"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.
This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.
The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.
The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.
First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?
Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.
How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.
If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Posts
89 comments:
James, good arguments.
Thanks so much.
There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.
Indeed, and dissent from the OT magisterium was a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) and premise of the RC argument "we gave you the Bible=we alone can assuredly know what it means" is that the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture are the infallible discerners and interpreters of it.
Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Thus the attitude of consistent RCs to an itinerant preachers whom the historical magisterium rejected would have been along the lines of,
Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)
And how could the common people know that both men and writings were of God when they were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mt. 23:2) And who asked a certain Itinerant Preacher the fundamental question:
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:28)
Only to have Him challenge them to confess where the baptism of John came from, i.e. his authority, to which they evasively claimed "we cannot tell," since the common people judged that John "was a prophet indeed." (Mk. 11:32) Which is a clear case of the people correctly believing what the magisterial powers denied.
And thus the NT church actually began in dissent from the historical magisterium, contrary to the Roman model for discernment and assurance of doctrine, but with Truth claims being established Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. And by such its unity and perpetuation must depend, versus the cultic sola ecclesia, under which assurance is based upon the premise of ensured magisterial veracity.
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism p. 275.
In contrast, it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And since its sufficiency also includes what it materially provides, and which includes discerning both men and writings of God as being so, then what was already written provides for more conflative complimentary writings by recognized as being Scripture, and for a body of such to be established.
The reason the canon became settled is essentially due to the uniquely Divine qualities and attestation of these writings, which set them apart from other books. Even classic secular books become so due to their qualities. Both men and writings of God are to be affirmed as such by those in leadership, but which is not always the case, yet they are what they are regardless.
Thanks be to God.
When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills.
Indeed, as Caths argue that since (some) of Scripture first existed in oral form, then thus she alone can proclaim that something of oral transmission is inspired revelation of God as well. And as the example of the Assumption testifies, this can be the case even when such is so critically lacking in verifiable early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition, but which is justified under the premise that Rome can "remember" what history "forgot" to record.
Which premise is itself based upon tradition, and provides Rome with carte blanche freedom to autocratically declare whatever she will be to binding doctrine.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares
However, unlike presumably wholly inspired apostolic oral preaching, Rome cannot and does not claim that her declarations of binding doctrine are likewise inspired, nor does she claim to be providing any new revelation (though she is, declaring things that are not as if they were), as did apostolic teaching sometimes.
Meanwhile, a SS preacher can enjoin obedience to the oral preaching of Scriptural proofs, under the premise that Scripture is the supreme standard for the obedience of faith.
The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is... The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon.
Yes, and with the basis for their establishment as inspired writings essentially being due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation. The magisterial office does have the power to declare its judgments as binding, (Dt. 17:8-15) but which does not require not infer infallibility, and both men and writings of God are such regardless of what man thinks, and despite the rejection by the historical magisterial office. And as said, thus the church began in dissent from it,.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books...The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
And if the canon is a collection of only infallible books then the canon itself would be infallible in the sense of excluding error, but not in the sense that the declaration of the canon is infallible based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
But here the whole idea of infallibility must be examined. It is manifest that souls could "know of a truth" that someone or something was of God, as the widow woman of Zarephath affirmed of Elijah based upon his supernatural working, (1Ki. 17:24) and common people "counted John, that he was a prophet indeed" (Mk. 11:32) in the light of his virtue and powerful Scriptural preaching, and despite the lack of miracles and magisterial rejection.
Yet this was not due to personal or corporate ensured infallibility under a scope and content-based criteria, yet God does promise finding Him and His Truth when sought with all the heart, (Jer.. 29:13) and with an obedient faith, (Jn. 8:31,32) with Scripture thereby being established the standard for Truth and obedience.
If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it.
The issue is not simply if God's (express) voice is somewhere else other than the Scriptures, but that Rome alone is effectively the Supreme Infallible (inflatable) Voice, both as to what God's voice consists of and its meaning, if she does say so herself, presuming the place of Scripture, which is a grandiose presumption.
"The other pen" can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18. A fuller treatment of this entire article can be found in the April 2nd entry on my blog.
Scott<<<
The issue is not simply if God's (express) voice is somewhere else other than the Scriptures, but that Rome alone is effectively the Supreme Infallible (inflatable) Voice, both as to what God's voice consists of and its meaning, if she does say so herself, presuming the place of Scripture, which is a grandiose presumption.
Actually, the challenge is simply to demonstrate the existence of "the other pen" - and this has been done, many times over. It "the other pen" exists, then sola scriptura is a lie and should be rejected for being so. Whether or not Rome is in possession of "the other pen" is another argument.
Scott<<<
From Scott Windsor's article at his blog:
Actually, TWO other sources of infallibility are named! The authority of the pope (infallible authority given to one, and only one, in Matthew 16:18-19), and the authority of the college of bishops (infallible authority given to the group of the Apostles, our first bishops, in Matthew 18:18).
Those are not infallible authorities - there is no "Pope" in Matthew 16:18-19, and no bishop of Rome there either. Peter is an apostle, and they are not even in Rome there in the context. He is a fellow-elder with other elders of local churches (1 Peter 5:1) - not over them in jurisdiction - they never taught that. It is amazingly anachronistic to read the bishop of Rome or a Papal doctrine back into Matthew 16:18-19. The simple historical fact that around 257-258 AD, Cyprian and 86 other bishops objected to the bishop of Rome's claim that he was the ultimate authority (Stephen, bishop of Rome) proves the whole RC claim as unBiblical and it shows it was non-existent in the early church as legitimate, though Stephen wrongly and arrogantly claimed it. The disagreement by so many other bishops at that time; and to this day, by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church proves this.
Peter is given the keys of the kingdom because he confessed the right doctrine about Christ. The foundation or rock of the church is Jesus Christ Himself, and the sound doctrine about who He is - "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God", and all the implications of that in the doctrines of the Incarnation, Deity of Christ, 2 natures of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
The rest of the apostles are given the same authority in Matthew 18 in the context of the local church and church discipline issues.
Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Local church authority is given to do discipline on people who are unwilling to repent after the steps have been taken to restore such a person. There is nothing about infallible authority to make pronouncements centuries later and claim that that was the church always believed. (like Purgatory(600s), Perpetual Virginity of Mary (400s-500s), Transubstantiation(1215 AD), Unam Sanctum (1302 AD); Trent adding the merit of good works in order for a person to eventually be justified (contradicting Romans 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 16:31; John 3:16; 1:12; 5:24; 20:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9; Romans 10:9-10; I John 5:13) and condemning justification by faith alone (1545-1563); IC( 1854), IP (1870), BAM (1950). All of those things are "traditions of man" (Matthew 15:1-9/Mark 7:1-13) that have been added centuries later.
Local church authority is a secondary authority, based on God's word, the Scriptures, but it is not over or equal to God's Word.
Actually, the challenge is simply to demonstrate the existence of "the other pen" - and this has been done, many times over. It "the other pen" exists, then sola scriptura is a lie and should be rejected for being so. Whether or not Rome is in possession of "the other pen" is another argument.
To add to Ken's rebuke, the issue is the nature and content of the "other pen." Westminster itself affirms the light of nature and the magisterial office, and SS preaching claim to preach the word of God (Scriptural Truths), and believe God can lead souls by His Spirit (at least during the offering), and there are many who believe in the perpetuity of supernatural spiritual gifts, while the apostles teaching included new wholly inspired-of-God revelation, but Swan's argument states that "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture."
If you want to even argue that infallible papal decrees are wholly inspired of God and include new special revelation, then we must deal with that.
As for passed-down oral tradition being the word of God, simply because some of Scripture was first expressed orally does not sanction whatever Rome decrees is the word of God to be so. And we do not see the Holy Spirit exalting oral tradition as a body like as with Scripture, (Ps. 119) the reason we know that such a truth as Now as Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses (2 Timothy 3:8) was by its inclusion in the NT.
As your assurance that such a belief as the Assumption is the word of God rests upon the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome, which argues that one cannot even ascertain what Scripture consists of and its meaning apart from here, then the real issue is the basis for that belief in Rome.
Ken wrote: Those are not infallible authorities
So Ken, you accept that error could be bound in Heaven? "The other pen" is clearly there, for one who has eyes to see.
So Ken, you accept that error could be bound in Heaven? "The other pen" is clearly there, for one who has eyes to see.
Hi Scott,
Of course not, no error is bound in heaven; that is why the RCC is wrong, since they don't conform to or adhere to the gospel nor do proper church discipline.
The power of the keys in Matthew 16:18-19 and the authority for the local Biblical church to do church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20), and the authority to forgive sins and say to people that their sins are not forgiven (John 20:23) is not a blanket promise of "do whatever you want to in the future".
The Greek construction is very precise - "will have been" - future along with perfect past periphrastic participial construction. NASB is the best translation of this - "will have been bound"; "will have been loosed".
It is not simple future, "will be" (whatever you want to do in the future); rather it is in the Greek - perfect past participle (have been) with future "to be" (will be).
The power of the keys of the kingdom has to be exercised in conformity to the gospel of the kingdom (preaching, teaching, calling for repentance and faith in Christ alone) .
"Whatever he binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel." (D. A. Carson, Commentary on Matthew, Volume 8, Expositors Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1984, page 373.)
Heaven only agrees when the church proclaims the gospel properly and according to Scripture, and only when church discipline is done properly.
The RCC's post Vatican 2 theology is a direct violation of the Scriptural principle, since it says that atheists and pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved (CCC 847), and Muslims worship the same God as we do. (CCC 841) Heaven does not agree with your error; and heaven never agreed with all the man-made traditions that your church kept adding and corrupting the message - over exalting Mary, purgatory, Pope, indulgences, Transubstantiation, relics, prayers to Mary, etc.
This (the CCC 841 and 847) are clear violations of Acts 4:11-12, where Peter properly exercises the keys of the kingdom by preaching that Christ is the only way to be saved - no other name - people must hear the gospel preached and the name - sound doctrine of who Jesus actually is - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (name = the specific person, identity; so they have to hear of and get a conscious knowledge of who Jesus is, in all His fullness - Deity, eternal word, virgin born, Eternal Son, lived, healed, taught the truth, was crucified, dead, buried, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the Father's right hand, etc. "name" = that specific one Jesus of Nazareth of history.
Romans 10:13-15 - how can they call upon Him or believe in Him, in whom they have not heard?
the CCC violates the most basic thing about the power of the keys of the kingdom that was given to the apostles and the church. Heaven only agrees when it agrees with the truth of the gospel in Scripture.
To clarify one paragraph:
The power of the keys in Matthew 16:18-19 is the power of the gospel, that when we preach the gospel, we can say with authority, "If you realize your wicked heart-rebellion and turn from it (repent) and trust in Christ (Messiah) as Savior and Lord (eternal Son of the living God), God forgives you" (loosing, freeing), and "But if you do not repent or trust in Christ alone to save you, you are not forgiven" (sins retained, still bound). It is the authority to proclaim the gospel and say "if you repent and believe, you are forgiven"; and "if you don't, you are not forgiven".
And the authority for the local Biblical church to do church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20), and the authority to forgive sins and say to people that their sins are not forgiven (John 20:23)
The power of the keys is not a blanket promise of "do whatever you want to in the future".
So Ken, you accept that error could be bound in Heaven? .
As your premise is false then so is the conclusion your polemical question assumes. The provision to bind and loose, like that which is given to any authority, is itself provisional upon being in accordance with the established word of God.
And as we examine binding and loosing in the light of the application and teachings of the NT church (Acts-Rev.), and which are interpretive of the gospels, then we see that it, consistent with the OT, it refers to church discipline, (1Cor. 5) as well as spiritual binding and loosing.
For instance, the OT magisterium was effectively given judicial power to bind and loose, as one was bound by its decisions, and which rendered one bound to guilty and consequences or or loosed by innocence and to freedom, with dissent being a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13) And to which "official" teaching the Lord enjoined obedience to. (Mt. 23:2)
But which does not mean, infer or require that its office possessed ensured infallibility, as if obvious in the light of the totality of Scripture.
