[Joolye]

Ok, let me attempt to address the issue of the authority of Scripture. I am going to present the view of one theologian, and the material I am using is dated. Note, this is not MY argument, and I will not necessarily have the answers to your objections to this.

The following comes from the book "In understanding be men" by TC Hammond (1968, IVP). It is paraphrased or quoted below.

Hammond says that there are three potential areas of authority. Reason, the Church and Scripture.

Reason is dismissed because of the corruption by sin and the ability of people to make mistakes. He says "Reason is in its proper place not as the maker of doctrine, but as its examiner and assessor" (p39).

He says that the church has 'a place of authority' but it is subservient to the Word. He says that the Word of God existed in its spoken form initially before it was written, and it was the Word of God that brought the church into being, so the NT existed before the church. Because the church did not precede the Scriptures it does not have a prior authority. He also says that the belief that tradition can be added to Scripture is false and uses the example that Jesus denounced the traditions that the Jewish leaders had put in place.

He says that the Bible is the supreme authority. Reason and the church are secondary authorities and should always be in line with Scripture. "Their words can never be finally binding unless they can be proved by warrant of Holy Scripture" (p40).

He lists many Bible verses. I have looked a few of them up am only listing some of them. He lists these under the heading of the Authority and Importance of the Scriptures.

Is 8:19-20
Matt 4:1-11
Matt 12:1-5
Mark 7:1-13
Mark 12:35-37, I say go through to 39
Acts 15:14-19
2 Tim 3:14-16

Edit to add: This is only a very brief case for the authority of Scripture. The book only devoted a small amount of text to this topic. Obviously if I researched further, there would be a lot more information out there.

This post has been edited by Joolye: 10 November 2006 - 12:02 AM

[Justified Saint]

I am sure most here would agree that the Bible is an authority, indeed the preeminent authority. That is to say, the Bible is the preeminent text. But you still have to interpret it and its the interpretation that makes or breaks it.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Joolye, on Nov 9 2006, 11:59 PM, said:

He says that the church has 'a place of authority' but it is subservient to the Word. He says that the Word of God existed in its spoken form initially before it was written, and it was the Word of God that brought the church into being, so the NT existed before the church. Because the church did not precede the Scriptures it does not have a prior authority. He also says that the belief that tradition can be added to Scripture is false and uses the example that Jesus denounced the traditions that the Jewish leaders had put in place.

This is falseness from the word 'GO'. Let us look back at history...to the Acts of the Apostles, specifically.

First, when was the Church 'born'? Well, if we turn to Acts we see that on the day of Pentacost, Peter preached in the streets and '3000 souls were added that day.' Added to what? If there was no Church, then to what were they added? To AT&T's Friends and Family program? I think not. To the Church of course. So just from this one passage in Acts we see that the Church was already in existence at the time of Pentacost.

Catholics and Protestants disagree about when the Church was born. Some say at Pentacost, some say at the Crucifixtion, some say at the Last Supper. For this discussion, it does not really matter, since the Bible itself says the Church existed by Pentacost AT THE LATEST.

Next, when did the NT begin to be written? We all know (or should) that the earliest written parts of the NT were written by Paul. (the exact year does not matter for purposes of this discussion). At Pentacost, when the Bible itself says the Church was in existence, had Paul written his letters? No! When we read further in Acts we discover that Paul (still named Saul and a devout Pharisaic Jew) was not even a Christian yet and was even actively persecuting the Church. Obviously Paul did not write his letters until after he was converted by Christ and became an Apostle.

Also in Acts we see further proof of the Church's existence prior to the NT. When Saul/Paul is on his was to Damascus to root out and arrest the Christians there, he is struck blind by Christ you says to him "Why are you persecuting me?" As testified to in his writings, Paul had never met Christ before the crucifixtion, so how can Jesus claim that Paul is persecuting Him? Let us think...who is Paul persecuting? Christians! What is the Body of Christ? The Church! So when Jesus says that Paul is persecuting Him, he is referring to His Body, the Church. So once again we see that the Church existed before any of the NT was written.

I could go on to more proof, FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF, but I think I have clearly and adequately made my point just from Acts. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. the Church existed BEFORE the Bible, not the other way around.

A question for you: Which Gospel was Paul's favorite?

Answer: NONE of them! All were written AFTER Paul's death. He was clearly preaching and teaching the Church, yet the Gospels, the very heart and soul of the NT, yea even of the entire Bible HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET.


Also, he is confusing the Word with the Bible. The Word, is of course Jesus Christ, as testified to in the Gospel of John. Yes, the Word predates EVERYTHING in the temporal world. The Bible is the Word of God WRITTEN inthe words of Man. Do not confuse the two terms - they are NOT infintely interchangeable.

Go in Christ, my brother or sister, and ponder the truths presented here.

This post has been edited by Groo the Wanderer: 10 November 2006 - 12:13 PM

[beatty07]

there's a problem with the complete separation of the Bible and reason. Our brains are the only tools with which we can read the Bible. So while the Bible's authority is absolute in itself, our understanding of it is something very different.

