Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

approving a father giving a personal blessing to a gay couple isnt the same as getting married in the catholic church. None of the stardard liturgy and ceremony of a Catholic wedding is allowed.

---

Yet, it is still wrong - a sinful act.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 states, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths".

Indeed, we are seeing these verses fulfilled in our world today.

---

Did you read that Catholic article?

"A blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit," the document states.

Blessings under this form, the document says, serve as a prayer that God may aid such relationships so they "may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever increasing dimension of the divine love."

While the declaration paves new ground for the pastoral practices of individual priests, it explicitly forbids that such blessings take place within the context of a liturgical celebration and does not allow for them to "be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding."

Under the limited conditions the new guidelines outline, such blessings must be personally administered by the minister without any prepared texts or rituals developed by a national bishops' conference."

The blessing is for them to grow in fidelity to the Gospel. Not exactly an endorsement of same sex. What it does do is not cast them out so that they are exposed to the Word and the institution of the Church. It doesn't abandon them, same as other sinners. I chalk it up to we all have our own crosses to bear.

---

I can certainly understand why this would seem to some the more humane and "Christian" position for individuals caught up in sin. The question here is, does the church explain to these individuals that they are engaged in open rebellion against God, and destined for Hell on their current path? If not, and the answer to that question if these couples are being "blessed" is very likely "no," then I would submit the church is doing them a great disservice.

Scripture is clear that God does not bless those engaged in open rebellion against him. I've seen it firsthand in my life when I walked away from the church a couple of decades ago. My personal life was in shambles, and it was through the discipline of the Lord that I repented and found my way back to Him. Does that mean the church should not accept sinners? Of course not. If that were the policy, nobody would be allowed in. But does it mean its congregants should not be disciplined, or that there should be no rules and prerequisites for membership or engagement in certain activities? Also of course not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authenticity of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

---

The Council of Trent says that the canon is doctrine.

Once again, you are using extra-biblical sources to affirm your belief, but refuse to accept other extra-biblical sources for other beliefs.

---

I am surprised at how badly you and Sam are completely missing the point, my Catholic friend. Using historical (or call them extra-biblical, if you will) sources to confirm the authenticity/accuracy of scripture, and saying that teachings/doctrine from extra biblical sources (especially those that are not mentioned or contradict scripture) you would call "tradition" are on par with scripture or should be taught are two completely different things.

You're analogy is essentially comparing apples to bowling balls, it's so far off.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

---

I do not believe that everything in the New Testament came from the Apostles. For one thing, Paul wasn't an Apostle. He called himself one, but he wasn't. Christ does not call him an Apostle to anyone but Paul, Christ in his 3 years with the others did not foretell of his coming, he does not fit Peter's criteria, Revelation only speaks of 12 and Paul challenged Peter whom Christ named the leader.

I am not a fan of Paul, he sure likes to tell people how to live.

Also Letters came from others written to Paul and the Apostles. Not that it makes any difference. But, to me Galations explains why it was so important for Paul to be an Apostle, he deserved funding... He came up with collections.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

---

I do not believe that everything in the New Testament came from the Apostles. For one thing, Paul wasn't an Apostle. He called himself one, but he wasn't. Christ does not call him an Apostle to anyone but Paul, Christ in his 3 years with the others did not foretell of his coming, he does not fit Peter's criteria, Revelation only speaks of 12 and Paul challenged Peter whom Christ named the leader.

I am not a fan of Paul, he sure likes to tell people how to live.

Also Letters came from others written to Paul and the Apostles. Not that it makes any difference. But, to me Galations explains why it was so important for Paul to be an Apostle, he deserved funding... He came up with collections.

---

It's interesting that so many people find Paul harsh and demanding while Jesus supposedly put more emphasis on inclusion. When I read the books, if anything, I find the opposite. Paul needs to be understood in the context of his time. Among the main themes of his ministry were broader kinship in God's family and deeper respect for the social "second class."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

---

Ah, so on faith and morals, whatever you define those to mean, the bible is inerrant. On what areas then is it errant?

