Posted on 03/29/2015 2:11:17 PM PDT by RnMomof7
A "false dilemma" invented by those who seek to justify their rejection of the Deposit of Faith. Scripture and Tradition exist in perfect harmony.
Seriously BlatherNaut, are you blind or what?
St. Peter's clear warning against private interpretation of Scripture ("Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" 2 Pet 1:20) is blindingly obvious, but unfortunately there are none so blind as those who will not see.
St. Peter's clear warning against private interpretation of Scripture ("Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" 2 Pet 1:20) is blindingly obvious, but unfortunately there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Rather, this latest punt is the culmination of your every attempt at an argument being refuted, and your fantasy of seeing a Peter speaking about interpretation rather than how scripture was written is all you have left.
You should have quit while you were only 5 feet deep, as now you have become even more of an argument against being an RC, seeing what desperation RC devotion can drive result in.
However, i do hope that God may grant you repentance unto life
Applying the Reasonable Man Test to the clear direction communicated in 2 Peter 1:20 ("Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"), it is quite obvious that it is not the Catholic Church which is guilty of indulging in "fantasy".
----------------------------------------
Let us pray also, for heretics and schismatics, that our Lord and God may deliver them from all their errors, and vouchsafe to recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Almighty, eternal God, Who dost save all, and willest not that any should perish, look upon the souls deceived by diabolical fraud, that, abandoning all heretical depravity, the hearts of the erring may regain sanity and return to the unity of truth. Through our Lord. R. Amen.
Your every attempt to construe a text which clearly in context speaks of how the prophecy of Scripture was written (by Divine inspiration versus versus man's understanding) - and which would thus require Divine inspiration if it was speaking of understanding it - excludes you as holding to a "Reasonable Man Test."
Almighty, eternal God, Who dost save all, and willest not that any should perish, look upon the souls deceived by diabolical fraud, that, abandoning all heretical depravity, the hearts of the erring may regain sanity and return to the unity of truth. Through our Lord. R. Amen.
Amen!
"Clearly in context" he is warning against private interpretation of Scripture.
"And we [St. Peter and the Apostles] have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:19-20)
and which would thus require Divine inspiration if it was speaking of understanding it - excludes you as holding to a "Reasonable Man Test."
By that logic, similarly straightforward texts such as "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (2 Peter 1:17) would also be incomprehensible to the "reasonable man" absent Divine inspiration.
You simply keep digging yourself deeper with every attempt to support your interpretation of this text, as if it were infallibly defined by Rome!
Here your attempt to make this refer to the apostles interpretation of Scripture is absurd, for the very reason that the apostle say they have the "more sure word of prophecy," is not because the apostles interpreted it, but because "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)
Therefore it remains that if the interpretation of Scripture is the subject, versus how it was written, then it would require Divine inspiration just like it was written.
By that logic, similarly straightforward texts such as "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (2 Peter 1:17) would also be incomprehensible to the "reasonable man" absent Divine inspiration.
You evidently are not comprehending the argument, as private interpretation does not disallow comprehending anything of Scripture, but the argument is that since Divine inspiration is the alternative to private interpretation in regards to how Scripture was written, then if it refers to understanding it then Divine inspiration would be required in order to preserve teaching from error.
Rome holds that no one is to present themselves as the supreme arbiters of what Scripture means (since that presumption is what she has presumed), which you seem to do here since Rome has not infallibly defined this text to mean what you compel it to teach. And which it manifestly does not, no matter if Rome defines it as referring to interpretation of Scripture, as no doubt some prelates have presumed to m do.
Which RC compulsion is manifest for others to see.
Yes, we know....you claim "sacred tradition".
Please, just once, share with all what difference there is between the scripture we have and "sacred tradition".
We've asked over and over and over and still not one catholic can or will provide an answer. And please don't say it's the oral teaching. Everyone understands not every word was written down that was ever spoken by Jesus and the Apostles.
What we want to know is what is it in sacred tradition that we don't have in the scripture.
With that strawman it is no wonder that you cannot find it in Scripture, as that is not what SS means, except to a fringe who have a superficial understanding of it. Note that "needing no supplement" refers to anything being added to the canon, but which provides for supplements to understanding Scripture, and such things as the leading of the Spirit, etc.
For if the Bible is the only thing that the Christian is to use, or needs, or observe, versus it alone being (as even WP says) "the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice," "and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine," as the wholly inspired word of God, then what is Westminster doing saying such things as,
...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
SS does not mean all that can be know is written, nor that Scripture is all that can be used, but that it is supreme and sufficient in its formal and material aspects to provide what is needed, both by explicit teaching and implicit without contradiction.
It also does not mean souls cannot be saved without having Bibles, as even a SS preacher could orally preach Scriptural truths in circumstances without one, and enjoin these to be kept, under the premise that they are taught in Scripture, to which all Truth claims are subject to.
Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures--the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic apocrypha)--are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.
[247 ] Chapter and verse that says this would be a start.
Which demand is also a form of a strawman, as SS does not mean that all Truth is explicitly taught, "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all..." - Westminster), else SS believers could not contend for the Trinity since that is based upon the collective conflative weight of a number of verses which require this explanation in order to negate a contradiction.
