Is scripture the highest authority?

[KarlX]

In the Sola Scriptura thread a claim was made that scripture is not the highest authority we have now. I was flabbergasted that Christians would make such a claim, as I believe scripture to be God's word. While there were multiple writers of scripture, the author of the words are none other than God who used the Holy Spirit to direct the writers. Of course scripture attests to this in multiple places.

My belief that scripture is the highest authority that we Christians now living have is based on the truth that God is supreme. In the absence of God's physical presence, we have God's word as next highest authority, John 1:17, John 17:17, John 8:31-32, Mat 24:35. God's words are in places direct quotes of Jesus in the first four books of the N.T. God's words are also Jesus working through the Holy Spirit to speak through the 13 apostles, who Jesus gave special authority, 2 cor 13:3.

The greatest special authority the apostles had was to write down scripture, speak God's word. This was completed 60 years after Jesus' departure. While the canon of scripture was not declared until later, God's words in the N.T. scriptures were circulating and being used before the later date that certain church leaders took it upon themselves to throw out the trash that had been added to the list of "scripture" over time. Understand that the authority to throw out trash is lower than the authority to speak God's word. For by the diligent reading of God's words, we could all attain the understanding needed to test false teachings and throw out the trash. Scripture in fact gives this task to all, to test what you are being taught against scripture.

Some falsely claim that others today continue with the same authority as the first apostles, and that the Holy Spirit speaks through them with equal truth. I ask what proof of their authority do we have? Were they called directly by Jesus? Do they perform the miracles like Jesus did. Are their words added to the canon?

I believe what scripture says, that the Holy Spirit continues to speak through many Christians today including religious leaders of all denominations. The question is how can one be certain of what anyone says at any given time is the truth? There is only one that can not lie, God. Given that we live in a fallen world and continue to sin, there is no proof that what anyone of any religious knowledge or authority always speaks the truth. To me the whole issue of the SS battle is just one of incontrovertible truth. As God and scripture testifies to its truth, I see no argument proving that there is incontrovertible truth anywhere else except in God's words.

We can always be certain that God's word in scripture is always true. How can this be said for anything else?

I think most of us if not all of us might agree the original scripture is of the highest authority.
The scripture as it was originally written and meant to mean .
Of course what is trash and what is not is not meant for men to ordain for other people to believe because they say that this or that part is acceptable and this or that part is not but for the individual themselves to ascertain .
Canonization is done by men.

I agree , is true certainly true we can always be certain that God's word in scripture is true that is his real word .
Want to know the truth , the kingdom of God is within you .
Jesus is the truth and God is the God of truth.
Who's spirit is in you anyway , you know the truth when you hear it or see it for yourself .

Of course do not get me wrong , some if not most of what is canonized is the truth and falsehoods ran and still run rife no doubt but still it is for you to decided for yourselves and not because someone , anyone says this or that is the way it really is.

Look to the literal interpretations ( for example Greek and Hebrew literal translations for yourself s instead of just taking some supposed prophet or even simply high level theologians word for it ( of course it is good to read commentaries and such there is truth in it ).
You know what is true you know what is false though sometimes we do not want to admit it .
Keep in mind when we die we can not look at the lord and say well I was just going by what my preacher told me .
Your preacher ( or prophet or whatever ) has to answer for themselves and you for yourself .
I have only myself to blame for my ignorance and or refusal of the truth and I will be completely and absolutely alone without any support from family ,friends , ministers or anyone else other than Jesus when I die.

 

[lesliedellow]

If the bible is the source of incontrovertible truth, then why do so many bible readers disagree about central matters of the Christian faith?

With the exception of a few fringe sects, like the Mormons, they don't disagree about central matters of the Christian faith; if they be those summarised in the early creeds of the Church.

 

[Winken]

This is all very interesting and has made me curious about the Eastern Orthodox Bible. I have one problem though: when Jesus said "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18a) he didn't say "you are Peter and on you I will build my church". If that's what he meant he would have said it plainly (and he wasn't speaking a parable). I strongly believe that the rock that the church has been built on is the confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter was a man who denied Christ three times and is described in Paul's epistles as man of weak character, vacillating in his behavior according to the circumstances.

