Written by a High Continuing Anglican, assessing Roman Catholic prayers to Mary.
A couple of illustrations. Here are a couple of very ancient prayers to the Virgin Mary:
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
*[with respect to] - my addition
Posts
582 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 582 Newer› Newest»Guy has cogently made the case for Private Judgement. Nice work, Guy!
The way it works in Romanism is that the use of private interpretation, that of relying on one's own fallible reasoning to determine the veracity of RC teaching, is rejected, except in determining that Rome is the one true church and worthy of your implicit Trust.
However,
. ...having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once.
There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He 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.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, 'I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?' —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1914 )]
"Once he does so [enters the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.
Therein he will learn many other truths that he never could have found out with reason alone, truths superior, but not contrary, to reason. These truths he can never repudiate without sinning against reason, first, because reason brought him to this pass where he must believe without the immediate help of reason.”
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...
Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Thus Rome becomes as God and the Bible itself, which veracity a soul finds warrant for, and thus never questions it.
Yet the problem is that when RC argumentation fails to provide warrant for implicit trust of her, and does just the opposite, then RCs basically resort to requires a prior assent of faith to her in order to know she is assuredly trustworthy, (The Church® gave you the Bible...she correctly knows what it means)
So even though Luke and John say that reading their Gospels is sufficient to give the reader "certainty" about the life of Christ and saving knowledge of his person and work, you don't believe it. You think they are wrong to say that.
That about sums it up. If assurance of Truth does not require an assuredly infallible magisterium, then it is out of a job.
Yet it is obvious in Scripture that souls could know of a truth that both men and writings were of God based on evidential warrant.
And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth. (1 Kings 17:24)
And the idea that "faith is "belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence," is contrary to Scripture and evangelical faith. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality#Evangelical_views)
And as said, the people held that John the Baptist "was a prophet indeed," despite his rejection by those who sat in the seat of Moses. Which did they did to another Itinerant Preacher, who still seems to have a few followers today regardless.
You're just a tape-recorder on playback. You have one setting: repeat.
And thus I have often ended up reiterating previous refutations due to Guy's "moving on" at all costs apologetics.
Since the matter is settled in his eyes by Rome, and not on the basis of the weight of Scriptural substantiation, a semblance of proof is a mere formality, and we are expected to submit to whatever arguments sound good to them in their extrapolative stretching exercises, despite the contortions they require and the dislocations they result in.
But there must be more than one reason priests must study psychology so much.
When you were a catholic, you must not have known how Catholics first approach the Bible as just another historically accurate account of a 1st century man who claimed to be from God. We do not start by asserting the Bible to be inspired or that Jesus is God.We first prove the reasonableness of our Faith.
About 1% of RCs likely know that CE apologetic, while the hand of affirmation of souls being able to discern the Bible as a historically accurate account by use of their fallible human reasoning (by which they make a fallible decision to submit to an infallible church) is taken away by the other hand if they deny that the evidence of that said Account warrants assent to Rome.
And of course, likewise there is the premise that an infallible magisterium is essential to discern Scripture as not simply being a historically accurate account but the wholly inspired word of God.
But which a common sense person (by God's grace) could see this is not the case, and thus it is a false argument no matter how much it is assumed or inferred.
Once we enter into faith, then and only then, does all private judgement on matters of doctrine fall aside.
The latter actually does not fall aside, though in theory it is supposed to, as RCs simply have no infallible interpreter for their supreme authority, any more than SS types can claim such.
Both which teachings are infallible, or which parts, as well as what magisterial level (2 or 3) others fall under is subject to debate, as ca be aspects of their meaning to varying degrees.
And thus the RC cannot avoid the need to engage in interpretation if he really wants to make sure he correct in what obedience requires, and for any allowance of dissent.
Both his liberal and conservative friends appeal to V2, but differ. And he needs V2, as in past times obedience to the pope meant torturing and exterminating the heretics, and he want to tell his Protestants that his church does not believe in that.
This means Rome interprets herself, but also that RCs interpret the interpreter. I am called a child of God by some and a lost soul by others.
In practical terms the RC must look to lower levels of the magisterium to understand it. And the hearers of the word tend to look for its meaning by how the preachers of it translate it in their own lives.
And Scripture teaches that what we do and overall effect constitutes the evidence of what we really believe, (Ja, 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
Thus the RC looks to how his leadership interprets church teaching. And unlike unchanging Scripture, interpretive leadership can change, and the followers go where it does.
He see Francis giving the high-five to a evangelical "heretic" and disparaging proselytization, and so either he follows him, or maybe he goes with the traddie RCs who point to infallible decree by Boniface the 8 to the contrary. Or finds some debatable middle ground.
The traddie RCs do not "simply follow the pastors" as is exhorted as their main duty, but in principle are like Prots in engaging interpretation of ancient teaching contrary to the most manifest modern understanding.
Of course, this manner of debate is not seen as much as in evangelicalism, due to doctrine not being taken seriously. And every time Rome buries a Teddy K./Chavez/Menino RC, it sends a message that the gospel of Rome essentially is, be baptized and die as a RC, and she and some modicum of merit, along with a sufficiently ambiguous flexible concept of God's mercy (enough for Rome to work her spells) basically assures a high probability of finally seeing Heaven.
Final perseverance Catholic style
Just do not detach from the mother ship and become one of those conservative evangelical types if you want that kind of audacity of hope. Dreams of a father.
"We do not start by asserting the Bible to be inspired or that Jesus is God."
Given that, it's no wonder you've gone so far off track. It explains alot. Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course they do not, as the premise basically is that the Scriptures obtain their authority from Rome.
Was Baptism for the 1st century only? Was the Lord's Supper? As you concede that some Protestants have some sort of ordination rite, I assume you concede the hierarchical system was to continue after the death of the Apostles.
Your premise is that ordination via a unbroken hierarchical system is essential for valid pastoral authority, which in Scripture it is not.
And that Catholicism has unbroken formal apostolic succession, which it manifestly does not in the light of Scripture, and history.
But which objection is dismissed under the the premise Rome must be right since she defines what valid succession is, and that she has it.
Yet even if one knew nothing of a church then he could read Scripture and find Christ, and thus be part of His body, the church.
A could baptize and observe the Lord's supper, as believers are told to do so, and not under a priest. Even heretical Rome recognizes some baptisms by "heretics," while her Lord's supper is an invalid misconstruance of it.
You defense is that assured recognition of Truth requires an infallible authority, and that formal historical descent as the stewards of Scripture and inheritors of Divine promises requires or means one is the infallible authority on Truth. Thus those not of her have no authority.
But which you tried to argue before, only to see this premise send your church up into flames in the light of Scripture. Yet you try it again.
Formal ordination is normative, and in principle continues today in SS type churches. But under your argument means one would have to hear the gospel thru one Rome ordained, and could not be a valid preacher before being ordained by one of hers.
You dismiss my assertion that the Paul/Timothy thing shows succession.
Okay, what is your spin on it?
Paul ordaining Timothy shows pastoral supplementation and perpetuation of the office of presbyters, but the spin is that Paul ordaining Timothy supports papal or apostolic Roman succession.
Not only is Peter not promised or manifest as having any succession, but this does not show Timothy being ordained as an apostle - or as part of a distinctive class of clergy titled "priests," because their primary function was to offer expiation for sin by the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Both the Roman papal invention as well as turning presbuteros” into clergy distinctively titled “priests” and their primary function makes what Rome ordains an aberration.
Paul himself did not first need to have ordination from an apostle in order to have authority.
Authority and power were passed on by the laying on of hands and the rite was jealously guarded from corruption and abuse.
It was and is indeed jealously guarded - from correction from Scripture, the reading of which Rome much hindered as needed when it more easily could.
But if authenticity requires the affirmation of the magisterium, then where did OT prophets and John the Baptist get their authority from?
God from of old raised up prophets from without the magisterium to reprove it, and thus the church began upon Christ and the apostles and prophets - all of whom the magisterium relegated as rebels.
Why should 1st c. souls follow men whom the mag. regarded as invalid itinerant preachers?
And the fact is that, as shown, Paul was not conspicuously ordained by Peter thru laying on of hands, or by an know apostle, but only by a "certain disciple," a "devout man" (Acts 9:12; 22:25) is all he is called, and
And as said, before he met with Peter (3 years after) Paul was preaching with power. All without Peter.
And the later affirmation of James, Peter and James (together but listed in that order) was not ordination, and certainly as written does convey Peter was a Roman pope.
Moreover the Lord affirmed men who did His work but were not of the company of disciples, and refused to censure him (Mk. 9:38-40) - as Rome would.
To be ctnd.
You say, "It is not historical descent that provides authenticity...He can raise up "living stones" from anywhere to build His church...".
That is not what either the Bible nor Church history shows.
That is exactly what the Bible, Church and history shows. Who ordained the prophets and then apostles and the Founder of the church? He even still has a few followers today.
As for God being able to raise up men outside of the succession I speak of, well, they would not be able to trace themselves back to the Church Christ established.
Of course they could, as having the essential faith of Peter in Scripture. If you believe Rome gave us the Bible you would even say they came from her.
One becomes part of the church by Biblical faith, (Eph. 1:13; 1Cor. 12:13) by which the church has its members and exists. And overcomes by faith. (1Jn. 5:4)
Believers thus come first, and only they make up the body of Christ which perseveres despite the declension and aberrations seen in the visible churches in which the believers, along lost souls,express themselves.
Even God cannot do that. God could not annihilate you and then recreate you.
So one cannot become part of the church without even any direct correspondence with a RC, but by reading the Bible?
You are presuming that the visible church of Rome is entirely the same entity as the body of Christ, rather than being part of its (aberrational) expression.
The visible church is not 100% believers, and can suffer great deformity, but the body of Christ only consists of believers, though this is expressed visibly in varying degrees of fidelity to Scripture.
And according to testimony even by RCs, your church at one time became one in which overall there was an almost entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments, and severely lacking discipline in morals, and erudition in sacred literature, and reverence in divine things, so that true religion was almost extinct, and the true Church had to be sought outside the visible institution.
If all the Bishops, priests and deacons were to die today, God could not raise up Bishops, priests and deacons from the rocks and set them over the SAME Church founded 2,000 years ago by Christ. It would be a different Church.
Ordination is
This presupposes the very thing that needs to be proved, that unbroken formal historical descent establishes authenticity, because Rome says so, who has authority because in the light of what she defines as unbroken formal historical descent.
However, this presupposes the church is like Israel, when in reality it is essentially a spiritual entity that began in dissent from those who rightfully could claim valid historical descent.
And while this spiritual entity has its visible expressions, yet as history has shown, it can be quite deformed, while Scripture remains unchanged and enables one to become part of the true church.
Just a quick observation:
There's a treasure trove of helpful material responding to Catholicism in this post including its combox, and in offsite posts which are linked to this post. Steve Hays has provided a plethora of intelligent responses against Guy Fawkes' arguments. Jason Engwer makes several perceptive comments here as well (among other places). Obviously so have several others (e.g. Lydia McGrew, James Swan).
In this respect, Guy Fawkes makes for a very useful foil for many Protestants to advance all these excellent counterarguments against Catholicism. Of course, this isn't Guy's intention at all. Instead, Guy is more like Judas Iscariot in that he thinks he's doing one thing, whereas he's in fact playing right into a far grander scheme than he's presently aware of. In other words, Guy is an unwitting adversary to advance the truth.
Back to the Pope's successors.
We see Judas succeeded by Matthias as Apostle and Bishop. The criteria needed for his ordination was that he had seen Jesus in the flesh. Common sense says withing a generation or so there would be no more people living who could meet this requirement.
While debatable, common sense says withing a generation or so there would be no more people living who could meet this requirement. Therefore there were no more successors to these apostles.
Paul distinctly states, Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1)
And in Gal. 1 he relates how he went in Arabia, and that the gospel he received was not from man, but given by revelation, indicating personal communication, which in principal could fulfill the personal discipleship clause of Acts 1, receiving essential instruction perhaps in a relational way.
Therefore the role of Apostle was to end but not the office of Bishop as we see in the case of Paul and Timothy.
You said it, not me. But it remains that ordaining elders is not that of popes.
Immediately in the early Church we see Peter's line of succession recorded.
Now you are again engaging in one of your "moving on" leaps, and supposing that this validates ecclesiastical papal progeny, and that what lists are recorded are those of the Roman papacy, which is simply presumption.
Scripture is the standard for what God ordained, which says nothing of papal succession, while clearly instructing on elders/overseers, which was one office. (Tituis 1:5-7)
The hierarchical division is another Roman aberration.
For times sake i will not write much of my own on the lack of warrant for following so-called church fathers, and what RCs construe from their writings.
Paul Johnson, Stonyhurst College, Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds, ,
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. (“A History of Christianity,” pgs 53ff; http://reformation500.com/2014/01/17/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy)
I see Steve talks about Irenaeus here,
Triablogue: Apostolic Succession (Part 6): Irenaeus And Rome
Another writers states,
“The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [not in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (Joseph Ratzinger: “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office”) pgs 22-23).
PBJ, what was the rule of thumb for identifying the local Church authority in the Church? The Bishop.
And that Bishop had to be able to show his succession and be in union with the chief Bishop in Rome.
The way of determining if even a Bishop was orthodox in his teaching and was legitimate was if he held the Faith of the Bishop of Rome and was in communion with him.
That is a invention of fact, as it presumes Peter was the bishop of Rome, without any real evidence from Scripture, whom Paul does not even address among the 26 persons he names as brethren in Rm. 16.
There is zero instruction to elders to specifically submit to Peter or wait for his affirmation as some supreme head in Rome.
And to settle a major dispute Paul and Barnabas went to JERUSALEM to all the apostles and elders about this question, with Peter giving the lead counsel, and the church also keeping silence in giving audience to Barnabas and Paul, but James giving the definitive judgement as to what to do. (Wherefore my sentence is: Acts 1519)
And also, in Gal. 2 with Paul seeking late affirmation from James, Peter and John it was in JERUSALEM, which was evidently due to the risk of believers believing slanders about him (protoRCs).
Speaking of Communion, to this day, in every Mass, the priest breaks off a fragment of the Host. This is reminiscent of the days when the Bishop would break off pieces of his Host and send them to his presbyters to be used in their particular liturgies as a sign of union.
More adding to Scripture, and which proceeds from the false idea of the Lord's supper.
