V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/quote] [/quote]
You wish for me to accept a heretical group’s, and the product of a schismatic church’s, writings? The fact that the segment you published is a non-sequitor does not help your case. The fact that they are referring to a partial section of the Bible really doesn’t help.
I’ll get to the rest later, but this is the gist of what I’ll say…I don’t read it claiming to be Divine and Authoritative. If your proof is proof, there is a few books you’re missing…that you admit to, nevertheless. However, it ultimately doesn’t because there are a few others you’d have to claim as scripture that you won’t not including actual Holy Script.
I only included the confession as a point that I agree with. Not that I expected you would. There’s also a Westminster longer and shorter catechism btw. Great stuff too, but much more extensive. Especially the larger. As for the rest? I am NOT being sarcastic. I don’t know what you’re saying.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?
[/quote]
No you see the authority in the Bible, it is plain as day. Though with our depraved minds, we twist the rather clear picture. It is understandable why it is not always seen.
You have to accept the Authority of God the Father, given to the Son, that was given to the son’s Bride to rule the Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven, yes. The Bible being accepted as Divine and Authoritative is based on the Witness by the King’s Bride since the King is not present in human flesh to rule in person (there is more, I’d point to St. Paul and to be slightly aloof I wonder if you know which part of scripture I’m referring to here).
But as I’ve pointed out, this is a tough bridge for man alone to cross as Catholics take the Bible from the Author and Witness of the Bride and Protestants take the Author and Bride based on the witness of the Bible.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
Even if it did, why on earth would this suffice to guarantee its divinity?
If the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita declare themselves a divine authority within their own pages, how then are we to determine which, if any, are not lying?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
Even if it did, why on earth would this suffice to guarantee its divinity?
If the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita declare themselves a divine authority within their own pages, how then are we to determine which, if any, are not lying? [/quote]
Cortes, I am not sure why you are asking this particular question. It’s not as if the existence of the church somehow provides an answer to the dilemma you bring up. Who cares if the church claims its documents are inspired? Other religions claim the same things about their own sacred texts. The problem you raise is in no way answered by the existence of the church. Was this just a side note on your part?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
Even if it did, why on earth would this suffice to guarantee its divinity?
If the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita declare themselves a divine authority within their own pages, how then are we to determine which, if any, are not lying? [/quote]
Cortes, I am not sure why you are asking this particular question. It’s not as if the existence of the church somehow provides an answer to the dilemma you bring up. Who cares if the church claims its documents are inspired? Other religions claim the same things about their own sacred texts. The problem you raise is in no way answered by the existence of the church. Was this just a side note on your part?[/quote]
Well, this has been covered in other threads, but there was no Bible, at least in the collected form, for a good while, yet there certainly was a Church during that time.
I understand, though, that this is not really what Tirib is saying, necessarily. The conversation as I understand it branched off in this direction because of Tirib and BC getting into a side-debate regarding the Bible asserting its own divinity (within its pages).
I just don’t see why this is such a big deal. Tirib, it seems like you jump on every little thing Chris says and blow it out of proportion and these discussions never, ever end up reaching any conclusion, or at least stalemate. Perhaps the points really are fully IN proportion to the significance of the matter at hand, but I sure would like to hear you two finally get into the actual topic of this actual thread.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No you see the authority in the Bible, it is plain as day. Though with our depraved minds, we twist the rather clear picture. It is understandable why it is not always seen.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. I say that with no disrespect, but I have no problem declaring that the notion of Scripture’s “perspicuity” is hogwash. The Reformers needed that “doctrine” to justify their disagreement with the church, but it has served its purpose and now does more harm than good. I do not disagree with Catholics that EVEN ON MAJOR ISSUES Scripture is fundamentally “unclear.”
However, we need to define what we mean by unclear. Is Scripture written in such a high poetic style that those without extensive literary training cannot decipher it? No. Scripture is hard to understand because God did not give us a uniform text, representing a single simple genre, written in some sort of universal language unfettered by the conceptual constraints of now lost cultures and societies. Historical and temporal distance is what makes Scripture hard to understand; it would not magically become clear if only we were freed from our “depraved minds.” I’m not saying that our own sinfulness doesn’t affect our interpretations - philosophers of hermeneutics have noted the role of self-interest, cultural conditioning, and rebelliousness in obscuring the text. But the ultimate difficulty of understanding Scripture does not lie in our depravity, but rather our finitude.
