tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post7160800122870032043..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Does Ephesians 4 Refute Sola Scriptura?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34431502851452734832012-06-29T21:44:49.661-04:002012-06-29T21:44:49.661-04:00Anyway, I see this as one big tangent from the ori...<i>Anyway, I see this as one big tangent from the original objection, which is that "Word of God" is not a (strict) synonym for "Scripture".</i><br /><br />Objection? I thought you said earlier that you were "more or less restating" what I asserted and not privately interpreting anything. If you have an objection, obviously you have another interpretation.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37560972154112527072012-06-29T21:41:16.905-04:002012-06-29T21:41:16.905-04:00The irony here is that there is a breakdown in com...<i>The irony here is that there is a breakdown in communication as to what "private interpretation" even means. </i><br /><br />Good point. <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/06/roman-catholics-and-private.html" rel="nofollow">I took care of that here.</a>James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72026216909910320362012-06-29T18:17:40.969-04:002012-06-29T18:17:40.969-04:00Anyway, I see this as one big tangent from the ori...Anyway, I see this as one big tangent from the original objection, which is that "Word of God" is not a (strict) synonym for "Scripture".Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86808942628485856852012-06-29T18:15:26.528-04:002012-06-29T18:15:26.528-04:00The irony here is that there is a breakdown in com...The irony here is that there is a breakdown in communication as to what "private interpretation" even means. <br /><br />Private Interpretation does not mean you cannot use the faculty of reason. It does not mean you cannot read or write. It does not mean you cannot form arguments or respond to questions. It does not mean you should not follow your conscience. And most importantly, it does not mean Catholics are incapable or not allowed to exegete the Scriptures or other Church documents. <br /><br />Private Interpretation applies strictly to an official ecclesiastic teaching capacity. It means one cannot teach officially unless they possess the authority to do so. In short, it rejects the idea everyone can go around acting as their own pope.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4996244062016975602012-06-29T16:06:03.343-04:002012-06-29T16:06:03.343-04:00Why do we have to wrangle with the likes of you?
...Why do we have to wrangle with the likes of you? <br />In other words, why hasn't the Magisterium infallibly settled all this, definitively?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51483138343523662072012-06-29T16:01:59.910-04:002012-06-29T16:01:59.910-04:00But for now I would like to spend a little more ti...<i>But for now I would like to spend a little more time on the topic of private interpretation.</i><br /><br />Do you really think the opinions of either you or Nick are actually more meaningful than a Mormon's because your church allows you some degree of private interpretation?<br /><br />I'm going to continue to nail away at the fact the Rome herself, in whatever she infallibly reveals to you has to be interpreted by you. This is why individual Roman Catholics have different opinions about... Roman Catholicism. <br /><br />So, when Nick drops by to leave his opinion on something, there isn't really any logical reason why I should consider his interpretation or arguments any more compelling than any other anonymous Internet person, protestant or Roman Catholic. That is, a blatant dismissal of Nick, perhaps not the most polite etiquette, is certainly a logical conclusion to someone on their way out the door to work at 7:16 AM who reads in the existence of an infallible tradition into Eph. 4 that he cannot, with any meaning or substance, actually demonstrate exists.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37777435216175493102012-06-29T15:39:21.692-04:002012-06-29T15:39:21.692-04:00Do you mean 2 Peter 1?