I just can't accept the idea of an unbroken succession of men who head the church based on a flawed man whom Jesus called "Satan" just five verses after he said "on this rock I will build my church".

I am neither Protestant or Catholic or EO or whatever else. My Faith is based upon the revelation of the Holy Spirit to me, personally, and His continued leadership.

I have this question: Those Jews and proselytes who confessed Jesus as the Messiah BEFORE the Cross......... did they automatically become Christians in that instant? Did they understand the elements of Romans 10:8-13, though not yet written? Did they then pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus, in the Presence of the Holy Spirit? When they died did they go directly to Heaven as Christians?

Or......

were those who died after confessing Him as Messiah but before the Cross not become Christians, but reserved their place in the Kingdom of God (the 1,000 year reign of Jesus on the Throne of David) at the resurrection?

Read that again, please!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

To quote your own words back at you, scripture needs interpreting. For what ought to be obvious reasons, there was no word meaning "church" circa 30 AD, when Jesus would have been speaking. Εκκλησια means no more than a community, or assembly of believers.

Your definitions are inconsistent with traditional Christianity. Your view is more similar to the gnostics.

How about you define your definitions, starting with the Church. Then think about how well it matches the original Greek word as pointed out by Leslie.

Gotta love the person that resorts to slander instead of just presenting a convincing argument.

Jesus started one Church. He gave his Church leaders. He gave these leaders his authority to make rules, forgive sins, and teach.

Does this refute any of my statements? No. I asked what one church/religious institution that survives today was started by Jesus. You don't answer that, but repeat generalities.

The New Testament was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I hope what you claim is not official Catholic doctrine; that scripture is not the word of God, but mere inspiration of God. Enough of the written by men statements. Some of the N.T. was not written even by the apostle that dictated the words. Does that mean the authority of the person that held the pen was the authority of the words written?

Acts 1:16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus.

2 Cor 3:3 since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.

 

[Catherineanne]

I guess you missed the part of the question for something physical on earth today; something that we may use to learn what God wants us to learn. Your answer of God is a cop out as it does not answer the question of what source of truth we can use to teach and learn from and mostly test what we are taught.

No, I didn't miss it.

Still God.

Understand that a book containing God's word is not an idol that God abhors. Don't be so dramatic. Study scripture to learn that God himself gave us the first book of his words. That would be the ten commandments written on stone.

Try this for drama:

Exodus 20:3

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If the bible is the source of incontrovertible truth, then why do so many bible readers disagree about central matters of the Christian faith?

Two completely different questions as I just stated.

There are two completely different questions being argued in this thread.
1) Where is a source on incontrovertible truth found today on earth?
2) How is the correct understanding of that truth obtained?

Yes, question 2 is important, but it is not the question I asked in starting this thread.
Further, if there is not consensus on question 1, there will only be less consensus on question 2.

Some have stated that question 1 depends on your answer to question 2, but I don't see any convincing argument for it. I much more think question 2 depends on the answer to 1.

Because I don't answer question 2 in this thread, you think my answer to question 1 incorrect. How about you just answer question 1 first and leave question 2 for a different thread?

 

[Winken]

There are two completely different questions being argued in this thread.
1) Where is a source on incontrovertible truth found today on earth?
2) How is the correct understanding of that truth obtained?

Yes, question 2 is important, but it is not the question I asked in starting this thread.
Further, if there is not consensus on question 1, there will only be less consensus on question 2.

Some have stated that question 1 depends on your answer to question 2, but I don't see any convincing argument for it. I much more think question 2 depends on the answer to 1.

I understood food4thought, in "spirit over Scripture= radical Pentecostal" meaning "holy-roller jumping about tongue talking glazed eyes laying on of hands god told me to tell you" confrontations (assemblies). On the other hand, "Scripture without Spirit" dead, Holy Spirit absent.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, I didn't miss it.

Still God.

So God is a physical entity on Earth.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No the same is not true of Bible interpretation. To take a trite example, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot easily be twisted into, "Thou shalt steal."

