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
Beautifully stated, Jo.
Why is that proof positive? Because it was first? I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture. You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene. There was oral Tradition before them, too.
IF something comes from God, it holds equal weight. Who cares if it is written or not?
It only makes all the difference in the world. If something is written from God, then it is there for all to examine, and most, if not all, misapplications can and will be discovered. If there is the spoken word of God, OTOH, then it is subject to man's corruption upon the first retelling. It cannot be examined for all to see. The "source" then really becomes the teller. I cannot trust the telephone game to relay accurately the words of God if God's written word is available.
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.
So when I say that I let the Bible interpret itself, then I don't really mean that. I really mean that I interpret it myself into whatever I want. Feel free to believe this if you wish, but it's wrong.
This verse [1 Cor. 4:6] doesn't say anything about "what is written" as being Scriptures! Even if Paul is referring to Scriptures, he is undoubtedly referring to the Old Testament, as the NT wasn't even written yet when the First Letter to the Corinthians was penned.
What do you THINK "what is written" means? Even if Paul was referring to the OT, they are still scriptures. That doesn't defeat the point that the verse supports Sola Scriptura. Paul was giving a principle. He was teaching them what to do in the FUTURE. Principles go beyond the first telling. Under your reasoning, all scripture could not possibly have been inspired UNLESS the last verse of Revelation said so!
I presume you mean Luke.
OOPS. Yes. :)
[Re: Luke 1:1-4] Luke doesn't say anything about "false writings". He is merely trying to consolidate everything that was already known.
I was looking at the first verse: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account ...". I think I can make a plausible argument that if Luke thought that all these people had done a great job, then he wouldn't have felt the need to write down another one himself. I infer that he felt there was plenty of error going around, so to be SURE, he was going to write this one down himself. Besides, wasn't it actually true that there was plenty of error going around at that time?
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!
Yes, this one is not a slam dunk for Sola Scriptura, but I think it is fairly in support of it. Luke favors a written account.
[From: 2 Tim. 3:16-17] "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.
I TOTALLY agree! But, I presume you mean "can't". Really, Joe, how could you make a mistake like that? :)
[continuing] It merely says that "Scriptures" ... are USEFUL for every good work. So is prayer. So is the Church, the community of faith.
I think it says more than that. Here it is again:
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.
On this point, the key words for me are "SO THAT". All scripture is God breathed SO THAT the saved man may be thoroughly equipped ... This teaches me that scripture is all that a man needs to be thoroughly equipped, etc. It definitely supports Sola Scriptura.
[On 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.
Yes, we should assume they would use the Bible. We should also assume that they would not teach in contradiction of it. We think the same of each other's teachers, so that is an impasse. However, I don't see how this is critical of Sola Scriptura. If men teach in accordance with the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is fine. ... BTW, who are the "saints" to you in verses like this?
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.
Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous. I believe that all scripture is true. I believe that God knew every word of the Bible from the beginning. Why, then, would it matter where that truth is placed in the Bible? Are you truly telling me that every truth in the Bible is only operative from the moment of telling BACKWARD? Please. Your view does wonders for the reputation of the Book of Revelation and prophecy in general.
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.
Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.
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.
Using the Catholic idea of free will, it is very easy to argue against this. Neither of us would argue about whether the Spirit guides God's Church. But, under free will, there is nothing that says than man will follow the guidance, right? Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?
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.
How is that a tradition of men? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math? There might some room for error, but I think one could get within a reasonable ballpark by what is in there. No?
FK: "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 was first referring to the statues and icons, and to praying to entities other than God. (I do remember your answer to this.) In the second case I was referring to my belief that the Bible interprets itself.
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.
I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth. As I said in another post (probably to you :), I don't at all look down my nose at those who believe in an old earth. I do think there is allegory in the OT, and it can be tougher to spot than in the NT. I think there is a NT verse somewhere that says that God's "days" are not like our days, or something like that. That would seem like a decent out, but then I don't know what to do with the rest of the numbers in the OT. Did Adam really live to be 900, etc.? I really have no problem believing that is literally true.