• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Authority of the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott1

Well-Known Member
NetDoc said:
II Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What do you make of "thouroughly equipped for every good work."?

You say it's not enough, but the Bible says that I will be thouroughly equipped for every good work.
JHC Newman replied to this a while back;)

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.


www.catholic.com

Peace,
Scott
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I have no problems with traditions AS LONG as they are not codified as other than that.

My Lord spoke of traditions once:
Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." 9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Traditions should always be "optional". They are not the "command of God".

I too believe the "Word of the Lord" as it exists today is NOT the scriptures, but Godly men teaching how the scriptures apply to our lives right now.

But this tendency towards apostasy is exactly why God had the New Testament assembled. So that we would have our foundation laid before us at all times. The Bible contains all of our core values. We need nothing more for salvation. The Bible tells us how to become a Christian. Let those who would change this re-read Galations 1 and shudder!
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
The scripture didn't fail. You may not have understood it, you may not follow it, you may twist it's meaning, but it does not fail. Let's look at the scripture again.

I think I know now why you are saying I say the Scripture fails. I developed an idiom a long, long, long time ago of saying "Such and such quote fails..." when what I'm saying is "the use of the quote fails to serve its purpose." I don't know where I picked it up, but you are the first person I've ever met who has misinterpreted that statement. Now that you are aware of its idiomatic meaning, please do not repeat that accusation. Context alone should have made that abundantly clear.

NetDoc said:
Now you have claimed that I have defined "thourough" as "only". Well the
word I see is thouroughly, and the web defines it as such:

1. Exhaustively complete: a thorough search.
2. Painstakingly accurate or careful: thorough research.
3. Absolute; utter: a thorough pleasure.

So take your pick, I am cool with any of those. I don't need to hide behind the Greek on this one, as the translators have done a pretty good job with exartizo, though I might have used "completely" instead. Consequently, if they are able to make me COMPLETELY READY for every good work, what else do I need? Nada.

If I bothered you with my Greek, I apologize. If you don't want Greek, you shouldn't open the translation game. When you corrected the translation I quoted on II Peter, I assumed that you were open to Greek. Now, I can assume that you know it. After all, you are taking your sense of the passage, and saying not just that the translaters did well, which they did, but even proposing a more emphatic translation. Since you have been honest in all your dealings, I do assume you know what you're talking about. For that reason, I am rather puzzled why you say I was "hiding behind Greek."

Now, as for "thoroughly," it is also declinable. We have "thoroughly," "more thoroughly," and "most thoroughly." Like "completely," it may be used this way to make a point.

I don't need Greek here though; the rebuttal lies in the context. SOGFPP's quote from Cardinal Newman makes most of the points that I had made the last time, and it's hard to add to it without pulling the Greek card.

If it ment that alone, then what is Paul's purpose in vv. 14-15? Why do you use the NT? Paul was talking about the Old Testament. If he had meant it the way you mean it, then he wouldn't have wrote vv 14-15. In fact, why would he be writing at all? Timothy didn't need any instruction.

I ask you, if you're going to take this Scripture for "Sola Scriptura," then at least don't use the New Testament. Paul was not referring to the NT here, so the OT should be sufficient. I don't think you're being consistent here with it.

In fact, you have a book to add to your Old Testament. In 3.8, Paul uses the book "The Assumption of Moses." The information there is not found in Exodus. Clearly Paul thought that it was

1). He uses it for teaching Timothy.

2). It is at least potentially useful for rebuke and correction, because he is using it to show that the other teachers (more of that sectarian stuff) are being immoral.

3). He is using it to instruct in righteousness, specifically about how to understand those other churches and teachers.

4). Paul clearly teaches that it does something to equip Timothy for his ministry.

5). It is a scripture. That's exactly what "graphe" means. It was used for practically any piece of papyrus with writing on it.

6). Since Paul is talking about a certain subset of writings, specifically religious writings, then it also fits. It is a religious document that claims to be from God and conveys a vision. So, Paul's using that sort of document gives it some credence.

So, do you use the Assumption of Moses as Scripture? If not, why not? It fits every criteria of II Timothy 3.16-17.

So, to recap. Paul names three other spiritual authorities in the immediate context, so the context says your sense of "thorough" is a bit overblown. Both Greek and English have stronger senses of the word, further giving strength to the idea that your sense of "thorough" as a superlative is too strong. You do not apply this verse consistently, or you wouldn't have the New Testament as Scripture. You don't use the Assumption of Moses as Scripture, even though Paul treats it in a way that fits every criteria he laid down.

