Response to Dave Armstrong on Sola Scriptura
Dave Armstrong provided some arguments against sola scriptura that I thought I would address. Initially he provided some definitions of sola scriptura, which I more or less agreed with.
Here's his first issue regarding "victory conditions" in the sola scriptura debate.
The Catholic needs to go further than that and establish, based on unassailable biblical evidence, examples of tradition or Church proclamations that were binding and obligatory upon all who heard and received them. Whether these were infallible is another more complex question, but a binding decree is already either expressly contrary to sola scriptura, or, at the very least, a thing that casts considerable doubt on the formal principle.I don't think what you suggest would disprove sola scriptura. Unquestionably, before the bible, there were oral teachings which were binding. Of course anything Christ said was binding. Before Moses, God taught His people in means other than writing. Further, even at the time of the Apostles, God spoke through visions and prophets. The Apostles themselves were filled with the Spirit at times when they preached. Take the sermons of Peter or Paul recorded in Acts. It's a bit of a catch 22. If they made mistakes during their sermons, did Luke record the errors? If not, Luke didn't infallibly record what they said. If so, we can't trust the sermons recorded in Acts. The solution is of course that the preachers, filled with the Spirit, didn't err. But this was of course oral. The real question is what to do now that the Apostles have reposed; we no longer have visions and prophets; but we have the scriptures.
Thus, one of my favorite counter-arguments is to point out that the Apostle Paul and his companion Silas made their way “through the cities” and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). This council at Jerusalem was described in the previous chapter as having reached its decisions by the direct aid or guidance of the Holy Spirit (15:28).Similar to the above, I don't think the council of Jerusalem was fallible (due to the Holy Spirit, not the Apostles themselves). So what has changed? Why don't I accept post-apostolic councils as infallible. For one, we now have the bible; so the bible should be the infallible guide of all councils. But for another, post-apostolic councils, popes and the church have erred. One pope taught the Arian heresy (and a subsequent pope condemned him for it). The church flip-flopped on the issue of the Assumption of Mary (at times teaching it, at other times condemning it). One pope published his own personal translation of the bible, which was filled with errors. The next pope attempted to gather them all up and destroy them, because he knew they were wrong. Galileo was both hero and heretic. At one point there were three people claiming to be the pope. In short, because the popes and councils have contradicted themselves and scripture, they clearly are not infallible. But scripture has never erred.
3. Another relevant question with regard to sola scriptura is the history of how the canon of the New Testament was determined. It was, of course, as a result of the authority of the Catholic Church, since prior to the proclamations in the late 4th century, there were plenty of disagreements among eminent Church fathers about individual books (while there was substantial consensus in the main, as well).Scripture is God's word, and His children recognize His voice. The books declare themselves to be God's word. For more, see here.
Most Protestant defenders of Scripture Alone contend that it is taught in the Bible. I contend that their alleged prooftexts are invariably logically circular, flimsy and easily shot down (and I hope to demonstrate that in this book). Other Protestants argue that it is true and a solid principle, without having to be expressly taught in the Bible; that it isn’t logically necessary for that to be the case in order to adhere to sola Scriptura.I fall into the latter category. The scripture declares itself to be authoritative and that its revelation is sufficient for salvation, but scripture does not denounce all other authorities. But scripture is "sola" because it's the last man standing, given the errors of popes and councils.
The most obvious question in this regard to be resolved by the Protestant is to explain how sola scriptura can continue to “hold water” despite the numerous inter-Protestant disagreements. Scripture is, we are told, clear enough in its main outlines to be understood by the layman without necessary (let alone binding) help from any church body or ecclesiastical communion.Just as what sinners did with Christ should not be held against Christ, neither should what sinners do with scripture be held against scripture. Still, most of the divisions are not over essentials of the faith; so we remain united in a more important sense. And by the way, the Catholic church isn't the only one claiming to be the one true church with an unbroken chain to the Apostles. I understand the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church and the Coptic church make that claim as well.