As I have said before, the question is not whether we require the witness of the church to tell us what texts are Scriptural. In many ways, the church’s validation of particular texts is irrelevant - the majority of Jews in Jesus’ milieu accepted the books comprising our Old Testament canon as Scripture, and the picture of Jesus in the gospels confirms that he too held that view. Moreover, there is evidence within the New Testament itself that other apostles considered Paul’s epistles as authoritative Scripture, and that several of the gospels were authoritative as well. That does not account for all the books in the New Testament, but it counts for many of them. Consequently, many of the Scriptures were already recognized as authoritative before the church formally recognized them as such.
The REAL point, Chris, is that what we are ultimately arguing about is whether or not the Catholic church as it stands today really represents the views of the apostolic church of the first century. The Scriptural texts witness to that period and many of them self-attest. The burden of proof is on the Catholic church to demonstrate that its distinctive beliefs reflect the views of the first century church. If the Catholic church cannot do this without resorting to circular argumentation (like stating, “we alone have the special divine authority to interpret those texts rightly”), then the narrative of her origins she offers cannot be trusted.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
Even if it did, why on earth would this suffice to guarantee its divinity?
If the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita declare themselves a divine authority within their own pages, how then are we to determine which, if any, are not lying? [/quote]
Cortes, I am not sure why you are asking this particular question. It’s not as if the existence of the church somehow provides an answer to the dilemma you bring up. Who cares if the church claims its documents are inspired? Other religions claim the same things about their own sacred texts. The problem you raise is in no way answered by the existence of the church. Was this just a side note on your part?[/quote]
Well, this has been covered in other threads, but there was no Bible, at least in the collected form, for a good while, yet there certainly was a Church during that time.
I understand, though, that this is not really what Tirib is saying, necessarily. The conversation as I understand it branched off in this direction because of Tirib and BC getting into a side-debate regarding the Bible asserting its own divinity (within its pages).
I just don’t see why this is such a big deal. Tirib, it seems like you jump on every little thing Chris says and blow it out of proportion and these discussions never, ever end up reaching any conclusion, or at least stalemate. Perhaps the points really are fully IN proportion to the significance of the matter at hand, but I sure would like to hear you two finally get into the actual topic of this actual thread.
Perhaps I ask too much.
[/quote]
I second that feeling - I too would like to start the conversation. However, I think Chris too has been hedging his bets A LOT. Tirib doesn’t want to invest in a conversation in which the dialogue partner has already made up his mind that his position is unassailably correct. Chris seems to go back and forth between saying that only the church provides valid interpretations, BECAUSE it’s the church, and then seeming to suggest the next minute that the church’s interpretations are OBJECTIVELY valid. If the latter is the case, then we can test it. If the former is the case, then any conversation becomes pointless.
Nevertheless, I do hope we can start the promised conversation soon.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church. [/quote] This is how this got started on the last page. I asked dearest Christopher to clarify that he didn’t REALLY mean that the books of scripture make no claims of divine origins themselves. HE challenged ME to demonstrate that they did. I did. No more to it than that and it can be seen starting on the last page. He is STILL maintaining that position on this very page. I really love Chris guys. I just had to throw that in. I really do.
I was all set on Romans 2 until my very long standing interpretation of verses 12-14 in particular was credibly challenged requiring, for me at least, a rather significant amount and level of study. Romans is in my opinion the most theologically dense book in the bible and is almost one giant context. Everything leads you to something else.
The question is whether the apostle is speaking hypothetically about a non existent situation wherein gentiles would essentially conduct themselves like Jews with regard to the law by instinct or whether he’s speaking of gentiles who now as believers bear the same relationship to the law as the Jews by faith. In a nutshell. The one interpretation that is plainly preposterous is the Roman Catholic one wherein unevangelized gentiles actually DO do the law by nature. Paul’s entire train of thought through the first 3 chapters, which is to establish universal guilt, must be ignored to adopt that view. He is literally (and actually plainly) teaching the exact opposite of the Catholic understanding of the passage.