Likewise secular powers effectively are given power to bind and loose. And we can easily imagine what Rome would do with the requirements enjoining obedience to such if slightly modified to say,
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [of the holy Roman church]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be [of the one true church® ] are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Romans 13:1-2)
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." (Romans 13:5-6)
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man [in union with the pope] for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king [pope], as supreme..." (1 Peter 2:13)
Even without the edits, taken by themselves religious as well as secular governments could use them to support requiring unconditional obedience to them, to "every ordinance." However, as with binding and loosing, reading more of Scripture reveals the conditional nature of the authority afforded to man the validity of its requirements and beliefs.
And nowhere do we see Peter looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, nor the veracity of its judgments being based upon the premise of ensured infallibility, so that whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven. Which is no more unconditional than believing that " whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son, (John 14:13) means whatsoever is asked saying "the the name of Jesus" will be done. In both cases, accordance with God's word and will is the condition to be "in the name of Jesus."
And as regards spiritual binding/loosing, Elijah bound up the heavens for 3.5 years and loosed them again (no doubt being led by the Spirit), and which power is afforded to all believers of like holiness, faith and fervent prayer (which i come much short in), and extends even to instrumentally covering sins. (James 5:16-20)
Meanwhile, God can have mercy upon chastised believers removing His hand of chastisement, which is a form of forgiveness, in response to intercessory prayer.
Meanwhile, after having effectively bound the multitudes from being Scripturally literate, since the Reformation then Catholicism has been bound to attempt to defend herself by subjecting Scripture as an abused servant that is compelled to support her traditions which did not flow from the weight of Scriptural warrant, but the premise of her own ensured veracity. For which she may enlist supports, but which can only mean what she says in the case of conflict.
Ken wrote: The power of the keys is not a blanket promise of "do whatever you want to in the future".
I am not making an argument for the definition of the keys or the "power of the keys," rather, my point is to demonstrate scriptural evidence of "the other pen." I have done this.
A fuller response on an entry on my blog on April 17, 2016.
Scott<<<
"the other pen" does not exist, because it is not infallible. It has to be infallible like the Scriptures and God Himself. You just asserted that I cannot use Greek grammar to prove my point. (Oh yes I can and I say it again: The Greek grammar is on the Protestant side of the argument - "will have been" loosed or bound. That is your problem and your false church's problem - you put your man-made traditions developed centuries later before the careful study of the original languages - Greek in the NT and Hebrew for the OT (and some Aramaic). My point still stands.
Ken wrote: "the other pen" does not exist, because it is not infallible.
sw: If there is an "it" then you're conceding the infallible.
Ken: It has to be infallible like the Scriptures and God Himself.
sw: Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.
Ken wrote: You just asserted that I cannot use Greek grammar to prove my point. (Oh yes I can and I say it again: The Greek grammar is on the Protestant side of the argument - "will have been" loosed or bound. That is your problem and your false church's problem - you put your man-made traditions developed centuries later before the careful study of the original languages - Greek in the NT and Hebrew for the OT (and some Aramaic).
sw: I did not say you cannot use it, I said "you don't win this one by appealing to Greek tenses," and you don't! Whether future tense "will be bound" or past tense, "has been bound" - THE POINT that it IS BOUND IN HEAVEN does not change. Thus, what he or they have bound or loosed on Earth is infallibly bound because it IS BOUND in Heaven, period. Again, whether that binding in Heaven is considered to be future or past tense does not change the infallibility of the binding and loosing. THAT is why your appeal to Greek tenses does NOTHING to further your argument.
Ken wrote: My point still stands.
sw: Sure, your point of past tense stands - but again, it doesn't change my point in the least. Your point standing has done nothing to counter my point - which still stands and proves "the other pen."
Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.
Which is the "no true objective Scotman" fallacy, for objectively examined and shown, the power of binding and loosing was not a novel provision, but nowhere did it translate into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office.
As said, God broadly bound/binds souls to obey both civil and religious judicial magisterial judgments ("according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do" - Dt. 17:11) but as with "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) accordance with God's word and will is the condition to see this fulfilled. Only God is autocratic, not man.
And nowhere is there any example or promise that an office will posses ensured infallibility when speaking according to a scope and subject-based formula, nor is this a requirement for authority or preservation of Truth and faith.
Moreover, unlike Rome's uninspired "infallible" decrees, the writings of Scripture, as with men of God, essentially came to be held as being of God due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, and not based upon the premise that an office of scribes was promised ensured formulaic infallibility.
Furthermore, while Swan's argument was "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture," yet even speaking an infallible Truth does not make it equal to the wholly inspired word of God, and Scripture is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which thus possesses a unique power. (Heb. 4:12)
As "Peace by Jesus" related John 14:14 - "whatever" is qualified by the rest of Scripture, "whatever" in Matthew 16:19 is also qualified by the the context and rest of Scripture, so the "pen" is not infallible like the Word of God/ Scripture is. Local church authority is a secondary authority, a fallible authority and should be submitted to the Word of God. Your church drifted from the Scriptures and left its first love. (Revelation 2:4-5)
Ken wrote: As "Peace by Jesus" related John 14:14 - "whatever" is qualified by the rest of Scripture, "whatever" in Matthew 16:19 is also qualified by the the context and rest of Scripture, so the "pen" is not infallible like the Word of God/ Scripture is.
SW: Again, if you're admitting to "the pen" then by definition, it is infallible. Remember, we're looking for "the other pen" in White's challenge - and I have demonstrated it (repeatedly). If it is not infallible then it is not the other pen. That being said, I'm not here to define "whatever" and/or what "whatever" might be limited to (though I do disagree with your out-of-context rationalization). THE point is that whatever this is they bind or loose on Earth is (past or present tense) bound in Heaven, period. Thus IF they so bind ANYTHING then unless you're arguing that it is possible for error to be bound in Heaven (which you have already stated you are not) then they have been granted infallible authority.
Ken continues: Local church authority is a secondary authority, a fallible authority and should be submitted to the Word of God.
SW: The subject is not whether or not "local authority" is subject to the Word of God, but that this "local authority" was granted BY GOD and is, by the very nature of being bound in Heaven, infallible authority.
There is a fuller response on my blog dated April 28, 2016.
Again, if you're admitting to "the pen" then by definition, it is infallible.
SW: Again, if you're admitting to "the pen" then by definition, it is infallible. Remember, we're looking for "the other pen" in White's challenge - and I have demonstrated it (repeatedly). If it is not infallible then it is not the other pen.
It is good that you admit that you have no other pen, as "unwritten traditions" does not translate into an "extant record" of God's infallible word, which is the manner of "pen" being debated here. Certainly nature itself is revelatory of God, and even pagans can speak Truth, and as regards express revelation, there is more than can and will be revealed, as Scripture teaches, (Jn. 20:30-31; 21:25: 2Cor. 12;4; Rv. 10;4)
But Scripture is the only extant, substantive body of Truth which is affirmed to be wholly inspired, and thus infallible, and to which all Truth claims are subject to.
That Catholicism provides another pen is based upon the premise that whatever is bound or loosed on Earth is likewise done so in Heaven, but as shown, this "whatever" is not a promise of autocratic authority, but as with other whatever promises, it is contingent upon being according to God's word and will. And that it promises that whatever Rome declares in accordance with her formula will be according to God's word and will is certainly "thinking of men above that which is written." (Co. 4:6)
Even being protected from error still would not make it equal to wholly inspired Scripture, nor necessarily entail more revelation, for as shown, binding/loosing in Mt. 18 pertained to judicial judgments, and even Acts 15 had to do with discipline.
Nor as shown, is the promise of "whatever ye bind/loose" restricted to magisterial judgments, for spiritually this binding/loosing power is provided for all of Elijah-type holy faith and fervent prayer. Which makes them infallible according to your reasoning.
The subject is not whether or not "local authority" is subject to the Word of God, but that this "local authority" was granted BY GOD and is, by the very nature of being bound in Heaven, infallible authority.
Thus according to that isolationist reasoning, since it is promised that "all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive," (Matthew 21:22) then every believer has infallible authority, for what they ask must be in accordance with God's word and will as long as they believe.
At the same time "whatsoever" the Scribes and Pharisees commanded is to be obeyed: "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Matthew 23:3)
But as is obvious, the word for "whatsoever" [hosos] in " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoeverye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18) does not necessarily absolutely mean "whatsoever." Nor is there any conditional content and subject-based formula included in Mt. 18:18. Thus rather than the "whatsoever" promise meaning that the church is infallible because of this promise, this presumes "whatsoever" will be infallible based upon the premise that the church is infallible based upon evidences external to the promise.
And RCs know for sure that these proffered proofs for the ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome mean what they say because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Quite the system.
The subject is not whether or not "local authority" is subject to the Word of God, but that this "local authority" was granted BY GOD and is, by the very nature of being bound in Heaven, infallible authority.
Meaning not that as in "whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer believing.." in which the promise is conditional upon being asked by faith and in accordance with God's infallible word and will, and which applies to the promise that proceeds from Mt. 18:18 - and applies both to all believers (That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19);
but that it is God's will that this uniquely applies to an earthly office being a perpetually ensured infallible autocratic authority which binds God to affirm whatsoever it decrees when speaking according to its devised criteria. Leading to such fantasy as:
With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon..The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2 (whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization). http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
“The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. ” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974
Again, PBJ, you seem to be stuck on the word "whatever" - and that is NOT my point! The point is that which is bound or loosed on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. The point is not your distraction topic of the definition of "whatever" - but that men have the authority to bind or loose on Earth and in Heaven. Without all the OTHER distractions you attempt to throw at the reader, can you answer the question? Can something fallible, or erroneous, be bound or loosed in Heaven? Ken has already conceded this, that no error can be bound or loosed in Heaven, and THAT is the point of infallibility here. So again, and not so mcuh "can" you answer this question, directly without the distractions, but WILL you?
Again, PBJ, you seem to be stuck on the word "whatever" - and that is NOT my point! The point is that which is bound or loosed on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven.
Again Scott, , you seem to be stuck on the premise that if men have the authority to bind or loose on Earth and in Heaven then this translates into ensured formulaic magisterial infallibility of Rome in defining "whatsoever" she accordingly defines as doctrine.
Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven, but as shown, the binding/loosing promise is in the context of judicially settling personal disputes as well as spiritual binding/loosing, with the latter applying to all believers "where two or three are gathered together in my name," (Matthew 18:20) and is nothing new, and does not promise ensured magisterial infallibility, as if whatever the magisterium or persons agree on will be in accordance with God's will and word, like the sentence of Rome preceding and God subscribing to it.
For "whatsoever" of this binding/loosing promise is subject to God's word and will, as is "if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 18:19)
In context,
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:17-20)
Various applications: both Corporate and Personal:
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:8-9)
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. (Acts 5:9)
To be continued...
Pt. 2:
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)
So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow...To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also : for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:7,10)
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (Luke 23:34)
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:60)
Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. (Acts 13:9-11)
And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? (Luke 13:16)
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? (Mark 2:9)
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders [not Cath. "priests"] of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick [not be a precursor of death], and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him [remove chastisement via intercession]. (James 5:14-15)
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5:16-18)
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:20)
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:4)
Forgot to add these to the list of binding/loosing examples:
If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2)
If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (Numbers 30:3-5)
And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (Numbers 30:10-11)
Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. (Numbers 30:13)
But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. (Numbers 30:15)
But if such is unconditional, then Herod was right in keeping his rash vow. But for Rome, it is presumed that whatever she decrees according to her scope and subject-based criteria is the word of God and His will, thus elevating her above the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures.
PBJ, thanks for all the effort you have put into this - but your argument still falls short. THE point is in both Matt 16:18-19 (which you're avoiding) and Matt. 18:18, MEN are given the authority to bind and loose AND that which is bound or loosed on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. THAT is the extent of my argument. Going off on tangents and/or citing out of context verses which do NOT apply to the authority spoken of in Matthew 16 and 18 is nothing short of diversionary. You, as Ken, have now conceded that nothing fallible can be bound or loosed in Heaven - therefore we're left with the challenge of accepting these men HAVE this authority, or Scripture itself has been made false.
PBJ, thanks for all the effort you have put into this - but your argument still falls short. THE point is in both Matt 16:18-19 (which you're avoiding) and Matt. 18:18, MEN are given the authority to bind and loose AND that which is bound or loosed on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. THAT is the extent of my argument..nothing fallible can be bound or loosed in Heaven.