You put a false dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh. The offices of Bishop, including the one in Rome, priest and deacon must go back to the very physical Jesus.
Not so, as all the church is "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5:30)
And as the church began upon Scriptural warrant establishing authenticity, not historical descent of the magisterium, so that remains the criteria for authenticity.
And upon which basis Rome is disqualified.
You can follow even immoral men and who used the sword to obtain office, but that is cultic.
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,
They practice a rite that does not physically go back to Christ from whom all power flows.
Nonsense, they typical priest manifest Biblical power as a Mormon priest does.
There were simply was not even any men ordained in the NT church as part of a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests" who offered masses as an atonement for sin.
See here .
They no more have Peter for their father than the Pharisees had Abraham, and who tried the same argument as you, but were shot down by John. Yet you reprove him.
PBJ, you admit Peter was singled out.
Singled out for what?
What part of being a street-level leader among brethren do you not understand? I have already summed up his role, and exposed the fallacious extrapolation you must engage in to derived him as being the first of a line of exalted infallible popes whom the church looked as such.
Peter said "we have not followed cunningly devised fables," (2 Peter 1:16) but RCs do, even if, like a chameleon, her popes can somewhat adapt to the times.
At least those red slippers did have to go.
PBJ, you admit Peter was singled out.
Singled out for what?
What part of being a street-level leader among brethren do you not understand? I have already summed up his role, and exposed the fallacious extrapolation you must engage in to derived him as being the first of a line of exalted infallible popes whom the church looked as such.
Peter said "we have not followed cunningly devised fables," (2 Peter 1:16) but RCs do, even if, like a chameleon, her popes can somewhat adapt to the times.
At least those red slippers did have to go.
Once supremacy is admitted, infallibility follows by necessity.
WHAT? What kind of non-sense is this?!
Thus 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following an itinerant preacher in the desert and another One from Galilee.
Go back and deal with how your Roman reasoning effectively nuked the church.
Guy Fawkes makes for a very useful foil for many Protestants to advance all these excellent counterarguments against Catholicism. Of course, this isn't Guy's intention at all.
Indeed, he was already nuked the NT church, thus invalidated his own, while repeatedly begging the question in parroting propaganda.
But which provides more exposure of the fallacious nature of these arguments, to the glory of God.
PBJ,
"So even though Luke and John say that reading their Gospels is sufficient...
.
Ever hear of circular reasoning?
Believe whatever I tell you, PBJ. I am an honest mean. I swear it. I give you my word of honor, you can trust me.
PBJ,
I see you have been a busy bee writing to refute what I have said, Unfortunately, very little of your diatribe addresses what I said. Papal scandals, red slippers and ad hominems don't disprove my assertion that infallibility follows by necessity from supremacy.
Christ promises that His Church would not fail. IOW, it is indefectible and infallible in hear teaching. If you don't believe that point, you have zero assurance for anything, especially that the Bible is inspired. As a matter of fact, if you can't trust the Church, you don't even know which books comprise the Bible.
The Church CANNOT fail. She CANNOT teach heresy.
You have already conceded Peter to be singled out in the Bible. He was the spokesman and chief.
Your problem is that you think he was head of a Church doomed to fail.
Obviously, you think Christ has failed.
PBJ,
Peter was nothing more than a " a street-level leader among brethren "?
You must not have any ecclesiology at all.
Did the Church have any more structure than a 12 Step group? Was it just a bunch of hippies meeting in an abandoned store-front? How was your band of hippie bros supposed to preserve doctrine? How did they deal with abuses in discipline?
PBJ,
Peter was nothing more than a " a street-level leader among brethren "?
You must not have any ecclesiology at all.
Did the Church have any more structure than a 12 Step group? Was it just a bunch of hippies meeting in an abandoned store-front? How was your band of hippie bros supposed to preserve doctrine? How did they deal with abuses in discipline?
Notice Guy's faithless response to Luke and John. He openly scorns the assurance they give the reader. He refuses to credit what they say on their own terms.
He's a rank infidel with a bit of borrowed religiosity.
Steve,
Borrowed religiosity? I don't need to borrow religiosity as I've got plenty of my own. How about you?And the pomposity? Where did you get that? It rather unbecoming on a guy who take Christ as his role model. Or even Cary Grant for that matter.
You know Steve, it's funny that you rightly acknowledge Luke and John as being infallible , along with all the other Apostles and Evangelists, but won't concede the charism to the chief Apostle other than when he write, of course.
I don't deny the assurances of Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James,Jude, Matthew or Mark. I know the books associated with them are God breathed because I have it on the authority of the Church established by Christ.
I also can say the same for the OT including those 7 books you don't have.
By the way, remember your claim that Tertullian, Origen, and St.Cyprian were sources disproving Peter as Pope. I just so happened to read some stuff on my commute this morning about the Fathers. I got some great quotes should you want them from those three guys for you.
I gotta ask you and PBJ something. Why didn't Christ just come as an adult and have himself crucified on the same day and get it all over with? Why did he spend years building up a Church first, with twelve guys as center and one of them as chief? Especially if, as PBJ seems to think, the structure was to be disbanded after the 1st generation of Christians?
Why didn't Christ just leave us a book like the Koran or something?
Is the Church just a collection of saved sinners who may or may not share common doctrines or fellowship with one another?
Can the Church fail in her mission? Has she already failed?
If you answer in the affirmative, how do you know the Bible you claim as an authority is not just paper and ink?
The Bible itself doesn't make the claims for itself that you ascribe to it. As a matter of fact, the Bible points outside of itself to other authorities like Tradition and the Papacy.
Steve, without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is.
And without a single, visible head, you can't find that infallible Church that gave you the Bible.
So, tell me again why you get all warm and fuzzy when you read John and Luke or any other other of the Bible for that matter?
"I don't deny the assurances of Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James,Jude, Matthew or Mark. I know the books associated with them are God breathed because I have it on the authority of the Church established by Christ."
The passages I quoted don't condition their assurance on your extraneous putative authority. Rather, the assurance they proffer is predicated on their own writings, as is. It's self-contained.
You refuse to accept the claims of Luke and John on their own grounds.
They say that by reading and believing what they wrote, a reader will have certainty about the life of Christ and saving knowledge of his person and work.
You directly contradict what they say. You look them square in the eye and say: "No, I don't believe you!"
You don't believe Luke and John. You only believe Pope Francis.
"Steve, without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is."
Suppose I'm stranded on a deserted island. Suppose I never heard of "the Bible" or "the church."
Suppose a copy of Luke's gospel or John's gospel or 1 John washes ashore.
If I read it and believe it, do I have the certainty, the saving knowledge, that they promise the reader?
If you deny that, then you're an infidel.
i) You disbelieve what Luke or John say on their own merits. You deny that what they claim is obligatory or authoritative in its own right.
This despite how them themselves frame the issue. Luke grounds the assurance he gives a reader, not in Pope Francis signing off on what he wrote, but on the quality of his own sources. His personal research is the stated basis for the assurance he gives.
John grounds the assurance he gives a reader, not on the approval of Pope Francis, but on John's firsthand knowledge of Jesus, and inspired recollection.
What if Pope Francis told you not to believe Luke's Gospel or John's Gospel, or 1 John? Evidently, you take his word over theirs.
ii) If Luke is true or John is true, then its truth does not depend on my ability to prove it. If it's true, then even if I fail to prove it, it is still true.
Suppose John's Gospel washes up on the beach of my deserted island. I have no idea where it comes from. Do I have life in Christ's name by believing what John recorded (Jn 20:31)?
Suppose I'm walking along the beach of my deserted island and I find a copy of Luke's Gospel on the shoreline. I'm not familiar with the author. By reading and believing it, do I true and certain knowledge of what Luke recorded (Lk 1:1-4)?
"Steve, without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is."
That's an empty-headed trope you mechanically repeat–like pulling a string on a doll.
It disregards internal evince. It ensnares you to a vicious infinite regress. It disregards internal evidence. And it reflects your double standard.
If a book contains false divine promises (i.e. promises falsely attributed to God), then believing them doesn't make them true. If, however, a book contains true divine promises, then God will do for the reader what he promised in the book independent of any corroborative evidence.
Is it a fact that by reading the Gospel of Luke, a reader can acquire sure knowledge about the life of Christ? Is it a fact that by reading the Gospel of John, a reader can acquire saving knowledge?
"I don't deny the assurances of Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James,Jude, Matthew or Mark. I know the books associated with them are God breathed because I have it on the authority of the Church established by Christ."
You invoke a secondary (alleged) authority while disowning the direct authority of the writers themselves.
Luke doesn't predicate his Gospel on the authority of "the Church," but the evidence his own investigations.
Likewise, when John says "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life" (1 Jn 1:1-2), he's not appealing to the authority of "the Church," but his personal authority as an intimate eyewitness to the public ministry of Christ.
When you only accept what Bible writers say on the authority of your sect, you disrespect their stated truth-conditions and substitute an alien rationale.
"Why didn't Christ just leave us a book like the Koran or something?"
Given your ecclesiolatry, we could turn the question around. Why did God give us a Bible at all? Who needs a book when you have the living oracle of Mother Church to answer all your questions?
"I know the books associated with them are God breathed because I have it on the authority of the Church established by Christ."
You don't have an authoritative church–although you do have an authoritarian church. All you really have is the authority of your own individual opinion. Your fallible personal opinion that your particular denomination is infallible. Your "infallible external authority" is your private judgment in disguise. You postulate an infallible external authority.
John says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands…"
Pope Francis is in no position to say that.
The author of Hebrews says the message "was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard" (Heb 2:3).
Pope Francis is in no position to say that.
Luke says, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you" (Lk 1:1-3).
Pope Francis is in no position to say that.
"I also can say the same for the OT including those 7 books you don't have."
And the Ethiopian Orthodox church can say the same for the books you don't have. And the LDS church can say the same for the books you don't have.
"There were Church councils, presided over by Catholic bishops, ratified by popes, that decided which books stayed and which books didn't."
Because, for you, the word of God has no inherent authority. If the Pope gives thumbs up to the Gospel of Thomas, then it's in. If the Pope gives thumbs down to the Gospel of Matthew, then it's out.
This has now exceeded the old record of 225 comments at "The Qur'an Never says the Text of the Bible was corrupted".
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/quran-never-says-text-of-bible-was.html
"So even though Luke and John say that reading their Gospels is sufficient...
.
Ever hear of circular reasoning?
Believe whatever I tell you, PBJ. I am an honest mean. I swear it. I give you my word of honor, you can trust me.
That is not circular unless Luke and John are being invoked as authoritative in order to establish the authority of Scripture, but which is not the case with me.
What i was arguing is that men and writings of God where established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Which you cannot deny, though you have.
And that as Luke and John are Scripture, so one can have assurance by them, as 1st c. souls did.
Papal scandals, red slippers and ad hominems don't disprove my assertion that infallibility follows by necessity from supremacy.
And which was not dealt with by red slippers or ad hominems, which were not even in that post, but.
"Thus 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following an itinerant preacher in the desert and another One from Galilee."
As shown you before , those who sat in the seat of Moses certainly had supremacy, even unto death being the consequence of disobedience, yet if they were infallible, then the church is invalid.
But which you have already effectively concluded based upon your past syllogism argumentation.
Thus i told you "Go back and deal with how your Roman reasoning effectively nuked the church."
But instead once again you found some aside to use as an excuse to ignore the refutation of your absurd supremacy=infallibility Roman reasoning, and that unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is.
PBJ,
Peter was nothing more than a " a street-level leader among brethren "? Did the Church have any more structure than a 12 Step group?
And just where did I say "Peter was nothing more than a a street-level leader among brethren," or do you have to invent words of mine in addition to misrepresenting my refutation of you?
I already expressed that as this leader he was the first to use the gospel keys to the kingdom, (Act 2:14;ff Col. 1:13) among other things, but that this simply does not translate into being the exalted supreme infallible head to whom all the church looked to, or his perpetuation.
Those are manifest reality, as Rome's papacy is invisible in Scripture, and no amount of extrapolative exertion will produce if from Scripture.
Christ promises that His Church would not fail. IOW, it is indefectible and infallible in hear teaching. If you don't believe that point, you have zero assurance for anything, especially that the Bible is inspired. As a matter of fact, if you can't trust the Church, you don't even know which books comprise the Bible.
That is simply in-credible! How in the world did souls have assurance that certain men and writings of God - upon which foundation the church established her claims - were so before Rome presumed her assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) was necessary for this?
And as show already (once again), being promised final preservation, conditional upon faith, is not novel, and does not mean via an infallible magisterium, as God often raised up men from without it to preserve the people of God. Which also is how the church began
And the promise to remain with disciples refers to believers, to the church as the body of Christ, which alone is made up of 100% believers.
When Paul refers to the church for whom Christ died and is married to, he is referring to the "household of faith" which includes those who never heard of a organic organized church. In which the body of Christ find expression, but is an admixture of true and false.
Meanwhile, Rome's "preservation" via unbroken suc..includes invalid men who were morally more like Judas than Peter, and gaining seats by carnal power (this is not the OT), rival popes, and absences of up to 3 years, and as said an almost entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments, and severely lacking discipline in morals, and erudition in sacred literature, and reverence in divine things, so that true religion was almost extinct, and the true Church had to be sought outside the visible institution
And now one that is mostly liberal. That is your church and you must own it. To suppose any of us would want to become members with them is itself nigh to insolence.
Nor did Christ ever claim the church would be infallible in all here teaching, which you cannot even claim without being very restrictive, nor was perpetual assured infallibility in all universal teaching on faith and morals necessary for preservation of Truth, or promised.
God knows how to raise up manifest men to correct the valid magisterium itself, which the church did not begin upon, but upon men who dissented from it. Thanks be to God.
You have already conceded Peter to be singled out in the Bible. He was the spokesman and chief.
Your problem is that you think he was head of a Church doomed to fail.
Obviously, you think Christ has failed.
Rather, you are the one who effectively invalidated it by your false basis for determination, transmission and preservation of Truth, while despite the manifest deformation of Rome, the church as the body of Christ, the only true 100% believers church, has prevailed as God raised (forth-telling) prophets, wise men, and scribes, as before, (Mt. 23:34) to correct those who thought they were correct due to historical descent, as those who sat in Moses' seat did.
"Steve, without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is."
An infallible definition of which did not exist - thus doubt and disagreement did - for most of Rome's history.
