Scriptur-a-o Versions 0-1-2-3

[Bruce S]

Scripture.

Ah, scripture, the source of endless debates.

Some say others [and rightly so] look only to scripture, thus leading to endless new interpretations, others have scripture interpreted for them, still others subscibe to a revisionism that claims historical basis, undergoing new evolutions...

Can we define what some of the more common approaches are?

Sola Scriptura - Version 0

Where ONLY the scriptures are used, if it isn't in the scripture, and is written outside of scripture, it isn't valid. Some hard core fundamentalists take this approach, nothing counts but verses. This does lead to endless re-interpretations, and allows for things settled in the past to be re-introduced.

Sola Scriptura - Version 1

What the early church believed, where scripture was the ultimate test of a doctrine or belief, this is classic for Catholics in the era of the period prior to Constantine. And is what the classical reformation leaders taught too.

Sola Scriptura - Version 2

The belief of the Catholic Church from the time of Constantine to the reformation. Scripture was first used, then added to by councils and Popes. This is the interpretation that the reformation rejected.

Sola Scriptura - Version 3

The modern Catholic version, where Cardinal Neuman and others have developed a version where scripture is modifed as being equal to traditon and authority is allowed to redefine things as understanding is revealed to the Catholic Church.

Most of the more versed Protestants reject version 0, some use it, but most will use the term Sola Scriptura, but allow for interpretation as originally taught.

Catholics look to us, see SOME using version 0, and assume that is the way it only approached.

Floor open...

Edited January 7, 2004 by Bruce S

[Aloysius]

ummm... not exactly...

scripture is never added to by the Popes and councils, just elaborated on. for example: the Gospel message is seen more clearly with specifics such as Mary's role in the whole thing.

Bruce, i don't know where you get this stuff :wacko:

[cmotherofpirl]

You still got it wrong.

[Bruce S]

Remember.

This is a SERIOUS thread, and if it just goes to "we have it right" Version -3, by the way, it will die off quickly.

This information is compiled from a few books I just got finished with, a synthesis of various positions.

Understanding that we are talking different LANGUAGES here, when we toss out Sola Scriptura is part of the problem, everyone uses the same term, but in reality, they are MEANING different things.

Like the church.

To you, that means one thing, to Protestants, another. Same word, different understanding.

We need to develop a common language, I doubt that CAN happen, but this is an attempt to do that.

Now, seriously, let's begin.

[jasJis]

If you are going to be serious, then don't post falsehoods based soley on your biased opinion and say it is what the Catholic Chruch teaches.

[Circle_Master]

please clarify then on what the Catholic Church stance would be so we can be productive instead of just mocking the list.

[Jake Huether]

Sola Scriptura - Version 0

Where ONLY the scriptures are used, if it isn't in the scripture, and is written outside of scripture, it isn't valid. Some hard core fundamentalists take this approach, nothing counts but verses. This does lead to endless re-interpretations, and allows for things settled in the past to be re-introduced.

Agreed.

Sola Scriptura - Version 1

What the early church believed, where scripture was the ultimate test of a doctrine or belief, this is classic for Catholics in the era of the period prior to Constantine. And is what the classical reformation leaders taught too.

Not. There is no distinction between the "early church" and the current Catholic Church. They are one in the same. Could be what classical reformation leaders taught. But I'd be inclined to think that they were more Version 0's. Since they left the Church, they had nothing to go on but Scripture. They had cut ties to the Authority and Tradition that had been held on too since the Apostles.

The early Church believed in the Authority of the Church! One such example is in the first Chapter of Acts. The very first Church cousil is held to descide who would take the possition of Judas. They didn't look to Scripture to find out who it would be! They prayed and drew lots to select his successor. Several other counsils following would also serve to indicate that the early Church believed in it's God given Authority, preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Once the last inspired book was written, centuries later, the Church again used it's Authority to select which books where in fact inspired. Then, since the Church had Authoritatively selected which books, these books became an Authority, but only in collaboration with the right interpritation. Insidentally this right interpritation was that of the Church. Since early Christians were illiterate, it was beneficial and fitting that the Church had the right to interpret the Bible. The Bible never was intended to be an authority on it's own (ink and paper). The Bible is the written Word of God, and the Word of God is living, it has a voice. But the voice isn't that of your mind while your eyes pass theit ink and paper. The voice is the interpritation of the writings as their authors intended (that is - how the Apostles taught them to be).

Sola Scriptura - Version 2

The belief of the Catholic Church from the time of Constantine to the reformation. Scripture was first used, then added to by councils and Popes. This is the interpretation that the reformation rejected.