Protestants, in reaction to these irresolvable conundrums, have come up with the notion of “essential” vs. “secondary” doctrines, which entails (I shall argue in this book) yet another unbiblical distinction.Scripture states that some of its teachings are more important than others. Thus some commands are called "the more important matters of the law", while others are called "the least of these commandments". (Matthew 5:19; 23:23) So also, the Gospel has more glory and weight than the Law. (2 Corinthians 3:9; Hebrews 2:1-3; 10:26-29) It's the Gospel that's essential for salvation, albeit the other aspects are important.
Comments
So then, where did Sola Scriptura come from? If it was not operative in the Old Testament or the New Testament times then where did we get it?
The idea of "last man standing" is close. It was really more a matter of deniability. What was the only place Luther could go for support and somehow deny that it flatly contradicted what he was saying. The disagreements with the councils and magisterium were impossible to deny. Disagreements with scripture could be denied.
That was not just true of Luther but of every heretic before and since. They go to scripture because they can claim everyone else has misinterpreted it and they are right.
Of course, the bible as a sole authority is unworkable. Really any written word as a sole governing authority is not workable. Organizations have laws but the also have authorities to interpret the laws. So every protestant church contains such an interpretive authority. They kind of claim it and yet deny they are doing so. They say their authority comes from scripture but they mean scripture as interpreted in their human tradition.
Lastly, you assertion that differences are mostly on minor doctrines is just false. They are on major doctrines. Early differences about the Eucharist and baptism were very important. Later generation of protestants simply declared them to be minor with no biblical evidence. Facing the fact that they were clueless about some critical Christian doctrines was to much to take. So they magically declared them to be no big deal.
The same thing is happening with sexual morality. More and more protestants are saying it is unimportant. What they mean is there is disagreement and therefore we are forced to declare them unimportant.
Don't forget the Mormons and all their spin-offs claim they are a return to the apostolic church.
Thanks for your response.
So then, where did Sola Scriptura come from? If it was not operative in the Old Testament or the New Testament times then where did we get it?
As I shared in my post, scripture declares “scriptura” (i.e. that it’s God’s word) and “sola” is the function of the errors in other sources.
The idea of "last man standing" is close. It was really more a matter of deniability. What was the only place Luther could go for support and somehow deny that it flatly contradicted what he was saying. The disagreements with the councils and magisterium were impossible to deny. Disagreements with scripture could be denied.
That’s not exactly how I see it. Luther was trying to reform the church, to purge some of the bad guy stuff he saw going on in it. So yes, he turned to scripture to demonstrate the errors in the church. Maybe we are saying the same thing from our respective points of view.
Of course, the bible as a sole authority is unworkable. Really any written word as a sole governing authority is not workable.
There are other authorities, just not infallible ones. You consider the fathers fallible authorities, no? Take Augustine (or whoever you think of as the greatest church father). He’s an authority, even though he erred from time to time?
Lastly, you assertion that differences are mostly on minor doctrines is just false. They are on major doctrines. Early differences about the Eucharist and baptism were very important. Later generation of protestants simply declared them to be minor with no biblical evidence.
Yes, toleration is something of a development. Luther and Calvin sometimes come across as real hotheads. But they need to run a tight ship just to survive back then. Later Protestants learned from their mistakes. I prefer Arminius’ approach (i.e. not condemning Lutherans or Anabaptists and he even held up hope for Catholics). The errors of Luther and Calvin are yet more evidence that only scripture is infallible.
The same thing is happening with sexual morality. More and more protestants are saying it is unimportant.
The scriptures are clear on sexual morals. Rule-breakers don’t invalidate the rule.
God be with you,
Dan
Don't forget the Mormons and all their spin-offs claim they are a return to the apostolic church.
Yes. A good example of why we are to test the spirits. Mormans deny Christ's claim of being "I am", since they don't think He is eternal.
God be with you,
Dan
Lol, no Church father is infallible, No knowledgeable Catholic thinks that. Its the Magisterium, i.e, the Bishops in Communion with the Pope, making a declaration. Read more on it here, on Dave's site
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/biblical-evidence-for-papal-and-church.html
Better reading this
Good. Then perhaps Catholics and Protestants have common ground on the idea of fallible authority.