There may not be any absolutely bullet proof of establishing some objectivity in religion, but the Bible is certainly a big improvement on, "Whatever I pull out of my own head - that's the Holy Spirit talking to me."

Regrettably, if that is what you think talking to the Holy Spirit is all about ... it is doubtful that even the ten commandments will teach anything wholesome.

 

[Vicomte13]

Blah, blah, blah. Neither the Pope, nor Jerome, nor anybody else, could make use of textual evidence which was not available to them.

They lived in the Roman Empire and spoke the language as natives. Jerome spoke Latin and koine Greek better than it is possible for any human being to do today. He lived within the empire and knew exactly what those structures and coins and relationships were. We have to guess and surmise.

The Empire had not been destroyed, the great libraries were all still up. Jerome had the complete manuscripts of an age when people were still writing in that language. He was in those cities. He knew the idiom. He may very well have been looking at originals.

No scholar today can have one one thousandth of the knowledge, context and native linguistic skill as Jerome.

The Greek Church was always there, on the spot, using these manuscripts. And of course the Church has the protection of God.

So yes, the Vulgate, of the Church, of the time, is authoritative in Latin, and of course the Greeks are authoritative as to the Greek.

 

[Vicomte13]

What makes the Textus Receptus so valid, when it contains texts, such as the Johanine Comma, which are missing from all the earliest manuscripts? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople endowed with a special ability to know that John wrote something, when all the earliest evidence is that he didn't.

You don't have the earliest evidence. The earliest evidence is lost. The men of the Church back then had that evidence, and they made the judgments. The apostolic succession vouchsafes that God was protecting them as they made the choices.

Modern scholars have fragments. Jerome had originals. And context. And idiom. And culture.

Of course, we don't have original manuscripts of the Vulgate either, and anyway we're not speaking of Latin but Greek.

I guess this is a fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholicism when it comes to the text - we trust the Church to have preserved the text. You don't, and think that modern secular scholars can learn more, that the uninterrupted traditions back to the ancient world are not surety that God's will was preserved.

So, I guess you've got the Nesle-Aland Greek, until the next time it's amended, and then you'll have that. Or the Westcott-Hort. You trust in men. I've got the Patriarchal Text, and I trust in the Church.

And ne'er the twain shall meet, so let's not bicker any further over it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Textual criticism has got nothing to do with theology. Catholic translators of the Bible can quite happily make use of critical editions of the New Testament that Protestants have produced.

Sure, but here's the difference... the faith for Catholics doesn't change in the way it does for Protestants. Sola Scriptura allows a diversity of so many opinions. Look at how much mainline churches have changed in a century. In most mainline churches those who actually believe in Nicene or Chalcedonian definitions as authentic symbols of the catholic faith are in the minority. Because ultimately those are swept aside as the definitions of "Greek" minds. Von Harnack in particular was bad about this, being motivated by anti-Catholicism and the supposed ethical purity of Hebrew religion, but there are equal sentiments among Reformed churches. Even in conservative Reformed churches you get novelties like subordinationism of the Son. Whatever can be justified by "the Bible alone".

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

And your basis for saying this is..? The various bibles are written for different purposes, and almost all of them fulfill those goals.

In case you're not aware there is no such thing as a literal bible. If there was it would be unreadable! Translators not only have to translate the ancient documents but they have put them in the words, grammar, meaning, idioms, etc. of the receptor language so that the readers can understand what was said.

IMHO one of the worst translations is the KJV. It is written in 400-year-old English and is based on the textus receptus, a collection of medieval manuscripts that, we now know, contain many inaccuracies. The KJV is written verse by verse, which bears no resemblance to the earliest texts or modern English and leads to out-of-context errors. Have you ever noticed that when people preach from the KJV they almost always translate it "on the fly" for the audience to understand? Why? Because the arcane language is so obtuse that most people don't really understand it. If you love 400-year-old English, fine, but the Bible is meant to be understood and glorify God, Christ, and the Spirit, not make people swoon over how it sounds.

