- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Source?Yes, and 24,900 of those manuscripts were created more than a 1000 years after the originals were written.
He was no doubt speaking of Copernicus, but the issue is exactly the same. History has shown how they were wrong to oppose the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But they did it on the basis of interpreting scripture as a guide to how to accept science. And they were in error. Now how do you propose that, today, we avoid making that error?Hmmm. Luther died in 1546. Galileo published astronomical works between 1610 and 1632. I don't think Luther was talking about Galileo.
Calvin died in 1564. Same problem. I don't think Calvin was talking about Galileo.
What's that got to do with sola scriptura? It ought to be obvious that a room full of people who say that they believe the bible will produce a room full of different opinions about what this and that passage means. Not even religious groups as uniform as Jehovah's witnesses have absolute unity of doctrine. It is odd to expect any group, much less one with over a billion people in it, to have identical views on absolutely everything. Even the first missionaries and apostles in the first century had differences of opinion. Have you considered what is written in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's letter to the Galatians?
Yeah, yeah. The Catholic doctrines that are universally attested to in the ECF you reject as unsupported, so you cannot expect me to take these objections very seriously. Besides, the bodily Assumption of Mary is taught in Sacred Scripture.Or as in the words of Cardinal Newman realize later.
• Newman: "in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council
Which means the Roman Catholic Church can even declare something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), thensubsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of
previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59
Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.The catechism amounts to eisegesis and circular arguments.
I can't imagine a Catholic thinking otherwise, at least in terms of being able to arrive at the fullest and most accurate meaning of the gospel. Scripture and Tradition are said to flow from the same source, from the revelation Christ gave at the beginning. They support and compliment each other, and, yes, God established a Church that would understand and interpret and teach from them, a Church that was born with them so to speak. That's really about all there is to it. Otherwise we have people who actually think they can just pick up the bible 1500 years later and correctly understand it without the benefit of the Church that produced and assembled and lived with it. In truth, a totally objective person picking up the bible for the first time, without any Church background and testimony to inform him, would read the bible, scratch his head, put it down and then proceed to clean the garage or something without giving it another thought.The catechism will cite Scriptures to support a tradition or doctrine then say it was always like this. Then claim the magisterium is infallible because the select verses from Sacred Scriptures say so. Then have Catholics nuke the infallible claim by saying the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to know Truth, yet that is where the Magisterium says it comes from. Then claim the Sacred Scriptures are subservient to the magisterium even though they get their authority from said source.
Will at least one Roman Catholic admit they see Sacred Scriptures as a subset and servant to Holy Tradition? Because that is what most Roman Catholics are arguing on this thread.
Can I get one Roman Catholic to admit clearly they don't believe we can determine God's Truth without a magisterium?
First, Luther was dead before Galileo was even born. Second, Calvin died the same year Galileo was born.
Either that or "if you do not agree with my interpretation it is clear that you have never studied the Bible."Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.
The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation since all we know of original creation is that it was, 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely, the point of the Genesis account is that God is creator of life.
The Catechism, like Scripture, shouldn't be read in isolated portions, but in its whole context. Better to read the entire thing, in fact, as I have. Anyway the Church understands the place and role of Scripture, Tradition, and the need to understand it in light of historical understanding:Which includes the following in which one Roman Catholic poster here denied earlier:
ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture
I am not only appearing to say that you need to discover the canon defined in some passage or set of passages - not a vague reference to psalms, prophets, and law but detailed explicit designation of each book that is to be included in scripture - and then you need to find passages that teach that the 66 books and only those book are the "only infallible rule of faith and practice" and if you cannot manage that then you have failed to prove sola scriptura from the scriptures as you defined it. You're welcome to believe the doctrine that you defined but you will be believing a tradition invented by men and your academic paper will need to state clearly and honestly that sola scriptura is a tradition of men.You seem to be suggesting that we do not know what Scripture is without outside attestation. Is this correct?
The Reformed response has always been to say that the Scriptures, just like any ultimate standard, is and can only be self attesting.
Oh, that's a whole different topic isn't it. How about you start a thread about that topic and let this one be about the question asked in the original post of this thread? That is what sticking to the topic is about. It can be enlightening to stick to the topic and see how your arguments stack up when you do.Good point. Where do you find the good news about Jesus?
I suggest sticking to the topic of this thread as a means of stopping this thread from meandering all over the place and failing to address the question raised in the original post. One challenge has been raised against the definition given in the original post - The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice - the challenge is to find the doctrine laid out in the definition in a passage or a set of passages in scripture or to find passages that combine to teach by 'good and necessary consequence' the doctrine of the definition from the original post. Everything else is a distraction.What do you suggest as a means to avoid error in interpreting scripture? I suggest that allowing reality to show us when an interpretation is amiss is a good idea. But doesn't that mean we have another guide to truth besides scripture . . . that is, reality?
I have. I mentioned already the evidence of the Greek NT with no break and the Latin Vulgate.Please consider them all you like
A false generalization as I pointed out the various variants were misspelled words and word order. The scholars rightly do not toss these out based on copying errors.Yes, it is. That is why there are hundreds of of scholars who devote decades of their lives studying the texts, and there is still not complete consensus among them concerning the original texts.
