Why is the Old Testament not so important?

He can't answer. He's banned.

It was just a matter of time.

Hi folks,

I wanted to chip in here, if I could. I think the term 'Sola Scriptura' is often put forth as a strawman by my Catholic brothers and sisters, as if any reasonable Protestant believes that truth ONLY comes from the Bible. Granted, some may affirm this, but I don't think it's very rational either, and you are right to question it.

I would like to revise this interpretation. Scripture is the final standard of truth, not the only standard. In other words, I believe (as a Protestant, of sorts) that only the Bible is the Word of God. Tradition is not the word of God, in my view, though it CAN reflect it if it is a logical interpretation of the Bible. There are illogical or improper interpretations of scripture, and Jesus Himself affirmed this.

In that respect, they are not on the same level. Thus, 'Sola Scriptura.'

Does that make sense?

Yes but it is erroneous.

Holy Scripture is infallable.

However our interpretation of It (assuming even a true Catholic Church approved translation) is obviously not infallable - look at all the bickering sects all claiming the Bible as their source and all contradicting each other.

Only The Catholic Church can give is a true translation and tell us the true interpretation of Holy Scripture. Only She has been established by Christ in 33 AD to represent Him and to teach us the Truths He gave Her.

It makes sense but here is the root problem: why should I take your definition of sola scriptura rather than someone else's? How do you decide which defintion is correct?

I guess I would ask how church councils decide upon which interpretation is the correct one? Do they use tradition? Of course not, they ARE the tradition. They use logic, reason, and hermeneutical principles to interpret scripture.

If they can use these objective tools, then this tells me that logic/reason is the means by which we determine the correct interpretation. Not tradition.



Furthermore, to say that the Church provides the 'true' interpretation (per Bruno) seems a useless tautology if true = that which the Church teaches, don't you think?

I hope you can see my confusion. Thanks!

Sorry, I guess I didn't respond to your question as well as I should have. Regarding my interpretation of 'sola scripture,' you don't have take mine. There may be other non-Catholic Christians who use the more literal definition, and we would agree that they are in error.

The Truth given to The Chruch and handed down by The Chruch is found in The Bible and Tradition. In fact the true intrepretation of The Bible is part of Tradition and must be held on to.

Through the Centuries, whenever a conflict or question arose within The Chruch, The Church in Her wisdom, searched what The Church has always taught (Tradition) to determine the Truth of the issue. Then sometimes, if necessary, the Holy Father would make and infallabe statement on the issue.

In other words, Tradition determined the Truth of the matter.

Scriptural passages on Tradition:

2 Thess. 2:14 "Therefore, brethern, stand fast; hand hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle (written)."

1 Cor. 11:2 "....and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." - Tradition.

Apoc. 3:10-11 "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I wil also keep thee from the hour of temptation (false intreptation of Scripture?), which shall come upon the whole world to try them the dwell upon the earth.

Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast (Traditions), that no man take thy crown."

2 Thess. 3:6 "....withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us."

Now these are Traditions handed down from God through The Church.They are not to be confused with "the traditions of men", which the Phaisees imposed on the Jews.

Matt. 15:3 "But he answering, said to them: Why do you also trangress the commandments of God for your tradition?" - The tradition of the Jews.

Col. 2:8 "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy (false religions), and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not accordingto Christ (The Catholic Church established by Him)."

Dont confuse TRADITIONS - which was passed down from Christ through The Catholic Church with traditions of men mentioned in Holy Scripture.

God Bless,

Bruno

This is an important point. Paul's letters are written prior to most of the gospels. This means that whenever Paul mentions 'tradition,' it is essentially the same as saying 'that which is taught by Jesus,' or 'what I record in Romans (the latest letter of Paul, I believe). We have a record of these traditions. They are called the New Testament.

However, does that mean then that anything taught by leaders in the church is also the word of God? I don't think so, unless they are prepared to establish their apostolic authority by way of miracle or a direct experience with the Lord as the apostles had...




How do you tell the difference? All are handed down by men - with the exception of those explicit teachings of our Lord, of course.

Again we appeal to a SINGLE standard of truth. I would argue this is the word of God, as recorded in Scripture.

Finally, I repeat my point. Does the statement, 'the Church has the only true interpretation' make sense if the Church's interpretation is necessarily true?

May God bless you as well!

How were/are the explicit teachings of Christ Jesus handed down directly and not by the teaching/writing of men?


Acceptance of the Canon of Holy Scripture is by faith that it was produced (written) through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

Good question. The source of scripture is clearly Jesus and those who walked with Him.

This does not equate to everything that the apostles' disciples (and the apostles disciples disciples) teach being on par with the words of those whom God directly inspired.



Agreed. And through reason in that the author was important, when it was written, if it was a disciple, surrounding testimony, etc. So it was not just faith

Not even addressing the Old Testament, how much and how often did St. Paul walk with Jesus hearing His teaching and preaching?


Don't those who accept the concept of sola scriptura believe all of it is the word of God as inspired to be written by the Holy Spirit?


So acceptance is also accomplished through intellectism?

I have another question related to this discussion. Who decided what is Holy Scripture and what isn't?

Paul was given a direct experience with the Lord. Then he confirmed the teachings with the other disciples.

We can talk about the OT if you like. Much of it is a history of the Jewish people, and the word of God is spoken either by a prophet or by God Himself.

Obviously tradition is not necessarily truth since Jesus condemned many human interpretations of the word of God in the Old Testament.




Sure. But why? Just because? No, because the writers are among those whom the Lord inspired to do so...





