issues
issues
Z Man, I myself took up that challenge with you before. A good way of looking at things is that of St. Vincent of Lerins
Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men.
Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
What happened in the N.T. church when doctrine came up for debate? They had a council - Acts 15. Ironically Vincent of Lerins who came up with this great idea, ended up being ex-communicated by his own rule!
He was semi-pelagian and was condemned at a council
If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is,
both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through
the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of
the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject
to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius - against Vincent
And also against Augustine, though they never ex-communicated him -
We not only do not believe that any are
foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with
utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe
so evil a thing, they are anathema.
So the solution is to get the majority opinion of true Christian Bible scholars who believe in the inspiration of Scripture to understand these issues better.