God be with you,
Dan
JNORM888
But how is error determined? By scripture? But who's reading? Why scripture? How can anyone be sure it is right? If councils err and the church's most authoritative can be wrong then why can't scripture be wrong? If you are going to throw into doubt some things that Christians have always trusted then how do you choose what to doubt?
That’s not exactly how I see it. Luther was trying to reform the church, to purge some of the bad guy stuff he saw going on in it. So yes, he turned to scripture to demonstrate the errors in the church. Maybe we are saying the same thing from our respective points of view.
But he was using scripture against the church. That is not reform but revolt. He started with the assumption his reading of scripture was infallible. Now protestants pretty much grant him his assumption. Catholics don't. They admit he was right on many points but wrong on some very big ones. Most of all he was wrong on his method. He put himself in the center even when he was trying to put scripture in the center.
There are other authorities, just not infallible ones. You consider the fathers fallible authorities, no? Take Augustine (or whoever you think of as the greatest church father). He’s an authority, even though he erred from time to time?
Fallible authorities have limited value. As Chesterton said, we need a church that can be rigt when we are wrong. Fallible authorities are helpful when we are basically right and need refinement. If we are basically wrong we just dismiss the authority that disagrees with us. It is fallible and it is much easier to assume it is wrong than to contemplate the possibility we are wrong.
Yes, toleration is something of a development. Luther and Calvin sometimes come across as real hotheads. But they need to run a tight ship just to survive back then. Later Protestants learned from their mistakes. I prefer Arminius’ approach (i.e. not condemning Lutherans or Anabaptists and he even held up hope for Catholics). The errors of Luther and Calvin are yet more evidence that only scripture is infallible.
Toleration is not a development. It is a watering down of truth. Sola Scriptura requires a constant watering down over the generations. So nobody decided that the nature of the Lord's Supper wasn't an important doctrinal issue. Differences of opinion required that assumption. Otherwise you would have to admit you are snookered over an important matter. The trouble is the same trap is there for you on every other issue. Differences require you to say the matter is unimportant. You can say protestants are just wrong on an important matter but it does not hold. The next generation looks at the situation again and declares it to be no big deal. So you get a split with a liberal majority and a faithful remnant. It just keeps happening.
The scriptures are clear on sexual morals. Rule-breakers don’t invalidate the rule.
This is not about rule breakers. This is about people who feel the rule is wrong. They don’t think the scriptures are clear. So in a generation protestants will cave on that too. They did on contraception. They were firmly opposed to that. Look at what happened. God does not change but protestantism keeps changing.
But how is error determined? By scripture? But who's reading? Why scripture? How can anyone be sure it is right?
By Scripture. Yes. By your own reading (IOW, if someone provides you and interpretation of scripture, you must prayerful compare it to the bible). Because it’s God’s word. We know scripture to be God’s word (and therefore we can be sure it’s right), due to A) the Holy Spirit’s witness, B) the arguments within scripture itself and C) the impact scripture has had on history.
BTW, questions like this make me wonder if you think the scripture is authoritative.
If councils err and the church's most authoritative can be wrong then why can't scripture be wrong?
Because it’s God’s word.
If you are going to throw into doubt some things that Christians have always trusted then how do you choose what to doubt?
The church has erred and scripture has not (see cases cited in post above).
Fallible authorities have limited value. As Chesterton said, we need a church that can be rigt when we are wrong. Fallible authorities are helpful when we are basically right and need refinement. If we are basically wrong we just dismiss the authority that disagrees with us. It is fallible and it is much easier to assume it is wrong than to contemplate the possibility we are wrong.
That’s kinda how I feel about scripture.
Toleration is not a development. It is a watering down of truth.
Has not the RCC had its own struggles with liberalism? If so, I suggest the problem is sin, not sola scriptura.