I think the intellect plays an important part, yes. Why not accept the gospel of Thomas? Simply because of a message from heaven? No, because it was written a couple of hundred years after Jesus and thus could not have been an eyewitness.


The Church 'decided' what is scripture, but they used reason to do so. If you read the language, they use the words, 'we receive.' We receive these books...not 'we dictate that these are the books, on the authority of our tradition.'

All of this you accept on faith, even the words attributed to Christ, which are transcriptions of texts that were transcriptions of the original texts as written by the various authors of those books or letters. How do you personally know the words attributed to Christ is exactly what he said? What intellectual endeavor have you done to make such a declaration? Or, are you simply accepting what you have been told or read about?

What 'Church' decided the Holy Scriptures? How did the Protestants of the 14th Century decide that some of the Canon of Holy Scripture was no longer included after about 1100 to 1200 years of acceptance?

All of Holy Scripture was not available to the early Christians. The New Testament was not complete till St. John completed The Apocalypse about 65 years after Christ left this Earth. They were taught TRUTH by The Catholic Church.

In fact Christians did not have a complete Bible for the first 300 years! It was not until the Fourth Century that the Holy Father called a Council of Bishops and decided which of the many writings handed down would make up the New Testament. If it weren't for the Catholic Church, our non-C friends would not have a copy of The Bible!

Not only for 300 years the world was left without a Bible, but also for 1400 years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book. Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were vary rare and costly things. They were therefore chained in libraries so that they wouldn't be stolen and yet be available to those who could read. Even this was beyond the ability of the average Christian.

Scripture assures us that Christ would be with The Catholic Church ALL DAYS, even to the end of the world. Matt. 28:20 The Gates of Hell will not prevail against Her. Matt.16:18 God established His Church to be The Light, the Teacher, The Guide to lead souls to Him.

iT is The Catholic Church that The Holy Ghost guided to write the New Testament.

It is The Catholic Church that The Holy Ghost guided to put together the Holy Scriptures, throwing out some questionable writings, keeping those that were truly insipired.

It is The Catholic Church that The Holy Ghost guided to protect these Scriptures from the Barbarians (of every Century).

It is the Monks of The Catholic Church that used up their eyes making copies of these Scriptures in the middle ages.

It is the Catholic Church that The Holy Ghost guided to teach Her children what was in Holy Scripture and the other Truths God intended for us to know.

This same Catholic Church whom The Holy Ghost was without question guiding (or there would be no Bible today), is not only guided in giving us a valid translation of The Bible but also tells us what the various passages mean.

To hear The Church is to hear God. Luke 10:16

She is comissioned to teach us what Christ has given Her. The Catholic Church therefore exists where She has always existed - with those who "hold fast to Tradition" - The Saints within The Church of every Century.

Those within The Church who oppose "what The Church has always taught" speak only for themselves and not for The Church.

While all these debates on Holy Scriptue are interesting, the bottom line is LISTEN TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - She will tell us what we need to know. Even Holy Scripture warns us that private intrepation of Holy Scripture "leads to destruction" as is proven by the many false sects using the Bible as their guide and contradicting themselves. See Luke 10:16.

Sorry for being so wordy - got kind of carried away.

God Bless,

Bruno

We cannot call every writing by man 'Tradition,' properly. We know that the Lord empowered the disciples via the Holy Spirit to 'call to remembrance' what He said. We know that the gospels and letters were written in the 1st century by these eyewitnesses.
I see faith in the Lord here, the application of reason. I do not see faith in some 'tradition' of men.


Again, the church 'received' the scriptures. They simply accepted what was true.

And the apocrypha were hardly universally accepted for 1100 to 1200 years. Josephus, a 2nd century JEW, outright rejected them.
My question is why did it take the church 1400 years to figure out that these should be established as part of the official canon?
Strangely post-reformation...and the apocrypha contain specific references to prayers to the saints, alms giving, etc...And this was right after a huge split over these issues. Hmmm...

Let's not confuse the church's maintenance and recognition of the Scripture with it's somehow having some power over it. Certainly, we owe the church our scriptures, however much that church resembles what we have today, and I will be the first to thank the Catholic Church for that.
I think during such times, with barbarian hordes and an illiterate populace, it was important to have a Church to tell us what Scripture said. But is that an eternal edict of the Lord, or simply a good practice for a certain time? I would argue the latter.
And let's be candid, sometimes the Lord preserved His truth in SPITE OF the Catholic Church, with some of the odder actions of a few popes, but moving on...

Do we claim that the prophets of the Lord in the OT were the foundation of what should be included in that canon? They said, 'include me,' so they got included? Of course not, they spoke truth, and it was recognized as such, so their writing was included.

Regarding your Luke 10 reference, does the church still wipe the dust off of it's sandals when a city rejects them as well? Come on, this was a specific command for the early apostles to spread the gospel, not an eternal command of God for the Church.

Now, I agree that we should hold fast to tradition. If it agrees with the previously revealed word of God. The problem with the reformists is that they believe that the tradition is not in agreement with previously revelead truth of God. Thus, we can't just sit back and allow the church to tell us what scripture says, when our own reason rebels against it.

Hope that makes sense.

Strawman. None are claiming that although I would like you to expand and explain exactly what you mean by "Having Power Over" it.You would be wrong and in direct contradiction with Paul who states that it is the teaching offices within the Church which preserves a man from error. Who preserves you from error? No one. Who preserves me from error? The Church.They were wrong.Human reason ALWAYS rebels against the things of God. It is FLAWED. If your own flawed and flesh bound reasoning skills are your standard of truth then your mind will remain in darkness.

It did not.

Synods of Hippo, Carthage, Councils of Rome and Florence. All listed the same canon as given later at Trent.