Just as clearly, this is a point on which we will never agree. If, as you say, God gave other of His word only to your Church, then it would be equal with scripture. When two equals apparently disagree, an interpretation is needed. The men of the Church could have let God interpret His own word in the Bible, but we all know they made a very different choice. Therefore, the Bible doesn't mean what it says it means, rather, it means what the Church says it means. That is the reason why I have been saying that the Church puts itself ahead of the Bible. The Church believes it is equal to the Bible and solely controls what the Bible means. ... At least in my Bible, when the word "Word" is used to signify Jesus, it is capitalized, when it is used to denote scripture, it is not.
You are pushing forward the idea of Relativism, that every religion, every concept of God, is as good as another.
I have never said anything like that. I have been accused of it, but I've never said it.
[What Sola Scriptura means:] That everything that Christians are to believe is found in the Bible alone. Where does the Bible give us this rule?
Here are a few supporting verses:
1 Cor. 4:6 : Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
Luke 1:1-4 : 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Paul first examines oral tradition, and then false writings. He concludes that to be SURE, he must write these things down.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 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.
Notice that it says EVERY GOOD WORK. It does not say that man is prepared for MOST good works. Neither does it say that man is PARTIALLY prepared for every good work.
Your accusations that Catholics twist Scripture is tiring, from where we stand, since we see you do it all the time. For example, Sola Scriptura - which is nowhere in the Bible. This makes it a self-refuting rule.
Oh, come on! You accuse me and my side to every degree you take it. Any view that does not match yours is a twisting of the scripture. You can't deny you argue that. Just above, I gave three examples of support for Sola Scriptura. I could have given more. A nickel says you brush them all aside as a twisting of the scripture.
You came to these conclusions yourself by reading the Bible without ANYONE telling you about Altar Call or Sinner's Prayer? Come on! I am willing to bet that you were open to someone's theology, which you accepted gullibly without hardly cracking the Bible open. They pointed you to a few memorized verses taken out of context, and the rest is history.
I didn't know what an Altar Call was until I became a Southern Baptist, 8 YEARS after saying the sinner's prayer. Of course I learned the basics of Christianity before I said the sinner's prayer. But there was no deep theology attached to what I was taught. I learned it at an interdenominational Bible study. One of the lead teachers was a CATHOLIC!!! Reading of scripture was encouraged. It was for seekers, so no one got into any of the things we are talking about here. It happened to be a Lutheran who told me what the sinner's prayer was, but she was 17 too. She had no knowledge of any of this stuff.
Yes, I did have a one-on-one Bible study at my SB church, but it had nothing to do with my sinner's prayer, and the names of Luther or Calvin never came up once. Of course I had to come to my beliefs by considering the work of others, and how it matched what the scripture says. I never said any differently. Otherwise, I WOULD have just made it up myself. I DID come to the belief that the scripture has to be true without the help of any other people.
The Tradition came before the Bible, friend. This is common knowledge except to some Protestants.
I know there were lots of "traditional" teachings floating around, but it took a popular vote among men to decide which were heretical and which were of the Catholic Church. You have said yourself that any individual Father was perfectly capable of writing down error. It took a vote to sift through it all. Since the voters were also fallible men, I have no confidence that the correct result was reached in each and every single case.
If science leads me to think that the world was created billions of years ago, I am free to believe it without denying the inerrancy of Scriptures. You, on the other hand, MUST believe everything literally in such situations, since you consider the Bible as an idol to be worshipped and that God wouldn't inspire the Bible in an allegorical sense unless He sent a memo to you.
My, my, how little you understand us. I happen to hold the view that without evidence to the contrary, that I should take the accounts of the Bible at face value. I DID reach that conclusion without knowing or hearing any theology about it, other than the Bible is God's inerrant word. I truly have no idea if that makes me a good Calvinist or not. I wouldn't care if it didn't because I know I would not be abandoned by my side for saying so.
I think that your accusing me of idol worship is pretty hilarious given the circumstances. ... When God decided to use allegory in the Bible He did send me a memo. It was in the form of other scripture.
Scriptures do not lie, but sometimes, we misinterpret them.