What books should not have been included as canon, pray tell?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

---

Ah, so on faith and morals, whatever you define those to mean, the bible is inerrant. On what areas then is it errant?

What books should not have been included as canon, pray tell?

---

What are you talking about?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

It's interesting that you are attacking the authority of scripture in an attempt to prove that Catholic traditions should be given the same or similar weight. Unfortunately, your argument isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

In short, the answer to your question for anyone who is truly of Christ is "yes." Fallible men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. And as Busty said, those of us who call ourselves Christian know this by faith, and faith alone.

That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an extra-biblical teaching that, in many cases, contradict scripture are on par with same.

---

Again, I'm not arguing against the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But the Apostles themselves were not. The authorship of some books is also in doubt. So, the fact that the New Testament contains "everything we know came from the Apostles" doesn't explain why it's canon.

---

Ah, so on faith and morals, whatever you define those to mean, the bible is inerrant. On what areas then is it errant?

What books should not have been included as canon, pray tell?

---

What are you talking about?

---

1) You said, "The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals," which suggests you don't believe it is inerrant on all matters.

2) You've suggested based on authorship and infallible men that canon may not be canon. So which books would that include?

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. The canon is the canon. My question is why.

Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals, not necessarily science, history, etc. (though I believe it's more historically accurate than many realize).

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. The canon is the canon. My question is why.

Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals, not necessarily science, history, etc. (though I believe it's more historically accurate than many realize).

---

Thanks for the clarification. It appeared to me you were suggesting certain portions were errant, and were not referring generally to science, history, etc.

As for why canon is canon, that seems a different discussion (albeit, interesting one) than the subjects of this thread. What is the relevance of that issue to this subject?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. The canon is the canon. My question is why.

Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals, not necessarily science, history, etc. (though I believe it's more historically accurate than many realize).

---

Thanks for the clarification. It appeared to me you were suggesting certain portions were errant, and were not referring generally to science, history, etc.

As for why canon is canon, that seems a different discussion (albeit, interesting one) than the subjects of this thread. What is the relevance of that issue to this subject?

---

I think Tarp is evading my question because he knows where it's going. Let's wait and see.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. The canon is the canon. My question is why.

Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals, not necessarily science, history, etc. (though I believe it's more historically accurate than many realize).

---

Thanks for the clarification. It appeared to me you were suggesting certain portions were errant, and were not referring generally to science, history, etc.

As for why canon is canon, that seems a different discussion (albeit, interesting one) than the subjects of this thread. What is the relevance of that issue to this subject?

---

I think Tarp is evading my question because he knows where it's going. Let's wait and see.

---

Of course I knew this was a Sam Lowry game of "Gotcha." You're just not very good at it, and are in over your head on matters of religion - not your expertise, for sure. Tarp is running circles around you.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

What people believe about authority, assurance, repentance, and obedience directly shapes how they live and how seriously they take sin.

The Holy Spirit doesn't produce contradiction, confusion, or mutually exclusive doctrines. Truth is one. If two denominations reach opposing conclusions on salvation, sacraments, repentance, or moral law and then both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit…then at least one of them is wrong.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

This plays a massive role in how people behave and how much they sin.

---

If you will re-read my post, I said that some scripture can be plainly read and understood based on its plain meaning. I didn't say all scripture can be read that way. Indeed, many areas of scripture are gray, and can be interpreted very differently.

By way of example, pre-trib, post-trib is a debate that has raged in Christian circles for years. While I have my own view, I think there is a sufficient amount of scripture going both ways to lead one to reach either conclusion. There are many other examples. But differing views on non-essentials are not that important.

However, what we also know is that humanity is sinful, and there could be any number of motivations for misinterpreting the plain language of scripture. Experiences, biases, pride, greed, power-hunger - all of these things can have an effect on how we interpret scripture's plain language. So, I would argue many of the varying interpretations - especially on the essentials of the faith - are influenced by these things. In short, sin and error also play a large role in the varying interpretations of spiritual concepts.