As the Bible is a collection of Scripture, and which manner of writings souls discerned as being of God before there even was a church.
And which began upon Scriptural faith, as faith comes from hearing the word of God, which Scripture assuredly is, and is the judge of Truth claims.
Thus as said, the Lord and disciples established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation.
Thus without Scripture, and the Jews, and souls discerning it as such, there would be not NT church.
Thus in Roman reasoning, one should submit to the Jews.
Steve,
The Bible says. " The fool says in his heart there is no God".
Since you are nobody's fool, you conclude this passage proves beyond all doubt the existences of God.
I start with, oh, let's say the cosmological argument or the reality of objection morality. Paul said even pagans can do that much.
Having demonstrated that belief in God is *reasonable*, I move on to asking if that God would want to reveal Himself to men.
At this point I turn to history.
Steve, I cannot prove the existence of God, the supremacy of Peter, the divinity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, etc. beyond all doubt.
I can demonstrate these beliefs beyond a *reasonable* doubt.
We send people to the gallows after proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
My faith is reasonable. Yours appears to be circular.
Steve,
"Nor did Christ ever claim the church would be infallible in all here teaching,"
No? Did he say she would be infallible in some of her teachings? In many of her teachings? How many? Which ones?
You also said of the Papacy,
" men who were morally more like Judas than Peter".
Indeed. But remember Steve, Judas did not teach heresy.
Kephas, the wicked high priest, uttered infallible prophecy in virtue of the office he was holding. ( Pssst! Kaiphas/Cephas ).
The corrupt officials who sat in the Chair of Moses were still legitimate officials.
You stated,
"...while despite the manifest deformation of Rome...".
So, your logic goes something like this;
1. Prayer to saints is wrong.
2.Rome encourages prayer to saints.
Therefore, Rome is wrong.
More circular reasoning based on a false major.
How do you discern "manifest deformation" from development of doctrine?
You called me a heretic. Aren't you question begging, Steve? Just asserting something does not prove it.
I am calling you a heretic right back atcha'.
You said,
"How in the world did souls have assurance that certain men and writings of God - upon which foundation the church established her claims - were so before Rome presumed her assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) was necessary for this?'
More false assumptions. Were the OT folks "Bible Only" believers?
Or did they have, first Moses, and then the Levitical priesthood? How many Jews owned their own Bibles? Which books were in those Bibles? Jubilees, Enoch, 3rd and 4th Maccabees?
Were the 1st century Christians "Bible Only" folks? Wasn't that Church already up and running before the NT was written? Peter's speech on Pentecost says it was.
Did they have their own Bibles? Did it contain the NT as we know it?
Did those NT use the Septuagint or the Hebrew text? Did they reference any of the 7 books of the Septuagint the Pharisees rejected a century or so AFTER Christ?
Do we see in the Fathers any examples of the hierarchy duking it out based on the Bible? Wasn't Arius the one who was in command of the plain words of the perspicuous scripture leaving the Catholics recourse only to Greek philosophy?
I will scroll the rest of your posts but it seems to be pretty much just assertions that the Papacy and the modern Church is apostate or liberal. Just more question begging.
Boys and Girls,
Let's put our thinking caps on.
Before around 1450, when Gutenberg invented the printing press and printed a Catholic Bible,
your foundational belief of "Bible Only" was a physical impossibility.
Nobody had Bibles and most folks did not know how to read. And yet people knew their faith quite well. For example, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales were directed to a very Bible savvy people. ( They even knew Maccabees.)
Steve, EA, PBJ and Ken, please remember that Jesus set up a Church to transmit His message and grace down through the ages.
The Bible says so!
Oh my Gosh!
I see I have been accusing Steve of PBJ's errors!
Oh well, if the shoe fits...
PBJ, you say you did not mention red slippers? One of you did. I am not going to scroll through all the posts to find the quote. If it is important to you, please accept my most humble apologies for ascribing to you what your confrere actually said.
I also can't find your response to my question as to why Peter was rebiked for sleeping although the other Apostles were too.
Even the fact that only Peter's cowardly denial is addressed actually supports my position. All the others ( except John ) ran away, denying Christ. Only Peter tried to defend Jesus with a sword and had enough love to sneak into the Roman court yard and sit by the fire. Yet Jesus reaffirmed only Peter and went even further with , " Feed my lambs..." giving him the task of being chief shepherd.
PBJ,
Speaking of the invention of the printing press, it just so happens I went downtown yesterday to the Gulbenkian Museum of Art and saw some beautifully decorated Bibles sent over from the Royal Museum in Madrid.
Before Gutenberg the Bible was translated by hand exclusively by Catholic monks. The process took years and because the Catholic Church holds the Bible in such high esteem, the pages were painstakingly embellished with finely executed scenes from scripture and edged with gold leaf.
PBJ, a Bible in those days was so expensive only Kings could afford them. People like you and me would never even touch a Bible covered in gold in our entire life time let alone own one.
As you distrust the Catholic Church, you should distrust the Bible as it was copied, decorated, cherished and preserved by Catholic monks for over a thousand years.
Among the Bibles, suits of armor and religious vestments were paintings. Two were depictions of the Presentation of Mary.
I was pleased as, coincidentally,
yesterday was the memorial of Mary's Presentation in the Temple. This feast is not in the Bible but is found in the apocryphal Gospel of James. This book and the belief that Mary was a consecrated Virgin predates the codification of the Bible by about two centuries.
Think about that, PBJ. The Church that gave you your New Testament was also celebrating Mary as a Perpetual Virgin when the Bible was put together.
Today is the feast of the patron saint of musicians, St. Cecilia, a Roman martyr who is buried in the catacombs. Mass was being said on the tombs of the martyrs before the New Testament was put together.
Think about that too, PBJ. You reject the Church that predates your Bible, the Church you are totally dependent on for that Bible.
Worse, you foolishly try to use that Catholic book as a weapon against the very Church who gave it to you.
Talk about faulty logic!
Luke doesn't predicate his Gospel on the authority of "the Church," but the evidence his own investigations.
True, under the Scriptural principle that that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established,"(Mt. 18:16; Nu 35:30; De 17:6; 19:15; 1Ki 21:13; Joh 8:17; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19
Heb 10:28; 1Jo 5:7,8; Re 11:3)
Likewise Guy expects that one should find the testimony of reliable historical evidence (AKA the Bible before assent to Rome, which made it the Bible) to provide at some some degree of assurance that Rome is the one True church.
But then forsake examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, as if the testimony of historical evidence warrants Rome being as God.
But which allowance that fallible human reasoning can discern Truth is disallowed when it comes to dsicerning Scripture as being of God.
And become as polemical problem when the testimony of historical evidence fails to convince one that Rome is that church to whom he should render implicit assent.
In that case "the Church gave you the Bible, it knows what it means") becomes the argument by assertion, which not only presumes what it needs to prove -that Rome is the NT church which wrote the NT - but means that 1stc. souls should have submitted to the magisterium over Irael, which gave us most of the Bible.
Likewise, when John says "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life" (1 Jn 1:1-2), he's not appealing to the authority of "the Church," but his personal authority as an intimate eyewitness to the public ministry of Christ.
Not only that but appealing to fallible human jugement in the light of evidence of regeneration and provided Truth, John by the Spirit also asserts,
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)
Guy, i missed this statement:
When Cornelius, the first gentile was Baptized, he was told to send for the Pope.
You meant he was told to send for married Peter, living in someone else's house, to hear the gospel of the grace or God and become born again before baptism, but who baptized him after he was regenerated.
There is that Protestant Peter again.
But Peter was sent because he was the leader among the 12, one of those who apparently were pillars, but not the Roman demigod, but the only one who is named as having denied the Lord, and also publicly reproved as as an example not to be unconditionally followed.
As for Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, remember, that mission hinged on Peter's vision of the great net.
Not, Peter did not dream this up, but kosher Peter whom Caths have consuming human blood, was given a vision, which would convince him of God's plan.
But theologian Paul was given his own revelation of the gospel which he distinctly says "is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(Galatians 1:11-12)
And which He calls "my gospel" three times, not that of Peter.
And it was because of Paul preaching that gospel that appeal was made to all the apostles and elders in Jerusalme, not a pope in Rome.
Thus this and the remaining evidence does not manifest Peter as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible popes, to whom all the church looked as such, and the totality of the evidence is contrary to the manner of Petrine leadership being that.
End of story. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
Guy,
By your own admission, you don't begin with an infallible church–because you can't. Rather, you posit an infallible church. You begin with your fallible postulate of an infallible church.
It is viciously circular for you to retroactively validate your fallible option by reference to an infallible church, when that's nothing more than your fallible postulate in the first place. Your endpoint can't rise higher than your starting-point.
"Reasonable" and "infallible" are not synonymous. Not even close.
i) Guy's demand for an "infallible external authority" generates an infinite regress. If we can't be certain of anything without reference to an external criterion, then by what additional criterion do we test our external criterion?
This approach fails to distinguish between first-order knowledge (knowing that) and second-order knowledge (knowing how we know, or proving what we know).
To halt the vicious regress, some knowledge must be immediate.
ii) In addition, Guy shows contempt for Biblical assurances based on the witness of the Spirit.
iii) Let's take a comparison. Suppose Calvinism is true. Suppose God intends someone to be a Christian. One way God can do that is to predestine that person to be raised in a Christian church. Perhaps that's all he's every known.
Now, considered in isolation, believing something just because you were raised that way is not a good reason to believe it.
If, however, Christianity is true, then what this man believes is true. Moreover, it isn't just a historical accident that he believes it. Rather, God put him in that belief-forming environment to foster faith in Scripture.
So he's right to believe it. It's the right thing to believe, and he was conditioned to believe it by a reliable belief-forming mechanism–God's special providence. God prearranged the events in this man's life so that he'd be exposed to the truth. God regenerated him to make him receptive to the truth. He isn't mistaken, and under those circumstances, he cannot be mistaken.
However, because Guy despises Calvinism, he's cut himself off from that providential source of justified true belief.
Keep in mind that there was never a church of Rome. Rather, there were churches of Rome. A variety of house-churches, under different leaders. That's on display in Rom 16. There was no church of Rome in the 1C. Just a number of neighborhood fellowships scattered across the far-flung city. No one church of Rome. No singular church.
PBJ,
"...Peter was sent because he was the leader among the 12...".
Thanks PBJ for the admission that Peter was chief Apostle.
Now, who were the Apostles? Leaders of the Church?
That makes Peter leader of the leaders.
Next, did Christ promise Peter that the gates of hell would not be able to withstand the kingdom? Yes?
Then the promise of success was given tot he Church. IOW, she cannot fail.
You say otherwise.
Steve,
"You begin with your fallible postulate of an infallible church."
I won't bore you again with my "amateurish" description of Richard Whately's method of argumentation which says we can trust our powers of observation and the testimony of history when it comes to Christ.
" Guy shows contempt for Biblical assurances based on the witness of the Spirit. "
Do you mean the burning in the bosom experienced by every schwarmer?
"Guy despises Calvinism,"
Yeah, but I don't despise Calvinists. You seem to despise Catholicism and Catholics both.
"Keep in mind that there was never a church of Rome. Rather, there were churches of Rome. A variety of house-churches, under different leaders. "
Really? Have you ever been to Rome?
To whom did Paul address the greeting of Rm 1:8?
That bunch of house churches you speak of, did they have unity of faith and discipline? If yes, how was it maintained? They would not have survived a month if they followed the Protestant pattern of leadership. Were they Bible Only folk? If yes, did they use the KJV or the Geneva Study Bible with or without footnotes?
Finally,
"Suppose Calvinism is true."
Suppose black was white and up was down. Suppose God wills men to sin. Suppose God then "justly" punishes them for it. Suppose God, who is love, ordained men not to love Him. Suppose God...
Forget it! It is absurd to imagine such nonsense.
guy says,
Steve,
"Nor did Christ ever claim the church would be infallible in all here teaching,"
No? Did he say she would be infallible in some of her teachings? In many of her teachings? How many? Which ones?
Now you have insulted Steve by confusing him with me, while the question confuses the ability to speak a Truth from God, as you see Caiaphas doing, which even lost people have done as seen in inspired Scripture, versus the premise of assured formulaic infallibility, by which the office of an individual is promised it can never be wrong in speaking universally on faith and morals.
The key aspect is the basis for veracity. The church established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured veracity as per autocratic Rome's criteria.
Under the latter in Rome, her veracity does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but such a fable as the Assumption is assuredly true because the assuredly true RCC has declared it.
And the evidence it may support herself by can only mean what she says it does in any conflict.
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.
You [PBJ] also said of the Papacy,
" men who were morally more like Judas than Peter".
Indeed. But ...Judas did not teach heresy.
Which brings up an interesting point that you hold, contrary to Scripture, that only what one professes constitutes teaching, including that what one professes is not interpreted by what one does, thus preservation of the church only pertains to its profession, preservation of a faith that may be dead, or understood as contrary to what it seems, so that betraying Christ is not heretical.
Some preservation. The Scriptures deal with preserving faith, not professions.
Kephas, the wicked high priest, uttered infallible prophecy in virtue of the office he was holding. ( Pssst! Kaiphas/Cephas ).
Besides the debatable nature of Caiaphas/Cephas mentioned already, you have created a papacy which can utter a prophecy of God, yet together with the magisterium,reject Christ and judge Him worthy of death. That is some pope Caiaphas you want us to follow.
Yet the high priest speaking a prophecy does not translate into Roman infallibility. The latter cannot even claim Divine inspiration in so doing.
For while it was fitting that Caiaphas spoke as the one with most weight with the council, yet the ability to speak such prophecy was shared with others, for likewise as Gill points out, did Pharaoh, (Exo_10:28) and the people of the Jews, (Mat_27:25) , though like Caiaphas they did not know they did.
Moreover, this was not teaching doctrine, but was a spontaneous prophecy given as practical consul, and the veracity of which prophecy would be verified. And did not mean that Caiaphas possessed infallibility whenever he spoke universally on faith and morals.
If you want to argue that the pope can speak a true prophecy once a year, then let him do so, and find out whether it is true.
guy says,
The corrupt officials who sat in the Chair of Moses were still legitimate officials.
Indeed, to which conditional submission was required, as it is today to all legitimate officials, as is dissent from such when in clear conflict with what Scripture teaches. Thus the Lord reproved by Scripture (Mk. 7:2-16) the very ones He enjoined conditional submission to.