Likewise Scripture. For first of all if anything is to be the supreme authority then it would be a comprehensive body of Truth which is wholly inspired of God.
What other source fits this description? It is never said of tradition such things as,
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
While some of Scripture was first expressed orally as the word of God, yet oral tradition by its very nature is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, while Scripture is the only wholly inspired body of Truth that existed in a material, and thus testable form.
Moreover, Scripture was not that of simply that of writing verbatim what was spoken, though this was sometimes the case, but as can be seen by comparing duplicate accounts of the words of Christ (such as His illegal trial) the same Holy Spirit by which Christ spoke often recast - as Christ directed - what He said to provide a more concise or more comprehensive revelation for its immediate and successive audience.
In addition, Scripture is not simply Truth, but due its Divine inspiration it is the assured word of God and which "is quick [alive], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Scripture has God as its author and Catholicism cannot and does not even claim that its teaching is wholly inspired of God, and as such then even it true then it lacks the anointing and authority that Scripture has.
Furthermore, it is abundantly evidenced by a multiplicity of texts that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
It is never said of a body of truth called tradition such things as,
The law [which in the NT can include wisdom books and prophets] of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple...More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:7,10)
And while the word of God was also spoke, it was not tradition that God said was the medium "for the time to come for ever and ever" (Isaiah 30:8)
Nor was it tradition that Peter said was "the more sure word" since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
And it was not tradition that the Lord invoked in defeating the devil in Mat. 4, nor in telling souls to search in Jn. 6:59, nor in substantiating His claims, nor was it tradition that He opened the understanding of the disciples (nor just the apostles) to:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
Nor was it tradition that John said was given that one may know they have eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)
Nor was it tradition that Peter, Paul and Apollos appealed to in preaching to the Jews. (Acts 2:14-43; 17:22; 18:28; 28:23) Nor was it tradition that Paul taught had promised the gospel of God. (Rm. 1:1;2)
And which OT Scriptures also testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Therefore Scripture is the only wholly inspired comprehensive body of Truth that is manifest to be the supreme and sufficient transcendent standard for Truth, though the sufficiency aspect of Scripture pertains to its formal and material aspects. Which is in formally providing salvific Truths (one can be saved by reading such a text as Peter's message in Acts 10:36-43), and materially providing for the additional conflative complimentary writings (as well as for the church, etc.) that became established as being of God (essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities an attestation).
See my response by the grace of God here to a article of Akin posted here re SS.
As has been stated over and over Catholics do accept the authority, but we don't accept it as the sole authority.
True, since Rome holds to the alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, or more precisely Sola Roma, as Rome effectively holds that she alone is assuredly correct in determining what Scripture and tradition consists of and means.
And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.
Yet which is cultic, not Christian, as it is contrary to how the NT began. Which was not upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), but by Truth claims being established by the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy as well and does not answer the question.
Then you must have closed your eyes while reading. What is begging the question is the Cath. alternative to SS.
hey look.....no tradtion.....just the word.
I’m still wondering where the blood from the bloodless sacrifice that the Catholic church claims the mass is, comes from.
And I’m wondering where the 2,000 year old Catholics who never died after eating the eucharist are.
Here's the passage:
Snippet hunting is a sorry way to build a doctrine.
That is Scriptural, but contra Roman.
No, the "very reason" the Apostles have the "more firm prophetical word" (2 Peter 1:19) is because they received it from the mouth of the Word Made Flesh, "Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee" (Mt 21:11).
Context:
"For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (2 Peter 1:16-17).
the argument is that since Divine inspiration is the alternative to private interpretation in regards to how Scripture was written
2 Peter 1:20, "understanding this first, that no prophecy* of scripture is made by private interpretation" refers not to "how Scripture was written" but to how it is to be interpreted. Only "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church possesses the authority to officially interpret the Word of God "because he hath given us of his spirit". (1 John 4:13) "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20: 21-22)
----------------
*prophecy: a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4394&t=KJV
Particularly when used to utterly dismiss the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Divine Prophet, from the picture.
That is yet absurd, as again that is not what Peter is referring to, but to what was written! For having referred to what they did hear on the mount then Peter says "We have also a more sure word of prophecy" the reason being that "prophecy of the scripture" "came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20,21)
And therefore Peter next contrasts the inspired prophecy of old time with false prophets in 2Pt. 3:1, and which he spends the entire chapter on.
Thus regardless of what RCs are compelled to compel Scripture to say, it is incontrovertible that the more sure word of prophecy was "prophecy of the scripture" which "came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20, "understanding this first, that no prophecy* of scripture is made by private interpretation" refers not to "how Scripture was written" but to how it is to be interpreted. Only "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church possesses the authority to officially interpret the Word of God
That is simply argument by assertion of pure propaganda, and which propaganda you insist on reading into Scripture in order to support your master Rome. And which hardly warrants further attempts to reason with you, and which exchange already serves as a prime example of what RCs can be compelled to do, not matter what expense to credibility.
This thread still going???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.