PeaceByJesus said:
And just where is "privately interpreting Holy Writ" as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not, necessarily wrong?
We'll see...
Well, Holy Writ, you see, was actually written, so that the first issue was even obtaining a copy, which itself had to be manuscripted from an original. It was never designed for Guttenburg's printing presses... God did not wait for Guttenburg to appoint His Holy Ones to see to the manuscripting of what is Holy and Written... The culture itself was bye and large illiterate, and even the Apostles were not all that quill-full, but were simple, pious and hard-working fishermen...
So that these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading, which is what they were used for in the Synagogues of Apostolic times, beginning with Jesus, Who did not like what He found there... Aside from His expressed outrage, we find Him foretold of it in Psalm 82 [of your Judaic (eg non-Christian) version of the Bible]... Where "God IS in (the) Synagogue of gods. In (the) midst of gods is He judging..." [Ὁ θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρίνει] Each day in the Synagogues the Jews gathered for Services, and read from the Books aloud for all to HEAR what was being READ... THAT, you see, is how God intended His words to be received for one thousand five hundred years... Not read and dissected by scholars, but read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading... We wrote it down in the Bible for you...
The Bereans were a priveledged group of the faithful, a community of those who owned and read the Books - And they liked what they were HEARING so much that they went to the books to see if what they were hearing about this Jesus was actually foretold in the Scrolls as those who were preaching Jesus were claiming... And lo and behold, they found His Prophesy in the ancient texts...
SO THAT...
Revelation came to them about prior revelation and its fulfillment... And I would encourge you to note that the revealers themselves did NOT run to the written to verify the veracity of what they were revealing... They KNEW... So that in a word, what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation... And this you find in abundance in the Acts of the Apostles... And for this, for the first millennium and a half, and even up to the present day and hour and minute, the way to receive direct Revelation from God is also written down by the Holy Fathers of the Church - Which record Christ-God's very words in that beautiful revelation of the Beattitudes: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." And we all know from John the Baptist and from Christ and from Peter that purification of the Heart is the very FIRST WORD of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: REPENT [Be Ye Repenting is more accurrate]. This word is a COMMAND - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Command and its justification - A COMMAND to be obeyed or not... It is the CALL given to man unto an OBEDIENCE freely given FOR the sake of his Salvation by God...
For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is HERE... It is NOW... It is not merely there and then...
The purification of the heart in repentance from evil and the calling on the Name of the Lord is the hallmark of Christian Life, and an illiterate person can normally do it better than the impoverished scholastic who has to prove every jot and tittle...
SO THAT...
It is the Revelation that comes from God to those who are living lives of repentance in the ongoing purification of the heart so as to see God Who alone even HAS His Revelation to give to them, that IS the basis of scripture, and our confirmation of it... THAT Proof, you see, CANNOT be disproven, but each and every miserable one of OUR OWN conclusions most assurredly CAN be reversed with some NEW line of thinking by the fallen reasoning of fallen man in a fallen world...
Your own private interpretation of the Holy Texts of the Faith of Christ is worthless without living a life of repentance from sin and calling on the name of the Lord and the taking of the Cup of Salvation... These texts were written for the Faith Community of Christ's Holy Body, the Church, who live such a repentant life... And it is to this Faith Community of the last 2000 years of Christian history that we look when we are having an issue with interpreting some part of it...
And fwiw, to hear implies to obey... Hear O Israel!
Faith comes by Hearing, you see...
God Bless You this New Year...
Arsenios
Your prolix attempt to justify rejection of Scripture as the supreme standard for faith and obedience may be necessary in order rationalize this as right in your own eyes, but fails to be convincing in the light of examination.
So that these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading...you see, is how God intended His words to be received for one thousand five hundred years... Not read and dissected by scholars, but read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading.
Just how does this equate to "privately interpreting Holy Writ as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not" being necessarily wrong, unless you resort to an either/or assertion, that laity were to be wholly dependent upon clergy for knowledge of Scripture and its meaning (based on what they wanted them to hear) and were not also to privately study it themselves as available to them, (Acts 17:11) and which even Catholic Chrysostom encouraged:
""this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 32:3)
"And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him [Paul] with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, 'Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.' (Matt. vii. 7.)...For from this it is that our countless evils have arisen - from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out; from this that there are negligent lives; from this labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must needs be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking the worst darkness." (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, The Argument)
Or course, we know Rome later on much
hindered personal reading of Scripture,
which is what we nowhere see in Scripture itself, and while the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture, what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading."
But if you allow the likes of Chrysostom to be right in their advocation of personal private study, then what you need to argue is that if the laity find any contradiction btwn Scripture - even from what they hear - and the (choose brand here_____) Orthodox church then they are to always to believe the latter, based upon their claims to historicity. RCs must do the same.
Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading... We wrote it down in the Bible for you...
This also is fallacious, since despite your tendency toward false dichotomies, faith coming by HEARING is not opposed to READING, any more then since things such as John 5:46 which were spoken as the word of God and heard as such were from the the written word, and we know the very text you refer to because it was written!
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17) I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
While you make hearing to be the means of providing what to believe in, John states,
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31) This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24)
The Bereans were a priveledged group of the faithful, a community of those who owned and read the Books
Which means they were violating what you said that these Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading..read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading..
And since you are attempting to disallow privately interpreting Holy Writ as in examination of what is taught by Scripture - which is exactly what these noble souls did - then you must argue that the laity should not be a privileged group, but dependent upon what the church decides to read to them (which is indeed means of preventing disunity, if cultic). At as i said, if the laity find any contradiction btwn Scripture and the one true the _____ church then they are to always to believe the latter, based upon their claims to historicity.