Scott, as much as you seem to want to avoid the elephant in the room, calling it a "tangent, it remains to be The Argument, and cannot be removed. For it is simply one thing to assert that men are given the authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven, and another thing to force this to translate into Rome's unique, autocratic, ensured magisterial infallibility.
And despite your mere dismissal of the substantiation to the contrary, while in fact it is you who must resort to out of context eisegesis, this power to bind and loose was and is not unconditional, nor restricted to magisterial judgment, but as seen in both the Old and New testaments, it applies to all believers of fervent holy faith.
As for ignoring Matt 16:18-19, that charge is only viable if you ignore Matt. 18:15-20 as well as such other texts such as i supplied, which shows that this power was not unique to Peter, not the rest of the apostles. Nor is the binding/loosing promised formulaic infallibility, so that whatever the magisterium decrees when speaking according to its own scope and subject-based criteria then it is infallible.
In short, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus despite RC bluster and bombast, you are left with having to engage in out-of-context extrapolation to support the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
sw: PBJ, what I seek from you is acknowledgement of the fact that God gave man/men this infallible authority. Debating the alleged "elephant in the room" as to the extent or limitation of this authority would be tacit concession to the challenge - but I seek more than that. Would you acknowledge that God gave man/men this authority? Yes or no? I'd be more than happy to discuss "the elephant in the room" once we agree upon the premise.
This answer and more of the context are found here: https://cathapol.blogspot.com/2016/06/intallibility-discussion-part-4.html
what I seek from you is acknowledgement of the fact that God gave man/men this infallible authority.
Which request continues to be your problem due its fallacious premise, for there is no "infallible authority" as per Rome to be acknowledged, while that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged. If you want to refer to that as "infallible authority" - meaning ensured protection from error, then be my guest.
Of course, even a pagan can state an infallible Truth when in accordance with God's word, while those to resist civil powers resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Rm. 13:2) But which no more translates into the infallibility that you must defend.
For such the promises that "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 18:18,19) "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) simply means that God, who is the author of valid judgments and requests, will act when such are in accordance with His word and will.
But which promises are not that what the Catholic magisterium (uniquely) decrees will be God's word and will when doing so in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria. That is what you must defend, which Mt 16+18 nor anything else simply does not teach.
Thus the plain answer you your question as rephrased on your ignored blog, "Does Scripture record God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven, the answer is clearly no. That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural, as Elijah for one exampled, but which is not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
And your arguments on your blog further examples your bull-headed begging the question blindness, for as much as you want to limited the context the Gospel of Matthew, you simply cannot impose this restriction
As for "The silence from James Swan, who wrote the original article I responded to, has not gone unnoticed," it is you that is justly unnoticed, as warrants one be repeatedly insists on a specious premise. I am sure he can speak for himself, but as your argument has been repeatedly refuted why should James have to say anything, except so you can use his name in attempting to gain some readership for your poor propagandist blog?
sw: what I seek from you is acknowledgement of the fact that God gave man/men this infallible authority.
PBJ: Which request continues to be your problem due its fallacious premise, for there is no "infallible authority" as per Rome to be acknowledged, while that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged. If you want to refer to that as "infallible authority" - meaning ensured protection from error, then be my guest.
sw: THE question is not whether or not the Catholic Church decrees this truth, but does SCRIPTURE declare that men have the authority to bind or loose - and since that binding and loosing also takes place in Heaven, how can it be anything less than infallible? You're STILL not answering THE question.
PBJ: Of course, even a pagan can state an infallible Truth when in accordance with God's word, while those to resist civil powers resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Rm. 13:20) But which no more translates into the infallibility that you must defend.
sw: Yes, even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Answer the question, can something bound or loosed in Heaven be fallible? Yes or no? I don't need to defend "the next step" in this debate until we have a premise on which to go forward.
PBJ: For such the promises that "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 18:18-19) "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) simply means that God, who is the author of valid judgments and requests, will act when such are in accordance with His word and will.
sw: 1) Asking for something in His Name cannot be equivocated to "will act when such are in accordance with His word and will."
2) The contexts of Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and John 14:14 do not include "when such are in accordance with His word and will."
3) The FACT that He (God) has decreed men have this authority, ipso facto it must be in accordance with His word and will.
PBJ: But which promises are not that what the Catholic magisterium (uniquely) decrees will be God's word and will when doing so in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria. That is what you must defend, which Mt 16+18 nor anything else simply does not teach.
sw: Again, I have repeated stated that I would and will gladly engage your tangential challenge on what the Catholic Church teaches, but FIRST I have asked you to acknowledge a simple yes or no question - which you continue to avoid and distract from.
[breaking here...]
[Continuing...]
PBJ: That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural, as Elijah for one exampled, but which is not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
sw: Is that a "yes" answer to THE question asked?
PBJ: And your arguments on your blog further examples your bull-headed begging the question blindness, for as much as you want to limited the context the Gospel of Matthew, you simply cannot impose this restriction.
sw: Um, I was being accused of being out of context - so now when I insist upon YOU sticking to context - you resort to ad hominem. How typical.
PBJ: As for "The silence from James Swan, who wrote the original article I responded to, has not gone unnoticed," it is you that is justly unnoticed, as warrants one be repeatedly insists on a specious premise. I am sure he can speak for himself, but as your argument has been repeatedly refuted why should James have to say anything, except so you can use his name in attempting to gain some readership for your poor propagandist blog?
sw: "Poor propagandist blog?" Richness or poorness is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. I do not need Swan's name to "gain readership," when appropriate to link his name to the response articles - I do. On a sidenote, if anything my readership has gone DOWN since this discussion on Infallibility began - so much for THAT accusation. That being said, is there a blog out there which does not engage in some form of propaganda? BeggarsAll included has its own agendas - one of which is challenging things Catholics teach and believe. I do not deny the agenda of the CathApol Blog, defending Catholicism and keeping Catholics, Catholic. Don't be so upset that you reduce yourself to ad hominem when we do engage you. I apologize for being so insistent, but until now (next paragraph) you really haven't answered the question.
PBJ: Thus the plain answer you your question as rephrased on your ignored blog, "Does Scripture record God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven[?"], the answer is clearly no.
sw: Well, thank you for finally answering THE question - which has not changed. Clearly Scripture does record God (Jesus) giving this authority first to St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) and to the college of Apostles (Matthew 18:18). Since you believe Scripture to be errant and/or lying in this context giving us no premise with which to proceed, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. If you change your answer, I'll consider re-engaging.
[End]
"That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural" Is that a "yes" answer to THE question asked?
Why can't you see that "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged," "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural means yes? Eyes have they but see not.
I was being accused of being out of context - so now when I insist upon YOU sticking to context - you resort to ad hominem. How typical.
Because besides your blindness and the absurdity of referring to reproof of the very thing you must defend "tangential," in Biblical exegesis you simply cannot restrict the examination to the immediate context when dealing with the teaching of a certain issue.
"Poor propagandist blog?" Richness or poorness is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. I do not need Swan's name to "gain readership,"
Fooled me.
if anything my readership has gone DOWN since this discussion on Infallibility began
As well it should, considering your lack and quality of argument.
Don't be so upset that you reduce yourself to ad hominem
Ad hominem in the light of manifest reproved error is not reducing oneself to ad hominem, but as seen in Scripture is warranted.
I would and will gladly engage your tangential challenge on what the Catholic Church teaches, but FIRST I have asked you to acknowledge a simple yes or no question - which you continue to avoid and distract from.
Well, thank you for finally answering THE question - which has not changed. Clearly Scripture does record God (Jesus) giving this authority first to St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) and to the college of Apostles (Matthew 18:18). Since you believe Scripture to be errant and/or lying in this context giving us no premise with which to proceed, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. If you change your answer, I'll consider re-engaging.
What a use of my time in order for you to cop out! You before asked "Can something fallible, or erroneous, be bound or loosed in Heaven?' to which i answered, 'Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven," and also dealt with that premise as a fact, but you complained about my accompanying substantiated reproving of the leaping conclusion from that into Rome's premise of ensured magisterial infallibility and demanded a clear "yes."and would be glad to deal with what you call my tangential challenge on what the Catholic Church teaches once that was given.
So I recently added "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged. If you want to refer to that as "infallible authority" - meaning ensured protection from error, then be my guest." "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural," while again showing how that disallows Roman infallibility.
But now that you can no longer complain I have not affirmed men being given that authority then you resort to the absurd charge that since i reject the Catholic infallibility question-begging conclusion that you presume Mt, 16+18 teaches, then i do not believe Scripture to be errant and/or lying in this context, and thus find a pretext to escape from further reproof of the very premise that has been exposed as invalid in post after post, by the grace of God.
Thus here is another warranted ad hominem: You sir are manifest as a poor, deceptive wannabe RC apologist who is an argument against being an RC. Thanks for letting us expose you as such as a fruit of cultic devotion to Rome.
"The Greek word Jesus uses in Matthew 16:19 for ‘binding’ is deo, which simply means to be bound; to be in bonds; to be a captive. So ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ have to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the certainty of forgiveness and deliverance in Jesus Christ for those who repent and believe. Men and women who receive the message and come to Christ will be loosed from their sins, and will enter into the kingdom of God.
It is significant that in the thematically parallel passage in John 20, just before Jesus commissioned his disciples and vested them with the authority of the keys on the night before he was crucified, he told them: ‘As the Father has sent Me, I also send you’ (John 20:21). He then granted them authority to continue to do what the Father had sent him to do. (continued)
"The Father sent Jesus with authority to preach the gospel, and in giving the disciples authority to forgive and retain sins he is simply authorizing them to preach the gospel also. The authority they receive is a delegated authority, as is clear from Matthew 28:18-19 where Jesus says, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.’ This delegated authority was not jurisdictional, it was declarative — to proclaim the message of the gospel, which is clear from the recorded history of the activity of the disciples after the ascension of Christ and of the amplification of Christ’s commission given in Luke 24:46-49:
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html
Here is a link to the White Vs. Madrid Debate on Sola Scriptura:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IJYWqFjKb0
This was post 1 of the my response (now edited and expanded) but it did not go thru:
THE question is not whether or not the Catholic Church decrees this truth, but does SCRIPTURE declare that men have the authority to bind or loose - and since that binding and loosing also takes place in Heaven, how can it be anything less than infallible? You're STILL not answering THE question.
What?! As just said,. "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged. If you want to refer to that as "infallible authority" - meaning ensured protection from error, then be my guest." For this does not mean ensured infallibility as per your your modified blog question, "Does Scripture record God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven," to which the answer is clearly no.
since that binding and loosing also takes place in Heaven, how can it be anything less than infallible?
If you want to simply ask whether God gave man/men an infallible authority, so that they may bind/loose things on earth and thus in Heaven, as well as ask prayers that will be answered, then i have already essentially affirmed this, conditionally so. But which again utterly fails to support the "whatsoever" formulaic infallibility of Rome that is restricted to her collective magisterium, and uniquely to her pope.
1) Asking for something in His Name cannot be equivocated to "will act when such are in accordance with His word and will."
It can and is indeed, for just as souls pleaded that they prophesied in Christ name and did many wonderful works but whom Christ never knew, (Matthew 7:22) so all the time souls "ask in Jesus name" things that are not truly in His name, not being in accordance with His word and will.
But to believers in general it is promised "That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)
2) The contexts of Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and John 14:14 do not include "when such are in accordance with His word and will."
How can you even pretend to be arguing as if Scripture was an authority on Truth when you insist on isolationist interpretation? Commands such as "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13) also do not contain any clause as to being conditional upon not being in conflict with the word of God as revealed elsewhere, and thus you could argue that any and all who dissent from valid magisterial authority are wrong.
3) The FACT that He (God) has decreed men have this authority, ipso facto it must be in accordance with His word and will.
The issue is that this simply does not translate into that whatsoever the Catholic magisterium (uniquely) decrees will be God's word and will when doing so in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria. And which issue is hardly tangential but is the foundational argument!
