.

[keltoi]

This is what I believe when the "interpretation" argument is presented.......Interpreters fall into two categories: those who seek to interpret the passage objectively with respect for the original meaning of the authors, and those who have an agenda.

Sometimes they just have to make it simple.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh yeah, the OT is obvious..

Just want to say that dog in your profile picture looks just like one we had. Half Blue Heeler and half something else. Or so we were told. It sure never looked like a pure-breed Heeler, but it did have the herding instinct. Smart, trainable, a very nice dog that my children grew up with.

 

[fhansen]

Should our understanding of God (theology) be based on our own reasoning or feelings, or on the texts of holy scripture?

Given a written exam, most Protestant Christians would agree with the statement, “the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice”; however, spend more than an hour on CF, and you will discover that, in practice, many trust their feelings, intuition, experiences, and even their goosebumps over the what the written written Word of God has declared.

I asked someone for a biblical backing for a statement he/she made. This was the reply: "you don't need to reference a book to understand reality." It's a perfect example of what I see on CF, and it explains the question I'm asking.

What's your theology based on?

The faith of the Church-the whole thing encompassing Scripture and the Traditions that her members have witnessed to and handed down throughout the centuries from the beginning. Without that background everything else is pretty much guess-work, inevitably leading to doctrinal division.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, Cis. There were at least two major early movements which denied the Deity of Christ, the gnostics and the Arians. When Constantine died, his son came to the thrown, the Nicene Creed was thrown out, and it was back to Arianism. Scripture implies a Trinity, but that's it. It really doesn't work out the Trinity. Consequently, both the early Trinitarians and the anti-Trinitarians both turned to Scripture to fire away quotes at one another.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

The faith of the Church-the whole thing encompassing Scripture and the Traditions that her members have witnessed to and handed down throughout the centuries from the beginning. Without that background everything else is pretty much guess-work, inevitably leading to doctrinal division.

So you think man's opinion (tradition) on God's word somehow changes God's word and biblical Christians should believe that the catholic churches doctrine supersedes God's word?

 

[Hoghead1]

It is very traditional for church leaders, and the early fathers, and theologians today to draw upon sources other than Scripture. Calvin, for example, marked a rediscovery of Augustine. Calvin often cites Augustine as an authority to back himself up. Calvin also said he wouldn't have come to believe, had he not read Augustine. Much depends on the matters under consideration. For example, take the Trinity. Scripture implies a Trinity, but that's it. It does not work it out. Hence, most of the Trinitarian concepts are extra-biblical in nature. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little how God is built. It gives us snap shots of God and sometimes these seriously contradict one another. it is left up to the reader to put these together into an organized whole. Hnece, the early fathers borrowed heavily from Hellenic metaphysics. Today, such substance metaphysics have been seriously questioned and we are not into process, relational metaphysics, and a different account of the Trinity. Another example is apologetic work. It simply does not convince opponents when you simply cite and fire away Scripture. You need to come up with a rational argument as best you can. This can mean addressing philosophical proofs for God, etc.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

It is very traditional for church leaders, and the early fathers, and theologians today to draw upon sources other than Scripture. Calvin, for example, marked a rediscovery of Augustine. Calvin often cites Augustine as an authority to back himself up. Calvin also said he wouldn't have come to believe, had he not read Augustine. Much depends on the matters under consideration. For example, take the Trinity. Scripture implies a Trinity, but that's it. It does not work it out. Hence, most of the Trinitarian concepts are extra-biblical in nature. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little how God is built. It gives us snap shots of God and sometimes these seriously contradict one another. it is left up to the reader to put these together into an organized whole. Hnece, the early fathers borrowed heavily from Hellenic metaphysics. Today, such substance metaphysics have been seriously questioned and we are not into process, relational metaphysics, and a different account of the Trinity. Another example is apologetic work. It simply does not convince opponents when you simply cite and fire away Scripture. You need to come up with a rational argument as best you can. This can mean addressing philosophical proofs for God, etc.

Actually the bible establishes the trinity quite plainly to anyone that studies it.



Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God (Elohim) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Gen 11:7 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Isa 6:8 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
Deu 4:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is Lord only

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
14 And that Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw the glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace.

Mark 12:32
Then that Scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, that there is one God, and that there is none but he,

Romans 3:30
For it is one God, who shall justify circumcision of faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, which is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ Jesus,

John 14:9
Jesus said unto him, I have been so long time with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen my Father: how then sayest thou, Show us thy Father?

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus,
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:
7 But he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man.

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Galatians 3:20
Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of one: but God is one.

Exodus 3 : 14 And God answered Moses, I AM THAT I AM. Also he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, before
Abraham was, I am.

 

[fhansen]

So you think man's opinion (tradition) on God's word somehow changes God's word and biblical Christians should believe that the catholic churches doctrine supersedes God's word?

No, I think God's word is expressed and revealed both in Scripture and also via the unwritten teachings or Traditions which the disciples were told to hold fast to, as per 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:12. God's traditions IOW.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

No, I think God's word is expressed and revealed both in Scripture and also via the unwritten teachings or Traditions which the disciples were told to hold fast to, as per 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:12. God's traditions IOW.

Yes I agree we are allowed to hold traditions as long as they are within God's word. What are these "unwritten traditions" you speak of that aren't written down how do you know what they are?

 

[BobRyan]

No, I think God's word is expressed and revealed both in Scripture and also via the unwritten teachings or Traditions which the disciples were told to hold fast to, as per 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:12. God's traditions IOW.

ANYTHING that is claimed to be from God, or true, or not "error" - would have to first be tested "sola scriptura" to "SEE IF those things are so" Acts 17:11

 

[BobRyan]

I ended up with the old Catholic three legged stool of Bible and Tradition and Teaching Authority. When they agree, I am trusting I'm on the same page with the apostles, with Jesus, with God. When they seem to disagree I dig deeper. Having worn out a few Bibles, I dig deeper into the text.