You quoted from the English translation. I specifically stated their has been no break in the Greek NT. There has not.The Internet says otherwise
You are making an untenable argument. Textual criticism actually confirms the reliability of the Bibles we hold today.No, you are denying historical facts in order to justify a false doctrine (Sola Scriptura).
Depending on the textual scholar there is a 95%-99% recovery rate for the entire NT Scriptures:
What about Variances in the Early Texts?
As we know it today, there are around 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. There are literally hundreds of thousands of variants where there is not uniformity of wording. On average, for every word in the Greek New Testament, there are almost three variants. The large number is due to the large number of manuscripts. Are these differences capable in changing the meaning of the intent of the original authors? No. An overwhelming majority of alterations are accidental and trivial.
Textual differences are typically divided into four categories.
· Spelling and Nonsense Errors. This is by far the largest of the categories and the majority of these are spelling differences that have no impact on the meaning of the text. For example, in the Greek, John is spelled two different ways. The same person is in view; but the difference is in whether the scribe decided to spell John using two “n’s” or one. Another common difference found in Greek manuscripts is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. These variances are so insignificant that most textual critics ignore them. Scribes who were tired or inattentive often created “nonsense errors.” For example, Codex Washingtonianus contains an error where a scribe wrote the word and instead of the word Lord. In the Greek, the two words are very similar (kai and kurios) and the mistake probably happened due to mental fatigue. In the overall context, the usage of the word and does not change the meaning of the text.
· Minor changes and alterations that do not affect translation. This category consists of variations in the usage of a definite article with proper names. Sometimes Greek uses the definite article with proper names while English does not. For example, in Luke 2.16, some manuscripts identify Mary and Joseph as the Mary and the Joseph instead of just Mary and Joseph. In other manuscripts, the article was not used. Also, word-order differences account for many of the discrepancies. An example of this can be seen in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” “In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least sixteen different ways without affecting the basic sense” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012). Word order changes are frequent in the manuscripts, yet these do not affect the basic meaning of what is being said.
· Meaningful changes that are not “Viable.” One example is found in 1 Thessalonians 2.9. A late medieval manuscript (from the 13th century) uses the phrase “the gospel of Christ.” This is a meaningful change, but not viable because almost all of the other manuscripts use the term “the gospel of God.” Other examples are seen throughout the gospels as scribes often tried to harmonize the wording between the gospel accounts. When they did so, they “tended to add material to one Gospel rather than take away material from another” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).
· Meaningful and “Viable” Variants. This represents about 1 percent of all textual variants. In these cases, the difference in the manuscripts can affect the understanding of a passage. Daniel Wallace identifies three significant examples:
o Romans 5.1 – Some manuscripts read we have peace while others say let us have peace. In the original language, the difference in the word is found in one letter. “If we have peace is authentic, Paul is speaking about believer’s status with God; if let us have peace is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound,[3]” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012).
o Mark 16.9-10 and John 7.53-8.11 are omitted in the earliest manuscripts and do not fit well with the style of writing of the authors. Even if one were to take away these passages, no essential matters of doctrine are changed.
No one made that claim. However they have been transmitted faithfully. In addition, we have such a vast sample we know what they say. No other documents from antiquity comes close to the accuracy and reliability of the NT manuscripts.There is no historic Christian held belief that the original texts of Sacred Scripture have been perfectly copied throughout the centuries.
Skeptics are relevant as you are arguing the non Christian positions on textual perfection.What the skeptics want to do is irrelevant to the discussion. You are simply going down the route of ad-hominem
If so why argue the point of non Christian skeptics who are usually not NT scholars?I was already aware of that, but thank you for the clarification.
Textual critics don't even argue for having the original autographs. The entire endeavor of textual criticism is to compare the various, and in this case abundant, manuscripts to determine variants. I pointed out already no textual critic makes the argument the Bible we have today is unreliable.The number of copies is relevant. They are not proof because you do not have an original text to compare the 25,000 copies to. Let's just do a simple thought experiment:
An original text written in the year 50AD: "Afra is a very good person".
Copy A written in the year 51AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy B written in the year 52AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy C written in the year 53AD: "Afra is a very bad person."
Copy 25,000 written in the year 2018: "Afra is a very bad person."
You have 100% agreement among copies A, B, C, and copy 25,000. Yet none of the copies is an accurate copy of the original.
Do you see how that works? Your case is not provable. And you do not even have 100% agreement among the Bible manuscripts.
Absolutely when the 10 percent is due to a spelling error or differing sentence structure. Or in the case of the DSS a different dialect. There were some significant differences in 2nd century BC Hebrew penmanship and dialect to the 2nd century AD Hebrew. However, we have scholars who can determine these differences and then compare to the Greek Septuagint. The result? Nothing in the text changed what is being communicated by God.You are willing to base your entire faith on something that is only 90% accurate? Our Lord said that you shall know the truth. I do not recall him saying anything about you shall know 90% of the truth.