Important distinction here: the Bible's authority, vs. the authority of the meaning that I understand.

Reading the Bible without reason, you wouldn't even see words, just meaningless scribbles and patterns. All reading is interpretation, and all interpretation is in the reason.

[kenrockthefirst]

Groo the Wanderer, on Nov 10 2006, 01:04 PM, said:

First, when was the Church 'born'? Well, if we turn to Acts we see that on the day of Pentacost, Peter preached in the streets and '3000 souls were added that day.' Added to what? If there was no Church, then to what were they added? To AT&T's Friends and Family program? I think not. To the Church of course. So just from this one passage in Acts we see that the Church was already in existence at the time of Pentacost.

Catholics and Protestants disagree about when the Church was born. Some say at Pentacost, some say at the Crucifixtion, some say at the Last Supper. For this discussion, it does not really matter, since the Bible itself says the Church existed by Pentacost AT THE LATEST.

Let me throw the following into the mix:

Matthew 16:18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

John 21:15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The quote from Matthew makes direct reference to the Church, prior to the Crucifixion, while the latter alludes to the Church just after the Resurrection but prior to the Ascension or Pentecost.

Your thoughts?

[Groo the Wanderer]

kenrockthefirst, on Nov 10 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

Let me throw the following into the mix:

Matthew 16:18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

John 21:15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The quote from Matthew makes direct reference to the Church, prior to the Crucifixion, while the latter alludes to the Church just after the Resurrection but prior to the Ascension or Pentecost.

Your thoughts?

Matthew - correct. The framework for the church magesterium was already laid out by Christ before the Crucifixion. The Apostles of course were the bishops and Peter was appointed the head of all, the Pope. Let the theologians debate if this was the birthday or not. For the purposes of Joolye's question, it makes no difference, as either way, the Church preceeded the NT and the canon of the Bible in it's entirety.

John - this is not the institution of the Church, but rather the reconciliation of Peter after the Resurrection. Peter denied Christ 3x before the crucifixtion - this is Peter embracing Christ fully 3x in counterpoint. IMHO an incredibly deeply moving narrative on forgiveness. Even after denying Christ himself, not once, but multiple times, forgiveness and reconciliation is there... On another level of this section, Christ is indeed reasserting the primacy of Peter over his lambs/sheep - the Church. This passage ALSO proves the existence of the Church before the composition of the NT.

Both are excellent examples to further validate my point and refute the fallacy put forth by Hammond.

[thedude]

For the Church to have been written about in the New Testament means that it must have predated those writings.

[Katholikos]

Joolye wrote:

Quote

Hammond says that there are three potential areas of authority. Reason, the Church and Scripture.

What does Hammond mean by "the Church"?

[Akalyte]

what I dont understand is how protetants can act like Catholics hate the bible, when it was catholics who had it first because they actually compiled it and gave it its name!

[Katholikos]

Joolye wrote:

Quote

He lists many Bible verses. I have looked a few of them up am only listing some of them. He lists these under the heading of the Authority and Importance of the Scriptures.

Is 8:19-20
Matt 4:1-11
Matt 12:1-5
Mark 7:1-13
Mark 12:35-37, I say go through to 39
Acts 15:14-19
2 Tim 3:14-16

Most NT references to Scripture are to the Greek Septuagint OT. None are to the NT. And nearly all Protestants reject the Septuagint. Go figure.

===========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Joolye]

So where do Scripture and Tradition rank in authority with each other in the Catholic worldview? That is, which do Catholics consider to have more authority?

Regarding the institution of Peter as the Pope in Matt 16:18, isn't that an interpretation of Matt 16:18 and how do you know it is a correct interpretation? I'm sure there are other valid interpretations of that verse.

[cmotherofpirl]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

So where do Scripture and Tradition rank in authority with each other in the Catholic worldview? That is, which do Catholics consider to have more authority?

Regarding the institution of Peter as the Pope in Matt 16:18, isn't that an interpretation of Matt 16:18 and how do you know it is a correct interpretation? I'm sure there are other valid interpretations of that verse.

Who, apart from the Church who made Matthew part of the canon, has the authority to give a "valid" interpretion?

No one.

We have the NT precisely because the Catholic Church picked out what was in it.

[Katholikos]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

So where do Scripture and Tradition rank in authority with each other in the Catholic worldview? That is, which do Catholics consider to have more authority?

Regarding the institution of Peter as the Pope in Matt 16:18, isn't that an interpretation of Matt 16:18 and how do you know it is a correct interpretation? I'm sure there are other valid interpretations of that verse.

Joolye, all Protestant churches are based upon their founder's (or founders') interpretation of the Bible, primarily the NT.

However, the Catholic Church did not read Mt 16:18-19 and then decide that Jesus made Peter the head of the Church. Christ founded a living, dynamic, functioning Church which existed about a quarter of a century before the first word of what later became one of the writings in the NT was committed to papyrus, and nearly four centuries before the NT itself, as we know it, came into existence.