They don’t think the scriptures are clear
The scriptures are sexually explicit. ;-) To get around its plain statements, liberals typically attach the scriptures themselves or attempt to circumvent them.
God be with you,
Dan
The Armenian and the Coptic churches are in communion with eachother so they are really one group...."O.O." or Oriental Orthodox.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I would have guessed they were divided on the issue of the hypostatic union of Christ's divine-human nature.
In any case the main point was that the RCC isn't the only ancient church that claims to be "the one true church", so we need to rely on scripture to figure it all out.
God be with you,
Dan
But hasn't this been tried and found to not work? How many different denominations get different answers? If what you suggest was a valid way of determining God's truth then all those who pracitce it should basically agree on what that truth is. They don't so there must be more to it.
We know scripture to be God’s word (and therefore we can be sure it’s right), due to A) the Holy Spirit’s witness, B) the arguments within scripture itself and C) the impact scripture has had on history.
So it is possible to believe in Jesus and reject the bible? It is logically possible that Jesus could be the Son of God and Paul could have some misunderstandings about the gospel? So it requires two separate acts of faith. One to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and second one to accept the bible as God's word?
BTW, questions like this make me wonder if you think the scripture is authoritative.
I don't think authority is something you can talk about for a document. It is inerrant. It is inspired. But for something to have authority you need to be able to ask it questions and get objective answers. Nobody has a document for a boss. No document, even an inspired one, can act as an authority in the church. It is a category error.
I would never deny the problem is connected with sin. But which sin? Rebellion against God-given authority is the particular sin that liberalism comes from. Yes, Catholics can do that as well. Some of them really think like a protestant and just dismiss church teachings they don't like. Sometimes protestants think like Catholics and teach that certain doctrines are absolutely required if you want to call yourself Christian. We need to know the truth AND obey it.
Liberalism can't threaten Catholicism to the same degree because there is the rock that will not succumb. That is not our doing but totally a God thing. Still protestants have no central core that is protected from heresy. That means liberalism can win a complete victory where nobody knows what the true gospel of Christ really is. The truth is it has already happened. Even the most conservative protestants have their teaching riddled with errors. They are sincere and think they have the truth. They have just been drawn off course over the years.
The scriptures are sexually explicit. ;-) To get around its plain statements, liberals typically attach the scriptures themselves or attempt to circumvent them.
And you know their arguments are wrong because ...
Can you give an objective reason why reading scripture that way is an error. Remember you cannot appeal to tradition. So the fact that Christians have never read the bible that way does not carry any weight.
But hasn't this been tried and found to not work? How many different denominations get different answers? If what you suggest was a valid way of determining God's truth then all those who pracitce it should basically agree on what that truth is. They don't so there must be more to it.
No, it works. Lots, but most are united on the essentials (i.e. the Gospel). Disagreements on non-essentials occur for lots of reasons, including 1) sin, 2) varying maturity levels of the believers and 3) openness of scripture to multiple interpretations.
So it is possible to believe in Jesus and reject the bible? It is logically possible that Jesus could be the Son of God and Paul could have some misunderstandings about the gospel? So it requires two separate acts of faith. One to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and second one to accept the bible as God's word?
Yes, or at least certain aspects of the bible (clearly one couldn’t believe in Christ and reject the bible’s teachings about Christ). No, the Gospel is essential. Yes, it’s separate acts of faith (I am not saying they are in no way related, but in the context your asking, yes they are separate).
I don't think authority is something you can talk about for a document. It is inerrant. It is inspired. But for something to have authority you need to be able to ask it questions and get objective answers. Nobody has a document for a boss. No document, even an inspired one, can act as an authority in the church. It is a category error.
That’s what I feared you were getting at. God willing, I will post on this topic sometime soon.
God be with you,
Dan
Liberalism can't threaten Catholicism to the same degree because there is the rock that will not succumb. That is not our doing but totally a God thing. Still protestants have no central core that is protected from heresy.
Again, what you say about tradition, I say about scripture…
And you know their arguments are wrong because ...