And again, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the church began.
So, your logic goes something like this;
1. Prayer to saints is wrong.
2.Rome encourages prayer to saints.
Therefore, Rome is wrong.
More circular reasoning based on a false major.
How do you discern "manifest deformation" from development of doctrine?
The only circular reasoning is yours. Unlike you, which reject that writings of God can be assuredly discerned as being so with an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), history even testifies that the very writings the Lord invoked as validating His mission (Lk. 24:44) were discerned as being of God with an AIM.
Ans as said, is abundantly evidenced that the word of God was written became was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Thus since, as shown before,
1. The church did not begin under the premise of an AIM being essential for transmission, discernment, preservation and assurance of Truth
2.But that as written Scripture became the supreme standard, by which oral preaching was validated, (Acts 17:2,11; a8:28; 28:23, etc.)
3. Scripture does not support praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord,
4. Rome teaches prayer to saints.
5. Therefore, Rome is wrong.
You called me a heretic. Aren't you question begging, [PBY]? Just asserting something does not prove it.
I am calling you a heretic right back atcha'.
Thus again your premise is that an AIM is is essential for determination and assurance of Truth.
And which is, as per your succession argument, being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are heretics.
Which invalidates the dissenters that founded the NT church.
Inadvertently posted this on od-Breathed in the Roman Catholic Church?"
Guy says,
How many Jews owned their own Bibles?
Not as many as today, yet owning one does not negate access, but still the preaching of NT church had the then-existing Scripture as its basis (note that even RCs debate if Trent closed the canon), even when not referencing to pagans, as was done toward Jews.
God reveals Himself even by nature, and by limited revelation before Moses, whose veracity was mightily attested to. But who then wrote the more comprehensive revelation of Scripture, which became the supreme standard.
Thus Peter's ref. to Scripture as the "more sure word of prophecy."
Souls can be saved and grow in grace without reading or hearing someone actually reading from it, but what is preached is subject to validation by what is written.
Did those NT use the Septuagint or the Hebrew text? Did they reference any of the 7 books of the Septuagint the Pharisees rejected a century or so AFTER Christ?
More evidence of why you need education. Most "references" mostly refer to allusions, many alleged ones being a stretch or also seen in the Hebrew canon, and never that of terming them "Scripture," or its synonym, "it is written" or "God said" "the Law"
Also, merely referencing someone of words does not equate to the writer being inspired of God, even if it is an infallible Truth. NT writers also referenced from books Rome rejects, and even pagan authors as a SS preacher could.
Do we see in the Fathers any examples of the hierarchy duking it out based on the Bible?
We only have a relative small portion of what they wrote, but i am sure someone else can help you out here. I am not impressed much with the light on Scripture they evidenced from what i have seen, versus their piety. Jerome even abused Scripture in seeking to validate his unbalanced bias against marriage.
Wasn't Arius the one who was in command of the plain words of the perspicuous scripture leaving the Catholics recourse only to Greek philosophy?
And how it is that evangelicals have been refuting them for years from Scripture as being supreme? What do you think they have been foremost defenders of such core doctrines? I have HS education and think i could make a strong case for the deity of Chris t, by God's grace.. The success of the Arians points to a lack of regeneration and light.
And their recourse to Tradition (besides Greek philosophy), though in defense of Truth, furthered the perpetuation of errors
I will scroll the rest of your posts but it seems to be pretty much just assertions that the Papacy and the modern Church is apostate or liberal. Just more question begging.
Then that means all you are doing is basically scrolling, then accusing me of what i showed was the case with you, and your assertions that the Papacy and the modern Church is that of the NT. It manifestly and critically is not, though a relative few may have realized the New Birth.
PBJ, you say you did not mention red slippers?
Once again you exhibited either cursory reading or no scruples about misrepresenting what one said.
What i said was red slippers (which was https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=993091523664056677 ) or ad hominems, which were not even in that post [https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=7888802418175876489, i response to Once supremacy is admitted, infallibility follows by necessity] , but.
"Thus 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following an itinerant preacher in the desert and another One from Galilee."
I also can't find your response to my question as to why Peter was rebiked for sleeping although the other Apostles were too.
It does not apply to me as i myself provided examples of Peter's leadership, but which does not make him any more a Roman pope, or a perpetuated one than other examples do.
Yet Jesus reaffirmed only Peter and went even further with , " Feed my lambs..." giving him the task of being chief shepherd.
And we know this thru the apostle whom Jesus loved, the one He committed His mother to. While James is listed before Peter, and gives the conclusive sentence in Acts 15, wherein Peter affirms the evangelical gospel. And all in Jerusalem.
The point is that all the examples of holy Peter's humble leadership does not a Roman papacy make, and instead it is contrary to it, while he is an example of the kind of men we need, versus Roman imitations.
This also got paste in the wrong duplicate tab. Worth repeating
Boys and Girls,
Let's put our thinking caps on.
Before around 1450, when Gutenberg invented the printing press and printed a Catholic Bible,
your foundational belief of "Bible Only" was a physical impossibility.
Indeed let's put our thinking caps on.
Before around 1546,
1. RCs had not assuredly true complete canon, this debate continued down thru the centuries an right into Trent.
2. "The Bible only" does not mean only the Bible can be used for understanding and teaching, but doctrines must be come from it and warranted by it.
And as explained, contrary to Rome, the integrity of the NT teaching did not rest upon the premise of assured veracity, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
The above pertains to the supremacy of Scripture, which is abundantly evidenced as the "more sure word."
As for sufficiency, that is always been limited in the formal sense, but writings of God were provided and recognized as being so, an which was with an AIM, they materially provided for additional complementary writings being provided and recognized as being so, in conflation with what preceded it. Some RCs allow more could hypothetically be added, .
3. A SS type preacher could even be stranded without a Bible, and in a place without one, and who were even illiterate, and just preach from what He knew from memory of the OT and gospel accounts, and still be an instrument of salvation and grace to others.
God confirming the word with miracles should be sought and expected though.
However, He would preaching a God with a past, and which has given extensive communication of Himself and will, and which writings have come to be recognized as being of God, like as this preacher needs to be, that essentially being due to their heavenly qualities and attestation.
Steve, EA, PBJ and Ken, please remember that Jesus set up a Church to transmit His message and grace down through the ages.
The Bible says so!
Indeed, as the then-existing Scriptures were the foundation for the church, transmitting the words of His message and grace down through the ages, thru Israel, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2)
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5)
But who were no more assuredly infallible than Rome is, but like those who sat in the seat of Moses, they presumed a level of veracity above that which is written, and thus were rebuked by the Lord from Scripture as being supreme (note that they could have claimed their interpretation was correct, as per Rome).
Thus the Lord's rebuked of these protoRC presumptuous men also applies to Rome's errant elitists.
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:28)
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)
hat makes Peter leader of the leaders.
The premise behind this, that supremacy=infallibility, and is required to know what is Scripture, remains refuted and specious reasoning, which would have required submission to those whom were the promises of preservation, and God's presence, predicated upon faith.
Next, did Christ promise Peter that the gates of hell would not be able to withstand the kingdom? Yes?
Then the promise of success was given tot he Church. IOW, she cannot fail.
Once again you ignore what i have said and just "move on" repeating the same ol parotted papal polemic.
Leadership+promises of God's presence and preservation do not require or equate to assured infallibility office by historical descent.
God made Israel and its judges supreme, and promised His presence and preservation, contingent upon faith, but which were not realized thru an infallible magisterium, or even a perpetual one.
Yet God provided, transmitted and preserved faith, though as usual, only in a relative remnant.
The church is promised victory, based upon faith in the only Rock that Scripture actually and repeatedly states the church is built upon, and which faith is what Peter professed.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 5:4)
And as seen in Scripture, the basis for faith is the word of God, which Scripture assuredly is, and upon which oral preaching was substantiated.
Nor does "church" just mean one visible body. Even the Roman church get to the place it sunk during the Western schism, yet the body of Christ, into which one enters upon conversions, cannot be destroyed. And which consists of only and all believers.
As you distrust the Catholic Church, you should distrust the Bible as it was copied, decorated, cherished and preserved by Catholic monks for over a thousand years.
More specious logic. As you distrust the Jews, you should distrust the OT as it was copied, decorated, cherished and preserved by Jewish scribes from it beginning.
The Church that gave you your New Testament was also celebrating Mary as a Perpetual Virgin when the Bible was put together.
Indeed, which reinforcement of Marian devotion being derived from the cult of the angels.
But according to Roman reasoning, we should follow the nation unto whom were committed the oracles of God, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.
You reject the Church that predates your Bible, the Church you are totally dependent on for that Bible.
Worse, you foolishly try to use that Catholic book as a weapon against the very Church who gave it to you.
Talk about faulty logic!
Rather, it remains that according to your not-looking-before- you- leap logic,
being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium to one must submit. .
Thus those who dissented from those who sat in the seat of Moses, whose authority predated their Bible, and who they are totally dependent on for that Bible, were in rebellion to God,
Worse, they foolishly used that Jewish book as a weapon against the very entity, under its valid rulers, who gave it to them.
Talk about faulty logic! Guy continues to despise the NT church in his fervor to defend his imitation one! Sorry for you.
"Do you mean the burning in the bosom experienced by every schwarmer?"
Even though the word of God appeals to the witness of the Spirit, Guy considers that equivalent to Mormonism. Further evidence that Guy is a hardened infidel.
For Guy, the Bible has no more authority or credibility than the book of Mormon.
"Boys and Girls, Let's put our thinking caps on."
That would be a radical change in Guy's modus operandi:
"Before around 1450, when Gutenberg invented the printing press and printed a Catholic Bible, your foundational belief of 'Bible Only' was a physical impossibility."
Evidently, Guy thinking cap is out of order. Before the invention of the printing press, there were no mass copies of papal encyclicals, conciliar proceedings, Scholastic theologians, or church fathers.
Guy's alternative is no more or less dependent on the printing press than the Protestant rule of faith. The church of Rome also disseminates its dogmas in writing.
"Really? Have you ever been to Rome?"
As a matter of fact, I have–several times.
More to the point, I'm discussing 1C Rome, not 21C Rome
Notice, though, how Guy blows right past Rom 16. He doesn't even know what it means. Try reading Fitzmyer's commentary on Rom 16. A Jesuit commentator. Notice what he says about the house-churches referenced in the text, with different leaders.
"Kephas, the wicked high priest, uttered infallible prophecy in virtue of the office he was holding.:
That's Guy's bare assertion. To the contrary:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/was-there-jewish-magisterium.html
"( Pssst! Kaiphas/Cephas )."
Guy robotically reiterates the same refuted claims. I already corrected him on that. He offers no counterargument.
"Suppose black was white and up was down."
Notice that Guy has no counterargument.
"I won't bore you again with my 'amateurish' description of Richard Whately's method of argumentation which says we can trust our powers of observation and the testimony of history when it comes to Christ"
Guy has yet to demonstrate how that method of argumentation yields infallible conclusions.
Let's try one more time:
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13).
Does Guy agree or disagree with that promise? If a reader believes what John wrote, does he thereby know that he has eternal life?
Is that a true or false promise? The promise isn't conditioned on believing in Pope Francis or an infallible church, but on believing what John wrote.
"Before the invention of the printing press, there were no mass copies of papal encyclicals, conciliar proceedings, Scholastic theologians, or church fathers. "
This is an example of why I really enjoy Steve's posts. He makes plain the fact that the Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura based on a lack of mass printing technology for most of history also undercuts the Catholic "solution" to that alleged problem.
It wasn't just Bibles that were hard to come by. Any text was hard to come by and in many countries in Europe, Latin was not the primary language spoken.
"You reject the Church that predates your Bible, the Church you are totally dependent on for that Bible."
Catholic apologists imagine that church history is on their side, yet they make utterly unhistorical claims about how the church of Rome gave Christians the Bible. That's because Catholic apologetics is really based, not on church history, but an a priori methodology.
They begin with their conclusion: the alleged necessity of an infallible church. Then they stipulate whatever is necessary to yield their foregone conclusion.
There are many excellent treatments of the canon. For instance:
OT Canon:
Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church.
Andrew Steinmann, The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon.
Apocrypha:
David deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance.
NT Canon:
E. E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents.
C. E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?
Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books.
–––––, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate.
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.
Stanley Porter, How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation.
Steve,
Tell me more about the trustworthiness of that "Inner Witness of the Spirit" you said you rely upon to know if you are reading inspired scripture or not.
Did Luther have it when considering the Epistle of James?
Do you get all misty eyed and choked up with the majesty of, oh lets say, Esther for instance?
In your version of that book, God is not mentioned even once if I remember correctly. ( He is mentioned a couple of dozen times in the Catholic version ).
What about the Canticle? You know Steve, men under 35 were not permitted to even read that book by the Jews as it was considered too sexually arousing.
Do you, following the Puritans, rely on that inner witness to know whether or not you are saved too?
I know I am a Christian. I have the Baptismal certificate to prove it although I have no recollection of the event.
I know my sins are forgiven when I hear the priest say, "Absolvo te".
I know I have the Holy Ghost because I was Confirmed.
You say you have an inner witness. You also have a heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful.
So much for the inner witness.
EA,
You didn't pay attention to what I said. I said that although people didn't have Bibles, they knew their faith well. I used the example of Chaucer's audience.
How did they learn their faith?
From the priests, the liturgy, and from the art all over the church they attended.
Take a trip to Europe or Latin America and visit the Catholic Churches. They are nothing like the drab and sterile boxes in America.
Steve,
"That's because Catholic apologetics is really based, not on church history, but an a priori methodology.
They begin with their conclusion: the alleged necessity of an infallible church. Then they stipulate whatever is necessary to yield their foregone conclusion. "
Wrong! You have accused me of an inability to read. You should worry about yourself.
I said we start with history and logic and arrive at the conclusion that Faith is reasonable.
The fact that Peter is infallible is indeed an article of Faith, along with the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception and the Trinity. But that is not our starting point.
Peter's infallibility logically follows by necessity once you realize the Church founded by Christ to be indefectable.
Although PBJ keeps quibbling, he has already given away the farm by admitting Peter to have been singled out for a leadership role among the leaders of the Church.
Next point you have to get your mind right on is whether or not the Church can or has failed in her mission.
If you say the Church can or has failed in even one point, it is time to shut down the computer and end all discussion on Christianity. Christ has failed. You should have no assurance or trust in anything.