Interpretation of a prophe...Do you mean 2 Peter 1?<br /><br />Interpretation of a prophecy received by an individual church member, is not in view here; rather the emphasis is on the means of God's inspiring the text. Peter says that the prophetic word is yet more certain than his own eyewitness experiences, and goes on to tell us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God".Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20126013713693376242012-06-29T15:29:23.185-04:002012-06-29T15:29:23.185-04:00Rhology : That doesn't matter. "That'...Rhology : <i>That doesn't matter. "That's just your interpretation!" is a one-size-fits-all stupid objection.<br /></i><br /><br />There are a couple of things I hope to reply to later on. But for now I would like to spend a little more time on the topic of private interpretation.<br /><br />In terms of Peter's (1 peter 1:20-21) use of the idea, how do you understand him? How is his use different than yours?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88639048157745838552012-06-29T14:34:30.921-04:002012-06-29T14:34:30.921-04:00Of course I am privately interpreting this post an...Of course I am privately interpreting this post <b>and all the text here</b>.<br />That's precisely my point every time someone - RC, EOdox, Emergent, postmodern relativist, whatever - raises this ludicrous objection.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56271232081217682962012-06-29T14:24:48.207-04:002012-06-29T14:24:48.207-04:00Rhology,
You said: "Dude, showing the equiv...Rhology, <br /><br />You said: "Dude, showing the equivocation requires interpretation."<br /><br />So now the words of any layman require "private interpretation"? Are you "privately interpreting" this very post?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91185868586590394912012-06-29T14:18:39.031-04:002012-06-29T14:18:39.031-04:00I don't believe Nick was offering an explanati...<i>I don't believe Nick was offering an explanation beyond what is obvious to anyone who can read english.</i><br /><br />That doesn't matter. "That's just your interpretation!" is a one-size-fits-all stupid objection.<br /><br /><br /><i>Does Nick or the Catholic church subscribe to the view of private interpretation that you are attempting to put on him?</i><br /><br />Whether RCC does, we can't know. The Magisterium doesn't stoop to letting the unwashed masses know the truth about serious issues like that. Far better to sit back, do mostly nothing, and move pædophiles around. <br /><br /><br /><i>He didn't use those exact words, but is he willing to deny that conclusion?</i><br /><br />Mmmm, speaking for myself, that sounds reasonable <b>**IF**</b> one has all the Word of God that God intended to give.<br />In the Scripture, we can be sure we have that. <br />But that's one of the main points at hand, and we've both asked for it several times - where is this extra revelation? Where may we examine it? <br /><br /><br /><i>Since they are scriptural, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that these are no longer valid.</i><br /><br />I don't think we care to say they're no longer valid. We're asking you to show us it actually exists.<br />And let's cut to the chase - we know you can't produce it. We've asked literally hundreds of educated RCs just like you where to find it. I asked Mitch Pacwa, twice, face to face, for crying out loud. <br />We ask you the question we know you can't answer b/c it destroys your allegations that more is needed than "just" the Scripture.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80679551193925235902012-06-29T14:09:47.852-04:002012-06-29T14:09:47.852-04:00Dude, showing the equivocation requires interpreta...<i>Dude, showing the equivocation requires interpretation.<br />It's like RC epologists are en masse completely ignorant of basic principles of philosophy of language.</i><br /><br />I agree that interpretation is always part of understanding anything pretty much. But establishing that is simply moot.<br /><br />I don't believe Nick was offering an explanation beyond what is obvious to anyone who can read english.<br /><br />Does Nick or the Catholic church subscribe to the view of private interpretation that you are attempting to put on him? If not then this is completely a non-issue.<br /><br /><br />As Nick pointed out James established in his article that the word of God is able to fully equip even if it is not enscripurated. He didn't use those exact words, but is he willing to deny that conclusion?<br /><br />AND<br /><br />David King established that tradition was " reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation "<br /><br />So that is simply confirmation coming from them that these ideas are scriptural. Since they are scriptural, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that these are no longer valid. It would seem to me that your own principle would require you to prove these points from scripture alone.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88843122223915762162012-06-29T13:37:42.310-04:002012-06-29T13:37:42.310-04:00There is no "private interpretation" her...<i>There is no "private interpretation" here, as Hapax has pointed out - I'm more or less restating what you asserted.