tom55 said:
When you say we must "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" you are talking about a self authenticating scripture. If Scripture is self authenticating then why did the early Church leaders disagree on what IS Scripture or to say it another way, what books should be in the bible? Wouldn't scripture or the Holy Spirit have led all of them to the same conclusion of what books should be in the bible if it is self authenticating? We don't have a table of contents so we have to use scripture to decide what is scripture...don't we?
Do you know the criteria the early Church used in authenticating Scripture? The Church recognized what is Scripture, it did not establish it. This though must be qualified that those who coauthored the New Testament were apportioned to the Church. (Coauthored to mean under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) All of the OT was established before the Church was. Then as to the NT these are a collection of writings circulated amongst the churches especially in the case of the epistles. Some of the criteria included apostolic authenticity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and usage by the ECF. It is not so much that there was disagreement as to what was Scripture as the disagreement was more on what was not Scripture. Yet this in itself does not invalidate the divine origin of Scripture in any way nor does it discredit it's authority nor God's providence in it's summation. It is not any organization that grants authority to God's Word, rather it is God Himself. Thus your rebuttal speaks nothing to Scripture interpreting Scripture. The Church recognized it's self authenticating in the selection process.
tom55 said:
You say, "The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable". Who decides who is humble and teachable? If we are both humble and teachable but we both come up with different interpretations on baptism, who is right? According to your theory no one is right since we are both 'humble and teachable" and at no point can "anyone know they have it right". Your right. I'm right. The Mormons are right. Joe's church in any town USA is right!!!! maybe the Muslims got it right?
If you really believe that "At no point does anyone know they have it right" then that means we will never know The Truth and that means there is no truth in scripture. Everyone is right and no one is wrong?
No one can say the Catholic Church is wrong in the way they interpret scripture and no one can say Martin Luther was wrong for wanting to remove some of the books of the NT. If I deny the Trinity I could be right or I could be wrong.....no one knows who is right.
I say God decides who is humble and teachable. It is through this attitude that God is able to reveal Himself to individuals as they study His Scripture. Thus it is not man who decides "who is right" rather God. Yet from man's perspective we can believe in what we choose, hence the varying religions and or denominations. Friend God is the only objective party here. All of man's perceptions are subjective and come from a fallen perspective. You are asking for absolutes and the only one able to provide that is God.
tom55 said:
I don't understand how you can say "At no point does anyone know they have it right" and then a couple of paragraphs later say "if theologians are introducing some unfound brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical" and we must "console the Church Universal". What Church? The Church you choose? The ones that have 500,000 or more members? What if they were humble and teachable theologians couldn't they be right and everyone else wrong? According to your theory "no one knows if they have it right".
Do you not know who the Catholic Church is? It is the whole collection of the children of God that knows no lines of demarcation concerning men's governing. They come from all classes and walks, yet their binding authority is Jesus Christ. They are and have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit giving guarantee and witness to them and their succession began at Pentecost. All of us involved in the Catholic Church have more in agreement than do we differ, yet we are all under one Lord. Thus when we are to console the Church Catholic (Universal) we seek all who are in agreement with the core tenants of the Christian faith. So then there is only one Church, with many local congregations.
tom55 said:
You are saying two DIFFERENT things. We don't know if they have it right but if they introduce something we disagree with then they are likely heretical? That is not logical or biblical.
This is both logical and biblical, yet your shallow view will not allow you to see the greater depth of God's hand in His Church. We don't know if we "have it right" because we are not those who objectively decide between right and wrong. This is a task for God, yet we can believe what is right. This must be something you understand from the story of redemption. All along man has chosen to do what is right in his own eyes, even unto killing the Christ. It is God who directs us to right from wrong proven by His sending of His prophets, His apostles, His saints, His Son, His Spirit, and he has given His Scriptures so we can know His character. Truth, goodness, holiness, love, and things such as these are based in God's nature and are the ideal. If left in man's hands as you suggest we would and could never know if we have it right. By your standard you are left with the same conundrum. Yet by my standard we are left with God's final authority.
tom55 said:
Who decides when "Exegesis are properly executed and properly presented'? I agree with you it's not an easy task.... so who decides?
God. Please understand if you are attempting to receive man's approval, you are already in trouble. Not all men will ever agree and you have offended God is seeking man's approval over His.
tom55 said:
If the bible is the ultimate authority who has the right to properly interpret the bible since it can't interpret itself? It seems you believe that we need to poll the "vast majority of theologians" to figure out what the bible means. Are you going to choose the theologians from 1800-2000 years ago or the theologians from 500 years ago thru today?
This is called a fallacy of the excluded middle. I actually look to theologians from 2,000 years ago thru unto today. Again I select theologians from the Catholic Church. Yet even here as a student of the word I am subject to interpret the Scriptures myself first and foremost. Only after I do the hard work of exegesis ought I look to what insight I may have missed by examining writings of the saints of the past.
tom55 said:
I agree with you and it is historically accurate that "Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture" and that the "Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text." However, a majority of those men AGREED on the key issues and The Catholic Church has adopted the doctrine of the majority of those men. Have you read The Church Fathers? Their writings are like reading RCC doctrine. I choose the men from 1800-2000 years ago.
You do yourself a disservice as there are many modern Roman Catholic theologians you are not gleaning from. I prefer to be not so short sighted in understanding theology and seek a larger reading selection. But yes I have read the ECF, yet I can't say I have exhausted my study of them. There is truly a great volume of material to be consumed. Is there a particular Father that resonates with you? I really like Augustine and Aquinas. Some in the monastic movement I like also as well.
What is comical is you did the same thing you said I did calling it "not logical or biblical". You said the ECF disagreed and agreed...how do you decide which one to agree with, or do you let someone decide for you?
tom55 said:
I could go further into detail concerning this subject yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it than I can so that you may know The Truth. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.
Please give me some recommendations! It is possible I have already read them but maybe you have some new books I am unaware of.
Also I will allow you the last word on this, yet after that it would be proper if we move this conversation to it's own thread as we are a bit off topic...if you decide to make a thread I will pick up the conversation there, yet again you can respond here if you like.