Yes, I fully agree.
The Scriptures point to the earth as resting on pillars. Is. 40 says nothing about the earth being round on a three dimensional plane, but a circle on a two-dimensional plane - the sky being a canopy in three dimensions...
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you are pro-actively interpreting AGAINST the scripture matching science. You go ahead and believe that the "pillar" verses were meant to be taken to mean that posts were actually supporting the earth physically. BTW, which tradition is being protected by interpreting the Bible to be filled with scientific errors?
1 Cor. 4:6 : Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."First, 1 Corinthians was probably written around 57 AD. As a result, it predates almost every other book in the New Testament, and certainly all of the gospels. To take Paul's comment out of context and literally, as you do, nothing written after First Corinthians is to be trusted. After all, the books written after First Corinthians--that is, the whole New Testament, give or take some epistles--"go beyond what [was] written" in First Corinthians.
Further, the admonition not to go beyond what is written is a literal translation of what was apparently a common saying of the time, roughly equivalent to "don't get too big for your britches." Read some commentaries on it.
Luke 1:1-4 : 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.Paul first examines oral tradition, and then false writings. He concludes that to be SURE, he must write these things down.
You are conflating two passages, one from Paul, and a much later one from Luke. The introductory passage from Luke presupposes the existence of other narratives. The plethora of noncanonical gospels shows us that merely writing something down was not enough. As Luke says, the true traditions "were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." So, the introduction of Luke shows us how Holy Tradition preceded the New Testament and inspired its writing, and neatly illuminates the logic behind apostolic succession.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 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.Paul had to have written Second Timothy before his death in 67. This means that 2 Tim. far predates the gospels and the Book of Revelation, among other parts of the New Testament. So we know that Paul, when talking about "Scripture" being God-inspired he was not talking about the New Testament as we know it.Notice that it says EVERY GOOD WORK. It does not say that man is prepared for MOST good works. Neither does it say that man is PARTIALLY prepared for every good work.
The lines preceding your quote are:
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3:14-15.If Paul was writing to adults, what sacred scripture would they have known "from infancy?" Not the Pauline epistles, which were not written until the 50's. Not the Gospels, which were not written until the 60's (at the earliest). He must have been talking about the Old Testament. Finally, 2 Tim. 14 makes reference to what the recipients of the letter "have learned and believed," because they know from whom" they learned it. No reference to scripture here. Instead, it is a reference to Holy Tradition and, perhaps, apostolic succession.
I am merely relating what is common knowledge of the historical development of Christianity's spread throughout the world. God CHOSE not to give ANY NT writings to the first Christians! This is proof positive that Scripture does NOT determine what we believe, but it comes from the Apsotles themselves. THEY taught by word of mouth first, then by letter. NOWHERE does it say that the Bible now takes over. Thus, if you have problems with this line of thought, it seems to me that you are not following the Scriptures, the Word of God.
I agree that if something disagrees with Scripture, it is not valid Tradition. I don't find any Apostolic Tradition (a.k.a "orally" taught teachings that we still hold to) that disagree with the Bible that cannot be properly explained. IF something comes from God, it holds equal weight. Who cares if it is written or not?
I have never said anything like that. (Relativism) I have been accused of it, but I've never said it.
When you use yourself to interpret the Bible and the concept that any person can interpret themselves outside of the Church, then that is what you are saying, even though you don't use those words.
1 Cor. 4:6 : Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
Your interpretation of this does not match the KJV, which gives a different take: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
This verse doesn't say anything about "what is written" as being Scriptures! Even if Paul is refering to Scriptures, he is undoubtedly refering to the Old Testament, as the NT wasn't even written yet when the First Letter to the Corinthians was penned.
Luke 1:1-4 ...Paul first examines oral tradition, and then false writings. He concludes that to be SURE, he must write these things down.
I presume you mean Luke. Luke is trying to write down all of the various stories circulating about the Christ into one orderly account. Luke doesn't say anything about "false writings". He is merely trying to consolidate everything that was already known. It is unlikely that a person living in Athens would know EVERYTHING orally said about Christ, thus, a written account is better, all things equal. However, nothing here about Sola Scriptura!