Finally,
I have repeated stated that I would and will gladly engage your tangential challenge on what the Catholic Church teaches, but FIRST I have asked you to acknowledge a simple yes or no question - which you continue to avoid and distract from.
I have affirmed "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven" on eath and in Heaven and that (long ago) "Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven, but while you assert that this authority is "the extent of my argument," this is simply nor the case, as instead you extrapolate from this that of Catholicism's unique ensured magisterial formulaic "whatsoever..." infallibility, and thus that "the other pen" - meaning that of Catholicism's "- is infallible.
Thus i have dealt with your loaded question according to its polemical premise, which remains invalidated, by the grace of God.
sw: Well, let me begin by quoting you, PBJ, from the previous message - to which I most recently responded to:
PBJ: Thus the plain answer you your question as rephrased on your ignored blog, "Does Scripture record God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven[?"], the answer is clearly no.
sw: NOW you've quoted me asking for clarification, and you provide the opposite answer:
PBJ said...
sw: "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural" Is that a "yes" answer to THE question asked?
PBJ: Why can't you see that "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged," "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural" means yes? Eyes have they but see not.
sw: OK, well, I accept this as a retraction of your statement: "the answer is clearly no." Again, that was your response to the exact same question! Unless you're going to change your mind/words again - I'll accept your more recent affirmation (that means "yes") to the question - which gives us a common premise to proceed forward. That common premise is - we both affirm "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven." I'll ignore the childish bully tactics you have used (ad hominem attacks, which you don't even deny and actually attempt to justify - and note, I have not attacked your person, I accuse your tactics) and move on to the NEXT question.
sw: QUESTION TWO: Can error be bound or loosed in Heaven? And you have answered that one already:
PBJ: Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven,
sw: Thank you. We agree - so our common premise continues.
PBJ: but while you assert that this authority is "the extent of my argument," this is simply (not) the case,
sw: Well, thus far in THIS discussion, that has been the extent of my argument.
PNJ: as instead you extrapolate from this that of Catholicism's unique ensured magisterial formulaic "whatsoever..." infallibility, and thus that "the other pen" - meaning that of Catholicism's "- is infallible.
sw: All extrapolations aside, I can see why you would logically assume I believe Catholicism holds this "other pen" (thanks for bringing us back to the original flawed argument/analogy White used). However, thus far I have only been arguing for the existence of "the other pen."
PBJ: i have dealt with your loaded question according to its polemical premise, which remains invalidated, by the grace of God.
sw: Actually, PBJ, YOU have validated the premise! Thank you! How have you validated the "loaded question?" Allow me to recap:
1st Question: Is it scripturally affirmed that God gave men the authority to bind or loose on Earth, and whatsoever they have bound or loosed is also bound or loosed in Heaven?
sw: You answered "Yes."
2nd Question: Can something errant (or fallible) be bound or loosed in Heaven?
sw: You answered "Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven."
sw: So, there you have it! The "other pen!" If men can bind or loose things on Earth and those same things are bound or loosed in Heaven AND those things cannot be errant or fallible - then by default, they are infallible. Thus YOU have validated the premise!
sw: Now, while I DO believe the Catholic Church is in possession of "the other pen," THAT was NOT my argument! My argument (thus far) has been for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen," not who possesses it.
sw: OK, well, I accept this as a retraction of your statement: "the answer is clearly no." Again, that was your response to the exact same question! Unless you're going to change your mind/words again - I'll accept your more recent affirmation (that means "yes") to the question - which gives us a common premise to proceed forward.
What blindness! How is it that you cannot see that "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural" as well as "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven" and that "Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven," is simply NOT the same thing as "God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose WHATSOEVER THEY CHOOSE on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven?"
The former is conditional upon conformity to God's word and will, as seen in Scripture, and provided for all believers of Elijah-type fervent holy faith, while the latter is restricted to the magisterium when speaking according to its scope and subject-based criteria, and renders whatsoever they thus decree to be the word and will of God. Including her own declaration of her ensured infallibility, and which is the basis for assurance for the RC.
"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," - Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),
Ignoring this distinction is consistent with your marginalization my reproof of what must be your real argument!
That common premise is - we both affirm "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven."...that has been the extent of my argument.
But that obviously CANNOT be the extent of your argument, and which I therefore Scripturally disallowed long ago.
I believe Catholicism holds this "other pen" (thanks for bringing us back to the original flawed argument/analogy White used)
Actually you are using flawed argument/analogy.
"i have dealt with your loaded question according to its polemical premise, which remains invalidated, by the grace of God." Actually, PBJ, YOU have validated the premise!
Actually absurd, as your conclusion of the "other pen" simply does not flow from the premise of binding/loosing being provided for believers.
So, there you have it! The "other pen!" I If men can bind or loose things on Earth and those same things are bound or loosed in Heaven AND those things cannot be errant or fallible - then by default, they are infallible. Thus YOU have validated the premise!
Only in your vain imagination or reasoning, for besides what you really must presume, Swan's "pen" was that of an "extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation," that of wholly inspired Scripture, while the binding/loosing you invoked Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 as providing was not that of providing a transcendent record of God's infallible voice of special revelation.
For as understood first by Mt. 18, this refers to judgments by the church that (in the light of what we further read) were consistent with the word of God, and are manifest in such places as Acts 5 and 1Co. 5, as well as to the binding/loosing of "2 or 3 gathered in My name" in requests made to God.
Certainly "if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 18:19) then binding/loosing that they requested would be infallible and occur on earth and in Heaven.
As while you presume that you can rightly understand Matthew 16:18 and 18:19 in isolation that is simply absurd.
And as shown, this binding/loosing power was also provided to such persons as a father or husband, respectively, as binding or loosing their daughter or wife, respectively. (Num. 30) And which also applies to being loosed from oppression, as well as bound in chastisement. And being loosed/forgiven from chastisement.
Certainly Elijah had such binding/loosing power (exercised in chastisement), and which is provided for all believers of such faith in James 5:18-20, and to saving a soul from death, as "he ["any man"] shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. (1Jn. 5:16)
And while such judgments and actions can be recorded as part of God's extant wholly inspired record, the power to bind and loose is not manifested as being "another pen," equal to Scripture. Which "pen" is what you must argue for.
And even if it did, it would apply to Prot believers as well, but in in the light of Scriptural revelation on binding/loosing it certainly does not promise the church of Rome that she will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based), so that whatsoever she thusly proclaims is the binding word of God.
Thus all your labor in trying to polemically elicit clear affirmation to your critically different question remains to in vain, presumptive egregious extrapolation.
PBJ, again you have gone beyond my argument. You even brought in a quote about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has not been even remotely discussed by me. No, my whole argument, THUS FAR, has not been to show who possesses "the other pen," only that "the other pen" exists - and YOU have affirmed that fact too! I fully understand your unwillingness to accept the Catholic Church might be in possession of "the other pen," even your eagerness to demonstrate she does not - but again, that was not the point of my argument. I repeat, the FACT, which you have affirmed is that THE OTHER PEN EXISTS. James White to Matatics: "All you have to do is produce 'the other pen' and you win this debate."
PBJ, again you have gone beyond my argument. You even brought in a quote about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has not been even remotely discussed by me. No, my whole argument, THUS FAR, has not been to show who possesses "the other pen," only that "the other pen" exists - and YOU have affirmed that fact too!
What? Do you have a filter on when reading my responses? As explained, your argument the "other pen can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18" simply does not translate into "the other pen," that of an "extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation" as Swan argued, that of what Trent said ("received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves") which White cited in rejecting.
And which pen is what you claimed to be proving, and thus you are arguing for what Trent presumed of itself, but contextually and in the light of all Scripture this binding/loosing power is not about what Trent presumed. Nor does it even mean what you claimed you are only arguing (in order to extrapolate this to mean what Trents presumed, if your assertion is to have any import), that of giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth, and more than its means that whatsoever "two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," which contextually belongs to the binding/loosing provision but does not translate into autocratic authority.
Nor does it even refer to providing revelation in the context that you restrict to, but to disciplinary corporate judicial judgments, as well as spiritual binding/loosing in prayer.
You could argue that binding/loosing judgment could bind souls to believe whatsoever revelation the magisterium decrees was apostolic tradition, but without the binding/loosing provision translating into autocratic authority then the veracity of which would have to be established upon conformity with the established word of God, that which is written, which was essentially established as being of God based upon its unique Divine power and attestation.
James White to Matatics: "All you have to do is produce 'the other pen' and you win this debate."
Actually what White said was "All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate."
And besides what also is excluded, this pen (contrary to your moving the goal posts) " is what you must produce, but Rome has no such other pen, for in order to be this pen, just like Scripture, then Rome must be able to show that she not only speaks as wholly inspired of God but also provides new Divine revelation, as apostles did. And that RCs know that this is assuredly the word of God when spoken according to her infallible scope and subject-based formula. And which is where the Assumption comes in.
Thus contrary to your claim, Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18 does not teach "the other pen," that Trent presumed of itself, and which Swan and White, nor even authority to bind or loose whatsoever a church chooses, much less Rome with her novel and unScriptural ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
And which Roman "pen" is indeed what you are arguing for, contrary to your claim.
James quoted Dr. White saying, "Dr. White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate....
Why doesn't the Nicene Creed qualify as another pen? It is part of infallible Tradition which expresses that which we believe.
Why doesn't the Nicene Creed qualify as another pen? It is part of infallible Tradition which expresses that which we believe.
So you think infallible Tradition pertains to written words, and that the words of the Nicene Creed are wholly inspired Divine revelation, and comprehensive that it is instrumentally used to make men perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, and even provides new revelation, just like Scripture?
PeaceByJesus said...
So you think infallible Tradition pertains to written words, and that the words of the Nicene Creed are wholly inspired Divine revelation, and comprehensive that it is instrumentally used to make men perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, and even provides new revelation, just like Scripture?
Yes. Let’s break down what you have said above.
So you think infallible Tradition pertains to written words
Infallible Tradition pertains to the Word of God, whether spoken or written. Infallible Tradition was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and the Holy Spirit brings us to fuller understanding of these Traditions. New Testament Scripture, in fact, is based upon the Teaching of the Apostles.
and that the words of the Nicene Creed are wholly inspired Divine revelation,
In fact, they are just like New Testament Scripture. New Testament Scripture is the result of the Teaching of the Apostles. New Testament Conciliar definitions are also based upon the Teaching of the Apostles. The Nicene Creed is such.
If it isn’t, then point to the part of the Nicene Creed which is not infallible Teaching.
and comprehensive that it is instrumentally used to make men perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, and even provides new revelation, just like Scripture?
Just like TEACHING. You’re paraphrasing 2 Tim 3:16. That verse is not about Scripture. It is about Teaching.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
Is that true? Yes. Remember what St. Peter said:
2 Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So, all Scripture is inspired. But that doesn't say that Scripture alone is inspired. It says that men were inspired to PREACH. Yes, to PREACH. These men then turned around and wrote down the Scripture.
To say that Scripture is inspired by God is a short hand manner of speaking which means that men who were inspired by God to preach His Word, wrote the Scripture.
and is profitable for doctrine,
Profitable for doctrine. But profitable does not mean necessary.
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Is it fair to ask who is doing all this reproving, correcting, and instructing in righteousness? Is it not a teacher? If so, does this verse not assume the existence of a Magisterium and thus support the Catholic Doctrine of handing down Tradition by an appointed Teacher, (Magisterium means Teacher).
Bottom line
The entire book of 2nd Timothy is about preaching, teaching and handing on Tradition. 2 Tim 3:16 does not support Sola Scriptura. It supports the Catholic model of handing on the Word of God by Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the consistent Teaching of the Church.
sw: PBJ, You're back to arguing "whatsoever" and "which Roman pen" - but again - MY argument is merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen." I repeat, I am NOT arguing (at this time) for who is in possession of "the other pen" OR the limits or lengths of the authority of "the other pen."
sw: You have already affirmed "the other pen," and you can find your words AND the actual quote of White to Matatics (you quoted White to Madrid - I include both here). My "quote" was actually a paraphrase, my apologies for not being clear on that, but my paraphrase accurately portrays White's challenge to Matatics and/or Madrid.
sw: You can find the above and the rest of the context responded to here.