Can you give an objective reason why reading scripture that way is an error. Remember you cannot appeal to tradition. So the fact that Christians have never read the bible that way does not carry any weight.
Because… they contradict scripture. Again, they are not interpreting scripture, they are attacking it.
God be with you,
Dan
The "essentials" argument does not work. Where is the list of essential doctrines in scripture? If one church says you have to speak in tongues to be saved and another church say you don't, is that an essential or a secondary doctrine? What about abortion. Is that essential or can you be a fine Christian and be pro-choice? Don't you need an authority to answer these questions?
Disagreements on non-essentials occur for lots of reasons, including 1) sin, 2) varying maturity levels of the believers and 3) openness of scripture to multiple interpretations.
I think you reasons are pretty close. But sometimes you need to be able to get God's answer even when there is disagreement. You have no way to do it. All you can do is agree to disagree. That often means a schism.
Again, what you say about tradition, I say about scripture…
You say it but that does not make it workable. Scripture always needs an interpreter. If you can only supply uninspired, fallible, sinful interpreter then you have a problem.
Because… they contradict scripture. Again, they are not interpreting scripture, they are attacking it.
But that is your opinion. If they say they are interpreting scripture correctly how can you say they are not? Do you not need authority to say so? They might see you as having sexual hangups or being prejudiced. How can you know that it is not your interpretation that is wrong? How can you prove it to others?
Bottom line: why believe in sola Scriptura absent any clear teaching in the Bible concerning it? It's not taught there, yet Protestants make it the pillar of their entire structure of authority.
If it's not in the Bible (and it isn't), then it is simply a tradition of man, and certainly not an infallible teaching.
So Protestants are left with the same situation that you falsely accuse us of having: non-infallible authority upon which you base your authority and your doctrines.
Why would you appeal to non-infallible authority (sola Scriptura: not taught anywhere in the Bible) when you yourself state that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority? That's simultaneously quite odd, implausible, and self-contradictory.
This associated notion that Scripture is all we need once it is completed, is contradicted by the Bible, too, since that principle is never stated, and indications of binding authority other than Scripture are abundant in Scripture itself.
There is no indication that they were to cease as soon as the Bible was completed. It's yet another unbiblical tradition raised to the level of unassailable "truth". Why is it so difficult to grasp these manifest internal difficulties. The whole perspective of sola Scriptura has more holes in it than a pin cushion.
The claim of "The One True Church" is an Ancient custom. The Church made the claim before 1054 A.D.(When the Latin wing officially became Roman Catholic)
The Claim was made by the Church before 454 A.D. (When the nonchalcedonians officially became Oriental Orthodox)
And the Claim was made by the Church before 417 A.D. (when the Assyian Church of the East officially became Nestorian)
So it doesn't really matter if other Ancient groups make the same claim. It's an Ancient custom...so if a region was going to say it before a split with another region then it's only normal to continue to make the same claim after a aplit.
The Mormon situation is different. They are not an Ancient group so it doesn't matter what they say or what other modern groups say......who make the same claim(like the cambellites). Only the 4 ancient groups can make that claim because they been around for 2,000 years.
That claim is similar to how Prespyterians and the Dutch make use of the claim of being "Reformed".
Only so many groups can make the claim that they are "Reformed".
So look at it as a custom that Ancient churches use because they always used it. It would be odd for one to stop making use of the claim just because another group makes use of the same claim.
And just like the Reformed are able to argue that their particular group is truely "Reformed" or the only Reformed church, so likewise, the Ancient groups are able to use arguments to prove our claims as well.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because more than one group makes use of the same claim, doesn't mean that the claim in and of itself is false, or that all Ancient groups must now stop making use of it.
As far as the O.O.(Oriental Orthodox) goes, all the groups in it are
1.) Coptic
2.) Armenian
3.) Syrian(nonchalcedon/jacobite)
4.)Ethiopian
5.)Etrian
6.)A group in India....I forgot which one.
Take care, and God bless! Oh, and have a happy New Year.