Scripture was never added to by councils and Popes. Scripture has always remained the same. It is the written word of God - unchanging since the Church declared it so. The complete Word of God, however, includes Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium. Sacred Tradition also is a constant. The Magesterium, the teaching body of the Church, can and will develope - not change. So, while you see the advancement in theology and the development of doctrine as "change in Scripture", it is no such thing. The written word of God remains the SAME. But the Teachings of the Church develope as certain times come to pass and the Spirit continues to lead the Church to ALL truth. We most certainly aren't at "ALL truth". The Catholic Church holds the Truth and only the Truth. Jesus tells his early Church that the Spirit will lead them to all truth. And the Spirit continues to lead. So while Truth is absolute, only a portion of the Truth has been revealed to us (only as much as our puny minds can understand). But the Spirit continues to reveal Truth to the Church. Protestants hold partial truths depending on the denomination. Most hold the Truth that Christ is God. But only the Catholic Church holds complete Truth. And only the Catholic Church will be lead to All truth.

In short: The Church knows what it has is True. It also knows that the Truth that it holds is incomplete. The Truth that the Church holds will grow until it is ALL truth. An apple for instance. Half and apple is completely and utterly apple. It is tryly apple in substance. But it is only half an apple. Protestants have a hybrid of apple / orange, yet they claim it is only apple. Their apple/orange will never grow to be a complete apple. The Church's half apple will grow to be a true and complete whole apple.

The Truth about Scripture will grow, and Catholic theology will develope. What we have now will not change. But it will be added too (not in content, but in understanding).

Sola Scriptura - Version 3

The modern Catholic version, where Cardinal Neuman and others have developed a version where scripture is modifed as being equal to traditon and authority is allowed to redefine things as understanding is revealed to the Catholic Church.

Partially true. And that part was true for the earliest Church. The Churches "version" is that Scripture is equal to Tradition and the Magesterium (the Authoritative Teaching Body of the Church). It has always been this way. Though, it has "developed" as understanding is revealed, it has never "redefined" anything. Doctrines have never ever "changed".

Most of the more versed Protestants reject version 0, some use it, but most will use the term Sola Scriptura, but allow for interpretation as originally taught.

Catholics look to us, see SOME using version 0, and assume that is the way it only approached.

Floor open...

I believe you are on the right track about Protestants. They have the Bible and their minds. Any combo will suffice. They generally stear clear of any "method" that is similar to Catholics, and therefore generally reject any Authoritative interpritation of the Bible, preserving their own thoughts and feelings of what it should/does/needs to mean.

Catholics look to protestants, see ALL using every version but ours, and KNOW that is why they will continue to split and splinter.

[Circle_Master]

The early Church believed in the Authority of the Church!    One such example is in the first Chapter of Acts.  The very first Church cousil is held to descide who would take the possition of Judas.  They didn't look to Scripture to find out who it would be!  They prayed and drew lots to select his successor.  Several other counsils following would also serve to indicate that the early Church believed in it's God given Authority, preserved by the Holy Spirit.

incorrect - when they drew lots it was before the Holy Spirit came - thus before the Church began.

Once the last inspired book was written, centuries later, the Church again used it's Authority to select which books where in fact inspired.  Then, since the Church had Authoritatively selected which books, these books became an Authority, but only in collaboration with the right interpritation.  Insidentally this right interpritation was that of the Church.  Since early Christians were illiterate, it was beneficial and fitting that the Church had the right to interpret the Bible.  The Bible never was intended to be an authority on it's own (ink and paper).  The Bible is the written Word of God, and the Word of God is living, it has a voice.  But the voice isn't that of your mind while your eyes pass theit ink and paper.  The voice is the interpritation of the writings as their authors intended (that is - how the Apostles taught them to be).

The last inspired book was in the 90's by John. The earliest canon we have is from 85 - the Muratorian fragment. Check this out for a list of the earliest church fathers - not yours from 400 a.d. and on. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html The Word of God has always been refered to as Scripture in the bible. Except for when it was Jesus - that was the true voice. The Word of the Lord shall stand forever in Isaiah - referring to Scripture (must, they got an oral law like your apostolic tradition, however that was seen to be wrong, Jesus said so)

Scripture was never added to by councils and Popes.  Scripture has always remained the same. ... Jesus tells his early Church that the Spirit will lead them to all truth.

Scripture was never added to after the Council of Carthage and the Catholic Church said that was what it would agree with. That was a good 300 years however after the last Scripture was written - not a very good testimony there. And your second line - prove it. There is one verse similar - it was written to the Apostles though - not the church.

Partially true.  And that part was true for the earliest Church.  The Churches "version" is that Scripture is equal to Tradition and the Magesterium (the Authoritative Teaching Body of the Church).  It has always been this way.  Though, it has "developed" as understanding is revealed, it has never "redefined" anything.  Doctrines have never ever "changed".

This is productive - thanks.

Catholics look to protestants, see ALL using every version but ours, and KNOW that is why they will continue to split and splinter.