Yes I am 100% confident what the Holy Spirit inspired in the autographs is 100% communicated in the vast amounts of manuscripts we had in 4th AD Vulgate and in the manuscripts today. I don't base this on textual criticism. I base this on God's Divine purpose that His words will never return to Him empty. I can read the Bible and see God's Divine attributes and inspiration. The scholarship just confirms what is already evident (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)Please see my comments above. The only thing that differs is the number.
Let's say that the scholars concluded that there is a 10% recovery rate. Would you be willing to base your entire faith on that? Would Sola Scriptura be justifiable if the recovery rate were 10%? No, of course not, and even you would agree to that. The only thing that is different is the number, but the result in any case is that you are basing your faith on copies that are not 100% accurate. You are basing your faith on something that is imperfect.
Well your Catholic NABRE NT is based on the Protestant Nestle-Aland critical text (NU).:No, I am quite confident that "our long history" (that of the Catholic Church, not yours) has resulted in modern translations that are very reliable and close to the original texts. But "our long history", i.e., the dedication of the Catholic monks who copied the text for centuries, is not enough to justify Sola Scriptura. And this is why Sola Scriptura is not found in "our long history" (no matter how much you proof-text the ECF in vain).
Just looked at the NIV. Mark 16 in total is there with a footnote and brackets. Yet even without Mark 16:9-20 what Christian doctrine is changed?No, entire verses have been removed from some of the more recent translations. Google is your friend. Here is a list of some of them:
Considering the Maccabees has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, I leave that one.
When has a perfect match of every manuscript or even one been a requirement for textual criticism? We would actually need the autographs to meet your standard. Not even your own church makes such a demand.Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. Which specific manuscripts are the inspired word of God, and perfectly match the original writings
Well next time you pick up the NABRE thank the Protestants Nestle-Aland......they gave you your Bible.Sacred Scripture is most certainly the inspired word of God. What is not inspired are the numerous copies and translations of Sacred Scripture, which vary and disagree with each other. If the copies and translations were inspired, at the very least they would all agree.
My point is that Sola Scriptura is not justifiable because we do not have perfect copies of the original inspired texts. You are basing your rule of faith on imperfect copies and imperfect translations of imperfect copies, of the original inspired texts.
Even the Vulgate revision had nothing to do with doctrine but the same insignificant variances mentioned twice in blue above quoted.Yes, again Sacred Scripture is the infallible word of God. But the Catholic Church does not claim that Sacred Scripture has been infallibly copied or translated. If that were the case, there would have been no need for a revision of the Vulgate roughly 30 years ago.
Provable? Textual criticism is not based on subjective proof but objective evidence. There's a huge difference.Let's just do a simple thought experiment:
An original text written in the year 50AD: "Afra is a very good person".
Copy A written in the year 51AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy B written in the year 52AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy C written in the year 53AD: "Afra is a very bad person."
Copy 25,000 written in the year 2018: "Afra is a very bad person."
You have 100% agreement among copies A, B, C, and copy 25,000. Yet none of the copies is an accurate copy of the original.
Do you see how that works? Your case is not provable. And you do not even have 100% agreement among the Bible manuscripts.
The passage clearly demonstrates such.With the sloppy hermeneutic evident in your post any doctrine could be "proved" but that does not make the passage teach what you claim. The fact is that the passage says nothing whatever to support the definition from the original post. The passage does not teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice".
What passage demonstrates what truth? Did you take the time to read the passage?The passage clearly demonstrates such.
No Irenaeus was actually referring to the Gospels and confirms in the very statement the apostles wrote it down. Meaning they proclaimed it publicly first then wrote it down.I like the quote from Irenaeus but he wrote it before the new testament canon was decided and the gospel that came down to him was handed on verbally by bishops and apostles speaking it. The written gospels were in circulation in the early third century when he was writing and the scriptures to which he refers are likely the old testament scriptures and possibly a collection of letters and perhaps a gospel or maybe all four but he is not speaking of the bible as you have it. Context in history is important too. It is useful to know when a writer was writing and what the words he used meant when he used them.
That and anywhere someone teaches "it is written" or directly or alluding to scripture already written.No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"
I do not really know what your post is intended to mean. Please explain your intended meaning.No Irenaeus was actually referring to the Gospels and confirms in the very statement the apostles wrote it down. Meaning they proclaimed it publicly first then wrote it down.
I am on topic but you wanting a direct quote that is the word for word equivalent to the definition. Nothing about the test for the canon of Scripture, Apostolic, Levetical or prophetic authority. Nothing concerning the internal evidence for authority or verification. Just this circular question you use to navigate around core issues. I think your the one dragging this off topic every time a valid point is raised. I have learned from long experience chasing rhetorical questions in circle is pointless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt the first couple of times but after that I'll deal with the nature of the fallacy being used and let the conversation go where the underlying principles take it.I think that your posts might try to stick to the thread's topic. Return to the original post and check what that topic is. The thread topic is not what you believe or what I believe. Stick to the topic and see how you go with a single argument (among many) against sola scriptura as defined in the original post. As a refresher the definition is "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". And the single argument against it is "Where does scripture teach that doctrine?" The doctrine is not biblical. If that is so then sola scriptura make an unbiblical assertion in order to establish the bible alone etcetera.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?