JNORM888
Perhaps we are talking past each other here regarding “interpretation”. Generally, I think of interpretation as gaining an understanding of what was said (or written). This is in contrast to the intention of the speaker, but it’s related to the intention of the speaker. For example, if my wife asks me to get her a drink (and we have coke and sprite in the fridge), she might have one in mind, but her statement could mean either. Also, the greater the specificity, the less that’s open for interpretation. Going back to the example, if my wife asks for an 8 oz diet coke in a glass, with three ice cubes, the type of drink is no longer a matter of interpretation. Of course she didn’t say when, so that’s open to interpretation… :-) I know better than that! But in any case, she could supply all the five W’s and then there wouldn’t be anything left to interpret.
I am not getting into Kant’s anti-rational theories here. Sure, I have to make some baseline assumptions (i.e. that I exist and she does to), but once I do (and I have to), I can learn the rest and make sense out of her request.
I bring this up, in part to answer your questions and in part because I don’t think there is such a thing as a third party interpretation. One could never take the interpretation of a third party as their own without checking against scripture and deciding yes, that’s what it means. You speak of interpretation as if someone else could do it for you, but in the end, it’s between you and scripture. Taking an outside opinion to scripture (whether yours or someone else’s) is the very definition of eisegesis and is opposed to exegesis. In short, what you’re suggesting is not even interpretation.
Now, to respond to your question, I am saying the scriptures are specific enough on sexual morals, that people can’t really mistake what its saying. I don’t know of anyone who tries to make an exegetical argument for homosexuality. Rather, they say the passages are no longer relevant. But saying the passages is no longer relevant is clearly not an interpretation of the passages. So even if they make claims about the subject in the passage, they are not interpreting the passage.
Tongues is different, as the scriptures are far less specific, but no passage states tongues are necessary for salvation or anathematizes those who don’t speak in tongues, so it’s non-essential.
God be with you,
Dan
There ain't much here, frankly, that deals with my arguments against sola Scriptura.
That’s interesting, because I don’t think anyone has addressed my primary argument: scripture is the last man standing, because popes and councils have erred. Not that I haven't appreciated Randy's points though.
If it's not in the Bible (and it isn't), then it is simply a tradition of man, and certainly not an infallible teaching.
Right, it’s true, but those who teach it are not infallible.
So Protestants are left with the same situation that you falsely accuse us of having: non-infallible authority upon which you base your authority and your doctrines.
Yep, no such utopia as infallible tradition.
Why would you appeal to non-infallible authority (sola Scriptura: not taught anywhere in the Bible) when you yourself state that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority? That's simultaneously quite odd, implausible, and self-contradictory.
The teaching is true, but the teachers are fallible. I view infallibility as a quality of the teacher, not of what they teach.
This associated notion that Scripture is all we need once it is completed, is contradicted by the Bible, too, since that principle is never stated, and indications of binding authority other than Scripture are abundant in Scripture itself.
Do you agree with me that the scripture teaches what is necessary for salvation?
There is no indication that they were to cease as soon as the Bible was completed. It's yet another unbiblical tradition raised to the level of unassailable "truth".
Again, the evidence that the church has erred is plain. The scripture has proven itself reliable, and the popes have not.
BTW, unbiblical, I think is an inappropriate term here, because sola scripture isn’t contrary to scripture.
God be with you,
Dan
As usual, you are a wealth of helpful info.
But I can't help shake the feeling that in the end there can only be one. Maybe I enjoyed the highlander too much.
Happy new year,
Dan
I would define interpretation more broadly. I would say any time we are taking words and determining what ideas are intended by those words we are interpreting. Sometimes it is clear. Sometimes not so clear. That is often dependant on the person. You might know your wife prefers Coke to Sprite so to you that is clear even if it would not be clear to me.
Any written word is going to have issues of interpretation. When governments pass laws they take great pains to make them as clear as they can. Still there is a need for judges to interpret them. They can never be clear enough to eliminate that.
