Does opinion superceed Scripture

[paleodoxy]

I wish the question in the OP had been framed differently. To ask whether personal opinion supersedes Scripture is really to ask whether opinion supersedes opinion, which is meaningless.

If we say that someone's opinion is not based on the Bible, we are assuming that ours is. But one's opinion, even if he uses the Bible, is based on his private interpretation of what the Bible teaches. In fact, we can't rely on individual interpretation of what Scripture teaches before we can agree on what the Biblical Canon is.

Therefore, the question of authority should enter in. Who has the right to interpret Scripture in an authoritative manner (applicable to all)?

In the Bible itself, we are taught that it is not based on private opinion, but rather on the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the universal catholic church, through time, in her ecumenical/general councils (see, e.g., Acts 15:28).

I Tim.3:15 says that the Church is the "ground and pillar of truth", and Jesus promises in Jn.16:3 that the Spirit will lead the Apostles and their successors into "all truth".

It is the authority structure of the Church that is vested with the ability, through the Holy Spirit, of interpreting Scripture in an absolute sense. No individual, group of individuals, or local synod can speak with absolute authority on spiritual matters. Only the universal Church, as a united Body, representing the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, may do so.

Also, Apostolic tradition, faithfully propagated by the Early Church Fathers in a collective way, is the only means of maintaining that continuity of teaching going back through the Apostles to Christ.

 

[davedjy]

This is not a formal debate, by a long shot.

That isn't an excuse for not showing what you believe the verses are saying. I am not talking about "formal debates", you still haven't showed what even one of the verses I brought here was talking about, you just say "it was misquoted". That doesn't refute my backings, now does it?

 

[ebia]

Then please show me the scriptures that says to only believe Matt. ?:?-? and don't take Matt. ?:?-? literally or I didn't really mean for Matt. ?:?-? to say that, so ignore it, because it doesn't have anything to do with your generation.

What?

Tell me why we even have the Bible if it isn't the Word of God,

Because:
a. something doesn't have to be written by God to be useful
b. the Word of God speaks through it, as he does through people, through his Creation, ...

and what are we to do with the scriptures that say to use it for teaching, correcting, rebuke, reproof?

Take them seriously - it is useful for all those things.

 

[ebia]

That isn't an excuse for not showing what you believe the verses are saying.

It's not intrinsically necessary to provide an alternative interpretation in order to refute yours. In a few cases I have mentioned what I think the text is talking about but I'm blowed if I'm going to do it for every random text you post.

 

[davedjy]

It's not intrinsically necessary to provide an alternative interpretation in order to refute yours. In a few cases I have mentioned what I think the text is talking about but I'm blowed if I'm going to do it for every random text you post.

I'm not saying to provide for every single post, but when the word, "word" was used...what were you interpreting that to mean? What about the "word of truth"?

You keep saying I'm misquoting, but you just have a different interpretation...that doesn't make what I am saying wrong, it's a diffferent interpretation, but what is the other interpretation?

Again, are we following God or man by following the Words of the Bible? We are instructed only to follow God, not the words of man (unless God told them to instruct us, or they are wisdom from God).

 

[ebia]

I'm not saying to provide for every single post, but when the word, "word" was used...what were you interpreting that to mean? What about the "word of truth"?

In which particular passage?

You keep saying I'm misquoting, but you just have a different interpretation...that doesn't make what I am saying wrong, it's a diffferent interpretation, but what is the other interpretation?

I don't claim to have demonstrated that your interpretation is wrong, just that is is an interpretation and not one provable from scripture alone (or rather you haven't proven it from scripture alone) and therefore it remains in some sense 'your opinion'.

Again, are we following God or man by following the Words of the Bible?

I refer you to my previous reply - potentially either.

We are instructed only to follow God, not the words of man (unless God told them to instruct us, or they are wisdom from God).

And yet the vast majority of the time God uses people to do his work for him - including teaching people.

 

[bdarien]

we are to follow the leading of the holy spirit not the opinions of man whether that is the catholic church or any other group of men

 

[ebia]

we are to follow the leading of the holy spirit not the opinions of man whether that is the catholic church or any other group of men

Nobody disagrees with that. The disagreement is over how to tell which is which.

 

[davedjy]

In which particular passage?

Any of them...1 or more....

I don't claim to have demonstrated that your interpretation is wrong, just that is is an interpretation and not one provable from scripture alone (or rather you haven't proven it from scripture alone) and therefore it remains in some sense 'your opinion'.

It's not just "my opinion", it is the same interpretation as thousands and thousands of Bible Scholars as well as Christians. I still don't see a different interpretation of these "words", from you.

And yet the vast majority of the time God uses people to do his work for him - including teaching people.

Yes, God uses Pastors...preachers to speak His Word...but that doesn't make them the chosen Apostles for the original Scripture. They have to refer back to the Scriptures for foundation.

It is the authority structure of the Church that is vested with the ability, through the Holy Spirit, of interpreting Scripture in an absolute sense. No individual, group of individuals, or local synod can speak with absolute authority on spiritual matters. Only the universal Church, as a united Body, representing the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, may do so.

That would make for yet an other "interpretation" not based on fact. The original council for the Bible Canon are not around anymore, and neither are the Apostles or Scribes.

