From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 02:56:15 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:

>In article <ricko.723879822@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>> I assume you understand Luther to be a non-liberal! Lets compare his
>> limits with that of the current Pope:

>>1 * Pope must be consistant with scripture, apostolic teaching, catholic
>>  tradition, ecumenical councils, other popes

>I would hope you agree that of those, the scriptures are the ultimate 
>authority.  

No. The Spirit leads into all truth. And Jesus breathed that Spirit into
the Apostles.

>The others are either : 
>    - in agreement with scripture, therefore redundant

Not Scriptural: where in scripture is sola scripura?
 
>    - not in agreement with scripture, therefore out of order.

I certainly agree with this.

>>2 * Luther only needs to be consistant with scriptures (and even these
>>  giving them a hirearchy to support his theology), regardless of supporting
>>  historical evidence

>I agree that Luther only needs to be consistent with scriptures - I'm not sure 
>what you mean by the rest of the statement.

I meant historical evidence of how the early church, the ones in the best
position to know surely, interpreted the scriptures. 

>>3  * Popes' statements made as a result of discerning the"sense of the
>>  faithful", i.e. finding out what the Spirit is saying to the faithful at
>>  the time (and throughout its history)
>>4 * Luther just decides himself

>That probably comes back to papal fallibility, I put him in the same league as 
>Luther on that point.

So you have petitions etc. from the people demanding the Reformation?

>>5 * Popes' statements checked before hand by small armies of theologians to
>>  check for consistancy
>>6 * Luther just decides himself, though in communication with other scholars

>It doesn't take a small army to check something against the scriptures.

Some things are simple, somethings are not. Some things are hidden, some
things are not. And Paul's exposition and aim is different from James'.
How these are harmonized is not just a matter of you quoting "without
faith it is impossible to please God" and me quoting "faith without works
is dead" back. 

>>7 * No political motive for fundamental catholic dogma

>except for retaining control of Christianity

For one Pope in particular at the time (I think Julian or Gregory) this might
have been so, but you would have to show that the idea was originally
introduced by a Pope for this. Almost all fundamental Catholic theology was
in place before the Church had any political ascendency.
 
>>8 * Luther sponsored by German Princes, who had political advantages in
>>  establishing non-traditional religion

>Political advantage masy have been a side-effect, but Luther's aim was 
>correctness.  You do him an injustice.

I wasn't saying Luther's motives were wrong, but I think I shouldn't have
said it anyway: it is part of a different argument. My favorite Catholic
writer, van Balthasar, is always particularly generous to Luther and,
especially, his early Catholic writings. 

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion