ".

No man has the Authority, or Right to say what part of Scripture is acceptable, Or not acceptable.

The Church is simply to accept what God has written.

the Pope, Priest or Pastor, Have no Authority or Right to change, or declare certain parts of Scripture as unacceptable.

The Catholic Church changes the definition of Scripture to suit their need every other week. One day it has one meaning, and the next it may have another.

In today's Church, There  are those who are attempting to Change the meaning of Scripture to fit their Worldly view. Not just the Catholic Church, But main line denominations are also guilty of this.

 
In the Book of Revelation, we are told, not to add to, or detract from, the Word of God.

So, I hope I have understood your challenge.

No man has the Authority to tamper with the Word of God, And if they do, May God have Mercy on their Soul.

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #138 on: Mon Feb 16, 2009 - 11:01:30 »
" Define by what Authority the Canon of Scripture was determined, And who had the Authority to decide what was in and what was out."

The Authority who determined the Canon of Scripture is " God Himself."

The Bible tells us that, " All Scripture " is given by Inspiration of God.( God Breathed )

Jesus Himself said, " For Man shall not live by bread alone, But by " Every Word " that proseeds from the mouth of God ."

The one who has Authority to decide what was in, and what was out, is " God ".

No man has the Authority, or Right to say what part of Scripture is acceptable, Or not acceptable.

The Church is simply to accept what God has written.

the Pope, Priest or Pastor, Have no Authority or Right to change, or declare certain parts of Scripture as unacceptable.

The Catholic Church changes the definition of Scripture to suit their need every other week. One day it has one meaning, and the next it may have another.

In today's Church, There  are those who are attempting to Change the meaning of Scripture to fit their Worldly view. Not just the Catholic Church, But main line denominations are also guilty of this.

 
In the Book of Revelation, we are told, not to add to, or detract from, the Word of God.

So, I hope I have understood your challenge.

No man has the Authority to tamper with the Word of God, And if they do, May God have Mercy on their Soul.

Such an informed post.

Revelations was probably not the last book written chronologically.

It was MAN that decided the composition of the collection of books that we currently call the Bible... over the centuries books have been added and removed for various reasons.

Unfortunately, God never inspired a single apostle to write a table of contents as to what was to be included in the bible and what was not... and even whether or not collecting all these various writings is his will.

Personally, I think we have done a pretty good job over the ages determining what should probably be in and what should be out... but they are all the decisions of man and should not be viewed as God's will.


Offline artm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Manna: 2
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #139 on: Mon Feb 16, 2009 - 11:20:27 »
You are right when you say that man has added his two cents worth to the Word of God.

Sad but there are many men who feel they know more than God. Yes, men added chapters and verses, that was a good thing, But many did not stop there.

They took upon themselves to declare, God did not mean what he said, Listen to me, or listen to my denomination, we know better,and more.

We live in a day when the Word of God has been tampered with from Genesis to Revelation, and God is not pleased.

That is one reason that many people do not know or understand what Genuine Salvation is about.

That is why we have some Pastors and Churches that support homosexuality.

That is the reason why many worship Mary instead of Christ, and believe that Faith in Mary will save their Soul.

That is also the reason why many who claim to be Christian support the killing of unborn Babies through abortion.

Yes, Many have taken upon themselves to tamper with the Inerrant Word of God, But one day they Will give account. 

 

     
anything