And where you and I would strongly disagree is that there is scriptural support for many of these varying "interpretations." To the contrary, the vast majority of Catholic doctrine on the ideas we discussed can find no legitimate basis in scripture.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

---

Actually, if you get out of the details it is quite amazing on how much so many denominations DO agree on, even if you include the Moslems and the Jews. The amount of agreeable material is miraculous.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

---

I don't disagree that environment influences how we think about things, including scripture. What I do dispute is that church tradition is the lens through which one must look to understand and find meaning in scripture - a position which you (and Doc) seem to hold.

The question should be for those of us seeking the truth in scripture is what does the great weight of scripture convey? Does it contradict the beliefs I've been taught, or that my particular denomination holds? These things can be understood often times by simply reading scripture with an open mind.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

---

I don't disagree that environment influences how we think about things, including scripture. What I do dispute is that church tradition is the lens through which one must look to understand and find meaning in scripture - a position which you (and Doc) seem to hold.

The question should be for those of us seeking the truth in scripture is what does the great weight of scripture convey? Does it contradict the beliefs I've been taught, or that my particular denomination holds? These things can be understood often times by simply reading scripture with an open mind.

---

Being that the Bible was constructed by the early Church, consecrated over a series of Church Councils and even the Protestants that broke away were trained by the Church wouldn't that be the only way you could truly understand the context?

You said earlier that all Luther had to do was read Romans for himself. I would disagree, as an Augustinian Monk that is ALL he did was read scripture. There was another impetuous that prompted the action he took and another support group that nurtured it. It was not that he was finally allowed to read Romans after 10 years as a priest. There were other outside forces playing into the equation.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

This plays a massive role in how people behave and how much they sin.

---

If you will re-read my post, I said that some scripture can be plainly read and understood based on its plain meaning. I didn't say all scripture can be read that way. Indeed, many areas of scripture are gray, and can be interpreted very differently.

By way of example, pre-trib, post-trib is a debate that has raged in Christian circles for years. While I have my own view, I think there is a sufficient amount of scripture going both ways to lead one to reach either conclusion. There are many other examples. But differing views on non-essentials are not that important.

However, what we also know is that humanity is sinful, and there could be any number of motivations for misinterpreting the plain language of scripture. Experiences, biases, pride, greed, power-hunger - all of these things can have an effect on how we interpret scripture's plain language. So, I would argue many of the varying interpretations - especially on the essentials of the faith - are influenced by these things. In short, sin and error also play a large role in the varying interpretations of spiritual concepts.

And where you and I would strongly disagree is that there is scriptural support for many of these varying "interpretations." To the contrary, the vast majority of Catholic doctrine on the ideas we discussed can find no legitimate basis in scripture.

---

If Scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways on some topics, then "plain meaning" alone is not a sufficient rule for determining which doctrines are essential and which aren't. Someone still has to decide what counts as "plain", what counts as "essential", and which disagreements are tolerable.

These judgments aren't self interpreting. They're extra biblical decisions about how to read the Bible. If sinful motives often distort interpretation, then private interpretation is the least reliable place to anchor doctrine, not the most.

The doctrines you're objecting to were not invented to override Scripture. They emerged from Church liturgy for centuries. To reject these doctrines while retaining the canon, creeds, and Trinitarian theology is to selectively accept the Church's authority only where it aligns with modern assumptions.

I'm concerned that Protestant rejection of tradition will get so extreme that it will deny the Holy Trinity because it's an early Church doctrine, not a proof-text. Scripture doesn't define ousia vs hypostasis, explain eternal generation nor resolve how Christ is fully God and fully man. The Church that you reject explained the Holy Trinity.