</i><br /><br />Then, if you haven't interpreted anything, and simply restated what I said, then we really don't have anything to talk about.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3078656270405101192012-06-29T13:36:31.460-04:002012-06-29T13:36:31.460-04:00Dude, showing the equivocation requires interpreta...Dude, <b>showing the equivocation</b> requires interpretation.<br />It's like RC epologists are en masse completely ignorant of basic principles of philosophy of language.<br /><br /><i> then we see clearly in the Apostolic Church (1) Magisterium,</i><br /><br />You mean apostles.<br /><br /><br /><i>(2) inspired unwritten teachin</i><br /><br />Prove it was never written down.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30708643051682879522012-06-29T13:34:50.627-04:002012-06-29T13:34:50.627-04:00James,
What about what I said was "private ...James, <br /><br />What about what I said was "private interpretation"? Surely not the quotes of you and Mr King. <br /><br />All I did was quote your own words and showed an equivocation going on. You began by defining "Word of God" as both the written and unwritten Apostolic teaching and ended by saying "Word of God" was Scripture alone. <br /><br />And since this came from the mouths of authoritative Apostles, then we see clearly in the Apostolic Church (1) Magisterium, (2) inspired unwritten teaching, (3) inspired written teaching. That's 100% Catholic. <br /><br />There is no "private interpretation" here, as Hapax has pointed out - I'm more or less restating what you asserted.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67523574966879236362012-06-29T12:52:20.891-04:002012-06-29T12:52:20.891-04:00Isn't it more likely that catholics understand...<i>Isn't it more likely that catholics understand what the church means by "private interpretation" and are using the word in the sense that the church means, but you and other protestants are the ones who are failing to understand what is meant and thus are simply attacking a straw man?</i><br /><br />No, because we (or at least, I) am speaking in terms of epistemology. I am applying back the same standard by which most pop-Roman apologists use when commenting on Protestantism. Sure, of course Rome may allow you to practice some form of private interpretation. You need to go a level deeper than the surface of your own belief system. How do you know you're interpreting the Bible or Rome correctly? It's the same sort of questions that Romanists ask Protestants: "How do you know you're interpreting the Bible correctly?"<br /><br />Lest a big point is missed (and to bring this back around to the content of this post), Roman Catholics do not believe the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. They believe there are other infallible rules of faith along with Scripture. Roman Catholics often posit that without these other infallible rules of faith, the Scriptures cannot be understood correctly or with certainty. <br /><br />Such assumes though the other infallible rules of faith can be understood correctly or with certainty. It is my contention that each infallible rule needs to be interpreted by each person that submits to that infallible rule or authority. So, when Nick drops by and leaves his private interpretation of a Biblical passage, he's also in essence leaving me his private interpretation of his other rules of faith as well.<br /><br />So, as I stated above, "Exactly how do I know Nick is correctly representing his magisterium by his biblical interpretations? In other words, Roman Catholic individual interpretations of...anything... have an aspect of futility inherent in them."James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49611036981145326322012-06-29T12:42:44.168-04:002012-06-29T12:42:44.168-04:00thx. will do.thx. will do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40852317446107929052012-06-29T12:33:27.139-04:002012-06-29T12:33:27.139-04:00Rhology said...
I doubt it was deleted; most proba...<i> Rhology said...<br />I doubt it was deleted; most probably it was caught in Blogger's lousy spam filter.</i><br /><br />Yes, that's what happened. The spam filter rarely does this anymore.<br /><br />I would suggest not using these sorts of markings: =====<br /><br />Instead, when quoting someone, it's best to format the citation either in bold, or in italics.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46143240449439881102012-06-29T11:27:29.520-04:002012-06-29T11:27:29.520-04:00well if James confirms that he didn't delete i...well if James confirms that he didn't delete it then I will repost it here. Otherwise I don't want to waste time by posting something that James will delete. Please note this is not a second guessing of James intentions by any means.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76621023092029836662012-06-29T11:21:44.897-04:002012-06-29T11:21:44.897-04:00I doubt it was deleted; most probably it was caugh...I doubt it was deleted; most probably it was caught in Blogger's lousy spam filter.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77761779794307000632012-06-29T11:20:45.354-04:002012-06-29T11:20:45.354-04:00Since you don't know what the other pop apolog...Since you don't know what the other pop apologists have said, how could you know whether we're offering a caricature?