Demaria: Infallible Tradition pertains to the Word of God, whether spoken or written.
Wrong. In Scripture the word of God is not simply infallible, which something like "there is a creator God," also is, which even a Muslim can assert, but it is wholly inspired of God, and thus carries a unique power, (Heb. 4:12) which why even OT writings were discerned as being of God by common people, before the church began, and which depended upon them and the discernment of common people.
However, the words of Rome in proclaiming her oral tradition are not wholly inspired of God, and do not have God as their author like Scripture does, and are not guaranteed to be infallible, even though she "infallibly" declares that she is when speaking according to her infallible scope and subject-based formula.
Infallible Tradition was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and the Holy Spirit brings us to fuller understanding of these Tradition
That Catholic Oral Tradition is what was passed down is begging the question, and such claims are subject to testing examination by Scripture which exposes the unwarranted and contrary nature of her traditions of men as being doctrine.
New Testament Scripture, in fact, is based upon the Teaching of the Apostles.
Which in turn was based upon OT Scripture, not the premise of ensured infallibility as per Rome, which makes her teaching the supreme law. And by which Scripture the Lord reproved the devil, (Mt. 4) as well as religious leaders, (Mt. 22) and established His mission by to the disciples, and opened up their understanding to it - not to some nebulous body of ancient oral tradition.
But out of which Rome can even require belief in an event over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which is so lacking in early testimony that Rome's own scholars opposed it as being part of apostolic tradition.
In fact, they [the words of the Nicene Creed] are just like New Testament Scripture.
You need to repent for reducing wholly inspired Scripture to being merely correct doctrine. You can even find the latter in an encyclopedia, but it is not the wholly inspired word of God, which is with unique power.
You’re paraphrasing 2 Tim 3:16. That verse is not about Scripture. It is about Teaching.
Your marginalization of Scripture is showing again, as 2 Tim 3:16 is indeed about Scripture, that of what it instrumentally is able to do by being taught. Mere teaching can be anything, while even teaching what Scripture says does not mean the teacher must be wholly inspired of God as Scripture is.
But that doesn't say that Scripture alone is inspired. It says that men were inspired to PREACH. Yes, to PREACH. These men then turned around and wrote down the Scripture.
And which eliminates Rome from claiming the same, as she does not claim to be speaking as wholly inspired of God even when speaking infallibly, nor to provide new revelation as NT apostles and writers did. Meanwhile even SS preachers can enjoined obedience to the oral preaching of Scripture truths, even if no one had a Bible, but under the premise that such is Scriptural and subject to testing by it.
Moreover, Peter "speaks" of the "prophecy of the scripture" as being the sure word, which we know was of God since it is part of Scripture, thus the specification "prophecy of the scripture," not simply "prophecy."
Part 2:
Profitable [ōphelimos] for doctrine. But profitable does not mean necessary.
Then you would say the same for,
"bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable [ōphelimos] unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (1 Timothy 4:8)
In both cases it refers to the instrumentally of it.
Part 2:
Is it fair to ask who is doing all this reproving, correcting, and instructing in righteousness? Is it not a teacher? If so, does this verse not assume the existence of a Magisterium
So far so good, though not exclusively by the teaching office, but which Scripture upholds, but NOT as possessing perpetual ensured infallibility.
and thus support the Catholic Doctrine of handing down Tradition by an appointed Teacher, (Magisterium means Teacher).
No, not in the RC sense of an infallible pope and councils, and of doctrine meaning whatever she decrees is so must be the case, under the premise of her ensured infallibility.
The entire book of 2nd Timothy is about preaching, teaching and handing on Tradition. 2
The devil is in the details, as "Tradition" meaning apostolic teaching, which we know is of God by its inclusion in Scripture, simply does not translate into Catholicism being as the apostles or NT writers, and of her tradition being whatever she says was apostolic. Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
What 2nd Timothy is about is that of Scriptural Truths, by one who" as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2) as he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23) And which Paul points Timothy to as being able to make him wise unto salvation is the only transcedent substantial body of Truth which he affirms to be wholly inspired of God!
Thus the veracity of Paul's preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, whereas "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," - VEHEMENTER NOS, Pope Pius X,, since the RC “is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means"
2 Tim 3:16 does not support Sola Scriptura. It supports the Catholic model of handing on the Word of God by Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the consistent Teaching of the Church.
That is absurd, for the Catholic "sola ecclesia" model is that of the word of God being whatever she says is the consistent "Teaching of the Church," which is based upon the premise of her ensured veracity, versus the veracity of teaching resting upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, upon which the church began.
Thus "the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true, ” — Karl Keating.
Part 3:
And thus Catholicism can teach developed traditions as being the word of God but which are unseen in Scripture or the life of the church and contrary to it, whether it be prayer to created beings (approx. 200 prayers to God, versus none to anyone else), or the Lord's supper being administered as a sacrifice for sins by clergy distinctively named "priests," with that being their primary active function (versus preaching), and around which the church revolved. And multiple more . You are guilty of the very extrapolative reading into Scripture that you accuse SS advocates of engaging in.
While some of what is in Scripture was first expressed orally (such as that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses), we know this by its inclusion in Scripture, and common souls discerned both men and writings as as being of God before there ever was a church which presumed her was essential for this.
In contrast, Paul did not teach any such traditions in 2 Tim. but exhorted Timothy to sound character and commitment to sound doctrine and other general Scriptural truths. And Paul uniquely says of Scripture that it is what is able to make one wise unto salvation, being wholly inspired of God and instrumentally used to make one perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
And thus as is abundantly evidenced, what it written - which is God's mode for preservation of express revelation (Is. 30:8; cf. Ex. 17:14; Num. 5:23; Dt. 17:18; Jer. 30:2; 36:2) - became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which in its formal and material aspects provided what was/is needed for salvation and growth in grace even in the OT, as seen therein by its exaltation as doing so (P. 19; 119) though God gave more revelation under the New covenant (and which hearers are more accountable).
And thus SS holds Scripture alone as the wholly inspired standard or rule for faith and morals while also affirming the light of nature, the guidance of the Spirit, and the magisterial office and authority, but with all being in subjection to what is written as wholly inspired of God. Which even so-called infallible teachings of Rome are not, but often are absent and contrary to Scripture, in contrast to apostolic teaching.
sw: PBJ, You're back to arguing "whatsoever" and "which Roman pen" - but again - MY argument is merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen." I repeat, I am NOT arguing (at this time) for who is in possession of "the other pen" OR the limits or lengths of the authority of "the other pen."
Again you are exampling constrained RC blindness of what refuted you, for as shown, you claim to be proving the existence of "the other pen" that Swan rejected as being what Trent claimed, that of her unwritten traditions being from the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, and which in response you asserted was found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18, and . which you also pointed to Matatics as claiming and which you said White denied, and which pen was one "just like" Scripture.
Therefore contrary to your assertion, whether or not Rome is in possession of "the other pen" is not "another argument" for .as much as you claim to only be arguing merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen, you have to be arguing for what Swan denied and your responded "can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18," and you quoted White as challenging Matatics to provide!
" You have already affirmed "the other pen,
Once again I have not, for the "other pen" is what you claim White denied and Swan described, which you claim can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18, and which is simply not what you wishfully claim to see me affirming, nor that of any pen meaning "whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven," nor that Mt. 16:18 or Mt. 18:18 contextually refers to the "other pen" that you imagine is in there.
Therefore you have made fallacious charges and lost the argument, yet blindly, or ignorantly or insolently assert the contrary!
PBJ: Wrong. In Scripture the word of God is not simply infallible, which something like "there is a creator God," also is, which even a Muslim can assert, but it is wholly inspired of God, and thus carries a unique power, (Heb. 4:12) ….
False. Scripture says that men were first inspired to preach and then to write Scripture:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The problem is that the Reformers lack faith that God can protect His Word when it is transmitted by Sacred Tradition. But God has no problem protecting Sacred Tradition just as easily as He protects Sacred Scripture.
You need to repent for reducing wholly inspired Scripture to being merely correct doctrine. ….
In fact, it is Protestants who take the power out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by reducing it to unbiblical doctrines.
Your marginalization of Scripture is showing again, as 2 Tim 3:16 is indeed about Scripture, ….
ON the contrary, it is you who are reading into Scripture, your presuppositions. Anyone who reads the Letter of 2 Tim can see that it is about TEACHING by word. It is not about Scripture alone. Let me show you. St. Paul exhorts St. Timothy to give oral testimony
Chapter 1 verse 7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 8Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
St. Paul commands Timothy to teach others to teach.
Chapter 2 verse 2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Let's skip over chapter 3 for now:
Another exhortation to preach.
Chapter 4: 2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
The whole book is about preaching and teaching!
Do you really want me to believe, that throughout the epistle of 2 Timothy, St. Paul is telling Tim to preach and teach, but in Chapter 3 verse 15-16 he changes and tells him to pass out Bibles?
PBJ: Your comments #Part 1-3, prove that St. Irenaeus kept all Catholic Tradition and knew nothing about a doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You deny the Priesthood. St. Irenaeus was a priest. You deny Apostolic Succession, St. Irenaeus was ordained by a Bishop in line of the Apostles. You deny the Mass. St. Irenaeus confected the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Mass. Etc. etc.
PBJ: Your comments #Part 1-3, prove that St. Irenaeus kept all Catholic Tradition and knew nothing about a doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You deny the Priesthood. St. Irenaeus was a priest. You deny Apostolic Succession, St. Irenaeus was ordained by a Bishop in line of the Apostles. You deny the Mass. St. Irenaeus confected the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Mass. Etc. etc.
Your comments affirm that St. Irenaeus kept all Catholic Tradition and was contrary to Scripture. Irenaeus was a priest but which distinctive sacerdotal class is utterly absent in the life of the NT church and contrary to it. NOWHERE is any NT pastor called “hiereus” or “archiereus," the distinctive words for sacerdotal priests (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter). Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest."
The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros" if with uncertainty, but etymologies are not definitions (example: "cute" used to mean bow-legged).
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
Instead the active primary work of NT pastors is that of preaching. (Act 6:3,4) and which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) Glory to God.
You deny Apostolic Succession,
Scripture denies it. There were no manifest apostolic successors after Judas (though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which (for Judas) was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used.
St. Irenaeus was ordained by a Bishop in line of the Apostles
Which ordination does not mean it was valid or that he was always consistent with the apostle's nor that even Polycarp. Even sitting in the seat of Moses did not ensure faithfulness.
You deny the Mass. St. Irenaeus confected the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Mass. Etc. etc.
The Eucharist certainly is confected, being contrary to Scripture .
All of which what occurs when one does what Irenaeus accused heretics of doing: "They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...the ground and pillar of our faith." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
Yet as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," (Psalms 34:18) thus such may be saved despite their errors.
PBJ: Wrong. In Scripture the word of God is not simply infallible, which something like "there is a creator God," also is, which even a Muslim can assert, but it is wholly inspired of God, and thus carries a unique power, (Heb. 4:12)
False. Scripture says that men were first inspired to preach and then to write Scripture:
And just how does that contradict what I said, which refutes the claim that Cath oral tradition, as expressed by "infallible" teaching, is the wholly inspired word of God? I already stated that some, and only some, of Scripture was initially taught orally before being written, but deny that what Catholicism teaches must therefore be the wholly inspired word of God.
And rather than Scripture saying that men were first inspired to preach and then to write Scripture, much of Scripture - including church epistles and revelation - was written directly, versus these only being the inspired writing of spoken words as in the gospels and Acts.
And the writers were directly inspired in so doing, not simply infallibly writing what was spoken as Catholicism claims to do. Nor did they only record words verbatim, but as seen in certain duplicate accounts, they sometimes reiterated what was spoken, sometimes expanding it to provide a fuller revelation.
The problem is that the Reformers lack faith that God can protect His Word when it is transmitted by Sacred Tradition. But God has no problem protecting Sacred Tradition just as easily as He protects Sacred Scripture.
Rather, we do not lack faith that God could have enabled both or could have enabled Jonah to swallow a whale, but the issue is whether God promised what Rome claims, versus preserving what God wanted to be passed on by writing, which is His means of preserving His word, by shown. And that what was written became the standard for obedience and testing oral or written Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced, upon substantiation of which oral preaching of the NT depended.