That fatally flawed exegesis is then used to advance a view of the lost heathen that is ineffectual at best and mortally dangerous at worst. IF it can be proven that the Catholic position here, along with the doctrine and practice it leads to is wrong, then her self proclaimed monolithic authority over the Scriptures is immediately suspect to the say the least. The question to the Catholics here is, WHAT IF that’s true?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the bible does or doesn’t declare itself to be divinely authoritative in your view? And what do you do with what I posted.[/quote]
Even if it did, why on earth would this suffice to guarantee its divinity?
If the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita declare themselves a divine authority within their own pages, how then are we to determine which, if any, are not lying? [/quote]
Cortes, I am not sure why you are asking this particular question. It’s not as if the existence of the church somehow provides an answer to the dilemma you bring up. Who cares if the church claims its documents are inspired? Other religions claim the same things about their own sacred texts. The problem you raise is in no way answered by the existence of the church. Was this just a side note on your part?[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No you see the authority in the Bible, it is plain as day. Though with our depraved minds, we twist the rather clear picture. It is understandable why it is not always seen.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. I say that with no disrespect, but I have no problem declaring that the notion of Scripture’s “perspicuity” is hogwash. The Reformers needed that “doctrine” to justify their disagreement with the church, but it has served its purpose and now does more harm than good. I do not disagree with Catholics that EVEN ON MAJOR ISSUES Scripture is fundamentally “unclear.”
However, we need to define what we mean by unclear. Is Scripture written in such a high poetic style that those without extensive literary training cannot decipher it? No. Scripture is hard to understand because God did not give us a uniform text, representing a single simple genre, written in some sort of universal language unfettered by the conceptual constraints of now lost cultures and societies. Historical and temporal distance is what makes Scripture hard to understand; it would not magically become clear if only we were freed from our “depraved minds.” I’m not saying that our own sinfulness doesn’t affect our interpretations - philosophers of hermeneutics have noted the role of self-interest, cultural conditioning, and rebelliousness in obscuring the text. But the ultimate difficulty of understanding Scripture does not lie in our depravity, but rather our finitude.
As I have said before, the question is not whether we require the witness of the church to tell us what texts are Scriptural.[/quote]
It is, otherwise we can’t move forward to if they Bible is divine and authoritative.
Yet, you reject a closed canon and the full canon that has been used for coming on 1700 years…
I’m not saying that they aren’t authoritative, but it is the fact if they are divine as well, in which I mean Divinely Inspired. And, yes I believe I pointed out that even St. Paul points out that Scripture is inspired and profitable, however he was referring to the Old Testament (which wasn’t even finalized, so we don’t really have a list there we just have to accept that he’s referring to the OT as accepted by the CC).
So, again the Bible doesn’t claim the Bible itself is Divine and Authoritative, it claims other parts, but does not claim itself in whole as Divine and Authoritative.
Yes, who recognized them as authoritative…not the Bible, but the Church.
I’ve been waiting for someone to show me it does not. Historically it is, and by far it is the only Church that claims to be founded by Jesus Christ. I’ve been looking for there to be a gap between today’s Church and the Church that Jesus founded, and it is the same Church.
I’m not denying the historical validity of the text, that is not my point. Again, I am claiming that the Bible does not itself claim that the Bible is Divine and Authoritative.
I question if the burden of proof is on the Catholic Church. After all, if you claim the Queen is a Usurper, I believe the Burden of Proof is on the protesters. However, the Catholic Church has been proving this question since the very beginning when Jesus founded us.
[quote]If the Catholic church cannot do this without resorting to circular argumentation (like stating, “we alone have the special divine authority to interpret those texts rightly”), then the narrative of her origins she offers cannot be trusted.
[/quote]
I don’t much see the Catholic Church answering with that, as it is not even an answer, but a non-sequitor. However, I do see a rather similar argument when it comes to trying to prove the Bible is Divine and Authoritative.
