Catholics and Orthodox - teaching etc authority after 1054

I think Newman (as an Anglican or Catholic, I don't know) made a point along these lines, that Scripture is to be used for confirming doctrine, not formulating it.

 

Of course; when before the NT was completw (as it was being lived out); they would have to go by whichever scriptures they had (the OT). Apostolic authority and "tradition" (their "preaching") would at that point fill in for the NT; but they still had to line up with what the OT said. The OT was "ineffeicient" in that by itself it was not the complete revelation. It was the sposles who were then[/] in the process of completling it. This still does not mean that they could tech whatever they want (for instance; allow bowing to statues now, or exalting Mary) and neither when the revelation would be completed; would church leaders still have that divinely inspired authority. All would be subject to the written revelation. Else; there would be no way to prevent men from rising up and teaching anything, and having no way to tell which was really the true "apostolic tradition".

 

Lets "look" At the text and see if we see the "expected" --- "Oh my goodness you are checking out the word of an Apostle by scripture that is not yet complete! That is very very risky - you don't realize the danger that puts you in!!".

By contrast what was see is "approval" and title and statement of honor "MORE noble-minded" contrasting those who DID study the scriptures daily to SEE if those things were "SO" vs those who seemed to have no interest in "The details" and who rejected the teaching out of pure bias, tradition, prejudice, blind-obedience-to-their-priests.

A more "perfect illustration" would be hard to find.

Your idea that Lutherans do NOT see this as a BLESSING for those who were studying scripture to SEE IF the words of the Apostle Paul "were so" remains to be "proven".

Do you have some reference from a Lutheran source showing that they actually don't see this clear point in the text?

If so -- I would love to read it.

In the meant time - the point that this Acts 17 MODEL is exactly what the RC posters here have condemned -- is pretty easy to prove.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Does this mean that you are comfortable with these non-Christian Jews and Gentiles using scripture to "SEE IF the words of the Apostle ARE SO"??

#2. Does this mean that you see them being blessed/approved/complimented for using that approach IN the text of Acts 17:10-11?

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is not apparent at all from this statement that Lutherans DO NOT see Acts 17 doing the VERY thing THEY claim to be doing!


but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things different from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures”

It appears they would view the Acts 17 practice as ENDORSEMENT for their position above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As for Calvinists -

Hodges apparently viewed Acts 17 as an endorsement of the sola-scriptura practice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Problem is; the issue of "interpretation" often becomes "adding"; as a doctrine and practice will be added; and then when asked for scriptural backing; a proof text will be used. There is no place in scripture where any "supernatural change" of bread and wine into Jesus is taught. It is an ADDITION to scripture. But people will pull out a metaphoric text (comparison NOT using "like or "as"), and say "see; that proves it. It doesn't say it is 'like'; or 'represents'". But either view is hypothetically possible. So THEN this is when "tradition" is thrown up as the final authority; with "scripture alone" trashed. But then, this "tradition" is used to justify things that are not even mentioned in scripture; and even contradict it; like bowing to statues. So sorry; but this "who has the right to interpret" is just another clever way; to in fact; ADD to the scripture. Whoever you choose to "interpret" for you is just as human as the [much maligned] lone man with his Bible; and even "church writings" and traditions can be misinterpreted. So every man reading his Bible on his own is the best way. Infallible church authorities certainly have not prevented false doctrine and schism; even right under their own noses. AT LEAST that "lone man" can only control those who choose to follow or let themselves be persuaded by him. We are all free to pass him right by and find something else. Not so with infallible Church authority.

 

1. It has been shown that the non-Catholic groups you mentioned do validate the Acts 17:11 model - of testing the words/traditions spoken/given against the Word of God and when they contradict - to go with the approved Acts 17 model.

2. Anyone may "interpret" as we see in Acts 17:11 the non-Christian Jews and Gentiles had to read and interpret what they read -- so they can then test what they see IN the text against what Paul said.

For some today the idea of "interpret:" means - "Somebody else read the text for me, exegete for me ... just let me take your word for it".

The problem is that 2Cor 5 says that each of us must "give an account for himself" - we must individually stand before the judgment seat (Romans 14).

There is no such thing as "my priest told me to do it".

God will always claim to be in authority over you -- ABOVE your priest.

So something like "your priest said... BUT I Said..." is the way Mark 7 describes it.

No allowance is made for "yes but my priest made me ignore you" in Mark 7.

"In vain do they Worship Me..."

In Christ,

bob

 

Problem is; the issue of "interpretation" often becomes "adding"; as a doctrine and practice will be added; and then when asked for scriptural backing; a proof text will be used. </font>[/QUOTE]But all Christian denominations do this; Living4Him has given a good example of Baptists who don't drink, go to the cinema or allow women to wear trousers. Mrs Black's Brethren parents don't have TV; when it is pointed out this is not in Scripture they reply "Yes but if you love the Lord you won't have a TV". All claim to base this on their interpretation of Scripture. The problem is this: we can't all be right. The question is: who is, and why? Up until 1054 (well, probably before that in reality) there was such a teaching authority; now there isn't. How are we to determine whose interpretation is correct today?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]In theory, the Holy Spirit teaches individuals through personal Bible study and discipleship by some spiritual leader such as a pastor. In a perfect world, Biblical interpretation and pastoral leadership would always be Spirit-led.

This is not a perfect world.

 

Pretty much divided and arguing over minutae while the world goes to hell in a handbasket, that's where.

 

As has been pointed out - without the claims to an infanllible magesterium combined with the "sword" the RC method never worked -- ever.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yet, Bob, the observation stands, doesn't it? There were definitely problems with the Church, else why would Luther have striven so hard to change the errors and abuses? Yet the fact remains that, in splitting the Church into myriad fragments, it left behind cohesive authority.

 

It is true that the authortative "infallible" claim (which forms the BASIS for coerced conformity against one's convictions) is left behind once the early splintering and the mid-splintering (1050's) and the late splintering (15th century) all took place.

In Acts 15 -- people submit to central authority but are still subjecting it to the SAME Acts 17:11 process that formed the basis for accepting it in the first place.

You START with the Acts 17:11 model WITH LIVING Apostles. So if the true centralized authority structure (as seen in Acts 15) WORKS in that balanced environment - then there is never a good reason to leave it - (appart from gross error IN the church as we see in Mark 7 and in the RCC of the dark ages.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I just said; we can all pass those churches right by. We can pray that those already bound by their teaching are set free. But when you had the one body controlling practically the entire Western World; it was quite a different story.
Once again; all you have done is taken the same problem of men and their interpretation and abuse of authority; and expanded it into some all powerful single organization. To me; the smaller organizations or individuals who you can pass by are far less dangerous. They have the same points, and can go back to early church writings and show how they viewed secular entertainment. On the music forum, there was such a debate on the the use of instruments in the NT, based purely on many of the same church fathers used to prove sacramentalism. This was to try to prove that the Baptistic fundamentalist restrictions on music style (must be plain and simple) were in fact "original NT tradition"; and that it was the "corrupt RCC" that later brought in instruments and paved the way for "sensuality" in worship today. Yes, who can know what is truth? The best way is by looking into the scriptures free of all such theological, traditional, cultural, etc. bias. And it is very hard for any of us. THIS is the cause of all the schism; not abandoning one central church authority led by sinful men in favor of many. The one authority only repressed the problem; but didn't solve it. As soon as this authority reached a certain level of corruption; it all burst out into what we see today.