Do you understand that heresies like arianism, modalism and subordinationism quoted Scripture extensively? The reason Christianity didn't fracture permanently at this point is because the Church had the authority to say "These interpretations are outside the apostolic faith". They didn't appeal to "plain reading alone", they appealed to the received faith of the Church.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

---

I don't disagree that environment influences how we think about things, including scripture. What I do dispute is that church tradition is the lens through which one must look to understand and find meaning in scripture - a position which you (and Doc) seem to hold.

The question should be for those of us seeking the truth in scripture is what does the great weight of scripture convey? Does it contradict the beliefs I've been taught, or that my particular denomination holds? These things can be understood often times by simply reading scripture with an open mind.

---

Being that the Bible was constructed by the early Church, consecrated over a series of Church Councils and even the Protestants that broke away were trained by the Church wouldn't that be the only way you could truly understand the context?

You said earlier that all Luther had to do was read Romans for himself. I would disagree, as an Augustinian Monk that is ALL he did was read scripture. There was another impetuous that prompted the action he took and another support group that nurtured it. It was not that he was finally allowed to read Romans after 10 years as a priest. There were other outside forces playing into the equation.

---

You need to read some biographies on Luther. His reading of Romans for the first time is what sparked his conversion.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

This plays a massive role in how people behave and how much they sin.

---

If you will re-read my post, I said that some scripture can be plainly read and understood based on its plain meaning. I didn't say all scripture can be read that way. Indeed, many areas of scripture are gray, and can be interpreted very differently.

By way of example, pre-trib, post-trib is a debate that has raged in Christian circles for years. While I have my own view, I think there is a sufficient amount of scripture going both ways to lead one to reach either conclusion. There are many other examples. But differing views on non-essentials are not that important.

However, what we also know is that humanity is sinful, and there could be any number of motivations for misinterpreting the plain language of scripture. Experiences, biases, pride, greed, power-hunger - all of these things can have an effect on how we interpret scripture's plain language. So, I would argue many of the varying interpretations - especially on the essentials of the faith - are influenced by these things. In short, sin and error also play a large role in the varying interpretations of spiritual concepts.

And where you and I would strongly disagree is that there is scriptural support for many of these varying "interpretations." To the contrary, the vast majority of Catholic doctrine on the ideas we discussed can find no legitimate basis in scripture.

---

If Scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways on some topics, then "plain meaning" alone is not a sufficient rule for determining which doctrines are essential and which aren't. Someone still has to decide what counts as "plain", what counts as "essential", and which disagreements are tolerable.

These judgments aren't self interpreting. They're extra biblical decisions about how to read the Bible. If sinful motives often distort interpretation, then private interpretation is the least reliable place to anchor doctrine, not the most.

The doctrines you're objecting to were not invented to override Scripture. They emerged from Church liturgy for centuries. To reject these doctrines while retaining the canon, creeds, and Trinitarian theology is to selectively accept the Church's authority only where it aligns with modern assumptions.

I'm concerned that Protestant rejection of tradition will get so extreme that it will deny the Holy Trinity because it's an early Church doctrine, not a proof-text. Scripture doesn't define ousia vs hypostasis, explain eternal generation nor resolve how Christ is fully God and fully man. The Church that you reject explained the Holy Trinity.

Do you understand that heresies like arianism, modalism and subordinationism quoted Scripture extensively? The reason Christianity didn't fracture permanently at this point is because the Church had the authority to say "These interpretations are outside the apostolic faith". They didn't appeal to "plain reading alone", they appealed to the received faith of the Church.

---

ChatGPT is terrible at reading comprehension. I didn't say that all scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways. So you've erected another ChatGPT strawman.

Try to read and understand what I am saying. Don't put it in ChatGPT. That's not going to interpret it correctly.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

This plays a massive role in how people behave and how much they sin.

---

If you will re-read my post, I said that some scripture can be plainly read and understood based on its plain meaning. I didn't say all scripture can be read that way. Indeed, many areas of scripture are gray, and can be interpreted very differently.

By way of example, pre-trib, post-trib is a debate that has raged in Christian circles for years. While I have my own view, I think there is a sufficient amount of scripture going both ways to lead one to reach either conclusion. There are many other examples. But differing views on non-essentials are not that important.