Maybe start exploring Buddhism or the New Age.
Steve,
"Kephas, the wicked high priest, uttered infallible prophecy in virtue of the office he was holding.:
That's Guy's bare assertion. To the contrary:"
Steve, ever read Jn 11:51?
"( Pssst! Kaiphas/Cephas )."
"Guy robotically reiterates the same refuted claims. I already corrected him on that. He offers no counterargument."
Steve, I must regurgitate because you don't read or grasp what I post. You make the same bone headed assertions again and again. Your refutations are not as iron clad as you think.
Steve,
On your trips to Rome, did you ever consider investigating any ancient places of worship?
Evidently not.
You actually went so far as to say,
" Before the invention of the printing press, there were no mass copies of papal encyclicals, conciliar proceedings, Scholastic theologians, or church fathers.
The church of Rome also disseminates its dogmas in writing. "
Steve, since day one, the Church has had a highly organized structure for transmitting the Faith to the laity called the "hierarchy". For centuries, only the Catholic clergy could read.
I have you by the...er, short hairs on this. Before Gutenberg, the principle of SS did not/could not exist. Don't try to deflect by saying Catholics had no way of disseminating her decrees. You are in the hot seat on this point and you can't squirm out by changing the subject.
By the way, you seem to glean your facts of history from "Trail of Blood' or Jack Chick. Am I correct?
I don't know what you could have been doing in Rome but it wasn't paying attention to your surroundings. To deny the Church's historic claims is as ridiculous as denying Caesar existed while standing in the middle of the ruins of the Forum or the Coliseum.
Steve,
Anticipating your oft repeated question about how do I know the priest who absolved, Confirmed or Baptized me had the right intention,all I need to know is whether or not proper form was used. The intent is presumed if the form is used.
That is why even a Jewish doctor or nurse can Baptize a new born baby in danger of death.
Validity is always presumed. If you doubt me, ask any Catholic who has had to jump through all the annulment hoops.
I bet you didn't absorb one bit of what I said about Cranmer's ordinal being invalid primarily because he had shouted from the house tops and eventually paid with his life proclaiming quite clearly his hatred for and denial of a sacrificing priesthood.
A heretic has to be loud and clear on his heresy in order to invalidate a Sacrament. It ain't easy to do.
And if a person is totally in error and goes through life not knowing none the Sacraments he ever received were all invalid, not a problem. He can still go to heaven.
You see Steve, we Catholics are not Calvinists. We believe what the Bible actually says about God desiring the salvation of all men without exception. No man will ever be go to hell because he, through no fault of his own, couldn't receive the Sacraments.
If you doubt me, ask EA. Before walking away from the true Faith, I assume he had studied up on it. It would be a shame if he turned his back on Christ's Church out of ignorance. He seems to study Calvinism quite diligently. I am sure he was just as zealous as a Catholic to take the time and spend the effort to get things right. He wouldn't be so brash as to be on this blog shooting his mouth off on things beyond his area of expertise.
"Tell me more about the trustworthiness of that 'Inner Witness of the Spirit' you said you rely upon to know if you are reading inspired scripture or not."
I didn't make a personal claim. And I didn't propose the witness of the Spirit is a canonical criterion. Rather, I made an observation about how Scripture appeals to the witness of the Spirit as a source of Christian assurance.
"Do you get all misty eyed and choked…"
Your comments on the Biblical witness of the Spirit are sacrilegious. What possesses you to mock what Scripture says about a source of spiritual assurance? What is it about Catholic piety that makes you blaspheme the work of the Spirit?
"I know I am a Christian. I have the Baptismal certificate to prove it although I have no recollection of the event. I know my sins are forgiven when I hear the priest say, 'Absolvo te'. I know I have the Holy Ghost because I was Confirmed."
Yes, I understand your faith in priestcraft. And if you were Sikh, you'd have faith in its Gurus. Your faith begins and ends with externals. Pure ritualism.
"On your trips to Rome, did you ever consider investigating any ancient places of worship? Evidently not."
Do you always make ignorant assumptions about your opponents? I've visited such ancient Roman churches as Santa Sabina and Santa Costanza–among other sites.
"Steve, since day one, the Church has had a highly organized structure for transmitting the Faith to the laity called the "hierarchy". For centuries, only the Catholic clergy could read."
Why did they need to read unless the Catholic religion depends on writings to disseminate the faith?
"Before Gutenberg, the principle of SS did not/could not exist."
Which undercuts your appeal to the church fathers, church councils, &c. Can't have it both ways.
"Anticipating your oft repeated question about how do I know the priest who absolved, Confirmed or Baptized me had the right intention,all I need to know is whether or not proper form was used. The intent is presumed if the form is used."
What about Simony? What about idle European noblemen who sought ordination for the sole purpose of collecting ecclesiastical preferments? Absentee bishops who had no intention of performing religious duties? Just gaming the system for money.
"If you doubt me, ask EA…He wouldn't be so brash as to be on this blog shooting his mouth off on things beyond his area of expertise."
What's your area of expertise, Guy? Do you have a degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University?
"Ea, You need to repent. I don't know how much of a Catholic you were, but if you were raised and Confirmed in the Faith, your problem is probably not intellectual but emotional and spiritual. Soaking up a bunch of anti-Catholic propaganda is the last thing you need. Go get the healing you need. Talk to a priest."
Let's see. Hans Küng is still a priest. So I guess EA should talk to Küng about papal infallibility. Thanks for the recommendation, Guy!
Steve said,
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13).
Does Guy agree or disagree with that promise? If a reader believes what John wrote, does he thereby know that he has eternal life?
Only if he follows the RC tradition version:
I write these things to you who believe in the infallible magisterium of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 Jn 5:13).
[Except that Trent rules that one may not know they are one of the the number of the predestinate except by special revelation.
(CHAPTER XII)]
For saith the RC, "without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is."
And as the Bible is a collection of writings discerned as being of God, and which led to an canon established by consensus over time (essentially due to its Divine qualities and attestation), thus the claim is that without an infallible magisterium, you cannot even know what Scripture consists of.
Thus the frequent appeal of the NT church to writings for validation of its Christ and message, and thus of itself, was only to writings which were simply speculative as to their origin and veracity. And thus required a church that began upon the presumed Divine origin of these suspect writings to establish their authority.
However, while the attestation God gives to those who believed/obeyed these writings did serve to further establish them as being what they claimed to be,
the fact is that they were already held as being the word of God, and affirmed as being wholly inspired to God by apostles, who invoked them for substantiation and teaching, with conflationary and complimentary writings of manifest Divine origin being added to them in conflation with them.
Enough said I trust.
For Guy, the Bible has no more authority or credibility than the book of Mormon.
Unless he judges it to be so by using his fallible human reasoning, and that this historically accurate source warrants implicit assent to Rome.
But if he does not find this source as warranting said assent to Rome, it is because of fallible human reasoning, as he needs the infallible magisterium of Rome to discern that warrant.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/was-there-jewish-magisterium.html
Thanks for the link.
Before the invention of the printing press, there were no mass copies of papal encyclicals, conciliar proceedings, Scholastic theologians, or church fathers.
Guy's alternative is no more or less dependent on the printing press than the Protestant rule of faith. The church of Rome also disseminates its dogmas in writing.
Good point, yet the RC alternative really is not to the word being written as the supreme authority, but what Rome says in any form. As if it were Moses, even if not providing new revelation (which means new truths as the Assumption are held as being old. Which they are. Old errors).
I think some even hold oral tradition is the pure word of God only in its oral form, not the written expression of its Truths.
Although PBJ keeps quibbling, he has already given away the farm by admitting Peter to have been singled out for a leadership role among the leaders of the Church.
No matter how many times you repeat this fallacy it will not make it true, regardless of how desperately you may want it to be, as it is you who has given away the farm, actually the church.
For besides Peter not having the manner of supremacy or perpetuation of the Cath. papacy, it simply does not follow that supremacy equates to infallibility of office as you absurdly assert, and that this office is necessary to discern what writings are of God!
For as has been repeatedly shown you, this would have required 1st century souls to have submit to those who sat supreme in the seat of Moses as the historical stewards of Scripture over Israel, the inheritors of God's promises of His presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:20-37; Mal. 3:6)
And thus souls who discerned itinerant preachers as being of God, but whom the magisterium rejected, were deceived.
But which preachers and their leader established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the premise of assured veracity of a perpetual office.
And as the Israel of God was not restricted to those who did not dissent from those who sat in Moses's seat, then God could raise of children to Abraham from stones (Mal. 3:9) to keep His promises of promises of God's presence and preservation.
Likewise the Scripture clearly teaches that the church for whom Christ died and rose, and is married to, is not one particular church, but the body of Christ into which all believers in the gospel of grace, such as which peter preached in Acts 10:36-43, enter into, and thus into the kingdom of God, (Col. 1:13) to which the gospel is the key to.
And which overcomes by faith, which comes by hearing the word of God, which the Scriptures alone are affirmed to be as a transcendent material body.
Next point you have to get your mind right on is whether or not the Church can or has failed in her mission.
No, it has not failed, though Rome has, since the body of Christ endures all things and overcomes, is manifest even in places Rome is not, preaching, baptizing, ordaining pastors, affirming commonly held historical fundamental Truths, seeing manifest regeneration as wee in Scripture, Christ manifestly being in their midst unlike in Rome with her offensive imaginary deified wafer-God (there's your excuse),
Meanwhile the most visible church realized such declension in her own real beliefs and unity that,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “Principles of Catholic Theology; http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)
And today is so liberal that she sees her own sects who feel they must separate from her to maintain fidelity to historical RC teaching due to Rome's modern interpretation of it, which RCs themselves must interpret, while censuring conservative evangelicals as engaging in the same of their supreme authority.
"You are in the hot seat on this point."
I have asbestos padding.
"Before Gutenberg, the principle of SS did not/could not exist."
You don't know what the principle is. Take a Fahrenheit 451 scenario. Suppose ownership of Bibles was punishable by death. Not only you, but every family member–as a deterrent.
Suppose a Protestant community evades the ban by memorizing the Bible. Different members commit different books of Scripture to memory–before they destroy their copies to avoid detection. That community is still governed by sola Scriptura, even though it has no physical copies of Scripture.
The content of a book can be orally transmitted. Many people can memorize the same copy. A one-to-many relation.
Indeed, that's more than hypothetical. You have people like Alec McCowen and Max McLean who do that sort of thing.
That's different from oral history or oral tradition, where it's word-of-mouth all the way. By contrast, this is controlled tradition, because it has a written frame of reference. One can double-check memory against the exemplar. The *standard* exists.
The content of a book can be orally transmitted. Many people can memorize the same copy. A one-to-many relation.
That's different from oral history or oral tradition, where it's word-of-mouth all the way. By contrast, this is controlled tradition, because it has a written frame of reference. One can double-check memory against the exemplar. The *standard* exists.
That is true, while even allowing that the revealed word of God can be transmitted today outside the Scriptures, then that would have to be supported and tested by the established word of God, the Scriptures, as was NT oral preaching, versus the premise of the assured veracity of the vessel.
And which upholds the supremacy of Scripture ("PrimaScriptura), which alone is fatal to the presumption of Rome. In which her veracity does not rest upon the weight of evidence, but upon her own presumption of infallibly, by which the Assumption is guaranteed to be true despite lacking even testimony from the earliest sources.
And as regards the sufficiency of Scripture, while this in its standard form seems to be restricted to a complete canon (and refers to express revelation, besides nature and illumination) yet its sufficiency in the formal sense is still limited, leaving the rest to be fulfilled in the material sense, that which it provides for by positive affirmation.
And from the beginning of the writing of the word of God and its acceptance, Scripture provides for the discernment, transmission and preservation of inspired writings of God, and for additional complementary additions being added to it.
Thus I would say the reason the canon became closed by consensus is because of its unique qualities and attestation of its writings, including the conflative complementarity of its contexts, which no books after these manifested as these do, some more strongly than others.
Competition like the Book of Mormon, and even the Qur'an, depend to varying degrees upon the authority of Scripture. But by comparing the Scripture with their later spurious imitations, we can expose them as such.
Yet as with Rome, the problem is that even their literary source is not their real supreme authority, but their visible heads are.
Thus while Rome can have its modern revisionary teachings of her own teaching, so can Mormons, and as the flock is taught to follow pastors more than Scripture, most follow them in past errors as well as present ones
And while RCs are horrified at the idea of common people assuredly discerning both men and writings as being of God without an assuredly infallible magisterium, this is how the church began.
Not with an antipathy toward governing authority (nor did America's founders), but for it, yet not as being infallible as per Rome.
Westminister affirms, It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm (Westminster
Before there was a written word, the only express Divine revelation was by direct Divinely attested communication from God (and angels) to to very few men and women, and thus to them. But which was very limited in scope and audience.
Thus men were not as blessed or as accountable. But after unmistakable Divine attestation of Moses as God's spokesmen, God had Moses write His Law, which became the explicit and implicit standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims.
According to Trent: "Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle."
Notice that this is based on certain authorial attributions. Moreover, that view was maintained at least through the pontificate of Leo XIII.
However, the modern magisterium no longer demands assent to those authorial attributions. But in that case, the Tridentine list is obsolete. The modern Magisterium has relaxed the presuppositions on which the list was originally and logically based.
fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews;
Well that settles it- Paul wrote Hebrews.
Steve,
In order to memorize an entire book of the Bible, one must have that book in his possession for days or weeks. ( I know, as I have done it ).
Tell us about your Protestant communities, perhaps, the Waldensians or even the favorites of Dave Hunt, the Manichaean Albigensians, who actually did this.
Thanks for confirming that you get your facts from "Trail of Blood".
Steve, it's hogwash. SS did not exist before the printing press.
Steve,
"Your comments on the Biblical witness of the Spirit are sacrilegious. What possesses you to mock what Scripture says about a source of spiritual assurance? What is it about Catholic piety that makes you blaspheme the work of the Spirit?"
Gee Whiz Steve, I thought you were the one blaspheming the Holy Spirit's work.
Steve,
You demand to know my credentials to speak on matters of Catholicism?
On Triablogue, it took you and JB three days to snap to who I am. I am Guy Fawkes, the same spunky rascal who tried to blow up the bad king that wrote the KJV Bible.
That should more than qualify me to match wits with any Cary Grant look-alike.
