Faith and authority

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why?

@Brother-Mike, did you reply to post #33? I cannot see a reply in this thread.

 

[timothyu]

Everyone who believes that their theological position is correct and trumps other positions has effectively set themselves up as the ultimate authority.

Certainly. Look how Jesus' only gospel, the Gospel of the Kingdom, got splintered into many more and the simple and free way of living He promoted got turned into a governmental institution.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No one person has the full truth.

One person does, but I am sure you know it; he's the Lord, Jesus Christ and he called himself the Truth.

 

[timothyu]

One person does, but I am sure you know it; he's the Lord, Jesus Christ and he called himself the Truth.

Too bad He got watered down and fragmented by religion

 

[fhansen]

Certainly. Look how Jesus' only gospel, the Gospel of the Kingdom, got splintered into many more and the simple and free way of living He promoted got turned into a governmental institution.

Only if there's something inherently wrong/evil about the existence of a physical, visible entity is there something wrong with governance. Any group of people, including familes, require governance. And size deosn't matter whether monolithic, or tiny, persecuted and struggling. And the church necessarily involved an entity, and that's why, for one, you have the bible today. God uses weak vessels in a messy world to carry His message and that message is the treasure which, if you care to study, has remained the same in basic form.

 

[timothyu]

God uses weak vessels in a messy world to carry His message and that message is the treasure which, if you care to study, has remained the same in basic form.

Yes he used a medium which for centuries withheld His words from the people in order to propel it into the future of a less authoritarian age, as a need from the Jewish influence in Christianity being scattered. God knew to forward His message hidden in plain sight within the world of man, a message man would outwardly adapt to themselves and make their own.

 

[Brother-Mike]

@Brother-Mike, did you reply to post #33? I cannot see a reply in this thread.

I did reply here, so I presume you are not convinced with pithy Luther.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm neither a Reformation scholar nor a Church historian (maybe there are some of these folks here that can chime in far better than I, or Xeno for that matter?). But that said, here's my current reasoning:

1. I'm familiar with some of the scriptural arguments on behalf of Catholics against Sola Scriptura: Matthew 28:18-20, Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16, Matthew 16:18-19, John 20:21.
2. I don't dispute that these are arguments for the Church, for tradition, for Apostolic mission, maybe even for the refinement of doctrine and teachings.
3. What I do not see is anything resembling an assignment of Church authority of any of these things over or on equal footing with scripture. Do you see the critical distinction? 2 Timothy 3:16 is clear that scripture is the Word of God. Where do any of these verses (or any others for that matter) have anything close to this direct, unambiguous declaration?
4. Is it Matthew 28:18-20? Here Jesus is declaring his own authority, then tells them to go and make disciples but "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". Is there even a hint here of something like "... all that I have commanded you and equally all that you see fit too"?
5. Or maybe Matthew 28:18-20 is a bad example - so are you able to exegete ANY verse, in English or Greek that assigns "rule of faith" authority as opposed to church/tradition authority?

So none of this is a refutation of the argument against Sola Scriptura but instead my inability to simply see how the argument can be made. I'm all ears, and given my belief in Sola Scriptura I'm actually rooting for you, since I'm 100% committed to any scripture that you yourself use to make your case

 

[fhansen]

Yes he used a medium which for centuries withheld His words from the people in order to propel it into the future of a less authoritarian age, as a need from the Jewish influence in Christianity being scattered. God knew to forward His message hidden in plain sight within the world of man, a message man would outwardly adapt to themselves and make their own.

actually, they would adapt it to whatever position they personally and privately saw fit with great division resulting.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What I do not see is anything resembling an assignment of Church authority of any of these things over or on equal footing with scripture.

The question "why?" from my earlier post is asking why anyone ought to take scripture as final authority on doctrine?

 

[Brad D.]

Only if there's something inherently wrong/evil about the existence of a physical, visible entity is there something wrong with governance. Any group of people, including familes, require governance. And size deosn't matter whether monolithic, or tiny, persecuted and struggling. And the church necessarily involved an entity, and that's why, for one, you have the bible today. God uses weak vessels in a messy world to carry His message and that message is the treasure which, if you care to study, has remained the same in basic form.

I really seek this more as an answer that has always been puzzling to me and not intended to debate if you would be so kind to answer these questions.

(1) Do you feel Constantine was good for the church or bad? Do you feel the world and the emperor embracing the church helped further the church in its spiritual aim or hurt it? Do you feel the spiritual quality of the church was diminished when this happened from the days of the catacombs?

(2) Do you fault the heart then of the Desert Fathers who separated themselves to the Desert when the rush of the world came in?

 

[timothyu]

actually, they would adapt it to whatever position they personally and privately saw fit with great division resulting.

True but Jesus' words, which the gentiles weren't really interested in, remained supposedly unchanged. As for the division Jesus said His sword would divide man between world and Kingdom. Man's division was among themselves hence world only.

 

[timothyu]

The question "why?" from my earlier post is asking why anyone ought to take scripture as final authority on doctrine?

Because doctrine is a result of scripture, not the other way around?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because doctrine is a result of scripture, not the other way around?