Lastly, this book has been read for 2000 years. I am aware of people over that whole stretch of time who agreed with me. I am only aware of people that agree with you for the last 500 years or so. So, either I'm understanding in a pretty straightforward fashion, the people for the first 1500 years and I aren't smart enough to read the text correctly, nobody listened to the Spirit for 1500 years and I'm missing it, or you are aware of Christians I'm not. Personally, I don't believe they were ignorant, nor do I believe they were devoid of God, so can't opt for the middle two.

So, when I say "your quote fails," I mean your argument isn't very strong. It does not prove what you want it to prove.

On Ignatius being a good Christian bishop preaching the "universal Church" not the "Universal Church," where on earth do you get that? He was condemning *every* other group that called itself Christian and using "Catholic" to separate himself from them. Not one or two, but every group. That is exactly what you're trying to rebuke me of. Every use in the Early Church of Catholic was to do exactly that.

Yes, you are right on Galatians rebuking the preaching of another Gospel. You seem to assume that you are automatically right. What if you are preaching another Gospel? Read it and put yourself in its shoes. I already have, and look where it led me.

NetDoc said:
You are constantly quoting men who are adding to the scriptures. Can you see how that FLYS in the face of this scripture. A couple points... these Galations are in the first Century and they are ALREADY way off track. Men do that! They put their ideas forth as equal to or better than scripture. Why? PRIDE. Go check out Adam in the garden. Consequently, it is only reasonable and prudent to look upon anything after this as corrupt and tainted. Don't accept anything but the original. Not even the first copy.

Name one man I've quoted who's added to Scripture. Just one. They all accepted the same books. Just because they don't follow the Protestant Reformers doesn't mean that they added to Scripture.

Now, on pride, you're right. It is one of the most viscious sins, if not the worst. However, you should look in the mirror. Here's what you're claiming:

1). You know the proper interpretation of the Bible *better* than the people who knew the Apostles.

2). You know the proper interpretation *better* than the first 1500 years of Christian history.

3). You can tell doctrinal corruption *better* than the people who were taught by the Apostles.

4). You are getting it all right, when those people who knew the "originals" seem to have got it all wrong.

5). Two of Christ's promise are that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church and that the Spirit would lead His people into all truth has failed. In order to say what you're saying, you must say that Christ could not keep His promises.

Those positions seem rather prideful to me.

NetDoc said:
Of course not. But the books were not about John's beliefs. They were what God wanted to be revealed to us. God used some of Peter's writings, some from John, a lot from Paul, also some other apostles and possibly some we will never know about until we get to heaven. It doesn't matter who or how that they came together... for it was God's will and not man's that they exist today. God wishes no man to perish, so he has provided ALL that ANYONE needs to believe. Unbelief is not God's fault. All you need is an eensy teensy tiny bit of faith... about like a mustard seed... to move all of the spiritual mountains that need to be moved.

You definately have a different view of salvation. Salvation is about reuniting God and man. If I take seriously what you said about it not being John's beliefs, then God took over John for a short period to write the Scripture. God does not deprive men of the will or their control over themselves. Ever. Rather, the Scripture is a product of John's life in God. If it is what I said, then John's beliefs very much do matter.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
I have no problems with traditions AS LONG as they are not codified as other than that.

My Lord spoke of traditions once:
Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." 9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Traditions should always be "optional". They are not the "command of God".

Well, the Lord also said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." (Mt. 23.2-3)

Here, Christ uses one of those unwritten traditions as the reason behind making the people obey a bunch of hypocrites. Christ clearly did not consider obedience to this tradition "optional."

NetDoc said:
I too believe the "Word of the Lord" as it exists today is NOT the scriptures, but Godly men teaching how the scriptures apply to our lives right now.

So, if you think that we need that, how do you decide which men to trust? Is it the ones that agree with you? After all, if they disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, you can simply ignore them or go find another teacher if you want. Paul prophesied that people would do exactly that in the Last Days, and the only way to avoid this is to have a reliable source, and that's exactly what SOGFPP and I say we have: a God-guided, reliable source.

NetDoc said:
But this tendency towards apostasy is exactly why God had the New Testament assembled. So that we would have our foundation laid before us at all times. The Bible contains all of our core values. We need nothing more for salvation. The Bible tells us how to become a Christian. Let those who would change this re-read Galations 1 and shudder!

