supreme court comparison

[I can eat 50 eggs]

A friend of mine has been studying the Church for a while. He is unhappy with alot of the basic foundations of the modern Protestantism he grew up in. He has finally come to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is self contradictory, and false. He readily admits that there has to be SOMETHING outside of Scripture to divinely interpret Scripture (What's the value in an inspired scripture if it's left up to fallible, uninspired interpretation).

He has looked at the teachings of the Church, and he agrees in all the areas with there interpretation of scripture. However, he DOESN'T agree with areas that the Church teaches on that are absent from scripture. (Assumption of Mary, etc)

He explained to me that he believes the Bible is liek the Constitution, and the Church is the Supreme Court. They are the ruling body that decides how the vague passages are to be interpreted and how to apply the Scripture in difficult or unusual cases. However, they DON'T have the authority to come out and make new rulings (laws) outside of there roll as interpreter.

This kind of made sense to me, How do you view this? WHat can be said supporting the Traditional stance on the Church's teachings?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Simple. The Church doesnt make new rulings.

Anything he thinks is new is actually old, and more light has been shown on it over time. Sacred Tradition is CLOSED. It has been for about 1900 years or so.

Mention to him about when Jesus said there was much to tell them, but they weren't ready. Obviously there was more to come, right?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Maybe I Didn't state that correctly. His basic thing is interpretation of existing scriptures is OK, but the "continuing revelation", "more light being shed" is outside the appropriate scope, does that make sense?

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Give him my paper on "The Epistemology of Irenaeus"

It should answer his questions.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
Maybe I Didn't state that correctly. His basic thing is interpretation of existing scriptures is OK, but the "continuing revelation", "more light being shed" is outside the appropriate scope, does that make sense?

Jesus said Himself there would be more to come. It does get much simplier than that brother. Do you need the Chapter/Verse?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Jesus said Himself there would be more to come. It does get much simplier than that brother. Do you need the Chapter/Verse?

sure.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

John 16

12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

I don't want to be ornery, but I was curious how your interpretation of the John 16 passage differed from Montanism?

I thought that the Churches understanding of that passage was that it was fulfilled in the persons of the Apostles.  That's why we have the Apostolic Tradition, the New Testament, and Apostolic Succession.  Wasn't this accomplished at Pentecost?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
I don't want to be ornery, but I was curious how your interpretation of the John 16 passage differed from Montanism?

Anyone can claim to be guided, and many do claim that. We have to look at the other Scripture that says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

OK, and sorry about editing while you were responding.

So wasn't that passage fulfilled at Pentecost in the persons of the Apostles, i.e., the Church rests on the New Testament, the Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Succession?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Revelation is closed yes, but that doesnt mean it isnt clarified over the years. Just look at the concept of the Trinity for example.

 

[sklippstein]

Maybe I Didn't state that correctly. His basic thing is interpretation of existing scriptures is OK, but the "continuing revelation", "more light being shed" is outside the appropriate scope, does that make sense?

 

Could u be a little more specific as to which "continuing revelation" he is in disagreement with?  I think this would be more helpful in our answers.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
John 16

12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

 

Oh, SOrry, we had discussed this verse.  He believes that this is telling them about the coming of the NT, so it doesn't really help here.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

That doesnt logically follow. There is no reason to think that God would stop guiding His Church after the NT was put together. Remember that divine revelation is closed, the Church just clarifies it more fully over time.