Emile,
And neither is yours!
I certainly agree! I have learned to hold my human opinion in great suspicion. I accept the notion that I may be wrong on the more difficult issues of Scripture. In fact, I have shed older opinions once greater light displaced them. I follow certain rules to adopt positions on these matters and I seek, according to the grace God has given me, to always do so. I am not afraid of change, but I must be convinced according to my rules of exegesis.
Thankfully, you and I (and those in this discussion) do seem to agree about the vicarious death and bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, for that is the ultimate claim of the Bible. Praise God!
You say: The arbiter of sacred truth is the scriptures coupled with the teachings of the early Church fathers ( those ordained by the Apostles to carry on the work of Jesus' Church).
Once the canon of Scripture was finalized, then it stood on its own. To say that the early church fathers' interpretations are necessary as well, then that makes their pronouncements one with Scripture, if I follow you. I cannot agree.
This is the very thing the Jews did with their Talmud. They held that their interpretations should be the final arbiter over the canon because they assumed the unlearned would more likely distort the Scripture than rightly divide them. In many cases, a justified concern. However, Jesus did give us, His Church, the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, a promise that is current as well as historical.
Allow me to point out that the Bereans of Acts 17 were considered more noble than those of Thessolonica because they examined the Scriptures (not the Talmd or other writings) to see whether the things Paul preached were so.
I will follow Berean principle.
Stan |