"This tendency towards apostasy" is exactly why God gave us a Church. Without it we would be up the creek, because everyone seems to interpret the Bible as they see fit and find teachers just to agree with them. That leads directly to moral, spiritual, and theological relativism. If you disbelieve me, look where it led the once-Christian western world.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I've been thinking about my posts. Everything I said was logically sound. It is sound with everything I have learned and everything I know. I was heavily sarcastic with those last two posts. That was inexcusable, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion for a little while, and maybe out of this one entirely.

For the sarcasm, I must apologize. That is antichristian.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
No*s said:
Good quote SOGFPP. What book is that from?
Sorry, I can't remember..... I have a bunch of Newman's writings saved on my computer.

Don't be so hard on yourself with the sarcastic posts..... sometimes that's the only way we can get a point across..... as long as you're not being demeaning.

I hope you stick around.

Scott
 

Pah

Uber all member
No*s said:
...
For the sarcasm, I must apologize. That is antichristian.

Not so! - at least from my understanding. You are in good Christian company. Jesus was being sarcastic when he addressed the Pharisee's with the statement "it is written" (or some such). The Pharisees knew well it was written or they would not have been Pharasees.

Bob
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Thank you for the reassurances, but I'll still bow out of this argument for a few days. That Christ did it, the writers of the New Testament did it, most of the Church Fathers did it, and so on, does mean that there is a place for it. However, I posted out of anger, not patience, after I read the argument on pride given the mutual claims and context.

"Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast..." In doing what I did, I stepped a little outside what I normally allow.

As for Newman, thanks for it anyway. Are there any sites with his writings? I really liked that section. It was logical, well-reasoned-out, but it was also willing to take things on faith.

EDIT: Speaking of Newman, I received a new Attic Greek grammar yesterday, that I'm looking over to see if I could use it to teach some everyday folks how to read it, and it has a good quote in it, and I'm wondering if it could be from the same Newman you're quoting:

"In the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman: `A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one would find fault with what he has done.'" (used as "try to learn to speak Attic Greek...you'll only learn by doing, even if it's solely by teaching").
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
First off I didn't see any sarcasm in your writings, and I surely didn't intend any.

why you say I was "hiding behind Greek."
I didn't. You are reading something that isn't there... I said that -I- didn't need to hide behind them. I have a tendency (as do most people honest with themselves) to try and prove a point instead of trying to find out just what the REAL point is. One way to do that is to "bend" a translation rather than to find out it's true meaning.

As for my knowledge of NT Greek, it could be far, far better than it is. As a Russian major in college, it was easy enough to pick up the writing and it seemed to come easily to me. Your use of the Greek does not "bother" me if it is truly germaine to the discussion at hand. Some will use it merely to establish a "higher authority" which does not wash well with me. I am a simple man, and try to keep things as simple as possible.

As for your idiom... I took you at your word. It is not a universal idiom as you pointed out. Discussion is best when it is clear. Please do not ask me to "translate" your words based on context here.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Equally, the idea that there was a wide selection of scriptures to choose from is not quite as clear cut as that. Many of the rejected texts are blatantly fabulous in their subject matter, and obvious forgeries.
As opposed to the non-fantastical easily verifiable scriptures that were chosen?
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
jvi said:
"On who's authority do you pull up the weeds growing in the masters field?"

I guess it would be on God's authority.If God wasn't ready to allow it then it wouldn't be happening.In the second coming there is a harvest.The tares get pulled up first then the wheat is gathered into the barn.
I did not think you were an angel. Are you?
Mt. 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers,
Well, if you have God's instructions to do it, don't let me get in your way.:162:
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Considering the Catholic Churches claim to authority is based on Biblical scripture I`d say I was on topic.
Actually, that's the point. They can't come up with a BIBICAL Scripture to support this concept. You can't even find "Catholic" or "Catholicsim" in the Scriptures. Consequently they have deemed the Scriptures as "not enough". How convenient.

Thankfully the power of God exceeds that of the Catholic church and we have all we need to understand God, salvation and how to worship. Any deviation from the New Testament is an merely an excersize in apostasy.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
NetDoc said:
Actually, that's the point. They can't come up with a BIBICAL Scripture to support this concept. You can't even find "Catholic" or "Catholicsim" in the Scriptures. Consequently they have deemed the Scriptures as "not enough". How convenient.
Yes, I understand that and cannot disagree but for the most part I`ll have to agree with the bulk of Catholic apologists debating you here.

The Bible is indeed a Catholic book in my opinion.

The Orthodox Church that defined it spent considerable time and effort and blood to be certain it would fit the system they intended to promote.

That system is the Catholic church whether it was called by that name at the time or not.

The way they went about canonizing the books they did and condemning those they didn`t fits Catholic MO to a "T".