In contrast, Catholicism claims to possesses an amorphous body of words of God which souls are bound to believe, even if absent from Scripture and even warrant from early historical records.
In fact, it is Protestants who take the power out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by reducing it to unbiblical doctrines.
A mere assertion, besides "Protestant" being so broad as to be basically meaningless, and in contrast to the manifest Cath inventions and ecclesiastical deformation. .
ON the contrary, it is you who are reading into Scripture, your presuppositions. Anyone who reads the Letter of 2 Tim can see that it is about TEACHING by word. It is not about Scripture alone.
ON the contrary, the very teaching you refer to is Scripture, while who ever said it was "about Scripture alone," except that it alone is the only wholly inspired of God transcendent substantive body of Truth that Paul directs Timothy to, and to which Paul's preaching was subject to. And Scripture provides for such being added to the body of written revelation.
Let me show you. St. Paul exhorts St. Timothy to give oral testimony
What? You think this translates into Catholic Oral Tradition (which is not written) being the word of God? Paul as a manifest apostle (unlike Catholic prelates) is actually teaching Scripture, unlike Catholic Oral Tradition, for the very text that you enlist as evidence against Scripture alone being the wholly inspired standard for Truth was Scripture itself! Oral teaching that becomes established as Scripture provides assurance that it was of God, versus Catholic Oral Tradition, which RCs believe is of God upon Rome's say so.
Rather than enlisting Scripture in your war against it, you can argue that since some oral preaching of the word of God was never written as wholly inspired Scripture then it validates Catholic Oral Tradition. But that is one giant leap of presumption, that whatsoever Rome binds the people to believe must be of God, which rests upon the premise of Romes ensured magisterial veracity. Thus my questions below.
Chapter 1 verse 7..
Chapter 2 verse 2..Chapter 4: 2.. The whole book is about preaching and teaching!
All of which a A SS could preach, though not as presuming to preach as wholly inspired of God, not does Rome.
Do you really want me to believe, that throughout the epistle of 2 Timothy, St. Paul is telling Tim to preach and teach, but in Chapter 3 verse 15-16 he changes and tells him to pass out Bibles?
Do you really want me to believe that this is what I argued, and what SS means, that one cannot preach Scriptural Truths, subject to testing by Scripture, but instead pass out Bibles? Your vain recourse to straw man is showing, but you seem to assume that you are still on Catholic Answers forums where you can get away with it.
Since your real argument has to be that the word of God is whatever Rome says then answer my questions as to the presuppositions that seem to be behind it.
For that some of Scripture first was expressed orally is affirmed (though the writers were under inspiration of God themselves in providing the pure word), and indeed, at one time that is all there was, when God only revealed expressly Himself in a very limited manner to a few select persons, but when He revealed His law more extensively to a nation then He put it in writing to be preserved, and which became the standard for obedience, and to which the veracity of all Truth claims was and is subject to.
But oral preaching of the word of God simply does not translate into whatever Rome infallibly claims being the word of God, any more that it does for the Mormons and Joseph Smith.
Now if you want to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority;. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. (thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God), then do so.
PeaceByJesus
11:02 AM (3 hours ago)
And just how does that contradict what I said,
It proves that MEN were inspired. Not Scripture alone. But Scripture also.
which refutes the claim that Cath oral tradition, as expressed by "infallible" teaching, is the wholly inspired word of God?
If men were inspired to Teach, that proves that there is another pen which is inspired and infallible.
I already stated that some, and only some, of Scripture was initially taught orally before being written,
Where does Scripture say that ONLY SOME of Scripture was initially taught orally? And, which parts of Scripture are those?
PeaceByJesus
11:02 AM (3 hours ago)
Your comments affirm that St. Irenaeus kept all Catholic Tradition
Thanks. That proves that he did not write anything which could be remotely regarded as Sola Scriptura.
NOWHERE is any NT pastor called “hiereus” or “archiereus," the distinctive words for sacerdotal priests (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter). Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest.”
But they perform “priestly” duties of the Gospel (Rom 15:16).
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Which is your sacrifice then? Are you a believer, or not?
and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Certainly, we are a nation of Priests. But we also have a ministerial priesthood. The proof is in the OT. Moses copied the arrangement which he saw on the mountain. That arrangement was the one of the New Testament. An arrangement that includes a ministerial priesthood.
Instead the active primary work of NT pastors is that of preaching. (Act 6:3,4) and which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) Glory to God.
On the contrary, the primary function of the NT pastors is to feed the flock. That happens when they eat of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Scripture denies it. There were no manifest apostolic successors after Judas (though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which (for Judas) was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used.
Two errors there.
1. After Judas, the Church kept appointing Bishops.
2. Jesus Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose. Therefore, the Church was free to change the casting of lots as a means to select newly appointed Bishops.
Which ordination does not mean it was valid or that he was always consistent with the apostle's nor that even Polycarp. Even sitting in the seat of Moses did not ensure faithfulness.
1. It’s a better method than any offered by Protestants.
2. It is a method which is consistent with Scripture.
The Eucharist certainly is confected, being contrary to Scripture .
On the contrary, it is ordained by Christ.
All of which what occurs when one does what Irenaeus accused heretics of doing: "They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...the ground and pillar of our faith." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
Yet as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," (Psalms 34:18) thus such may be saved despite their errors.
St. Irenaeus is consistent with Scripture and with the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Because he obviously holds the authority of the Church, the authority of Sacred Tradition and the authority of Sacred Scripture.
I was thinking about this, PBJ. You jump on the fact that St. Irenaeus said that Scripture is the foundation of our faith. But you claim to believe in Scripture alone. And Scripture says that the Church is the Foundation of the Truth.
Which is weightier? St. Irenaeus' writing? Or Scripture?
Now, if you say that you accept both, then you are accepting Scripture AND Tradition. Not Scripture alone.
De Maria said...
I was thinking about this, PBJ. You jump on the fact that St. Irenaeus said that Scripture is the foundation of our faith. But you claim to believe in Scripture alone. And Scripture says that the Church is the Foundation of the Truth.
Which is weightier? St. Irenaeus' writing? Or Scripture?
Now, if you say that you accept both, then you are accepting Scripture AND Tradition. Not Scripture alone.
sw: PBJ has already been down one "primrose path" in this thread... (smile).
It proves that MEN were inspired. Not Scripture alone. But Scripture also.
Yet you miss the point, as this refutes the claim that Cath oral tradition, as expressed by "infallible" teaching, is the wholly inspired word of God. Or do you really believe that the words of popes and councils in union with him in speaking "infallibly" are wholly inspired and thus have God as their author just as Scripture is and does? And which the "other pen" must be?
As said, even a pagan can state a simply infallible truth, while the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome is a novel invention.
If men were inspired to Teach, that proves that there is another pen which is inspired and infallible.
No it does not, for as shown - if you even read thru my posts - binding/loosing as manifest in Scripture had to do with magisterial judgments in settling controversies, as well as spiritual binding or loosing, which is provided for all believers.
But neither the power of binding or loosing in Mt. 18:18 nor that which follows, "That if two of you [gathered together in my name] shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 18:19) promises that whatsoever the church decrees will be bound/loose/infallible, nor will be speaking as wholly inspired of God, nor providing a comprehensive substantive body of such.
And which is what would constitute the "other pen" you are so desperate to find, as per the context of the debate.
As expressed before, the promise of to bind and loose and to do whatever they ask is conditional upon being consistent with the Lord's word, "in His name," but which is not a promise that the church or person will be doing if according to her scope and subject-based formula.
But if you want to argue that binding/loosing promise provides for the church perpetually speaking as wholly inspired of God just as Scripture is, then let me know who you think is so speaking, and the basis for your assurance that they are (which pertains to my unanswered questions as to your presuppositions for Rome's infallibility.).
Where does Scripture say that ONLY SOME of Scripture was initially taught orally? And, which parts of Scripture are those?
What? Among other texts, do you really think that the prison epistles were first preached in prison, or that even the words of the extensive historical accounts as well as all of Revelation ("What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches...: Revelation 1:11) was first spoken in their entirety as we read them and then simply dictated, versus the recording of what was passed on was itself inspired of God? If so, then you will also have a hard time reasonably putting together all the words in duplicate complimentary accounts of words spoken.
You seem to think that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) must mean that "spoke" means that all that was written was merely recording what was first said, but which is no more reasonable than my saying that "Paul said in Philemon that he was a fellowlabourer..." means that Paul literally spoke this letter first.
Regardless, the assurance that we know what the OT prophets said was inspired by God is by its inclusion in Scripture, which establishment the NT church and gospel depended upon. "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.' (Romans 1:2)
And thus what was written was invoked as being what the prophets have spoken, not some ancient tradition. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scripures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
Thanks. That proves that he did not write anything which could be remotely regarded as Sola Scriptura.
Which is consistent with his adoption of traditions of men, while when needed condemning heretics for gathering their views from other sources than the Scriptures.
But they perform “priestly” duties of the Gospel (Rom 15:16).
And what is so distinctive about this? All believers are to be ministering [hierourgeō] the gospel of God as temple workers, in which they are "living stones, who "are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pt. 2:4,5) offering up their own bodies, praise and works, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) which includes souls just as much as it did for Paul offering the Gentiles.
For all believers themselves "are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, (2 Corinthians 2:15) and Acts 8:4 tells us that the whole church went preaching the gospel, and Paul teaches at all believers are building the church, (1Co. 3:8ff) and to restrict the offering up of only apostles is untenable.
Thus there is neither any NT pastorate distinctively called "priests," nor are they described as exercising a unique sacerdotal function, let alone feeding the flock with physical bread.
Which is your sacrifice then? Are you a believer, or not?
What kind of question is that?
Certainly, we are a nation of Priests. But we also have a ministerial priesthood. The proof is in the OT. Moses copied the arrangement which he saw on the mountain. That arrangement was the one of the New Testament. An arrangement that includes a ministerial priesthood.
What blatant wresting of Scripture to serve Rome! The NT makes it clear that the entire church is the temple, and in which among other differences from the Old, there is only one high priest, and all believers are priests, but the Holy Spirit never ever calls NT pastors (presbuteros=senior/elder or episkopos=superintendent/overseer) priests" despite “hiereus” or “archiereus being used over 280 times total, mainly as the latter.
Instead you must read into Scripture a doctrine that was a latter development:
Among others, Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, finds, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity...When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests....Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. To keep a distinction between them and the Bishops, the latter were called "high priests" (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
The "Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism" adds,
In the New Testament. the Greek word that is usually translated into English as "priest" is the word 'hiereus'... It is never used in the New Testament to denote ordained ministers of the church. owever, the English word "priest" which is used to translate hiereus in the scriptures. is itself etymologically a corruption of the Greek word presbuteros, which in the New Testament is translated as "elder." The distinction is clear in Greek - the "elders" are a category of Christian leaders, while the three uses of "priest" shown above do not include that category, for the hiereus terms i.e.- "priest" and "priesthood." are applied only to the whole church. (Colin Buchanan, Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism, p. 483)
On the contrary, the primary function of the NT pastors is to feed the flock. That happens when they eat of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
Simply wrong. Nowhere among the many descriptions of pastoral works do we even see NT pastors administering the Lord's supper, much less as priests changing bread and wine into the "Real Presence," as nor being charged with doing so in Acts or in the church epistles, which are interpretive of the gospels.
In contrast, the manifest primary active function of the pastors was to , "preach the word," (2Tim. 4:2) and thereby to "feed the flock" with the word of God which is what is said to build them up, (Acts 20:28,32) and "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) the "sincere milk" of which they are told to desire by Peter, (1Pt. 2:22) with "meat" of the word being for the more mature. (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14)
Nor is physically eating anything ever the means of obtaining spiritual life, but one is born again with the word of Truth. (Eph. 1:13; Ja. 1:18) Glory to God.
In epistle after epistle it is the word of God that gives and sustains life by faith in it, and which word Christians are to have dwell in them richly, (Col. 3:16) while the Lord's Supper is only manifestly described in the life of the church in one epistle (besides Jude 1:12 mentioning the "feast of charity"), that of 1 Corinthians.