However, what we also know is that humanity is sinful, and there could be any number of motivations for misinterpreting the plain language of scripture. Experiences, biases, pride, greed, power-hunger - all of these things can have an effect on how we interpret scripture's plain language. So, I would argue many of the varying interpretations - especially on the essentials of the faith - are influenced by these things. In short, sin and error also play a large role in the varying interpretations of spiritual concepts.

And where you and I would strongly disagree is that there is scriptural support for many of these varying "interpretations." To the contrary, the vast majority of Catholic doctrine on the ideas we discussed can find no legitimate basis in scripture.

---

If Scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways on some topics, then "plain meaning" alone is not a sufficient rule for determining which doctrines are essential and which aren't. Someone still has to decide what counts as "plain", what counts as "essential", and which disagreements are tolerable.

These judgments aren't self interpreting. They're extra biblical decisions about how to read the Bible. If sinful motives often distort interpretation, then private interpretation is the least reliable place to anchor doctrine, not the most.

The doctrines you're objecting to were not invented to override Scripture. They emerged from Church liturgy for centuries. To reject these doctrines while retaining the canon, creeds, and Trinitarian theology is to selectively accept the Church's authority only where it aligns with modern assumptions.

I'm concerned that Protestant rejection of tradition will get so extreme that it will deny the Holy Trinity because it's an early Church doctrine, not a proof-text. Scripture doesn't define ousia vs hypostasis, explain eternal generation nor resolve how Christ is fully God and fully man. The Church that you reject explained the Holy Trinity.

Do you understand that heresies like arianism, modalism and subordinationism quoted Scripture extensively? The reason Christianity didn't fracture permanently at this point is because the Church had the authority to say "These interpretations are outside the apostolic faith". They didn't appeal to "plain reading alone", they appealed to the received faith of the Church.

---

ChatGPT is terrible at reading comprehension. I didn't say that all scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways. So you've erected another ChatGPT strawman.

Try to read and understand what I am saying. Don't put it in ChatGPT. That's not going to interpret it correctly.

---

Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or you're intentionally trying to back out of this because you can't work your way past my argument.

I didn't say you think all Scripture can be read multiple ways. I said some can, which you already agreed with. That's a problem for your argument. Who decides what's plain, tolerable and what's essential?

Why do accept the early Church's concept of the Holy Trinity? Why do you accept their NT canon?
Would you object to a Christian's claiming that Revelations isn't legitimate scripture, if so why?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

Then explain why there's so many different contradictory conclusions between denominations?

---

Why is the answer to that question relevant to this discussion?

---

If Scripture truly interprets itself clearly and sufficiently on its own, then widespread doctrinal conclusions shouldn't exist among sincere Bible reading Christians.

Yet they do…and not on secondary issues, but on core matters:
baptism (symbolic vs regenerative)
Eucharist (memorial vs real presence)
justification (forensic vs transformative)
perseverance (once saved always saved vs possible apostasy)
church authority (invisible church vs historic hierarchy)

These aren't differences of personality or culture. They're contradictory theological claims, all defended from the same Bible, all claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

This plays a massive role in how people behave and how much they sin.

---

If you will re-read my post, I said that some scripture can be plainly read and understood based on its plain meaning. I didn't say all scripture can be read that way. Indeed, many areas of scripture are gray, and can be interpreted very differently.

By way of example, pre-trib, post-trib is a debate that has raged in Christian circles for years. While I have my own view, I think there is a sufficient amount of scripture going both ways to lead one to reach either conclusion. There are many other examples. But differing views on non-essentials are not that important.

However, what we also know is that humanity is sinful, and there could be any number of motivations for misinterpreting the plain language of scripture. Experiences, biases, pride, greed, power-hunger - all of these things can have an effect on how we interpret scripture's plain language. So, I would argue many of the varying interpretations - especially on the essentials of the faith - are influenced by these things. In short, sin and error also play a large role in the varying interpretations of spiritual concepts.