One of the best is the NIV. It is the most widely read bible, whether inside or outside of church. It was put together by a team of renowned scholars and has been revised as more and better knowledge of the source languages and ancient culture has become available.

Be careful how you refer to God's word, regardless of the particular translation. Hopefully if you throw a translation in the trash, someone who needs it will fish it out.

The King James is one of the better translations because it it is much more consistent. It seeks to use as few of variations for translating a word as possible. The more ways you translate a word, the easier it is to bias the translation. If you want a fine example of the faithfulness of King James, look at Mark: the Gospel of Mark frequently uses present tense, but the King James Bible is pretty much the only one that translates that (Young's Literal is another). For instance, in Mark 15:21, "compel" is present tense, but you won't see most translations bother with that.

NIV is a mendacious translation that is less literal for no good reason. It says "Woman, here is your son," instead of the literal, "Woman, behold your son," and "Onan knew the child would not be his," instead of the literal, "Onan knew the seed should not be his." There are countless examples of this.

The King James might punctuate strongly according to verse, but it is also still more faithful in general structure, because unlike other translations, it doesn't omit the copious use of "and" in Scripture (which very often is where the verse divisions fall).

To give an example.

And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw waterfor thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

It's because of stuff like this, that Robert Alter said the King James Version was the only translation that actually captured even a semblance of Hebrew prose.

 

[Vicomte13]

1) Where is a source on incontrovertible truth found today on earth?

I'd say modern forensic science and the laws of physics as presently understood.

Then I'd apply the forensics to physical miracles:

(1) Shroud and Facecloth
(2) Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle
(3) Incorrupt Bodies of Saints
(4) Healing miracles at Lourdes.

And where I found things forensically that cannot be, because they break the laws of physics, I would say "That is a true miracle", based on the physics.

Armed with a bunch of true miracles, I would look at the theological content of those miracles.

The Shroud proves the resurrection.
Lanciano proves the real presence of God in the eucharist.
The Incorrupt prove the holiness of Sainthood
The Lourdes miracles prove that God sometimes uses Mary as an envoy, and it's ok to be cognizant of that.

And the nature of those miracles - resurrection, eucharist, sainthood and Mary - has theological content for ecclesiology.

They confirm that Catholicism is not disfavored by God, all arguments to the contrary from the silence of text.

I would have never been able to believe that Christianity was actually TRUE without miracles. Given miracles, I can't DISBELIEVE it, even though Christianity is sometimes rather INCONVENIENT.

 

[Vicomte13]

The King James is one of the better translations because it it is much more consistent.

It's also good because it essentially uses one Byzantine type manuscript.

If you have not seen the EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible), I urge you to get it. It's the best English translation of the New Testament. Trust me. Go look and see.

 

[Meowzltov]

So which church do you believe today carries the truth and is the so called pillar and foundation of it? There are so many that disagree. Personally, I have left one church and been visiting many different ones. None has impressed me as being the highest authority of incontrovertible truth.

If you can't answer my question, than your position fails as you offer no alternative source of incontrovertible truth than scripture.

If you check my faith moniker, you will see that I am Catholic. Why do I think the Catholic Church is THE Church?