- And they liked what they were HEARING so much that they went to the books to see if what they were hearing about this Jesus was actually foretold in the Scrolls as those who were preaching Jesus were claiming... And lo and behold, they found His Prophesy in the ancient texts...
Indeed, Rather than simply believing what was told to them they went to Scripture as being the supreme authority - which the apostles preached from. (Acts 17:2)
And somehow you imagine that you have an argument against privately reading the Scriptures and subjecting Truth claims to testing thereby?
SO THAT...Revelation came to them about prior revelation and its fulfillment...
Hold on cowboy. There was no direct revelation apart from Scripture given to the Bereans, but instead illumination from Scripture, with the apostles testifying of Christ from the Scriptures.
And I would encourge you to note that the revealers themselves did NOT run to the written to verify the veracity of what they were revealing... They KNEW... So that in a word, what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation...And this you find in abundance in the Acts of the Apostles...
Just where are you getting this from? Do you actually think that what the apostles preached was independent from Scripture or not subject to testing by it, and that this thus justifies the purported revelations of your church as not being subject to testing by Scripture? This is wrong on multiple levels.
First, if Scripture is not the basis for veracity, both in test and by the character of attestation it validates as confirmatory of Truth, in that order, then why would the Lord Himself in a special appearance take time to carefully instruct them,
"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)
Second, Peter carefully established his Truth claims upon Scripture to the Jews and proselytes in Acts 2, and as prophetic in Acts 10, while Paul
"as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2) " persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening" (Acts 28:23) while Apollos
"mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
Meanwhile Paul appealed to the illiterate Gentiles by natural revelation (Acts 14; 17) as well as Scriptural supernatural attestation, which itself is subject to Scripture as being confirmatory of Truth, as Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth.
It is this you find in abundance in the Acts of the Apostles, and not what the apostles preached being independent from Scripture or not subject to testing by it, and that this thus justifies the purported revelations of your church, and of them not being subject to testing by Scripture.
Third, man such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, and thereby also provide new public revelation, neither of which even your Roman cousins claim for themselves.
And for this, for the first millennium and a half, and even up to the present day and hour and minute, the way to receive direct Revelation from God is also written down by the Holy Fathers of the Church -
Which claim to new public direct Revelation, with the veracity of which not being subject to testing by Scripture, is simply cultic and not Biblically Christian.
Which record Christ-God's very words in that beautiful revelation of the Beattitudes: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." And we all know from John the Baptist and from Christ and from Peter that purification of the Heart is the very FIRST WORD of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: REPENT [Be Ye Repenting is more accurrate]. This word is a COMMAND - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Command and its justification - A COMMAND to be obeyed or not... It is the CALL given to man unto an OBEDIENCE freely given FOR the sake of his Salvation by God...
And which repenting is do much of, mainly to do with the rebellion of my heart, but rather than being pure in heart - and repenting when not - being based on direct public revelation, is it based upon the reliable source of what the word of God, which is wholly inspired Scripture.
The purification of the heart in repentance from evil and the calling on the Name of the Lord is the hallmark of Christian Life, and an illiterate person can normally do it better than the impoverished scholastic who has to prove every jot and tittle..
There we have no argument in the sense Scripture teaches,
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (Romans 2:27)
However while you like to argue using either/or statements, being a scholastic (RCs actually boast of scholasticism) is not opposed to being a virtuous man, and that some illiterate are the latter does not mean ignorance is better or makes one more blessed, for God wants His own to grow and be more useful, and there is only one substantive source which is affirmed to be instrumentally
"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)
But with more grace and blessing comes responsibility.
It is the Revelation that comes from God to those who are living lives of repentance in the ongoing purification of the heart so as to see God Who alone even HAS His Revelation to give to them, that IS the basis of scripture, and our confirmation of it... THAT Proof, you see, CANNOT be disproven,
Which unquestionable esoteric-type of revelation is Gnostic, and makes Scripture subject to such, not vice versa. Which again is cultic.
but each and every miserable one of OUR OWN conclusions most assurredly CAN be reversed with some NEW line of thinking by the fallen reasoning of fallen man in a fallen world...
THe Christian life is indeed war, and thus, rather than being established upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial or ecclesiastical infallibility, then just as Moses had to overcome the competition of magicians who duplicated his first 3 miracles, so the NT had to overcome evil with God, establishing her Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in word and in power, versus competing claims.
And which means she did not pray to created beings in Heaven, and center her life upon a solemn priestly life-giving physical consumption of an invisible body of Christ,
etc.
Your own private interpretation of the Holy Texts of the Faith of Christ is worthless without living a life of repentance from sin and calling on the name of the Lord and the taking of the Cup of Salvation...
Indeed (with the Cup of Salvation being the means by which one obtains purifying of heart), but despite your proclivity to employing false dichotomies, the two are not only not opposed to each other. For instead one can hear and read how to obtain the washing of regeneration from Scripture (such as Acts 10:36-43) and as what God requires in the life or faith from the Scriptures, both of which a sound church effectually preaches.
In contrast a church whose preaching is not based upon Scripture as being the supreme standard will either make their own authority the basis for veracity or reject authority.
Now let me plainly ask you, is it possible for the laity to correctly ascertain what is of God and the meaning thereof in dissent from the historical magisterial authorities on this. Of if your own authorities cannot err, what warrants this of them versus others who can lay claim to historical validity?