IT is Catholic theologians, scholars, Bible teachers themselves that start the Protestant reformation - trying to fix all the broken things in that model.

Mark 7:6-13 shows how Christ Himself also tried to fix the one-true-nation-church of his day -- "sola scriptura"



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Yes I agree we are allowed to hold traditions as long as they are within God's word. What are these "unwritten traditions" you speak of that aren't written down how do you know what they are?

Well, I'll give some basic examples of how Tradition can inform us-by providing a sort of living legacy. People who hold to Sola Scriptura may well divide with each other over baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, possibly over Saturday vs Sunday rest and worship or even over the deity of Jesus. But for the old Churches, east and west, these issues were settled from the beginning-there is no room for argument on them since the historical experience of these churches informs them about matters where Scripture may well be vague- where private interpretation, personal opinion, or best-guess exegesis are the only real alternatives IOW.

 

[fhansen]

ANYTHING that is claimed to be from God, or true, or not "error" - would have to first be tested "sola scriptura" to "SEE IF those things are so" Acts 17:11

Well of course the Bereans were right in checking to see of anything the disciples taught was inconsistent with Scripture, with the OT at that point. And yet we're told in John 21:25, 2 Thess 2:15, and 1 Cor 11:12 that not everything was even recorded in the NT.

 

[BobRyan]

Well of course the Bereans were right in checking to see of anything the disciples taught was inconsistent with Scripture, with the OT at that point. And yet we're told in John 21:25, 2 Thess 2:15, and 1 Cor 11:12 that not everything was even recorded in the NT.

The sola scriptura principle is seen early -- in fact in Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them" -- and as we all know - there would be a lot more scripture to come. Yet at every step - at every point along the way "sola scriptura" testing. Testing against what was already revealed in scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

IT is Catholic theologians, scholars, Bible teachers themselves that start the Protestant reformation - trying to fix all the broken things in that model.

And they did such a smashingly good job, those former Catholics we all call the reformers now, in implementing even more 'traditions of men'. Five hundred years, almost to the year later, and it's a rip roaring mess of folks who all disagree with each other on everything except that they all say to a one that they follow Scripture alone. Great model. Really fixed up that broken Catholic model.

Mark 7:6-13 shows how Christ Himself also tried to fix the one-true-nation-church of his day -- "sola scriptura"

Not quite. The attitude of Jesus was better expressed in Matthew 23:3. Jesus was never against tradition as such, nor authority. The 'reformers' had to reject tradition and authority to keep their new jobs. They could have been actual Catholic reformers like Robert Bellarmine, Charles Borromeo, Ignatius of Loyola, Philip Neri, Francis de Sales, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and a cast of hundreds of others. The Catholic Church has always had reformers and it always will, because it will always have need of them.

 

[keltoi]

Well, I'll give some basic examples of how Tradition can inform us-by providing a sort of living legacy. People who hold to Sola Scriptura may well divide with each other over baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, possibly over Saturday vs Sunday rest and worship or even over the deity of Jesus. But for the old Churches, east and west, these issues were settled from the beginning-there is no room for argument on them since the historical experience of these churches informs them about matters where Scripture may well be vague- where private interpretation, personal opinion, or best-guess exegesis are the only real alternatives IOW.

A great argument except for the fact that humanity is, and since the fall always has been, more than fallible. When humanities traditions go against what the Bible says there is a problem.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That isn't accurate, Cis. There were at least two major early movements which denied the Deity of Christ, the gnostics and the Arians. When Constantine died, his son came to the thrown, the Nicene Creed was thrown out, and it was back to Arianism. Scripture implies a Trinity, but that's it. It really doesn't work out the Trinity. Consequently, both the early Trinitarians and the anti-Trinitarians both turned to Scripture to fire away quotes at one another.

I've read some of the Arian works, and they made a pretty good case for how they followed Scripture alone. Their use of Scripture wasn't half bad, except that they were wrong. The defenders of the full divinity of Christ had their hands full in countering the Arian use of Scripture. The best defense they had, actually, was that the Arian position was not at all what they learned from their grandparents who had taught them the faith.

 

[keltoi]

And they did such a smashingly good job, those former Catholics we all call the reformers now, in implementing even more 'traditions of men'. Five hundred years, almost to the year later, and it's a rip roaring mess of folks who all disagree with each other on everything except that they all say to a one that they follow Scripture alone. Great model. Really fixed up that broken Catholic model.

No model is perfect but lets be honest and think how corrupt the Roman Catholic model was, and quite possibly still is. Divine right of Kings as long as they follow the Pope. Kings and Popes treated the people terribly on the basis of Roman Catholic tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

And they did such a smashingly good job, those former Catholics we all call the reformers now, in implementing even more 'traditions of men'. .

If their reforms can be improved upon by leaving even more faulty traditions in the dumpster by comparing them to the Word of God -- all the better.

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

Not quite. The attitude of Jesus was better expressed in Matthew 23:3.

I am not convinced that Christ is in error in Mark 7.

In fact in Matt 23:1-3 - Jesus reminds us that the same folks getting hammered "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13 -- are the members of the one-true-nation-church started by God at Sinai - that "sit in the seat of Moses"



Jesus was never against tradition as such, nor authority. The 'reformers' had to reject tradition and authority to keep their new jobs. They could have been actual Catholic reformers like Robert Bellarmine, Charles Borromeo, Ignatius of Loyola, Philip Neri, Francis de Sales, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and a cast of hundreds of others. The Catholic Church has always had reformers and it always will, because it will always have need of them.[/QUOTE]