And where you and I would strongly disagree is that there is scriptural support for many of these varying "interpretations." To the contrary, the vast majority of Catholic doctrine on the ideas we discussed can find no legitimate basis in scripture.

---

If Scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways on some topics, then "plain meaning" alone is not a sufficient rule for determining which doctrines are essential and which aren't. Someone still has to decide what counts as "plain", what counts as "essential", and which disagreements are tolerable.

These judgments aren't self interpreting. They're extra biblical decisions about how to read the Bible. If sinful motives often distort interpretation, then private interpretation is the least reliable place to anchor doctrine, not the most.

The doctrines you're objecting to were not invented to override Scripture. They emerged from Church liturgy for centuries. To reject these doctrines while retaining the canon, creeds, and Trinitarian theology is to selectively accept the Church's authority only where it aligns with modern assumptions.

I'm concerned that Protestant rejection of tradition will get so extreme that it will deny the Holy Trinity because it's an early Church doctrine, not a proof-text. Scripture doesn't define ousia vs hypostasis, explain eternal generation nor resolve how Christ is fully God and fully man. The Church that you reject explained the Holy Trinity.

Do you understand that heresies like arianism, modalism and subordinationism quoted Scripture extensively? The reason Christianity didn't fracture permanently at this point is because the Church had the authority to say "These interpretations are outside the apostolic faith". They didn't appeal to "plain reading alone", they appealed to the received faith of the Church.

---

ChatGPT is terrible at reading comprehension. I didn't say that all scripture can be legitimately read in multiple ways. So you've erected another ChatGPT strawman.

Try to read and understand what I am saying. Don't put it in ChatGPT. That's not going to interpret it correctly.

---

Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or you're intentionally trying to back out of this because you can't work your way past my argument.

I didn't say you think all Scripture can be read multiple ways. I said some can, which you already agreed with. That's a problem for your argument. Who decides what's plain, tolerable and what's essential?

Why do accept the early Church's concept of the Holy Trinity? Why do you accept their NT canon?
Would you object to a Christian's claiming that Revelations isn't legitimate scripture, if so why?

---

When you put it through ChatGPT, it becomes a treatise, and nobody wants to read that. So it's very likely you didn't do a good job communicating.

I am glad to hear you acknowledge that I said some scripture can be plainly understood. That is true. And no, that's not a problem for my argument in the least. I ultimately decide what I believe on the scripture that's grey. I might consult with theologians, other scripture or other sources. Ultimately, it is up to me to decide, as a person saved by Christ's grace, and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

The other questions are irrelevant and red herrings.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Scripture does not interpret itself. Without a singular, visible, and continuous teaching authority (the Church) Christianity inevitably fragments and begins absorbing secular moral frameworks. This isn't speculative…it's observable. Once doctrinal authority became decentralized, moral authority soon follows. The result is what we see today: denominations and even individual congregations affirming abortion, woke ideology, redefining righteousness along cultural lines, and preaching assurance of salvation in ways that collapse into practical antinomianism.

This is not an accidental byproduct, it's a structural consequence. If no final authority exists to definitively say "this is the apostolic faith and this is not," then disagreement has no principled stopping point. Interpretation becomes governed not by tradition but by preference, culture, and institutional survival.

Christianity did not function this way in the past. For the first millennium, doctrine was guarded by the Church as a unified body: conciliar, sacramental, and hierarchical. The rupture in 1054 was not a cultural or political dispute; it marked a fundamental challenge to how authority itself was understood and exercised. Once that challenge was normalized, further fragmentation became inevitable.

The Protestant reformers repeated this pattern in a more radical form. Rejecting both Rome and the early conciliar Church, authority was relocated from the historical Church into the judgment of the individual or local community. In practice, this produced not freedom but a multiplication of competing "final authorities," each functionally operating as its own pope, without the apostolic continuity or corrective mechanisms that historically restrained doctrinal drift.