The New Testament is based on the Catholic Church, not the reverse. The Church was teaching before, during, and after the writing of the 'books' of the NT. The Church's writings reflect her teachings. The teachings of the Church form a template for the understanding the NT. That's why the NT cannot be correctly understood when it is read outside the framework of the teaching Church who wrote it. There is only one interpretation of the NT that is correct, and that's the one the sacred writers intended to convey when they wrote it. The authors of the NT belonged to the first Church, Christ's Church, first called Catholic in writing in 107 A.D. by a student of St. John's, who probably learned it from the Apostles.

The Church marks her birthday at Pentecost in 30 or 33 A.D. with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Dates vary among scholars, but Matthew as we now have it may not have been written until the final third of the first century.

The Apostles founded local branches of the Catholic Church all over the then known world and taught their converts orally. Some of their oral teachings were eventually written down and were later recognized as Sacred Scripture. So Scripture itself is written Tradition. The oral teachings of the Apostles that did not become Scripture were preserved within the Church in other ways and are known as Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition are the Word of God and are equally to be esteemed and obeyed.

The Church's teachings are confirmed in the NT, but the NT is not their origin. Our Faith comes to us from the lips of the Apostles.

I'll post the salient paragraphs on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition from Vatican II, if no one else does.

================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

This post has been edited by Katholikos: 12 November 2006 - 08:01 PM

[Joolye]

So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?

[GloriaIesusChristi]

Quote

He says that the church has 'a place of authority' but it is subservient to the Word. He says that the Word of God existed in its spoken form initially before it was written, and it was the Word of God that brought the church into being, so the NT existed before the church. Because the church did not precede the Scriptures it does not have a prior authority. He also says that the belief that tradition can be added to Scripture is false and uses the example that Jesus denounced the traditions that the Jewish leaders had put in place.

In a few ways, I do disagree with this man because, Scripture exaltes the authority of the Church in the 16th Chapter of Matthew verse 18-19. However, there is not one Bible verse that exalts the Bible above the Church, there just isnt one. Plus, the church has always been there. It was originally traditional Judism. Remember, not to forget that the OT does still matter. See also 1 Timothy 3:15

The image of Scripture has been lifted higher since 1517. Since then the only issues used to argue the exaggerated status of Gospel vs. Tradition has been hear say. The only argument used is that of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 which only mentions it being profitable, however, not required.

This post has been edited by GloriaIesusChristi: 12 November 2006 - 10:32 PM

[cmotherofpirl]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 11:03 PM, said:

So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?

They are both authoritative, but Tradition is older and chose the Scripture.

[beatty07]

It's a false dichotomy. It's like asking "which is more important, money or dollars?"

Scripture IS tradition....backing up the earlier point about how the canon was formed. A bunch of bishops decided. So anybody who believes that Matthew is the Word of God and Thomas isn't, believes in the infallibility of the magisterium. Because there is simply NO other reason whatsoever to say "this is the Bible and that isn't." Jesus didn't leave a book. Nor did He leave a list of future books. He left a Church, with Apostles in charge.

That being said, Catholics DO say that Scripture is 'normative' for Tradition. Meaning it interprets, limits, and supports all subsequent doctrine. The magisterium stands under the authority of Scripture... but it remains true that Scripture only came to us through the magisterium!

So it is fair to say that Scripture has a higher place, and is more important, than all OTHER tradition. You just can't really set up a dichotomy between the two.

[jswranch]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?

They are equal. The fullness of the Word of God is contained 100% in scripture and 100% in tradition.

We believe the bible is formally sufficient for all truth, ie all truth is there. However, it is not materially sufficient, ie not anyone, with the power of the HS, can open the bible and find those truthes. Christ promised the Apostles the HS would lead them in all truth. He did not promise every Tom Johnsonville brat and Harry (or Martin, John, and Henry) they would be lead to all truth. From Paul, we see some are called to serve the body of Christ (Chruch) in different functions, including the roll of Apostle.

Scripture properly interpreted never contradicts Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the proper interpretation of Scripture.

All inspired scripture is God breathed.

The Apostles were God breathed.

The Apostles passed their power to the bishops, which survives with the same power today (Apostolic Succession).

[Katholikos]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 11:03 PM, said:

So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?

I gave you a one-line answer in my post above. Here's a longer and more satisfactory answer.

Raphael gave you a link to Dei Verbum, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from the documents of Vatican II. Perhaps you didn't want to read it all? Here's part of what it says about Scripture and Tradition:

"9. . . . Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the Apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the Apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,
expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

"10. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek) . . .

"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. . .sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected that one of them cannot stand without the others. . . they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

For the full text, use the link Raphael posted.

An example of Tradition is the list of the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thank you for your questions. We'd like to give you shorter answers, but Catholicism doesn't fit in a teacup (the words of convert and former Anglican clergyman John Henry Newman). :)

===============================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

This post has been edited by Katholikos: 13 November 2006 - 03:17 AM

[Cam42]

Joolye, on Nov 12 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?

They are equal. But it was Tradition that brought forth the Canon of Scripture that we have today.