Scripture is rarely so explicit as legal documents in what it means. Most of it was written as letters with no notion that someone would try and use it to answer every possible question of faith, morals, liturgy, church government, etc. So interpretation will be less clear. Even when it seems clear to us we can look around and see other bible interpreters coming to different conclusions. They might also say it is clear. But is it really if both interpreters are honest?
Now, to respond to your question, I am saying the scriptures are specific enough on sexual morals, that people can’t really mistake what its saying. I don’t know of anyone who tries to make an exegetical argument for homosexuality. Rather, they say the passages are no longer relevant. But saying the passages is no longer relevant is clearly not an interpretation of the passages. So even if they make claims about the subject in the passage, they are not interpreting the passage.
The trouble is you can't really follow that rule all the time. When Paul say women must cover their head in church we say the passage is not literally relevant. So what makes someone else wrong when they same the same thing about passages that refer to gay sex? I am not saying they are right. I am just saying you can't use a rule to exclude their view of the text when you don't follow the same rule yourself.
The bible does not lend itself to simple exegetical rules that can be applied everywhere. There are many forms of literature and many difficult passages. Any exegetical rule you advance can be challenged. Who gets to make the rules? It comes back to authority.
Part of my point was interpretation is inherently individualistic. I can’t interpret for you and you can’t interpret for me. Also the perception of “clarity “is individualistic as well. If I see something as clear, it’s not open to multiple interpretations. So if 1) I see a passage as clear and 2) someone else interprets the passage differently and 3) I rechecked the passage based on their reasons, but still think it’s clear, I conclude they misinterpret the passage.
I don’t see any other way to proceed. If I just accepted what they said despite what I thought, I am no longer interpreting. Definitionalally, the answer to the “who decides” question, is “the interpreter” (that goes for the interpretation and the “clarity”).
You used a judge example above, but unlike the Catholic Church, judges in the US legal system are not telling you what to think.
As for homosexuality, I must conclude that they are wrong, because to me the passages are clear.
God be with you,
Dan
The Catholic Church recognizes and affirms the Apostolic Succession of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Because of this, she considers the EO a valid Church. She considers Protestants as communities of believers.
I am not sure it's mutual. The EOC doesn't recognize the Pope or admit Catholics into communion.
Anywho, my main point is this:
1. Catholics and the EOC are different churches.
2. They both claim to be the one true church.
3. It's impossible to two churches to be the one true church.
4. Therefore the individual has to decide.
Which of the four points do you disagree with?
God be with you,
Dan
Interpretation is inherently individualistic. But there is one truth. So if I disagree with others who I think are honest, competent interpreters then I must say they are wrong or I am wrong. Just becaue I can review their arguments and still think I am right does not mean I am right. I could be wrong and the guy in the church down the street could be interpreting right.
You could reduce all you biblical interpretation to mere opinion. Then you can't say "the bible says sodomy is sinful". You have to qualify it by saying "in my opinion the bible says sodomy is sinful". That really weakens your message.
But sometimes you want to know the truth beyond doubt. You can just tell yourself there is no doubt despite the controversy. You can tell yourself you don't have to know. That you can just proceed based on your feelings about scripture. But Jesus said we will know the truth and the truth will set us free.
I ran into this with the issue of female ordination. My church was splitting over the issue so I wanted to be sure I got it right. I could see both sides of the argument in terms of scripture. But there was no way to know which side was right. There was no way to find God's truth with any certainty. Sola Scriptura simply failed. I had to use human wisdom to try and find an answer.
You used a judge example above, but unlike the Catholic Church, judges in the US legal system are not telling you what to think.
The pope does not tell you what to think. He tells you what God thinks. Rom 12:2 says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." That is what we are called to do. To open our mind to be transformed by God. That takes prayer and contemplation. But we need to want to bring ourselves into line with God's way. If we want to cling to our pet doctrines then we are rebelling against God.
So the church does not tell you what to think but it does call you to surrender you private thoughts to God. That is a very intimate thing. For me it was the hardest and the most rewarding part of becoming Catholic.
While I don't think either of us will convince the other, I do appreciate your approach to the discussion.
God be with you,
Dan