 

[ebia]

Any of them...1 or more....

I thought you were asking for comment on a particular one.

It's not just "my opinion", it is the same interpretation as thousands and thousands of Bible Scholars as well as Christians.

::shrug::

I still don't see a different interpretation of these "words", from you.

So?

Yes, God uses Pastors...preachers to speak His Word...but that doesn't make them the chosen Apostles for the original Scripture. They have to refer back to the Scriptures for foundation.

You're missing the point.

That would make for yet an other "interpretation" not based on fact. The original council for the Bible Canon are not around anymore, and neither are the Apostles or Scribes.

Ignoring the fact that there is no 'original council for the bible canon', so what? God isn't allowed to work in the world anymore?

On the other hand, never mind. This isn't going anywhere.

 

[davedjy]

Ignoring the fact that there is no 'original council for the bible canon', so what? God isn't allowed to work in the world anymore?

On the other hand, never mind. This isn't going anywhere

That point was NOT addressed to you. Did you see who I quoted?

Yeah, I would agree, it isn't going anywhere...especially since we don't even have ONE more interpretation for ANY of the verses mentioned here. Can I refute your point by saying "that is a misinterpretation"?

You're missing the point.

That is about as vague of a statement as they come...

 

[ebia]

That point was NOT addressed to you. Did you see who I quoted?

Yes. I chose to respond anyway.

That is about as vague of a statement as they come...

You missed the point; I can be bothered to rephrase it.

 

[davedjy]

Ignoring the fact that there is no 'original council for the bible canon', so what? God isn't allowed to work in the world anymore?

On the other hand, never mind. This isn't going anywhere.

Really? There were different meetings on formation of the Bible Canon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

You missed the point; I can be bothered to rephrase it.

Did you mean you CAN'T be bothered to rephrase it? lol

 

[artybloke]

Really? There were different meetings on formation of the Bible Canon.

Really? What were they and when did they take place? How come there are at least three, possibly four, different canons (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic)?

 

[davedjy]

Really? What were they and when did they take place? How come there are at least three, possibly four, different canons (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic)?

It started somewhere, though. Obviously, the Protestant Canon would be different than the Catholic one, etc., esp. since we have less books than the Catholics (9, I believe).

 

[artybloke]

It started somewhere, though.

In other words, you don't know. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof be silent," as Wittgenstein once said.

 

[davedjy]

In other words, you don't know. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof be silent," as Wittgenstein once said.

*shrugs* I do know. Any need to be condescending? interesting. There is also the Era of the Seven Ecumencial Councils. I have access to all kinds of information that I have studied. I am just saying there was a start, there was The Council of Trent which was sparked after the Protestant Reformation. Sorry, but Wittgenstein quotes mean nothing to me.


Era of the Seven Ecumenical Councils
Eusebius, around the year 300, recorded a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books"
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."


This much I do know Re: The Protestant Consistencies of Canon, sharing these attributes:


Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).

Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

 

[paleodoxy]

Really? What were they and when did they take place? How come there are at least three, possibly four, different canons (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic)?

The Catholic and Orthodox Canons are the same. The Coptic canon is not authoritative because the Coptic Church holds to a heretical view of the Person of Christ which was condemned at the (ecumenical) Council of Chalecedon in 451 A.D.

Several local councils (at least four) and the 6th General Council in Trullo affirmed that the canon consisted of the Old and New Testaments which all Christians agree on, in addition to the apocryphal or deutero-canonical books written during the inter-testamental period (between the Babylonian Exile and the Birth of Christ). Those four local councils were: Laodicea, and II, III & IV Carthage.

Some angloprotestant Anglicans read from the apocryphal literature during the liturgy, although they hold second place to the books we normally refer to as the Old and New Testaments. This is true even for the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. The deutero-canonical literature consists primarily of historical information, and contains far less theological or doctrinal information.

For both Protestants and Catholics, the deuterocanonicals are neither integral nor essential to the shape of the core doctrinal tenets of the Christian Church. Protestant and Roman/Constantintinopolitan theology agree on the essentials of the faith as summarized in the Creeds (Niceno-Constantinopolitan, Apostles' Creed, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon). These contain the following non-negotiable items:

The Triunity of God: One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Creation ex nihilo; the Incarnation of the Son of God; the life, sacrifice and death, burial and ascension in the flesh of the Son of God; and the Second Coming of Christ to judge the world; One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church consisting of those who affirm the above; one Lord, One Faith, One Baptism alone into Jesus Christ; the resurrection of the dead, and everlasting life in the world to come; the full deity and humanity of Christ united as two natures in one Person, without confusion (mixture) or separation.

 

[ebia]

The Catholic and Orthodox Canons are the same.

Very nearly, but not quite. The Orthodox have 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 IIRC.

The point here isn't that any important truths depend on the difference, but rather that pretending that the canon was decided by some neat process is unsustainable. It fails to acknowledge the long drawn out, messy, process of recognition that was (and to an extent still is) the reality.

Of course, to my mind that increases my confidence in it rather than decreasing it.

 

[ebia]

Did you mean you CAN'T be bothered to rephrase it? lol

Yeh. Comes of posting late at night.