Steve,
Lets talk about that hypothetical situation you fantasize about where a secret community of proto-Protestants delegate to each member the task of memorizing a particular book.
1. Would that include Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom and the other books not thrown out until the Reformation? Would they have included the Epistle of James in their list?
2. Wouldn't you need several people to memorize the same book in order to be sure any one person had not forgotten or was twisting a particular passage? If only one person memorized a book and then died, what would you do then?
3. Which language would they use? Latin? Or the vernacular? Who besides the clergy understood Latin? Although they existed long before Luther, weren't Bible's in the vernacular especially rare?
4. Where would you find a community of peasants, black smiths and artisans that had 66 members who could read? Or would be able to sequester a Bible away from the snooping authorities long enough to memorize or copy it?
5. Assuming this actually happened, how would these folks settle matters of controversy? Would they hold councils in which the "walking book" members would sit quietly until called upon to recite a certain passage? How exactly would this all work?
Steve, it never happened. It's ludicrous to even suggest such a fantastic theory and you know it.
Plus, you cannot produce an actual example of it ever really happening. You are scrambling to get out of the hot seat but your goose is cooked.
Before the invention of the printing press, this pillar of the Reformation never existed.
PBJ,
Okay, okay, so you want to back peddle on your earlier admission that peter was singled out for a special role among the 12 leaders of the Church set up by Jesus.
Fine. I don't want you to accuse me of putting words in your mouth or of misrepresenting you.
So, in Jn 21:3, when Simon Peter says, " I am going fishing" and the others say, " We are following you", that means nothing special, right?
It would sure help Steve out if you would retract what it sure seems like you did indeed admit earlier. Steve pretends to not see what you see, that Peter was singled out at all. Steve preders fantastic yarns about people memorizing Bible books and other fairy tales about the early Church.
"If you doubt me, ask EA. Before walking away from the true Faith, I assume he had studied up on it. It would be a shame if he turned his back on Christ's Church out of ignorance."
As a cradle Catholic it was my experience that more stayed in the Church because of ignorance than left because of it. See you can tell second graders that the Pope is infallible and that Jesus is in the Host and they'll believe you. Of course they believe that Santa Claus is real, too.
But when some of them start reading the Bible and comparing what they read with what they see in their parish the questioning begins. And the more they read the more they find that things aren't quite what they were told about in their CCD classes. So they ask some questions and they get some answers. And the answers they get don't quite line up with the Bible. So inevitably, a decision must be made do I follow what the Bible says or not? Add to that a thorough examination of history and the decision was simple; in the final analysis it required only the faith of a child.
Okay, okay, so you want to back peddle on your earlier admission that peter was singled out for a special role among the 12 leaders of the Church set up by Jesus.
Fine. I don't want you to accuse me of putting words in your mouth or of misrepresenting you.
Dude, do you have a comprehension or reading problem? Or do you have to again resort to misconstruing what was said in your desperate damage control effort, seeing as Peter;'s leadership doe snot translate into the papacy, while your "supremacy-infallibility" reasoning effectively nukes the NT church?
The rest of your comments are simply more sophistry.
Just a quick fyi that future comments to this post first go to moderation before posting (because the post is more than 14 days old).
Once again, Guy advertises his chronic incapacity for rational discourse. He doesn't grasp the nature of hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical was a limiting case (another concept which eludes Guy) concerning what is or is not consistent with sola scripture in *principle*. That, of course, sailed right over Guy's head.
Every Christian doesn't need direct access to the Bible to be governed by sola Scriptura. That confuses content with the mode of dissemination.
If, say, the Bible was read aloud in public worship to a congregation of illiterate Christians, that would be consistent with sola Scriptura.
Steve,
" Suppose ownership of Bibles was punishable by death. Not only you, but every family member–as a deterrent."
Wild eyed hysteria! Never happened.
You do get your history from Jack Chick and Dave Hunt. don't you? I am truly surprised that you unabashedly reveal your use of such low brow material.
The Catholic Church would never condone a family member being punished for the crimes of someone else. ( That would be Penal Substitution ).
The only reason Bibles were chained down to pulpits was so, like pens in a bank, people wouldn't walk off with them.
The Church did burn heretical Bibles just as Protestants throw the "New World Translation" of the J.W.s in the trash.
Nonsense, lies, myths and crude propaganda.
You have exposed your scholarship as beyond shoddy by 1. your phony refusal to concede that Peter was singled out from among the other Apostles, 2. your theory of a community of Bible memorizers and now, 3. this grotesque caricature of Catholics.
You do know, don't you Steve, that the "Pit and the Pendulum" was just a product of Edgar Allan Poe's booze and opium soaked brain? The Inquisition never engaged in such a thing.
Despite your prissy concern over homophonic heterographs, when it comes to facts and being truthful, you could care less. It's all about winning an argument by snottiness and bluster.
I can't believe the other Protestants on this blog can't see through your hot air.
Steve,
Your arguments about Sola Scriptura "sailed right over my head"?
Okay, Steve. Here's one that seems to sail right over your head; If SS is true, you have painted yourself into the proverbial corner as you must demonstrate the concept from scripture. Do it and do it now if you think you can.
Please give me one scripture that teaches Sola Scriptura.
Of course it would be circular thinking, but nonetheless, the Bible would have to teach it and teach it clearly and repeatedly for it to be true.
So, besides the principle being physically impossible before Gutenberg, it is also unbiblical as the Bible does not teach it.
Both of those concepts sail right over your head.
Here's a simple lesson in compare and contrast.
Example 1:
I am banned from Green Baggins for my incessant demand that they not allow a particular Calvinist troll not refer to the Catholic Eucharist as a "death wafer". Please remember that I even used a quote from you, to no avail however, in my argumentation.
I am right. They are wrong to allow such inflammatory rhetoric in light of the admonition in Hebrews 12:14 that says to "strive for peace with all men...", especially since the anti-Catholic blogger could get his point across without giving gratuitous and intentional offense.
Example 2:
You do get your history from Jack Chick and Dave Hunt. don't you? I am truly surprised that you unabashedly reveal your use of such low brow material.
-snip-
Despite your prissy concern over homophonic heterographs, when it comes to facts and being truthful, you could care less. It's all about winning an argument by snottiness and bluster.
I can't believe the other Protestants on this blog can't see through your hot air.
It appears to me the infallible interpretation of Hebrews 12:14 may be a bit different than my fallible private opinion that I gleaned while sitting under a tree with my Bible in the woods.
Please give me one scripture that teaches Sola Scriptura.
And then Steve, please explain How Rome's defenders with absolute certainty establish another infallible authority without an appeal to the Sacred Scriptures.
Poor Guy is so addlebrained that he can't tell the difference between a hypothetical and an allegory. In his deranged reaction, he imagines that my hypothetical was an allegory for church history.
I've addressed all the hackneyed objections to sola scriptural on many occasions. Here's a sampler:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/finding-sola-scriptura.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-to-read-map.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/tarot-card-catholicism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/pick-card-any-card.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/god-has-spoken.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/11/francis-beckwiths-magic-carpet.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/fallible-list-of-infallible-books.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/principles-of-sola-scriptura.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/once-upon-a-priori.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-misled-beckwith-back-to-rome.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/hypothetical-arguments-for-catholicism.html
Guy declares,
The only reason Bibles were chained down to pulpits was so, like pens in a bank, people wouldn't walk off with them. The Church did burn heretical Bibles just as Protestants throw the "New World Translation" of the J.W.s in the trash.
Nonsense, lies, myths and crude propaganda.
Steve was not even referring to Roman banning of Scripture, but exampling typical Roman reactionary response to anything that seems to impugn Rome, you go off with a blithe dismissal of Romes attitude toward literacy of the laity in Scripture, but which simply does not tell the whole story.
And since you brought it up,
Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm):
The next five hundred years [after 1,000 AD] show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text. ( St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi).
In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned....
The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.
Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index... (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)
New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse, France (1229) and Terragona, Spain, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible... http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/true_attitude.htm
Pius IV (1499 -1565) required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82)
Trent:
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors...
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books...(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular... (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).
“When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History,
More .
James,
To establish Peter as infallible, we do NOT appeal to the Bible as being infallible. No circular reasoning for us.
Steve,
You have already refuted all my hackneyed stuff on SS on Triabologue?
And you are frustrated that I "regurgitate" the same stuff up on Peter that you have also already masterfully refuted, right?
Just for fun, let's examine this;
If I say that only Peter is singled out to share the temple tax coin with Jesus, only Peter is singled out to be prayed for individually by Jesus, and only Peter walks on the water with Jesus, and then you smugly "refute" my silly assertion with a snappy, "Yes, Guy, but Peter started to sink when he took his eyes off Jesus, didn't he?" you have hardly refuted me.
If I say Jesus is the Good Shepherd but Jesus commissions only Peter to tend and feed his lambs and sheep, and you say it was only to scold Peter for his denial ( shared in by 10 of the cowardly Apostles ), you have not refuted me.
If I say Jesus told the Apostles they would be fishers of men and then the Gospel ends with only Peter dragging in the great catch, you dismiss it with a smirk.
And if I say all the Apostles were found sleeping but only Peter is rebuked, you snap back that Peter was snoring the loudest ( or some such nonsense ), you have not refuted me.
Your lying denials are not brilliants refutations. They expose you.
James,
Has Steve been a shining example of Christian charity?
Steve,
So we don't have to bore you with having to refute the same hackneyed stuff, be a mensch and just tell me which of your posts on Triabologue address how SS could work before Gutenberg's invention.
Now Steve, if you refer me to something as unbelievable as your theory of the community of memorizers, don't bother.
PBJ,
"Westminister affirms, It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..."
Citing WCF does no work for you. Any "authority" it has is undermined with it's built-in revisability in your same citation: "...which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission" (reinforced in WCF 31.3)
Which is why confessionalism is just a paper tiger and sola reduces to solo.
Secondly, clearly the Word of God needs to be reliably identified for this to work. Is the identification of the canon and that it is closed, inspired, and inerrant an article of faith or is it not? If it is an article of faith, is it then revisable?
"But after unmistakable Divine attestation of Moses as God's spokesmen, God had Moses write His Law, which became the explicit and implicit standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims."
So there was no Oral Torah that OT and NT Jews followed? If Moses law was the explicit and implicit standard, why wouldn't Jews and Christians only follow the Pentateuch?
James,
As the unbiased moderator observing the exchange between Protestant champion Steve and my " addlebrained" self, what's the score so far?
How is Steve doing? Are you wowwed by his rapier like refutations of my clumsy attempts to say Peter was singled out from the other Apostles for any reason at all, not just a leadership role? Steve insists Peter was no more singled out than Nathaniel, Philip or Simon the Zealot. Where do you weigh in?
Do you find his dismissal of my assertion that the actual existence of physical Bibles is necessary before they can be read to be a logical?
I mean, if every German plough boy was able to read the Bible for himself and therefore be his own pope, wouldn't that husky lad need to actually have a Bible in his physical possession and be literate enough to decipher the Latin?
Steve says SS was a working principle for almost 1450 years, before Gutenberg's time, in the Church. What say you?
Feel free to weigh in. You don't have to stay on the sidelines and kibbitz Steve. He would more than welcome any help as he has recourse only to snide remarks about my inability to think, read or follow rational discourse.
Don't hold back, James. Be brutal. We are big boys. Am I getting a royal arse kicking by your knight in shining armor?
I admit, Steve has bested me on spelling, diction, preparation, presentation and, of course, appearance. He is after all, a pro. I am a mere bomb thrower.
I mean, on actual substance, not sarcasm and arrogance. I know he outclasses me there.
I sure don't want to cause a rift between you and the fellow you thought was going to chew me up and spit me out ( "Okay, Guy, you asked for it." ). If you would rather not say, I will understand.
PBJ,
If you were to read the quotes you posted you would see they confirm my assertion that particular versions of the Bible were indeed banned to keep down heresy, not merely to keep folks from the written word. Also, private interpretation by lay people was not encouraged for the same reason Peter said to be careful of some passages of St. Paul as they could be misinterpreted unto one's destruction. Your gripe is with the Epistle of Peter, not with me.
You should know that not every version of the vernacular was banned in every circumstance either. Long before Luther, there were German Bibles in existence.
Remember, the Bible is the book of the Church. It is to be read in the context of the Church. It is like fire. Fire is good in the context of a stove but outside of that context it leads to disaster.
The New Testament books are not called the New Testament for no reason. They were the writings read at the New Testament ( the Mass ).
One important quote you should have developed is the one from the Catholic St. Jerome, " to be ignorant of the scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ".
By the way, just so you know, 15 minutes of Bible reading has an indulgence attached to it. That would be weird if the Church wanted to discourage people from reading the scriptures, huh, PBJ?
Earlier you wrote,
" The church established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured veracity as per autocratic Rome's".
Really? How was scripture deftly used at the Jerusalem Council? It appears the Council Fathers recognized their own authority when it came to dispensing with circumcision.
It looks like the Church was up and running for a few decades before the NT was penned.
You have it wrong. The Church produced the Bible, not the other way around.
PBJ,
Steve is going to be busy for the next few weeks straining his fertile writer's imagination to the breaking point trying to concoct some ingenious way of bamboozling me into swallowing hook line and sinker his wild yarn about illiterate people who did not even have Bibles of their own being able to implement a Bible Only religious system for over 1,400 years.
I guess that means you and I can share some quality time together.
Since you also believe in Bible Only, could I ask you to answer the other assertion I stuck to Steve, the one about where in the Bible the doctrine is actually taught?
Now, PBJ, I love the written word and accept it as an authority. I know it is sharp as a two edged sword. I agree it is a lamp unto our feet. I don't dispute Jesus quoted scripture. And I agree that scripture is materially sufficient to make the man of God complete for every good work.
So please don't bother telling me what I am not asking.
Please don't go off on a tangent ranting against Mary's Assumption, the Medici Popes being sinners or renouncing traditions of men.
Please just show me that one passage in the Bible that teaches clearly and beyond question that the Bible is the ONLY thing we need to the exclusion of anything else.
Please don't charge me with being an unregenerate idolater incapable of seeing the Holy Spirit at work.
Don't castigate me for my spelling as I have Steve for that.
Don't tell me I violate Hebrews 12 with my caustic style. James does that pretty well already.
Please don't bring up, out of context from what they actually taught, what some saint or Father said about the Bible.