Why do you think of it that way?
Why not say "doctrine is about truth and truth is discoverable by observation in nature, in human behaviour, and in human writings"?

 

[timothyu]

Why do you think of it that way?
Why not say "doctrine is about truth and truth is discoverable by observation in nature, in human behaviour, and in human writings"?

Because that is merely an example of man's self justification of man's will. That runs contrary to the will of God that says man's self interest is a no no while intertest in the goodwill of others is not., His second commandment

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because that is merely an example of man's self justification of man's will. That runs contrary to the will of God that says man's self interest is a no no while intertest in the goodwill of others is not., His second commandment

Men (and some women) interpret the bible, men wrote it too. And it is written in human languages.

 

[timothyu]

Men (and some women) interpret the bible, men wrote it too. And it is written in human languages.

So better to rely on even later ideologies than chance perhaps they at least got Jesus' words right, which when you come right down to it are the only ones that count? Or was Jesus to the Gentiles just a concept to expand upon and build a governmental institution around by way of doctrine etc as to them, they held just as much credence as a collection of books? Is this why people are more defensive of their personal religious sect than of Jesus' gospel of the Kingdom? Seems like what man would do, yes.

 

[Brother-Mike]

The question "why?" from my earlier post is asking why anyone ought to take scripture as final authority on doctrine?

Okay, I’ll stick with 2 Timothy 3:16 as a direct assertion of scriptural authority. As I asked above, are you going to present anything that establishes Church authority equal to scriptural authority?

I’ve indulged (no pun intended) your requests for more information and further detail. Isn’t it time to reciprocate? Seems at least fair

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

are you going to present anything that establishes Church authority equal to scriptural authority?

Church authority is not equal to scripture authority, but Church authority is different from scripture authority in several ways

• scripture is written and unchanging; no on adds to it and only a few have removed from it
• scripture is human and divine - human in language and patterns of thought divine in inspiration
• scripture is written in ancient languages and so must be translated to be made accessible
• scripture is the product of the cultures and people of its times and so must be interpreted
• the church is from God, and no one adds or takes from the church except God himself
• the church is present in our own times and speaks our own languages and studies ancient ones
• the church is of our current cultures and remembers past ones and so is able to interpret
• the church is human and divine - human in its membership, divine in its Lord and Spirit

Thus, being different in authority yet having authority the church is God's instrument in the world to propagate the gospel, teach the truth, enlighten men and women who seek for God, and finally to give the sacraments to the faithful.

The final authority is always God himself, and the authority of God is known and experienced by the truth which he reveals both in creation and in the inspired scriptures through the instrumentality of his people both in the past through prophets, priests, and kings and in the present through the church as he promised in the gospels.

 

[timothyu]

The final authority is always God himself, and the authority of God is known and experienced by the truth which he reveals both in creation and in the inspired scriptures

He said simply to put His will first thus loving all as self. That is the entire Bible. Hardly something to build an institution on but a great concept for a way of life, modelled on the Kingdom.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Church authority is not equal to scripture authority, but Church authority is different from scripture authority in several ways

• scripture is written and unchanging; no on adds to it and only a few have removed from it
• scripture is human and divine - human in language and patterns of thought divine in inspiration
• scripture is written in ancient languages and so must be translated to be made accessible
• scripture is the product of the cultures and people of its times and so must be interpreted
• the church is from God, and no one adds or takes from the church except God himself
• the church is present in our own times and speaks our own languages and studies ancient ones
• the church is of our current cultures and remembers past ones and so is able to interpret
• the church is human and divine - human in its membership, divine in its Lord and Spirit

Thus, being different in authority yet having authority the church is God's instrument in the world to propagate the gospel, teach the truth, enlighten men and women who seek for God, and finally to give the sacraments to the faithful.

The final authority is always God himself, and the authority of God is known and experienced by the truth which he reveals both in creation and in the inspired scriptures through the instrumentality of his people both in the past through prophets, priests, and kings and in the present through the church as he promised in the gospels.

As much as I’d like to find fault and disagree with any of this, I cannot Nor do I believe that any of even the most stern-bearded, Swiss-accented of my compatriots would too, because I don’t believe that you’ve made any scriptural claim to the equality of church authority with scriptural authority.

i.e. (and maybe someone can help me here with my lingo) when I say “Church authority” I’m not talking about whether the bible makes a claim for the church (it does) or the church’s role in teaching and spreading the gospel (it does) or even the presence of God in the church’s workings (it does). Rather, I’m talking about Church authority where, for example, even though the bible says “ABC” the church can rule “DEF” and compel it’s members to follow or believe the latter instead of the former.

Or, as I’m almost beginning to wonder… maybe there is no case where this happens and I’ve got a straw-man understanding of what Tradition means to Catholics. Is there ANY scripture that the Catholic church or tradition has deemed untrustworthy, or not to be followed, or to be ignored, or to be overruled with tradition? If the answer to all of these is “no” and we’re really just talking here about Catholic tradition as something that ALWAYS loses to scripture when conflicts arise then I’m failing to see how that’s any fundamentally different than my own Presbyterian church.