This absence alone is hardly explicable for something that is sppsd to have been the centerpiece of church life and pastoral duty. If breaking bread is the LS in Acts, then it is not described as a solemn formal priestly ritual, but instead it is simply described such as they "did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" from house to house. (Acts 20:42)
1 Corinthians 11:25
Which is simply more reading into the text what you can only wish was there, for nowhere is any priest even mentioned in this teaching, let alone being the agent of "transubstantiation!" Nor will you ever find this any place else in the life of the NT church.
Moreover, contextually, the unworthy eating and thus being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord is due to effectually not recognizing the church as the body of Christ by eating independently, even to the full, and ignoring other members of the body, and which was to "shame them that have not." `(1Co. 11:21,22)
Therefore Paul distinctly states that they were actually not coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, (1Co. 11:20) as instead of remembering=showing the Lord's death for the church by showing that love in this communal meal, they were treating others for whom Christ died as if the were unclean. Thus they were not showing the Lord's death as commanded, effectually not recognizing the Lord's body as being a body consisting of those for whom Christ died, purchasing the church with His own sinless shed blood.
This body is clearly the focus, and carries over to the next chapter, versus the nature of the elements consumed. It is how the church showed the Lord's death that it is the issue, and thus the remedy is that of not coming to the church hungry (yet Catholics are sppsd to fast), examine himself as to whether he is being hypocritical in taking part in that supper, but not being consistent with what the Lord's death represented.
Even the notes in the RC NAB bible basically get this right:
It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12)...
The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). -http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11
Two errors there.
1. After Judas, the Church kept appointing Bishops.
2. Jesus Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose. Therefore, the Church was free to change the casting of lots as a means to select newly appointed Bishops.
Two errors here.
1. appointing presbuteros/episkopos (same office) is not that of choosing apostles, as was the case for Judas.
2. That the power to bind and loose means whatsoever Rome claims to so do is actually done is begging the question, and such presumed autocratic power is no more Scriptural than presuming that whatsoever they ask in prayer will be done, if they claim to be doing so in the name of the Lord.
Your argument is that the succession of Judas supports apostolic succession, and yet in order to do that you must argue that apostolic succession you seek to prove means she can change how it is was done. And then there is no limit.
1. It’s a better method than any offered by Protestants.
2. It is a method which is consistent with Scripture
Wrong. Unlike Rome, true Protestants seek to elect men according to the requirements of 1Tim. 3:1-7, men which normatively are married, as were most apostles, and if not they had the power to marry.
And that are ordained as pastors, being in the office of presbuteros/episkopos, and whose primary active function was feeding the flock with the word of God, not . a distinctive sacerdotal class called priests, whose primary active duty was a Mass ritual of physically feeding souls.
On the contrary, it is ordained by Christ.
Which assertion that the LS is the Cath Eucharist is again is begging the question. You are not on Catholic Answers forum, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and John in particular.
St. Irenaeus is consistent with Scripture and with the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
The two are simply not the same, as is abundantly manifest by the grace of God.
You jump on the fact that St. Irenaeus said that Scripture is the foundation of our faith. But you claim to believe in Scripture alone. And Scripture says that the Church is the Foundation of the Truth.
It is telling that that RCs will resort to extrapolating that the Church is the Foundation of the Truth out of a text that refers to general body of Christ as being the church. and simply states in the Greek, "church living God, pillar and ground the truth," and with the word for "ground" being "hedraiōma," which is said to be unseen in Hellenistic Jewish literature or in the LXX or in secular Greek, coming from a derivative of hedraios, which is from a derivative of hezomai (to sit); sedentary (Strong's), but beware of the root word fallacy .
Moreover, since OT Scriptures provided the foundation for the church then the latter can hardly be said to be the Foundation of the Truth
Furthermore, the word used for "foundation" in the rest of the NT, such as "For other foundation [themelios] can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11) is not used here, yet Caths seem to invoke 1 Tim 3:15 as if it said that the church was the pillar and basis of the Truth.
However, that the church of the living God both supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them. (Lk. 24:44,45)
Which is weightier? St. Irenaeus' writing? Or Scripture?
Now, if you say that you accept both, then you are accepting Scripture AND Tradition. Not Scripture alone.
What manner of absurd reasoning is this? Do you really think that invoking something true that someone said means one must agree with all else they said? If so, Paul must agree with all a pagan said. Irenaeus simply believed contrary to his polemical assertion.
Well PBJ, I can see that we disagree. I just want to emphasize the point I made to Ken when I entered this discussion. St. Irenaeus did not defend Sola Scriptura. That is obvious in the same book which Ken quoted and even moreso is it made obvious by the thoroughly Catholic life of the Priest, Bishop and distinguished member of the Magisterium which St Irenaeus was in his life and remains today.
 PeaceByJesus said...
Two errors there. 1. After Judas, the Church kept appointing Bishops. 2. Jesus Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose. Therefore, the Church was free to change the casting of lots as a means to select newly appointed Bishops.
Two errors here.
1. appointing presbuteros/episkopos (same office) is not that of choosing apostles, as was the case for Judas.
Yes, it is. Apostle means “one who is sent”. The 12 Apostles are so named because they were sent by Christ. The “priests and bishops” appointed by the Apostles are apostles of the Apostles. And those appointed by them, are apostles of the Church.
2. That the power to bind and loose means whatsoever Rome claims to so do is actually done is begging the question, ….
Only to those who deny the Sacred Traditions which Jesus Christ set in place.
Your argument is that the succession of Judas supports apostolic succession,
Correct.
and yet in order to do that you must argue that apostolic succession you seek to prove means she can change how it is was done.
Also correct. Jesus gave the Church His authority.
And then there is no limit.
Correct. Look at the Sabbath. The Church changed it from observations on the 7th day to observation on the First day.
Wrong. Unlike Rome, true Protestants ….
Protestants don’t have Bishops. They don’t have priests. Because they have no apostolic succession. They broke away from Christ’s true Church.
St. Irenaeus did not defend Sola Scriptura...
I never contended that he did, and since is guilty of doing what he censured heretics for doing then he examples the Catholic accretion of errors.
The “priests and bishops” appointed by the Apostles are apostles of the Apostles.
Wrong! No apostle ever appointed any clergy distinctively called "priests" who exercised a unique sacerdotal function as their primary active service.
And those appointed by them, are apostles of the Church.
If you want to argue that appointing presbuteros/episkopos (same office) is not that of choosing apostles then we have them, not Rome. And the validity of office does not rest upon formal succession, which Rome does not truly have, but as with that of a true Jew, (Rn. 2:28) it rests upon conformity of faith, which Rome critically is contrary to .
2. That the power to bind and loose means whatsoever Rome claims to so do is actually done is begging the question,
Only to those who deny the Sacred Traditions which Jesus Christ set in place.
Which is more begging the question, for the presumption that "Sacred Traditions" renders Rome to be that autocratic infallible authority is just what needs to be established but is refuted.
you must argue that apostolic succession you seek to prove means she can change how it is was done.
Also correct. Jesus gave the Church His authority.
You mean the church of Rome, which propaganda also presumes the very thing that fails to be established, and as you show here, this propaganda rests upon that very premise.
In reality, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Wherby RCs have assurance.
And then there is no limit.
Correct. Look at the Sabbath. The Church changed it from observations on the 7th day to observation on the First day.
Yikes. You actually agree that there is no limit to what Rome can presume to declare is valid, and invoke something Rome did as validating this presumption, but which is simply not any proof of the validity of such presumed power. The fact is that the NT church, not the church of Rome which is basically invisible in the NT and substantially contrary to it, was the church that specifically met on the first day.
That the church that progressively became the church of Rome recognized that change does not translate into her possessing ensured veracity, any more than it did for the OT magisterium. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Protestants don’t have Bishops. They don’t have priests. Because they have no apostolic succession. They broke away from Christ’s true Church.
Another mere assertion due to absence of any valid argument. You had best restrict yourself to Catholic Answers forum where you can get away with spouting such RC propaganda as fact.
PeaceByJesus has left a new comment on the post "The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition":
St. Irenaeus did not defend Sola Scriptura...
I never contended that he did,...
Good. Now talk to Ken. At least try to get on the same page with him if you're going to be on his blog.
PBJ,
Yikes. You actually agree that there is no limit to what Rome can presume to declare is valid, ....
God speaks and acts through the Catholic Church. God turns bread and wine into His Body and Blood. I know you don't believe that, but most confessional Protestants do. If God changes the substance of material things by His Word pronounced in the Church, what limits can you impose? You're a mere man.
Yikes.
You say, "yikes" because you don't trust in God. That is why you declare yourself saved rather than permit God to judge your salvation. But we don't say "yikes", we say "hallelujah!" Because we know that God acts with absolute love and mercy, through His Church, which He established in order to bring His People to eternal life.
God speaks and acts through the Catholic Church. God turns bread and wine into His Body and Blood. I know you don't believe that, but most confessional Protestants do.
The Lutherans believe in Con-substantiation, and that is not what you described. They do not believe that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. They believe that He comes mysteriously "with" the bread and wine.
The Lutheran view is the closest view to RCC and Transubstantiation.
No confessional Protestant or Protestant or Evangelical believes in Transubstantiation.
The Lutherans believe in Con-substantiation, and that is not what you described. They do not believe that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. They believe that He comes mysteriously "with" the bread and wine.
The Lutheran view is the closest view to RCC and Transubstantiation.
No confessional Protestant or Protestant or Evangelical believes in Transubstantiation.
But they believe in the Real Presence. And you are wrong about St. Irenaeus, he did not defend Sola Scriptura in that thesis or any of his writings. That is absolutely clear by the context within which he lived his life.
Real Presence in the early church is not the same as the bread and wine changing into the body and blood of Jesus.
Irenaeus communicates a basic form of Sola Scriptura for his time, depending on how one sees what he means by the "tradition" and "the rule of faith", "the faith", "the preaching", which I showed that it is all basic doctrinal formula (every point is in the Scriptures and Protestants agree with the early creeds ) that was organized around the Trinity, which became the Apostles Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, later other issues detailed in Chalcedon and Athanasian Creed, (but still all Biblical), etc.
Which I already showed.
But nothing that Irenaeus fleshes out in his "tradition", "rule of faith", "the faith", etc. goes beyond Scripture, as in Against Heresies, 3:4:1 to 3:5:1 shows.
The claim of RCC is that somehow apostolic succession is in the person of the bishops, and that there is a guarantee that future all bishops will not make doctrinal mistakes. apostolic succession which is NOT part of the “ancillary view”, but is an essential ingredient of the “coincidence view”.
"apostolic succession" - in order for this to be the same kind of what the modern RCC believes, one must show that Irenaeus teaches that presbyter/bishops who are ordained by the other bishops or presbyters are going to always forever be in an infallible office kind of thing on into the future.
All Irenaeus was saying was "at the time" of his battles with the Gnostics, he showed that all the churches believed in the OT God Almighty, the Father, the creator of all things; creator of matter; and matter is good.
Irenaeus may make other comments in other places about other issues that are not in the context of the rule of the faith or apostolic tradition, and so it does not mean that all his comments elsewhere are part of "the faith" or "tradition". (like comments about Mary as the New Eve and Advocate, etc. ) That was not in the rule of faith.
That is the main reason he and Tertullian were using the bishops and presbyters argument and tracing them backwards from their time. Protestants agree on that issue, that Gnosticsm was wrong and the leaders were right on that issue, they were teaching right. The EFCs don't seem to be taking it beyond that. Athanasius does not do it either against the Arians and Tropoci. He uses Scripture of the double nature of the scope of the Deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ; and the Trinitarian forumula in Matthew 28:19; among lots of other verses.
I have not found that anyone in the early centuries taught that modern view of apostolic succession that RCCs are teaching today. So, Protestants understand the responsibility for local churches to ordain and appoint elders/bishops/pastors/teachers - Acts 14:21-23; Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3; I Peter 5:1-5; Ephesians 4:11-12.
the issue for us Protestants is that it is possible for the church in the future to go wrong on some things and then later those smaller things grew into bigger things. Paul had to rebuke the Galatians churches for "so quickly deserting Him who called you by His grace" (Gal. 1:6) and 5 out of the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 have drifted away from the Lord and are going to be judged ( I will come and remove your lamp stand 2:5; I will come and make war against them 2:16; I will kill her children with pestilence . . . 2:21-25; "I will come as a thief" 3:3; "I will spew you out of My mouth" 3:16, etc.)