By contrast, the claim of the Orthodox Church is not that bishops are infallible individuals, but that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved through apostolic succession, serves as the living interpreter of Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

Once that principle is abandoned, Christianity doesn't remain neutral. It doesn't simply "stick to the Bible." It slowly conforms to the moral assumptions of the surrounding culture. The present state of doctrinal and moral confusion across much of Western Christianity is not a mystery, it's the predictable outcome of rejecting a singular, historical authority in favor of interpretive autonomy.

---

ChatGPT hogwash. It took Martin Luther merely reading Romans for the first time to begin the reformation. He went against the great weight of tradition and Catholic teaching in reaching his conclusions, simply because he read Romans for himself. The idea that all scripture requires some historical or traditional context to understand it is just pure nonsense. We don't need "His Imminence" to explain salvation.

---

How to talk about interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're interpreting? It's just amazing.

---

Looks like you and I are using the term "interpretation" very differently. If by interpretation, you are generally (and broadly) referring to someone's understanding of the meaning of text, sure, we all "interpret." But as as you of course well know, I was using that term much more narrowly (and appropriately in this context) to refer to passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, and therefore may require reference to either other passages, elders, or theologians to decipher.

In other words, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to comprehend, undoubtedly. Others are stated plainly and succinctly, and don't require outside sources to understand their true meaning. We know their plain meaning just by reading them.

Not difficult concepts if one is not obtuse.

---

The problem is that so much of what you consider self-evident is actually interpretation by you or whatever church traditions you've been influenced by. It might make sense to you that no one was smart enough to see what's plainly obvious until you and Luther came along, but others would question that assumption. I'm not necessarily saying your beliefs are wrong, but anyone should see that they're at least debatable.

---

I don't disagree that environment influences how we think about things, including scripture. What I do dispute is that church tradition is the lens through which one must look to understand and find meaning in scripture - a position which you (and Doc) seem to hold.

The question should be for those of us seeking the truth in scripture is what does the great weight of scripture convey? Does it contradict the beliefs I've been taught, or that my particular denomination holds? These things can be understood often times by simply reading scripture with an open mind.

---

Being that the Bible was constructed by the early Church, consecrated over a series of Church Councils and even the Protestants that broke away were trained by the Church wouldn't that be the only way you could truly understand the context?

You said earlier that all Luther had to do was read Romans for himself. I would disagree, as an Augustinian Monk that is ALL he did was read scripture. There was another impetuous that prompted the action he took and another support group that nurtured it. It was not that he was finally allowed to read Romans after 10 years as a priest. There were other outside forces playing into the equation.

---

You need to read some biographies on Luther. His reading of Romans for the first time is what sparked his conversion.

---

It is neither here nor there. Whether he had an "Aha!" moment or it came to him over time is debated as his own writings contradict themselves.

I know the Lutheran's like the flash of light and ground shaking the first time he laid eyes on Romans. But, scholars disagree. For one thing, his age and being a new Professor. It would be highly unlikely for someone that new to have the confidence to do what he did. His writings on the first time were in the 1840's and the contradictory writings are from something like 1813 to 1815. But being a scholar he read the Bible quite regularly. Who knows that notion may have stuck with him. It is a debatable item though.

My Wife was Lutheran (WELS), so I have been down the Luther road once or twice. Seems to me it depends on what point they are making. If it is a scriptural point, it is the "AHA!" Romans moment. If it is a Catholic Church corruption point it is John Tetzle. If it is a "we are not worthy" point, it is when he was cleaning and the box of rags story. Or, the God is all powerful is the Lightning bolt story...

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just so we're clear on the historical facts: the Church existed before a fixed New Testament canon: the canon did not exist before the Church. The New Testament canon emerged gradually and only reached broad consensus through 4th century ecclesial judgments. Whatever one's theology, Scripture historically presupposes the Church rather than creating it.