<br /><br />Are you reading your own comments?<br />========<br />Apparently my last reply was deleted, i.e., the one you are replying to.<br /><br />Using my comments, show me where I said you were offering a caricature of pop apologists? I said no such thing. In fact in the reply that was deleted I specifically said:<br /><br />"I am at a disadvantage in regards to what "pop-Roman apologists" have said to protestants regarding "privately interpreting the Bible" since I haven't seen those interactions. Therefore I can't offer much on this."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57240357007802714672012-06-29T11:14:17.113-04:002012-06-29T11:14:17.113-04:00Since you don't know what the other pop apolog...Since you don't know what the other pop apologists have said, how could you know whether we're offering a caricature?<br /><br />Are you reading your own comments?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70331313202326194992012-06-29T11:08:52.454-04:002012-06-29T11:08:52.454-04:00So, for years pop-Roman apologists have been accus...So, for years pop-Roman apologists have been accusing Protestants of privately interpreting the Bible, and pointing out how awful this is. There's simply no denying that. <br /><br />AND<br /><br />Then, when an anonymous Roman Catholic blogger gives his own private interpretation of Scripture, that's OK because "The catholic church's teaching of private interpretation does not say that one is incapable of properly interpreting."<br />====<br /><br />I am at a disadvantage in regards to what "pop-Roman apologists" have said to protestants regarding "privately interpreting the Bible" since I haven't seen those interactions. Therefore I can't offer much on this.<br /><br />Based on how I see protestants giving their caricature of the catholic position, I can't give the above argument much weight. <br /><br /><br />====<br />Exactly how do I know Nick is correctly representing his magisterium by his biblical interpretations? In other words, Roman Catholic individual interpretations of...anything... have an aspect of futility inherent in them.<br />====<br />Still a caricature<br /><br /><br />Isn't it more likely that catholics understand what the church means by "private interpretation" and are using the word in the sense that the church means, but you and other protestants are the ones who are failing to understand what is meant and thus are simply attacking a straw man?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3281964213155743332012-06-29T10:54:02.814-04:002012-06-29T10:54:02.814-04:00The catholic church's teaching of private inte...<i>The catholic church's teaching of private interpretation does not say that one is incapable of properly interpreting. Your understanding says that the catholic church is saying precisely that. So yes it is a caricature.</i><br /><br />“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."<br /><br />So, for years pop-Roman apologists have been accusing Protestants of privately interpreting the Bible, and pointing out how awful this is. There's simply no denying that. <br /><br />Then, when an anonymous Roman Catholic blogger gives his own private interpretation of Scripture, that's OK because "The catholic church's teaching of private interpretation does not say that one is incapable of properly interpreting."<br /><br />Exactly how do I know Nick is correctly representing his magisterium by his biblical interpretations? In other words, Roman Catholic individual interpretations of...anything... have an aspect of futility inherent in them.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77342664917960193492012-06-29T10:33:22.679-04:002012-06-29T10:33:22.679-04:00And perhaps James mis-spoke.
Thanks. Because you ...<i>And perhaps James mis-spoke.</i><br /><br />Thanks. Because you were kind enough to give me the benefit of the doubt on that one:<br /><br /><br /><i>James, why not actually reply to the ACTUAL points Nick made instead of using a caricature of the catholic position?</i><br /><br />Because Nick's comments assume there is some other body of infallible God-Breathed special revelation out there somewhere when he states,<i>He admits unwritten tradition was a reliable means and source of revelation. He then has to explain it away, as if divine revelation just vanished or else 'must have' become inscripturated. </i><br /><br />I would simply ask what Rev. King asked:<br /><br /><b>"Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?"</b><br /><br />I would go a step further, and ask for any examples to be proven to be of apostolic pedigree.<br /><br />Where in the text of Eph. 4 is an infallible magisterium mentioned, or infallible Tradition? If either of these infallible sources can be shown to be in Eph. 4, then sola scriptura isn't sola, it would then be infallible scriptura plus whichever one of those two choices can be proven. The burden is on the Roman apologist to produce the other divine infallible authority.<br /><br />This entry has one fundamental purpose- to demonstrate that there's a consistent way to understand 2 Tim 3 and Eph. 4 that does not create any tension for the doctrine of sola scriptura.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com