A very interesting article on the issue of the real presence in the early church:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/04/very-interesting-article-on-real.html
Ken said...
Real Presence in the early church is not the same as the bread and wine changing into the body and blood of Jesus.
Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 2)
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,
Irenaeus communicates a basic form of Sola Scriptura for his time, depending on how one sees what he means by the "tradition" and "the rule of faith", "the faith", "the preaching", which I showed that it is all basic doctrinal formula (every point is in the Scriptures and Protestants agree with the early creeds ) ….Which I already showed.
First of all, none of those Creeds teach Sola Scriptura.
Second of all, you see his communication devoid of the context of his life. For example. based on Scripture alone, Protestants deny that the New Testament Priesthood. St. Irenaeus was a New Testament Priest. Based upon Scripture alone, Protestants deny Apostolic Succession. As a Bishop of the Catholic Church, St. Irenaeus is one of the successors of the Apostles. Based upon Scripture alone, Protestants deny the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. St. Irenaeus Teaches and confects the Holy Eucharist in the Mass. Based on Scripture alone, Protestants deny the Mass. As a Priest of the Catholic Church, St. Irenaeus presides the Mass. Based on Scripture alone, Protestants deny the authority of the Word of God in Sacred Tradition. In this very book where you claim he teaches SS, St. Irenaeus Teaches that the Word of God is passed down by Sacred Tradition.
On and on, the only way you can pretend that St. Irenaeus teaches a form of Sola Scriptura is to deny his entire life.
But nothing that Irenaeus fleshes out in his "tradition", "rule of faith", "the faith", etc. goes beyond Scripture, as in Against Heresies, 3:4:1 to 3:5:1 shows.
That’s because He’s Catholic. It is Protestants who go beyond Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a basic example of going beyond Scripture since Scripture does not teach that but contradicts it.
The claim of RCC is that somehow apostolic succession is in the person of the bishops, and that there is a guarantee that future all bishops will not make doctrinal mistakes. apostolic succession which is NOT part of the “ancillary view”, but is an essential ingredient of the “coincidence view”.
"apostolic succession" - in order for this to be the same kind of what the modern RCC believes, one must show that Irenaeus teaches that presbyter/bishops who are ordained by the other bishops or presbyters are going to always forever be in an infallible office kind of thing on into the future.
I have no idea what you mean by that since the Catholic Church doesn’t teach anything remotely like that.
The Catholic Church Teaches that Jesus appointed the Apostles and the Apostles appointed successors and those successors appointed more, in perpetuity. The Catholic Church is an ongoing concern. Infallibility is a separate issue based on the fact that Jesus Christ deemed that the Pope and Church united with the Pope would bind and loose on earth and in heaven. Irenaeus also believed that.
All Irenaeus was saying was "at the time" of his battles with the Gnostics, he showed that all the churches believed in the OT God Almighty, the Father, the creator of all things; creator of matter; and matter is good.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist that he was writing to constituents who believed in the Priesthood, the Authority of the Church, the infallibility of the Church and on and on.
cont'd
Ken continues:
Irenaeus may make other comments in other places about other issues that are not in the context of the rule of the faith or apostolic tradition, and so it does not mean that all his comments elsewhere are part of "the faith" or "tradition". (like comments about Mary as the New Eve and Advocate, etc. ) That was not in the rule of faith.
Notice that he had no qualms in producing a rule of faith, since he is a member of the Catholic Magisterium. Not only that, but he didn’t say to the heretics, “Well, you have the right to interpret the Scriptures alone anyway that you want.” In fact, he condemned them as heretics for doing so.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
That is the main reason he and Tertullian were using the bishops and presbyters argument and tracing them backwards from their time. Protestants agree on that issue, that Gnosticsm was wrong and the leaders were right on that issue,
That’s a major error on your part. Protestants agree on very little. Basically, they claim a belief in Scripture alone, but the results of that belief vary widely.
they were teaching right. The EFCs don't seem to be taking it beyond that. Athanasius does not do it either against the Arians and Tropoci. He uses Scripture of the double nature of the scope of the Deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ; and the Trinitarian forumula in Matthew 28:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); among lots of other verses.
The ECF’s Teach Catholic Doctrine.
I have not found that anyone in the early centuries taught that modern view of apostolic succession that RCCs are teaching today. So, Protestants understand the responsibility for local churches to ordain and appoint elders/bishops/pastors/teachers - Acts 14:21-23Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Titus 1:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); I Timothy 3; I Peter 5:1-5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Ephesians 4:11-12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).
Your major problem is that you are reading the early Fathers through your Protestant filters.
the issue for us Protestants is that it is possible for the church in the future to go wrong on some things and then later those smaller things grew into bigger things.
That’s not an issue for Catholics. We trust the Holy Spirit will continue protecting the Church from error to the end of time.
Paul had to rebuke the Galatians churches for "so quickly deserting Him who called you by His grace" (Gal. 1:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))
That was his job as a member of the infallible Magisterium.
and 5 out of the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 have drifted away from the Lord and are going to be judged ( I will come and remove your lamp stand 2:5; I will come and make war against them 2:16; I will kill her children with pestilence . . . 2:21-25; "I will come as a thief" 3:3; "I will spew you out of My mouth" 3:16, etc.)
Local churches can drift. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church remains infallible. It is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which produced Rev 2-3. Therefore, you will be wise to listen to her.
from
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons France (Gaul) in the mid second century. He wrote his Against Heresies around 180 A.D. an invaluable work that details Gnostic practices and beliefs and furthermore soundly and biblically refutes them. In addition to Against Heresies, there are several fragments extant that mostly come from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.
There are many aspects of gnosticism Irenaeus labored to refute, but for the purpose of this article I will highlight one. Gnostics believed that humans were divine souls trapped in a material world created by evil entities. Irenaeus contended that God divinely created the world and everything in it. And it was elements of the creation that Christ commanded to be received as His body and blood for a memorial of His sacrifice.
Bread and wine are created things that nourish our created bodies. These elements of creation, Irenaeus taught, are established as the body and blood of Christ whose blood was shed truly and physically. The Gnostics maintained that Christ’s body was not created like ours denying His human nature. Therefore, it did not make sense to them that the body could be eternally saved; but Irenaeus asserts that the body will be resurrected incorruptible.
This is the context in which Irenaeus describes the Eucharist. Irenaeus likens the rebirth of the believer to the Eucharist and vise verse.
“Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist, and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Again, the context is the resurrection of the believer. Irenaeus is speaking of Christians when he said, “the fleshed nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood.” That is, those who believe on He who was crucified for their sins are nourished with the body and blood of the Lord. Their bodies will not remain in corruption because they will be resurrected. For we offer to Him His own, that is of His own creation. But offerings in the flesh are only pleasing to God when the flesh is united with the Spirit. The flesh united with the gift of the Holy Spirit offers to God the praises of thanksgiving. Flesh void of the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot offer anything to God.
Irenaeus transfers this reality to the bread of the Eucharist by claiming that the bread, which is of God’s creation, receives a Spiritual aspect upon receiving the invocation. The bread, he states, is “no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” Earthly, because it is bread which is of the creation, and heavenly, because it is blessed and received by those who themselves are both earthly (in the flesh) and heavenly (born of the Spirit).
continued
Part 2
Irenaeus clearly denies the notion held by the Catholic Church that the bread is no longer bread; he calls it, “no longer common bread.” Compare this to what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in an answer to a relevant question.
“Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, “This bread is my body,” but “This is my body” (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).” (Emphasis mine)
Irenaeus said the bread was no longer common bread, thus maintaining its status as bread; and the Catholic bishops say it is no longer bread at all. The earthly aspect of the bread from the Irenaeus quote is acknowledgment that the bread is of the creation. The spiritual is attached to the Eucharist itself, which is the celebration of the passion of the Lord and the unity of the body of Christ. The Catholic Church is in opposition to Irenaeus’ understanding of the Eucharist elements.
Not only does Irenaeus deny the change in substance in the bread and wine, he also illustrates in the following quote that the universal church recognized that the altar whereby we offer our gifts to God is in heaven. And heaven is where our adoration is directed, not towards the Eucharistic elements.
“Thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed); the temple likewise [is there], as John says in the Apocalypse, “And the temple of God was opened: ” the tabernacle also: “For, behold,” He says, “the tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men.”
Let's start with your 2nd claim first. When St. Irenaeus says that our Altar is in heaven, he means that the physical Altar upon which we offer the Eucharist, is on earth and in heaven simultaneously. That is the Catholic Teaching.
As for your first. In order to come upon your interpretation, you have to read into his statement, your Protestant presuppositions. We also say that the Transubstantiated Bread, "is no longer common bread".
Cyprian of Carthage in 251 AD also commented on this unique phrase in his Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer:
This may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation…And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented…from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ’s body…And therefore we ask that our bread–that is, Christ–may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body (Treatise 4, 18).
Now, let's break down that which St. Irenaeus said in "Against Heresies".
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member?
Notice that he says, "nourished by Christ's Blood and Body". Not by bread.
As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body.
Notice that he says that the cup is His Blood and the bread is His Body.
And so, you are refuted.
The Irenaeus quote in the article was from Agains Heresies, Book 4, chapter 18, 5-6.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xix.html#ix.vi.xix-p23.2
God speaks and acts through the Catholic Church. God turns bread and wine into His Body and Blood. I know you don't believe that, but most confessional Protestants do. If God changes the substance of material things by His Word pronounced in the Church, what limits can you impose? You're a mere man. You say, "yikes" because you don't trust in God.
Aside from the reality that only a small minority of evangelicals (as well as Catholics actually) believe that God turns bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and certainly not that it would scientifically test as that), your logical fallacy. argumentation is simply is a continuation of your absurd and reproved reasoning.
For the fact God can do something simply does not translates into whatsoever the Catholic Church says He does or that He says means that this an actual fact, any more than it does for the Mormons. And your own assurance that Rome is this autocratic authority rests upon her own mere say so.
That is why you declare yourself saved rather than permit God to judge your salvation.
That is not Scriptural and a false dilemma, for the two are not opposed to each other. For that one may know that they presently possess eternal life, based upon faith and evidence of it (not Rome's say so), is entirely Scriptural.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)
But that we ascertain if one is a believer based on fruit, (Mt. 7;16) and that God will formally pronounce that one is saved based upon evidence of faith is also Scriptural. (Mt. 25:31-40) But not because their works made them good enough to be with God, and must go to Purgatory to become perfect in character (and atone for sins) if they are not. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._3.html#Purgatory
" Because we know that God acts with absolute love and mercy, through His Church,
That Rome uniquely is that church is another question-begging assertion, while that it manifestly is substantially contrary to the NT church is beyond question .
Good. Now talk to Ken. At least try to get on the same page with him if you're going to be on his blog.
This is Ken's blog, and one should wholly agree with him to be on it? More absurd reasoning.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
This is Ken's blog, and one should wholly agree with him to be on it?
You should if you are pretending to defend the same doctrine.
More absurd reasoning.
I guess it is absurd to expect Protestants to agree upon anything.
Blogger Ken said...
The Irenaeus quote in the article was from Agains Heresies, ....
But the interpretation was not. And a simple reading of the book gives the Catholic conclusion. Only by twisting the context and by ignoring the life of the writer, will you come up with your understanding.
what group of Evangelicals believes in Transubstantiation ??
Peace by Jesus,
Glad I clicked on your web-site and was reminded that you had Jason Engwer's series on the church fathers - "catholic, but not Roman Catholic" there.
I will using that more.
Thanks for your comments here.
This is Ken's blog, and one should wholly agree with him to be on it?
You should if you are pretending to defend the same doctrine.
Which is a double error, as Jame's Swan is the OP and the listed administrator of Beggars All, while one need not agree with everything a brother writes though they both basically contend an error. Even on Catholic Answers.
Glad I clicked on your web-site and was reminded that you had Jason Engwer's series on the church fathers - "catholic, but not Roman Catholic" there.
Actually I only have a large portion of it, but there is more material I never got around to copying and reformatting as a web page.
Post a Comment