There is no version of history in which the canon drops from heaven already bound and indexed. There's no coherent account of the canon, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, in which human beings are not actively involved in identifying, delimiting, and excluding books. Calling that process "recognition" does not remove the element of judgment, it renames it.

Everyone agrees God is the source of Scripture. The question is not who gives the canon, but how humans can know with binding certainty which books God gave. Disagreements over Hebrews, James, Revelation, and other books show that this knowledge was not self evident and required authoritative resolution.

If the authority involved is fallible, then the canon is fallible. If the canon is infallible, then the authority that identified it must also be infallible. There is no third option that avoids reliance on human authority.

---

If you're listening to the authority of God (i.e. Jesus Christ), then you've been told what that canon is - the Tanakh and the words of the apostles, whom he sent to the world to proclaim his word.

---

But the Apostles were fallible. Not everything they said was inspired by God.

So again, how do we know what's inspired and what isn't?

---

Jesus said their testimony of him IS inspired by God. I guess you really AREN'T paying attention.

---

So, everything the Apostles said was inspired by God?

---

So, are you really this dull?

---

Let's say I am. Were the Apostles infallible or not? And if not, how do we know everything they wrote in the New Testament was inspired?

---

"Know" in what way?

---

Any way you choose to define it.

---

We know by faith in the testimony of the apostles of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

So the Apostles were not infallible, but everything they said was inspired. Do I have that right?

---

No, as usual.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

The Bible never says that Mark was recordings of Peter's teachings.

As you know, we don't know who wrote Hebrews. It could be Paul, but there's no conclusive evidence of that.


The point is that Catholic Church determined which books were considered scripture. Not some nebulous body of believers.

---

The Bible never explicitly states it, no. But it doesn't have to. The book of Acts shows that Mark was a close associate with the disciples, including Paul and Barnabas (he was the cousin of Barnabas) and was therefore he was obviously well aware of the gospel message coming from them. Peter called him his spiritual "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. Additionally, the earliest church writings of Papias, who lived in the first century (60-130 AD) was cited by Eusebius saying that Mark was Peter's scribe.

The book of Hebrews was regarded by the first church to have been written by Paul. The book dates to the time when Timothy was alive (Hebrews 13:23), and it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This, plus other external and internal evidence clearly establishes the date of the writing at around 65-67 AD.

As you can see, both books were written and circulated in the first century church. The Christians of the first century were first-hand witnesses to the events around Jesus and the spread of the gospel. It is very likely THEY KNEW who these people were that wrote them, and that the authors had apostolic authority otherwise they would not have used and preserved them. In other words, the writings were authoritative in of themselves, not because of a declaration by a council. This was LONG before any council of men in authority decided on anything.

No, the Catholic Church did not "determine" which books were considered Scripture. This is the fundamental misconception you Roman Catholics and Orthodox here are demonstrating. GOD determined what is scripture. It was the duty of the body of Christ to recognize and receive it.

Question: (which I've asked many times before, but you consistently avoid answering, and we know why) - When did a writing become the word of God - was it at the moment it was being written, or only after it was recognized by men of authority? Let's get an answer to this.

---

Interesting. You are using extra-biblical sources to confirm a doctrine (the canon of the NT), but you won't accept extra Biblical sources for other doctrines or beliefs.

---

The canon of the NT is not a doctrine.

You guys are just so sloppy with logic and with concepts, it's getting quite tiring.

---

The Council of Trent says that the canon is doctrine.

Once again, you are using extra-biblical sources to affirm your belief, but refuse to accept other extra-biblical sources for other beliefs.

---

I am surprised at how badly you and Sam are completely missing the point, my Catholic friend. Using historical (or call them extra-biblical, if you will) sources to confirm the authenticity/accuracy of scripture, and saying that teachings/doctrine from extra biblical sources (especially those that are not mentioned or contradict scripture) you would call "tradition" are on par with scripture or should be taught are two completely different things.

You're analogy is essentially comparing apples to bowling balls, it's so far off.

---

Exactly. Thank you.