Stop with your sentimentalism. You twist my claims again. Two parts, the 1) Bible does not claim itself to be 2) Divine and Authoritative. There is no Divinely Inspired Table of Contents.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church. [/quote] This is how this got started on the last page. I asked dearest Christopher to clarify that he didn’t REALLY mean that the books of scripture make no claims of divine origins themselves. HE challenged ME to demonstrate that they did. I did. No more to it than that and it can be seen starting on the last page. He is STILL maintaining that position on this very page. I really love Chris guys. I just had to throw that in. I really do.[/quote] Stop with your sentimentalism. >>>[/quote] Knock it off Chris or I’m gonna come down there and pinch you adorable widdow cheeks. [quote]Brother Chris wrote: You twist my claims again. >>>[/quote] If you mean to imply design on my part Chris? I have never ever done that to you, including here. An unfounded malicious accusation which disappoints me. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Two parts, the 1) Bible does not claim itself to be 2) Divine and Authoritative. There is no Divinely Inspired Table of Contents.[/quote] God works ALL things after the counsel of His own will Chris. Especially something like the preservation of His written Word. I’ll give you the canonization process (sorta) and have. Thanks. The Jews pretty much canonized the Hebrew scriptures and today have zero understanding what they mean. In their case God actually specifically stated in those scriptures their elected function in that regard. A thing that is reiterated all over the new testament.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< [/i] Historical and temporal distance is what makes Scripture hard to understand; it would not magically become clear if only we were freed from our “depraved minds.” I’m not saying that our own sinfulness doesn’t affect our interpretations - philosophers of hermeneutics have noted the role of self-interest, cultural conditioning, and rebelliousness in obscuring the text. But the ultimate difficulty of understanding Scripture does not lie in our depravity, but rather our finitude. >>>[/quote]I just had to throw in that I don’t disagree with this.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Knock it off Chris or I’m gonna come down there and pinch you adorable widdow cheeks.[/quote]
Then stop with your sentimentalism.
Why does disappointing you have to do with authority? More sentimentalism.
Never denied this.
Which he gave to his Bride, the Catholic Church.
Yes, pray to the Holy Ghost and figure it out on your own. We have two Canons, yours came about a century after the Bride declared the Canon.
Or, did God lie about protecting his Church and protected it until it made the Canon and then let it go from his strong arm? And, please tell us when this happened.
When? Where? Who?
Okay…so you trust them why if they don’t understand it?
Where?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< [/i] Historical and temporal distance is what makes Scripture hard to understand; it would not magically become clear if only we were freed from our “depraved minds.” I’m not saying that our own sinfulness doesn’t affect our interpretations - philosophers of hermeneutics have noted the role of self-interest, cultural conditioning, and rebelliousness in obscuring the text. But the ultimate difficulty of understanding Scripture does not lie in our depravity, but rather our finitude. >>>[/quote]I just had to throw in that I don’t disagree with this.
[/quote]
Congratulations, once you figure out what God has revealed to us, please let me know. I’ll be interested in the results.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Knock it off Chris or I’m gonna come down there and pinch you adorable widdow cheeks.[/quote]
Then stop with your sentimentalism.
Why does disappointing you have to do with authority? More sentimentalism.
Never denied this.
Which he gave to his Bride, the Catholic Church.
Yes, pray to the Holy Ghost and figure it out on your own. We have two Canons, yours came about a century after the Bride declared the Canon.
Or, did God lie about protecting his Church and protected it until it made the Canon and then let it go from his strong arm? And, please tell us when this happened.
When? Where? Who?
Okay…so you trust them why if they don’t understand it?
Where?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Historical and temporal distance is what makes Scripture hard to understand; it would not magically become clear if only we were freed from our “depraved minds.” I’m not saying that our own sinfulness doesn’t affect our interpretations - philosophers of hermeneutics have noted the role of self-interest, cultural conditioning, and rebelliousness in obscuring the text. But the ultimate difficulty of understanding Scripture does not lie in our depravity, but rather our finitude. >>>[/quote]I just had to throw in that I don’t disagree with this.
[/quote]
Congratulations, once you figure out what God has revealed to us, please let me know. I’ll be interested in the results.
Anyone with unanswered PM’s has my apology. I am not able to send them and am waiting patiently to have that function restored though I am beginning to suspect that may never happen which will bum me very much out.