• The church of the Apostle quickly came to be called the Catholic church. Ignatius, student of John and ordained bishop of Antioch by Peter, wrote of the Catholic Church in 108 AD.
• One can follow the history of the church as the Catholic Church through the millennia to the present day; there is no person or date that anyone began the Catholic Church the way that Luther began the Protestant Reformation or that Ellen White began the Seventh Day Adventist Church of the way EVERY Protestant denomination has been started.
• The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) has maintained the unbroken chain of the laying of of hands in the ordination of its bishops from the time of the Apostles to the present. The Protestants did not believe in "clericalism" and deliberately broke this chain, thus losing the teaching authority that comes from the Apostles.
• Unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church (which has also preserved the laying on of hands, and thus the authority of the apostles) the Catholic Church is universal, having Christians of every ethnicity, class, and nation. The EO Church sets up Churches in new places only to serve those who have immigrated -- they do not evangelize. The Catholic Church sends out missionaries to every corner of the earth to spread the gospel.
• It was the bishops of the Catholic Church which put together the canon of the New Testament. IOW if the Catholic Church is not THE Church, then really one should stick to having just the Old Testament or guessing which books should be in a New Testament.
• The "Sola Scriptura" of Protestantism has only resulted in endless schisms, tens of thousands of denominations. Without the authority of the Catholic Church there is no unity in Christianity.
• Unlike Protestant Churches, which have only two Sacraments (baptism and communion) Catholicism has all of them, based on Scripture, such as anointing of the sick, ordination via laying on of hands, etc.
• The Catholic Church has the depth to meet each individual Christian where they are at. The homilies at weekly masses are basic, appealing to those who are religiously uneducated. Bible studies are in greater depth to help people grow. Books, Catholic Schools and Universities offer classes in Theology and Church history for those who desire a much greater depth. We have a strong mystical history to those who experience Christ in an intense, personal fashion, and retreats and devotional materials designed to help individuals who wish to improve their relationship with God. We have religious orders, both celibate and married, for those who wish to devote their lives to contemplation or service. Protestants simply do not have this kind of depth. They merely have evangelism and good Bible studies.
• We have an organized Catechism that takes all the teachings of Scripture, the Councils, and Sacred Tradition and put them together into one easily referenced book that all Catholics use. We have a clarity of the Gospel and the faith we all profess, an understanding of the life a Christian should live, and the basics of the Sacraments that the Church offers. There is no question what the Catholic Church teaches--even if you disagree, you know what you are disagreeing with!

I could go on, but this is a pretty good list for a simple post.

Other churches mean well, but they don't cut the mustard. At least they introduce people to Christ, and baptize them. This DOES make individuals Christians, and by their baptism, these individuals have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Vicomte13]

If you check my faith moniker, you will see that I am Catholic. Why do I think the Catholic Church is THE Church?

• The church of the Apostle quickly came to be called the Catholic church. Ignatius, student of John and ordained bishop of Antioch by Peter, wrote of the Catholic Church in 108 AD.
• One can follow the history of the church as the Catholic Church through the millennia to the present day; there is no person or date that anyone began the Catholic Church the way that Luther began the Protestant Reformation or that Ellen White began the Seventh Day Adventist Church of the way EVERY Protestant denomination has been started.
• The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) has maintained the unbroken chain of the laying of of hands in the ordination of its bishops from the time of the Apostles to the present. The Protestants did not believe in "clericalism" and deliberately broke this chain, thus losing the teaching authority that comes from the Apostles.
• Unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church (which has also preserved the laying on of hands, and thus the authority of the apostles) the Catholic Church is universal, having Christians of every ethnicity, class, and nation. The EO Church sets up Churches in new places only to serve those who have immigrated -- they do not evangelize. The Catholic Church sends out missionaries to every corner of the earth to spread the gospel.
• It was the bishops of the Catholic Church which put together the canon of the New Testament. IOW if the Catholic Church is not THE Church, then really one should stick to having just the Old Testament or guessing which books should be in a New Testament.
• The "Sola Scriptura" of Protestantism has only resulted in endless schisms, tens of thousands of denominations. Without the authority of the Catholic Church there is no unity in Christianity.
• Unlike Protestant Churches, which have only two Sacraments (baptism and communion) Catholicism has all of them, based on Scripture, such as anointing of the sick, ordination via laying on of hands, etc.
• The Catholic Church has the depth to meet each individual Christian where they are at. The homilies at weekly masses are basic, appealing to ordinary people. Bible studies are in greater depth to help people grow. Books, Catholic Schools and Universities offer classes in Theology and Church history for those who desire a much greater depth. We have a strong mystical history to those who experience Christ in an intense, personal fashion, and retreats and devotional materials designed to help individuals who wish to improve their relationship with God. We have religious orders, both celibate and married, for those who wish to devote their lives to contemplation or service. Protestants simply do not have this kind of depth. They merely have evangelism and good Bible studies.
• We have an organized Catechism that takes all the teachings of Scripture, the Councils, and Sacred Tradition and put them together into one easily referenced book that all Catholics use. We have a clarity of the Gospel and the faith we all profess, an understanding of the life a Christian should live, and the basics of the Sacraments that the Church offers. There is no question what the Catholic Church teaches--even if you disagree, you know what you are disagreeing with!