All I am asking you is to show me what you seem to see so clearly and I don't see at all. Show me where the Bible teaches Bible Only.
Since that will occupy you for at least as long as Steve's assignment is going to occupy him, I guess that just leaves EA.
EA, Catholic kids are warned about listening to these guys if we are not strong in our Catholic Faith. Why did you do it? See how they have robbed you of the Pearl of Great Price?
Citing WCF does no work for you. Any "authority" it has is undermined with it's built-in revisability in your same citation: "...which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission" (reinforced in WCF 31.3)
Which is why confessionalism is just a paper tiger and sola reduces to solo.
Wrong: First, whether you like it or not, the valid Jewish magisterium was rebuked by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and the veracity of apostolic oral preaching was determined by conflation with Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Second, lack of infallibility does not negate NT ecclesiastical authority anymore than it did for non-infallible OT authority or civil authority today. Disobedience to the latter two could even mean death, even though they may not be right.
The difference is that while non-infallible NT authority can discipline souls by public rebuke and shunning, though it may be wrong, physical punishment and execution must be by spiritual means, (Acts 5; 1Co. 5) not by the sword of men to which Rome owes much of its history to.
Secondly, clearly the Word of God needs to be reliably identified for this to work. Is the identification of the canon and that it is closed, inspired, and inerrant an article of faith or is it not? If it is an article of faith, is it then revisable?
The 66 book Prot canon, progressively established by consensus as being of God due to its qualities and attestation, as were men of God, is as an article of faith for SS type churches, as non- revisable for them as Rome's canon.
"But after unmistakable Divine attestation of Moses as God's spokesmen, God had Moses write His Law, which became the explicit and implicit standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims. "
So there was no Oral Torah that OT and NT Jews followed?
There was oral tradition with varying degrees of fidelity to what was written, and you can see some of the nonsense this can contain in the Babylonian Talmud.
But as with oral preaching today by SS type preachers, which can be done without any available Bible, ultimately the veracity of any Truth claims is subject to testing by Scripture as being the established and assured word of God. Unlike for Rome.
If Moses law was the explicit and implicit standard, why wouldn't Jews and Christians only follow the Pentateuch?
You failed to read or comprehend what i said before that in the post you are responding to:
"And from the beginning of the writing of the word of God and its acceptance, Scripture provides for the discernment, transmission and preservation of inspired writings of God, and for additional complementary additions being added to it."
"Thus I would say the reason the canon became closed by consensus is because of its unique qualities and attestation of its writings, including the conflative complementarity of its contexts, which no books after these manifested as these do, some more strongly than others."
guy fawkes said...James, Has Steve been a shining example of Christian charity?
How Mr. Hays has or has not acted is not relevant. Rather, you set up the standard by which you wanted your words and behavior to be judged by (Heb. 12:14). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that Rome has an infallible interpretation of this verse that justifies your written discourse thus far, and I'm not aware of this infallible interpretation. If this infallible interpretation doesn't exist, it appears you have some sort of your own private interpretation that allows you to behave in a blatantly uncharitable way while affirming some sort of consistency with Hebrews 12:14.
guy fawkes said...James, As the unbiased moderator observing the exchange between Protestant champion Steve and my " addlebrained" self, what's the score so far?
I am not an "unbiased moderator." Steve has done just what I said would happen to you some time back: "...you run the risk of finding yourself at the end of the sword of Hays," and "if you want to get sliced up, that's your choice."
Don't hold back, James. Be brutal.
Frankly, I'm not at all convinced you've understood many of the points placed before you.
I am a mere bomb thrower.
That's correct. You appear to lack an actual target at times, both here and in other discussions. I'll give you an A+ for zeal, but other than that, i have not be impressed.
guy fawkes said...James,
To establish Peter as infallible, we do NOT appeal to the Bible as being infallible. No circular reasoning for us.
Where is the exact infallible content that establishes Peter as infallible? Do you have somewhere other than the Bible, the very word of God that says, "Peter is infallible"?
As a follow-up, do you have any non-Biblical infallible "Word of God" historical facts about Peter, and where are they?
Since you also believe in Bible Only, could I ask you to answer the other assertion I stuck to Steve, the one about where in the Bible the doctrine is actually taught?
I have already much explained my position, but true to form, you ignore what refutes you and just "move on" parroting papal polemics. As will be seen.
As said ,
Before there was a written word, the only express Divine revelation was by direct Divinely attested communication from God (and angels) to to very few men and women, and thus to them. But which was very limited in scope and audience.
And as said ,
"But after unmistakable Divine attestation of Moses as God's spokesmen, God had Moses write His Law, which became the explicit and implicit standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims. "
As did all the written word.
"And from the beginning of the writing of the word of God and its acceptance, Scripture provides for the discernment, transmission and preservation of inspired writings of God, and for additional complementary additions being added to it."
And as shown, this invalidates such things as assurance of Truth being based upon the premise of the church being the sole supreme infallible authority ("Rome alone"), and such traditions as praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.
See this post and here for more.
Please don't go off on a tangent ranting against Mary's Assumption, the Medici Popes being sinners or renouncing traditions of men.
Neither are tangents, as the Assumption examples how the veracity of RC teaching is not based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, under which the Bible can only be allowed as supporting her.
Please just show me that one passage in the Bible that teaches clearly and beyond question that the Bible is the ONLY thing we need to the exclusion of anything else....Show me where the Bible teaches Bible Only.
It does not support this straw man which RCs repeatedly parrot by necessity as part of their propaganda.
If the Bible was the ONLY thing we need to the exclusion of anything else then you would not even need eyes to read it, or the use of reason to understand it, or men to transmit it, or often to help understand it.
And those extensive classic evangelical commentaries would be superfluous.
It alone is the supreme and sufficient infallible standard for faith and morals, with sufficiency pertaining to its limited formal sense (so that for example one could read and believe Acts 10:36-43 and become born again), with the rest, as i said, to be fulfilled in the material sense, that which it provides for by positive affirmation.
And Westminster even says,
Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
Please don't charge me with being an unregenerate idolater incapable of seeing the Holy Spirit at work.
If the shoe fits... Since you disallow that one could know what the Bible consists of, by discerning writings as being of God or not, without Rome's infallible magisterium, then you do deny how the Holy Spirit worked in history.
Don't castigate me for my spelling as I have Steve for that.
I did not.
James,
Is the Church infallible? Wouldn't it have to be in order to continue Christ's mission down through the ages? If it isn't, how do you discern heresy from development of doctrine?
Did Christ set up an inner circle of men that he gave special instruction, authority and powers to?
Did he mean for that hierarchical structure to fall away after the first generation of Christians? Was the visible Church to turn invisible?
Among the 12, was one guy singled out?
Steve says no, PBJ said yes. Which one is wrong? They can't both be right.
Was the mission given to that one special fellow ( Peter ) to come to an end upon his death?
James, it is a lot easier to demonstrate Peter's office in the Bible than it is to show the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
And history proves me right. While the status of the Holy Spirit was debated for centuries, there was no real question of Peter's office until the Reformation.
James, if you admit that the Church is indefectible and that Peter was chief Apostle, ( final court of appeal ), his infallibility must follow.
PBJ,
"t does not support this straw man which RCs repeatedly parrot by necessity as part of their propaganda."
"Straw Man", PBJ?
HA!
Guy,
While you may think Steve Hays is the big bad wolf, I can assure you, he has far more patience than I do.
I asked you specific questions. If you can't directly answers them, then I don't feel any sense of obligation to respond questions you offer in reply.
If you were to read the quotes you posted you would see they confirm my assertion that particular versions of the Bible were indeed banned to keep down heresy, not merely to keep folks from the written word.
Wrong. If you were to read the quotes I posted you should see they confirm that at times or in places reading the Bible was indeed banned, by keeping it out of the common tongue and or by punishing souls for reading it without the restrictive permission.
Certainly the attempted justification was keep down heresy, but which means they did not want RCs doing what the noble Bereans did, (Acts 27:11) and Christ challenged souls to do. (Jn. 5:39)
Also, private interpretation by lay people was not encouraged for the same reason Peter said to be careful of some passages of St. Paul as they could be misinterpreted unto one's destruction. Your gripe is with the Epistle of Peter, not with me.
Wrong. Peter simply states the Truth we often see with cults and RCs attempting to extrapolate support for traditions of men from Scripture, but which nowhere restricts access to Scripture, which Rome tried.
You should know that not every version of the vernacular was banned in every circumstance either. Long before Luther, there were German Bibles in existence.
And Pius VI in his letter to Martini commended the printing and reading of his translation of his Bible into Italian), yet for too much of her history it is evidenced that the church of Rome did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but actually hindered it.
Remember, the Bible is the book of the Church. It is to be read in the context of the Church. It is like fire. Fire is good in the context of a stove but outside of that context it leads to disaster.
Yes, the Scribes and Pharisees basically evidenced the same attitude, and indeed unto them [as being over Israel] were committed the oracles of God.
However, some itinerant preachers, and One in particular, had the audacity to reprove them from Scripture, and were rejected by them, yet they still have a few followers today!
One important quote you should have developed is the one from the Catholic St. Jerome, " to be ignorant of the scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ".
There is more than that in my source that i referenced, but you are ignoring the changeable nature of Rome.
By the way, just so you know, 15 minutes of Bible reading has an indulgence attached to it. That would be weird if the Church wanted to discourage people from reading the scriptures, huh, PBJ?
Which anachronistic attempt further marginalizes you as one fit for meaningful debate, as the freedom to read the Bible in the common tongue and encouraging it by promising "indulgence" to escape "purgatory" which they will not find therein) does not apply to medieval Rome, which was the context of my posting.
Yet RCs today come in about last in personal Bible reading, and do not even get close to hearing the whole Bible via Mass. It is doctrinally superfluous for most RCs.
Earlier you wrote,
" The church established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured veracity as per autocratic Rome's".
Really? How was scripture deftly used at the Jerusalem Council? It appears the Council Fathers recognized their own authority when it came to dispensing with circumcision.
Wrong again.
The evangelical gospel Peter preached was that "which he [God had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, (Romans 1:2), and there was a reason James declared,
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (Amos 9:11-12);
Moreover, the decree that the Gentiles abstain “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20,29; cf. 21:25) was itself based upon Scripture. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)
Idolatry is the mother of sin, and “pollutions of idols” refers to a multitude of things, including eating things sacrificed to idols as part of worship to fornication, but which is unconditionally condemned. The prohibition of “things strangled” is derived from the prohibition against consuming blood.
It looks like the Church was up and running for a few decades before the NT was penned.
Indeed, because its "gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ" was "made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25,26)
Thus
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
For he [Apollos] mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
...persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)
You have it wrong. The Church produced the Bible, not the other way around.
No, You have it wrong, as long before there was a NT church most the writings of the Bible were established as Scripture (if not universally then or now), with Christ thus alluding to what is understood by many as being the tripartite Palestinian canon (Lk. 24:44) being held by those sitting in the seat of Moses. (And the LXX of the first century was smaller than the expanded versions.)
And thus the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, conforming to it in word and the attestation it shows God giving to such men as Moses.
And by which both men and further conflative complementary writings were were established as being of God without an infallible office, contrary to your model, in which leadership supremacy equates to infallibility, and which is necessary to know what Scripture consists of.
I sure don't want to cause a rift between you and the fellow you thought was going to chew me up and spit me out ( "Okay, Guy, you asked for it." ).
What can you say to a man who misunderstands or misconstrues an argument, resorts to a straw man, and has effectively invalidated the NT church with his absurd RC principle that "once supremacy is admitted, infallibility follows by necessity,"
And that "without an infallible Church, you don't even know what the Bible is."
And seems to argue that the validity of the judgment of the ecumenical counsel in Acts 15 was based upon the assured veracity of itself, rather than absolving the need for the Gentiles to be circumscribed as resting upon Scriptural validation.
Instead it seems the New Covenant must have been thought up by them.
The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. (Proverbs 26:16)
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. (Proverbs 12:15)
PBJ,
I disagree. I think if the Council fathers had "searched the scriptures", they would not have abrogated the rule of circumcision given to Abraham.
Gen 17:13 says the covenant rule of circumcision was to be "perpetual".
To establish Peter as infallible, we do NOT appeal to the Bible as being infallible. No circular reasoning for us.
No, you appeal to human reasoning as able to discern the Bible as a reliable historical document, providing valid warrant for implicit assent to Rome as assuredly perpetually infallible.
Then deny human reasoning as able to discern the Bible as being inspired of God, or even as a reliable historical document if providing valid warrant against implicit assent to Rome as assuredly perpetually infallible.
In such as case the argument is that the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is essential to know what Scripture is, and to correctly understand the Scriptures.
Thus assurance of a RCs is 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.
No circular reasoning for them
PBJ,
"the valid Jewish magisterium was rebuked by Scripture as being supreme,(Mk. 7:2-16)"
Where does the passage say Scripture is supreme and sole infallible authority? A rebuke of corrupted tradition is not an indictment of all tradition.
"the veracity of apostolic oral preaching was determined by conflation with Scripture.(Acts 17:11)"
Would the Bereans have been commended had they rejected Paul's message because it violated their interpretation of Scripture? How could NT believers practice SS - SS wasn't operative during inscripturation by definition, as people like White freely admit. The Apostles and Christ preached with authority in offering their teaching and interpretation - they weren't saying go do some research and get back to me if you agree - that they did not violate Scripture (nor does RCism's authority) does not imply they followed SS. Otherwise we'd all be OT sola scripturists.
"lack of infallibility does not negate NT ecclesiastical authority"
The point is I have no reason to subject myself to that ecclesiastical authority by its own claims. If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation? Even Steve recognizes confessionalism is a smokescreen - see http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/02/confessional-relativism.html and closing paragraphs of http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/02/living-dangerously.html
"The 66 book Prot canon, progressively established by consensus as being of God due to its qualities and attestation, as were men of God, is as an article of faith for SS type churches, as non- revisable for them as Rome's canon."
Unfortunately any Protestant body offering the canon as irreformable is violating its own principles. If all confessions and protestant bodies' teachings are authoritative only insofar as they conform to Scripture and reject infallibility/divine authority in offering their teachings, then turning around and offering the canon (and its attendant doctrines of closure, inspiration, inerrancy) as irreformable violates its starting principles and claims. Hence Sproul's "fallible collection"; semper reformanda shoots itself in the foot. All "articles of faith" remain ever-provisional, and hence cannot be articles of faith which are infallible by definition.