Don`t misunderstand me, I`m not saying the NT was written by Catholics.
I`m saying it was Catholics who decided what the face of the Christian God would look like by picking and choosing what they thought would promote their agenda.

Thankfully the power of God exceeds that of the Catholic church and we have all we need to understand God, salvation and how to worship. Any deviation from the New Testament is an merely an excersize in apostasy.
I cannot argue with this either Doc.

While an atheist myself it does seem odd to me a Christian would take the words of man as if they came from God.

However to be honest, that topic is just a microcosm of my overall thoughts on Christianity in general.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
First off I didn't see any sarcasm in your writings, and I surely didn't intend any.

Well, sarcasm isn't the word for what I did. I made a pretty blatant "clean your own yard" tag on the pride bit. Given the positions and reasons given in this discussion, the accusation that I and my Church's interpretation of the passage was simply a matter of pride or that we are "twisting Scripture" was deeply insulting to me, just as you would feel if I had told you that the sole reason you held to Sola Scriptura was so that you would never have to answer to somebody.

NetDoc said:
I didn't. You are reading something that isn't there... I said that -I- didn't need to hide behind them. I have a tendency (as do most people honest with themselves) to try and prove a point instead of trying to find out just what the REAL point is. One way to do that is to "bend" a translation rather than to find out it's true meaning.

OK, I've taken a break. Now I'll explain why I got angry since I've backed off of the topic for a few days.

You wrote, "I don't need to hide behind the Greek on this one." Since I am the only one in the thread up until that time that had used Greek in an argument, I think you can understand how I read this as an attack on my person. Having been the only person to use Greek up until that time, I was, in fact, the only person I felt it could be directed at.

Since saying someone is "hiding" behind a person, argument, fact, or whatever is a normal English idiom for a cowardly, deceitful act, it was also a natural one. The idiom is well-known and widely-used and not an idiosyncracy, and it is used in exactly the same manner as deployed there. It always says "I don't have to hide behind..." in order to state what the other fellow was hiding behind that subject. I have never heard it deployed in this kind of context the way you are describing, because it is always designed as an insult to someone. Couple that fact with the context, where I, my Church, and the like are accused of arrogance and actively twisting the Sripture in the exact same letter, and it is the only option that I could reasonablly come to in the context.

That's why I took that phrase as an insult. It is in normal, every-day English.

NetDoc said:
As for my knowledge of NT Greek, it could be far, far better than it is. As a Russian major in college, it was easy enough to pick up the writing and it seemed to come easily to me. Your use of the Greek does not "bother" me if it is truly germaine to the discussion at hand. Some will use it merely to establish a "higher authority" which does not wash well with me. I am a simple man, and try to keep things as simple as possible.

On that, we actually agree. Greek should only be deployed in cases where a translation is in dispute, English cannot capture the shade of meaning given, or where the most common translations are in blatant error (and there are several).

NetDoc said:
As for your idiom... I took you at your word. It is not a universal idiom as you pointed out. Discussion is best when it is clear. Please do not ask me to "translate" your words based on context here.

I shouldn't have to. When I said that I didn't say the Scripture failed, and insisted on it more than once, but only a person's use, that should have been enough of a hint right there. "This person says he doesn't mean what I think he means, so maybe I'm misreding it."

In this case, it is my idiom. However, I have to deploy the same rule of communication with you. After all, the only way I have never seen constructs like your "hiding behind" statement is in insults. It is the only way to communicate, because no two peoples, regions, etc. ever use words, phrases, and the like the same way.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Considering the Catholic Churches claim to authority is based on Biblical scripture I`d say I was on topic.

That is the heart of the problem in the discussion. Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox claims are just the other way around. The Protestants and their descendants insist it is the other way around.

The Scripture is a Catholic tradition. The Church predates the assembly of the New Testament, and the Church maintained it. There isn't a table of contents out there that says "these and no others." It's purely traditional and with no Scriptural proof to it.

For that reason, Scripture is a part of Tradition. It is at the pinnacle, but it is part of it nonetheless. In this way, the whole approach harmonizes.

The other side, conversely, has separated Scripture and Tradition. In doing so, it creates a permanently irreconcileable conflict. If the Scriptures, specifically the New Testament here, are separate from tradition, then Tradition must logically be superior to the Scriptures. If it didn't exist, there would be no Scripture. However, without the New Testament, there would still be a Tradition, because it predates the NT. The system, consciously or not, seeks to work itself out to its logical conclusion, and I think we can see that as it change "mainstream" churches continue to morph into something different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top