I could go on, but this is a pretty good list for a simple post.

What a great post!

To this list I will add the thing that have been of key importance to me - although certainly many Catholics would recoil, these things are also within the Catholic fold.

• We have the miracles: The Shroud and Oviedo Cloth, which prove the truth of the Gospel stories of the crucifixion, right down to the details, and prove the death and resurrection; the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle, by which God demonstrated the literal truth of transubstantiation, and preserved it for all of the centuries to see; the Incorrupt bodies of saints, by which God proved the specific charism of sainthood, and demonstrated for all to see his absolute mastery over death, decay and all of physics; and the Lourdes Healings, whereby God proved the special role of Mary, by sending her as harbinger to that place, and whereby God - by doing specific healing miracles that Jesus suggested Satan cannot do - forced the recognition that not on does God do major healing miracles NOW, just like Jesus, and force the decision based on miracle NOW, just like Jesus, and but also demonstrates the particular special role of Mary - a key distinction that the other Christian churches reject.
• We understand the proper structure of the afterlife - that there is Purgatory (Gehenna) as opposed to simply death and final judgment. Final judgment comes later, at the end. After our deaths we have Gan Eden (Paradise/Abraham's Bosom) or we have Gehenna (Purgatory) where souls can be cleansed and still have the hope of Paradise and, ultimately, the city of God. We understand the efficacity of prayers for the dead, something that other Christians deny.
• We are not afraid of science. If evolution is true and Genesis really is just an allegory, it doesn't change anything, because Jesus, his death and resurrection, and our own, is literally true, not allegory - and we have the miracles to prove it.

I have experienced direct personal major miracles, and other things. They can be explained and put into context - and even be acceptable - only within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is catholic enough to be able to have people in it who have had miracles that don't fit the mold, and it's real enough and so full of grand provable miracles that my own miracles don't matter or make me particularly special. And that's a BIG DEAL, because it's the hallmark of a think that's true.

I've said before, and I mean it, that I'm not Catholic because I LIKE IT, I don't like many things. I'm Catholic because it's TRUE.

The others all lack the demonstrable miracles, but the Catholics have them. So Catholicism is the only one that is proven true. That's a big deal for me.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It's also good because it essentially uses one Byzantine type manuscript.

If you have not seen the EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible), I urge you to get it. It's the best English translation of the New Testament. Trust me. Go look and see.

I have, and it's great. I use it for the NT, and I use this for the OT when I can: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

 

[lesliedellow]

You don't have the earliest evidence. The earliest evidence is lost.

The earliest evidence we have disagrees with the Textus Receptus, which you apparently think so highly of.

Modern scholars have fragments. Jerome had originals.

Did he now, and how do you know that? Had the manuscripts in his possession the authors' personal seals on them?

I guess this is a fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholicism when it comes to the text - we trust the Church to have preserved the text.

Yeah, well it apparently did a pretty bad job of it, given that the autographs no longer exist.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure, but here's the difference... the faith for Catholics doesn't change in the way it does for Protestants. Sola Scriptura allows a diversity of so many opinions. Look at how much mainline churches have changed in a century. In most mainline churches those who actually believe in Nicene or Chalcedonian definitions as authentic symbols of the catholic faith are in the minority.

Really? I wonder which universe you live in, because it certainly isn't this one.

Because ultimately those are swept aside as the definitions of "Greek" minds. Von Harnack in particular was bad about this, being motivated by anti-Catholicism and the supposed ethical purity of Hebrew religion, but there are equal sentiments among Reformed churches. Even in conservative Reformed churches you get novelties like subordinationism of the Son. Whatever can be justified by "the Bible alone".

Harnack belonged to the era of nineteenth century rationalism, and was a product of his times. You will sometimes hear it said in Protestant theology that the Son is subordinate to the Father in function (i.e. he submits himself to the Father), but that he is equal in terms of his Godhead. Only a denial of the latter would constitute heresy.