We already talked about 2 Timothy. You need to try to stop reading what is plainly not there:
"the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
That does not say that something ELSE can equip someone for every good work. It merely says that "Scriptures" (which, funny enough, is NOT refering to the NT Scriptures, since Paul is refering to a set of writings that Timothy was familiar with during his CHILDHOOD! Thus, to take this as you do, then, you will have to discount the NT in your Sola Scriptura) are USEFUL for every good work. So is prayer. So is the Church, the community of faith.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Eph 4:11-13
This clearly tells us that apostles, prophets, evangelists and so forth are for PERFECTING THE SAINTS...UNTO THE PERFECTING OF MEN... Nothing about Scriptures, although we can ASSUME that they would use the Bible as part of their preaching and teaching.
Clearly, the NT Bible never says anything about "itself" because it didn't exist yet! Thus, Sola Sciptura is a false teaching of men that leads people away from the Word of God as taught by the Apostles.
Any view that does not match yours is a twisting of the scripture.
Ditto. But I have the teaching of 2000 years of Church teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error. You have yourself and the teachings of heretics to lead you. Frankly, I will stick with the Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Apostles to all truths and will follow their successors.
Your story of conversion verifies my point: We take on the teachings of those who teach us. You didn't read the Bible and come to conclusions yourself. We ALL deal with this to some degree. For Catholics, it is a matter of proving whether it (the Catholic Church) existed first and was established by the first generations of Christians. If so, it would be hard to argue against the Spirit's guidance of it, as it still exists, as Christ promised.
I know there were lots of "traditional" teachings floating around, but it took a popular vote among men to decide which were heretical and which were of the Catholic Church.
Popular vote? Then I suppose what happened in Acts 15 was a "popular vote", and not the Holy Spirit...This is a matter of belief - that the Spirit guides the Church. This belief is clearly found in Scriptures.
I happen to hold the view that without evidence to the contrary, that I should take the accounts of the Bible at face value
That is what we are taught, as well. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth is older than 6000 years, which, by the way, is a tradition of men, since the Bible doesn't mention what year the earth was formed. Thus, I am open to the scientific fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are more allegory than science. However, this does NOT take anything away from the Bible's inerrancy. Inerrancy means that God's Word is truth - in what HE wanted to say. Important distinction.
I think that your accusing me of idol worship is pretty hilarious given the circumstances. ... When God decided to use allegory in the Bible He did send me a memo. It was in the form of other scripture.
Say what?
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you are pro-actively interpreting AGAINST the scripture matching science. You go ahead and believe that the "pillar" verses were meant to be taken to mean that posts were actually supporting the earth physically. BTW, which tradition is being protected by interpreting the Bible to be filled with scientific errors?
Now don't get all upset! Frankly, I don't really CARE HOW the earth was formed - I know that God did it and why. That is what the Bible is clear on. The rest, the background, is a story that shows God's orderly thought and love behind making His creation. God is the creator of nature, as well as the Scriptures, and He cannot lie. Thus, He leaves tell-tale signs of the earth's age. He doesn't try to "trick" us into thinking that the earth is really old, like some "young earth" fundamentals claim. I trust that science has accurately told us that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Perhaps not 10 billion, but even one billion is a heck of a lot more than 6000 years.
Yes, science has been wrong before - but so has Biblical interpretation. Even Christians have been wrong on what the Bible is meant to say, such as on slavery. Thus, it is a farce to say that Genesis can ONLY be a literal history of the creation of the world.
I do not fear science. I don't need to pretend or desperately search for excuses as to why the earth is older than 6000 years. My faith is secure, even if the Bible has been misinterpreted on this section, which, by the way, many Church Fathers have ALSO looked at Genesis as allegory. St. Augustine wrote a book about it, and that was 400 AD, way before science knew the earth was round. Because Catholics do not hold Scripture INTERPRETATION of men as infallible in this case, I am free to decide, based on the evidence currently available, that the earth is older than 6000 years, not that that matters regarding my faith in Christ. Nor is my idea of Scriptural inerrancy destroyed. Man's interpretations of Scripture outside the Church are fallible.
Regards