This is incorrect - those who are involved in the study of hermeneutics will study based on the original texts in hebrew and greek - not on the interpretations. Only the extremely lazy student doesn't go to primary or secondary sources

Edited January 7, 2004 by Circle_Master

[foundsheep]

Circle you continually add that it was our church fathers in 400, yes it was fully compiled by our church fathers around that time, the scriptures did exist befor that but where seperate. Bad argument.

[Circle_Master]

Circle you continually add that it was our church fathers in 400, yes it was fully compiled by our church fathers around that time, the scriptures did exist befor that but where seperate. Bad argument.

it is not a bad argument. you see origen, cyril, athanasius, epiphanius, 'apostolic canons', rufinus, and jerome all declared some, if not all of the apocryphal books to be uninspired BEFORE the synod of carthage. i could add several more accounts afterward which disagreed with it as well

[foundsheep]

Actually maybe you need to take a look at the Latin Vulgates. And by the way thats St. Jerome.

[Jake Huether]

it is not a bad argument. you see origen, cyril, athanasius, epiphanius, 'apostolic canons', rufinus, and jerome all declared some, if not all of the apocryphal books to be uninspired BEFORE the synod of carthage. i could add several more accounts afterward which disagreed with it as well

They didn't "declare" anything. That was just their opinion. Did you read the link I posted?

[Jake Huether]

incorrect - when they drew lots it was before the Holy Spirit came - thus before the Church began.

The Church leaders had been established with the Apostles.

The Church, including the layity, began on Penticost. The Church leaders held a cousil. It was the Church at the time. The Church went out and drew numbers (became effective) on Penticost, through the Power of the Spirit.

You can argue that they hadn't recieved the Holy Spirit at that time. But it was by the Power of God, through the Authority of His leaders, that Matthias was added to the 11.

If you like we can scratch that counsil and go to the next... In either case Scripture wasn't complete so your argument falls flat.

The last inspired book was in the 90's by John. 

Right, meant to say decades, not centuries. Though, no one knew what John wrote was "Scripture" until it was declared so centuries later.

The earliest canon we have is from 85 - the Muratorian fragment.  Check this out for a list of the earliest church fathers - not yours from 400 a.d. and on. 

Don't know what you mean by that. Our earliest Church fathers were the Apostles who used the Septuagint. Is there "earlier" than the Apostles?

(must, they got an oral law like your apostolic tradition, however that was seen to be wrong, Jesus said so)

First, I didn't understand that sentence... Sorry. Where did Jesus say Apostolic Tradition was wrong? And don't use the man-made-tradition bit with the pharisees abusing their parents. They were abusing two laws to make their own traditions. The Catholic Church doesn't abuse any laws. It's Traditions are rooted in the Teachings of the Apostles as taught to them by Christ Jesus.

There is one verse similar - it was written to the Apostles though - not the church.

Good greif. You're persistant, I'll give you that. The Apostles were the Church. They were our Church Fathers, our first leaders.

They taught exactly what the Church teaches now.

This is incorrect - those who are involved in the study of hermeneutics will study based on the original texts in hebrew and greek - not on the interpretations. 

I didn't mean the language interpritation. I meant the content interpritation. It doesn't matter what language they study it in. If they don't have the Church to interpret it, then it's just a guessing game as to who's right.

[Bruce S]

The Church leaders had been established with the Apostles.

The Church, including the layity, began on Penticost. The Church leaders held a cousil. It was the Church at the time. The Church went out and drew numbers (became effective) on Penticost, through the Power of the Spirit.

Everyone on this thread will agree that Paul's inclusion as a real Apostle came directly from Jesus, thus the succession as being by men only is invalidated.

And for the last couple of decadeds after Peter was killed John was alive.

How can another, not an Apostle, when one is still living be head of the church, over John?

That one doesn't compute.

[Jake Huether]

Everyone on this thread will agree that Paul's inclusion as a real Apostle came directly from Jesus, thus the succession as being by men only is invalidated.

Actually, even Paul, though commissioned by Christ himself, went to the Church (Peter and the Apostels) to affirm his Apostleship.

And for the last couple of decadeds after Peter was killed John was alive.

How can another, not an Apostle, when one is still living be head of the church, over John?

That one doesn't compute.

That is akin to asking why Peter "stood up among the 11", and why Jesus gave HIM the keys to the kingdom, when he had denied Jesus 3 times and cut a highpriests hear off. Why wouldn't Jesus have chosen John to begin with; the desciple that Jesus loved?

The fact is, the Pope, the leader of the Church, and prime pontif, is chose as the Successor to Peter not on prior "experience", but on who the Holy Spirit wishes it to be.

See, if John had filled Peters spot as the Pope, then who would have succeded John? It would have to have been someone? But the Spirit didn't wish John to lead the Apostles upon the death of Peter.