And "consensus" begs the question - you assume "consensus" is the group that agrees with your provisional interpretation - you reject the "consensus" that differs with you on the OT canon or held other beliefs you reject. So appealing to consensus does no work for you.
Secondly, any appeal to criteria outside of self-attestation and inner witness to establish the canon creates a canon above the canon and violates the principles of SS.
PBJ,
"There was oral tradition with varying degrees of fidelity to what was written"
So there was oral tradition. So "Scripture as being supreme" and Jesus rejecting tradition wholesale apparently needs to be qualified. So did the OT or NT make reference to any of this oral tradition approvingly? If what was written was supreme, why didn't God send OT prophets to rebuke Jews from following the oral Torah and to only heed the written word? Why did Jewish sects hold differing canons?
"the veracity of any Truth claims is subject to testing by Scripture as being the established and assured word of God."
Is the identification of the canon established and assured by Scripture? And I agree claims should be tested by Scripture, I disagree it is the sole criteria to be used - nor can I see in Scripture where such a principle is taught (how could it, as said above).
"Unlike for Rome"
Scripture is an authority for Rome (STM-triad). Just because it has parallel authorities does not entail it is not an authority. Just as the Apostles/Christ viewed the OT as an authority but still offered their authoritative interpretations and teachings of the OT.
Two quick points:
i) The canon is "ever-provisional" in the hypothetical or counterfactual sense that if God did not intend his people to have a stable position on the canon, then it's fluid.
But, of course, God doesn't promote instability for the sake of instability. If God intends his people to have the correct canon of Scripture, then it isn't "ever-provisional" in practice. It would only be revisable in practice if, say, there was some hidden counterevidence which God preserved for centuries before it was discovered. Say, finding a lost letter of Paul.
ii) Although extrascriptural criteria violate SS, extrascriptural evidence does not. And by "criteria," we mean superior criteria.
Steve,
"i) The canon is "ever-provisional" in the hypothetical or counterfactual sense that if God did not intend his people to have a stable position on the canon, then it's fluid."
A self-admitted opinion that never changes is still an opinion. If the canon and its attendant doctrines are (irreformable) articles of faith and not just opinion, I fail to see how Protestantism can offer it as such without violating its own principles. Thus why liberal Protestants are not violating any Protestant principles despite conservative protestations.
"But, of course, God doesn't promote instability for the sake of instability. If God intends his people to have the correct canon of Scripture"
If God intended SS as the rule of faith, why was the recognition of the full canon amongst his people a centuries-long process (that many still ended up blowing with the OT canon)? Why does the canon now have asterisks on disputed passages? If Scripture is to function as the sole infallible authority, isn't it critical that the recognized extent and scope of it be and remain irreformable from the outset?
"then it isn't "ever-provisional" in practice."
Again, if semper reformanda and "fallible collection" hold (consistent with Protestant principles), that the opinion never actually changes according to whatever Protestant body I ally myself with does not entail such does not remain ever-provisional opinion.
"It would only be revisable in practice if, say, there was some hidden counterevidence which God preserved for centuries before it was discovered. Say, finding a lost letter of Paul."
So the canon is not irreformably closed. It is not an article of faith that it is closed, just an opinion consonant with what we have now.
"Although extrascriptural criteria violate SS, extrascriptural evidence does not. And by "criteria," we mean superior criteria."
Right, so the only criteria that can be used in establishing the canon consistent with SS principles is self-attestation and inner witness.
"A self-admitted opinion that never changes is still an opinion."
i) If you think all opinions are equal, then your own opinion is self-refuting. You evidently have a favorable "opinion" of the Roman church.
ii) If you're going to frame the issue in terms of opinion, don't you need to distinguish between true and false opinions? "That's just your opinion!" is the slogan of the alethic relativist.
ii) "Opinion" is your word, not mine. Why cast the issue in terms of "opinion" rather than "knowledge."
Is there a correct canon? If so, is that an object of knowledge?
iii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's a matter of opinion, the question at issue is whether God intends his people to have a correct "opinion" on the canon. If their opinion is the result of divine intention, who cares if you call it an "opinion"?
"If the canon and its attendant doctrines are (irreformable) articles of faith and not just opinion, I fail to see how Protestantism can offer it as such without violating its own principles."
One of your problems is a failure to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. An irreformable belief corresponds to an irreformable fact. If there are only so many extant scriptures, then that's fixed–unless God intended continuous public revelation. And unless there's reason to believe that God intended continuous public revelation, then the canon is irreformable in that ontological sense. There's nothing more that could be canonized, and nothing less that should be canonized. We hit bedrock with what there is.
"If God intended SS as the rule of faith, why was the recognition of the full canon amongst his people a centuries-long process (that many still ended up blowing with the OT canon)?"
I don't equate the Orthodox church or the church of Rome with "God's people"–if that's your tacit frame of reference.
There's also a distinction between custom and the codification. God's people can have and use the full canon before it's formally recognized.
"Why does the canon now have asterisks on disputed passages? If Scripture is to function as the sole infallible authority, isn't it critical that the recognized extent and scope of it be and remain irreformable from the outset?"
SS doesn't preclude the need for textual criticism. You're talking like Bart Ehrman, as if the Christian faith hinges on constant miraculous intervention to rewind or reset the watch.
"Again, if semper reformanda and 'fallible collection' hold (consistent with Protestant principles), that the opinion never actually changes according to whatever Protestant body I ally myself with does not entail such does not remain ever-provisional opinion."
It would be irrational to change a settled "opinion" unless it was poorly reasoned in the first place or new evidence comes to light which challenges the status quo.
"So the canon is not irreformably closed. It is not an article of faith that it is closed, just an opinion consonant with what we have now."
I'm discussing hypothetical scenarios. "Closed" in relation to what? Closed in relation to what's actually available? Closed in relation to some hypothetical future rediscovery?
"Right, so the only criteria that can be used in establishing the canon consistent with SS principles is self-attestation and inner witness."
Once again, you're blasting past my stated distinction between criteria and evidence. We can include extrabiblical evidence in establishing the canon.
Scripture is not a self-referential fantasy novel. Scripture refers to God's providence in the world. It's hardly at odds with Protestant theology that God sometimes provides "outside" evidence to corroborate Scripture.
A few other points:
i) There's the implicit invidious contrast between "ever-provisional" Protestant theology and "irreformable" Catholic dogma. However, that's just a paper theory. it can't be seriously argued that Catholic dogma is irreformable. Yes, there are diehard Catholic apologists who devote much special pleading to that futile cause, but Rome has clearly reversed herself on several crucial issues.
ii) Moreover, there's no virtue in being irreformably wrong. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Catholic dogma is irreformable, then so much the worse for Catholic dogma.
iii) You can't just ask whether or not Protestant theology is "ever-provisional" in a vacuum. That's context dependent. For the answer depends on other questions.
When people ask whether the canon is really closed, that invites the hypothetical question of what we'd do if a lost letter of Paul were discovered. That hypothetical pops up in debates over the finality of the canon.
Now, I don't have the slightest reason to think that's a realistic scenario. But it does crop up in these debates.
Moreover, it's not just a hypothetical question for Protestants. If you can pose that hypothetical to Protestants, you can just as well pose the same hypothetical to Catholics. Is the Tridentine canon irreformable even if a lost letter of Paul was discovered?
iv) Suppose the Protestant canon is not closed given that scenario? How would it be a problem for Protestant theology to be "provisional" in that situation? A newly-discovered letter of Paul wouldn't contradict what he taught elsewhere. So we wouldn't have to recant traditional Protestant theology.
v) There are three possible answers to this conjecture:
a) God wouldn't permit a lost letter of Paul to resurface.
b) Even if that did happen, it would be too late to make the cut.
c) If that did happen, we should incorporate it into the canon.
It's a bit presumptuous to insist on (a). However, I don't think it's the least bit likely that God has a lost letter of Paul hidden away, to be found at some later date.
I think (b) is arbitrary. I think (c) is the preferable response. That, however, assumes it could be authenticated. Of course, one could built that into the hypothetical as well.
"Why does the canon now have asterisks on disputed passages?"
It isn't just Protestant commentaries and editions of Scripture that have that. Catholic Bible scholars and textual critics face the very same issue.
And you can't brush it off by saying the Roman church doesn't rely on SS. For Catholic theology is supposedly anchored in the once-for-all-time deposit of faith. Public revelation ended.
Hence, it's a problem for Catholic theology if the Johannine Comma, Long Ending of Mark, or Pericope Adulterae (to take three disputed passages) is spurious.
` Is the Church infallible? Wouldn't it have to be in order to continue Christ's mission down through the ages? If it isn't, how do you discern heresy from development of doctrine?
How can you continue to ask these questions unless you ignore so much that has been already written, and which refutes your foundational premise?
The answer to both your questions is clearly no and no. You continue to imagine that the church was disconnected to the past, so that God never showed man how He operated to provide, enable discernment, transmit, and preserve Truth. But as has been said, this was without an infallible magisterium.
Why did God establish the seat of Moses if had no authority, even to put one to death for disobedience? Why did He preserve it and require normative obedience to it?
Surely this acted to provide, discern transmit, and preserve Truth. Which a civil supreme court can also do.
Yet it was not infallible, and when it deviated then the Lord raised up men from the peculiar group called prophets, whose call God made manifest, and which judged and reproved those who sat in power, and preserve faith.
And which is how the church began, and is often how the faith has been preserved.
As has been said, The problem is that the idea of common people correctly discerning both men and writings as being of God independent of and even in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation is abhorrent to an RC apologists, yet this is how the church began.
Did Christ set up an inner circle of men that he gave special instruction, authority and powers to?
Likewise under Moses, but while Hebrews goes on at length about the new and better new covenant, an assuredly infallible magisterium is nowhere in sight as part of it, nor it is anywhere else. RCs must thus seek to extrapolate it under the false premise that promises of Divine presence and preservation necessitate it, but which they never were.
Did he mean for that hierarchical structure to fall away after the first generation of Christians? Was the visible Church to turn invisible?
It means the hierarchical structure of Rome is invisible in the NT, with no churches looking to a supreme exalted infallible head, esp,. in Rome, nor as the first of a line of such. Instead, Peter fades from view after Acts 15, in which James gives the definitive sentence, confirmatory of the evangelical gospel and counsel of Peter, and manifestly shared by Paul.
And after that he is simply listed second as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and with zero evidence of their apostleship being perpetuated, even after the apostle James died, (Acts 12:20 except in the position of elders, not hierus=priests. The ordination of elders and deacons is the only ordination seen in the life of the church.
And history proves me right. While the status of the Holy Spirit was debated for centuries, there was no real question of Peter's office until the Reformation.
Really? The EOs will be very surprised to know that they agree that Peter occupied this Roman exalted infallible office, which is part of the "special instruction, authority and powers" you define office with, unless you want to use "office" without distinction like a cult does with God. .
James, if you admit that the Church is indefectible and that Peter was chief Apostle, ( final court of appeal ), his infallibility must follow.
More sophistry. "Indefectible" is carefully left undefined, but since "Church" means Roman, it is assumed you mean that you want James to agree the Roman church will
"never undergo any constitutional change, which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals... (Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917)
But both what "church" means and indefectiblity and whether she has ever become corrupt in faith or in morals is autocratically determined by her!
Thus while it is clearly manifest that the church of Rome is something critically different from what the NT church was originally, part of her aberrational nature is that of autocratically declaring herself assuredly infallible, thus excluding any judgment of her as being aberrational.
Morever, while you reject the Biblical definition of the church that promises victory over the devil to the body of Christ by faith, thus with believers maintaining saving faith - a faith which is manifest in works, not simply professed - despite varying degrees of impurity and declension in the visible organic church;
yet the history of Rome manifests the latter, replete with dueling popes, and confusion for decades as to which is the true one, and characterized even in its headquarters by gross widespread corruption and immorality.
But the power and position of Peter, and what promises of God's presence and preservation mean and entail, and what terms like "indefectibility" and "unbroken" and "unanimous" constitute, are all autocratically defined by Rome so as to support her, as all things are to be made subject to, as per her presumed but imaginary binding and loosing power.
Paper professions do not constitute faith,, nor does organized structure establish authenticity.
"EA, Catholic kids are warned about listening to these guys if we are not strong in our Catholic Faith. Why did you do it?"
Since when is Catholicism such a shrinking violet, Guy? If Protestantism is so obviously flawed, you should have no trouble overturning Steve and PBJ's argumentation. Why appeal to James and myself to cry foul for you with respect to Steve's alleged "un-Christian" behavior? It seems to me that you've given as well as you've received.
Catholic kids should heed the advice of Jesus; Luke 14:27-33 comes to mind.
"Catholic kids are warned about listening to these guys if we are not strong in our Catholic Faith."
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Guy's admonition is ironically reliant on that reportedly unreliable "private judgement" to assess whether one is in possession of a strong enough brand of Catholic Faith to withstand previously unencountered challenges.
I suppose my problem growing up was that all of that circular reasoning always made me too dizzy.
EA,
You cashed in Catholicism to escape the circular reasoning?
You don't think Sola Scripture is circular?
"You don't think Sola Scripture is circular?"
I think that you know the answer to that question, Guy.
Steve,
"If you think all opinions are equal, then your own opinion is self-refuting. You evidently have a favorable "opinion" of the Roman church."
Protestantism's claims can never rise above the level of tentative opinion because its starting principles bake that in. Rome's claims (and others) can, which is the entire point. The type of claim Rome makes is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for identification of articles of faith that warrant the assent of faith. If the claim isn't even made (indeed actively rejected) in the first place, such a candidate removes itself from contention - it never gets out of the gate for consideration.
"Is there a correct canon? If so, is that an object of knowledge?"
If you'd like to reduce faith to rationalism, you're free to do so.
"If their opinion is the result of divine intention, who cares if you call it an "opinion"?"
I call it opinion to distinguish it from an article of faith, which by definition is infallible and not ever-provisional. Protestantism can easily deflect the charge by actually offering infallible/irreformable teachings/interpretations - in doing so it would self-refute its starting principles. Which is why liberals are following those principles just as much as conservatives are.
"One of your problems is a failure to distinguish between ontology and epistemology...then the canon is irreformable in that ontological sense."
I've not failed to distinguish anything - which is why I've specifically and repeatedly called out the "identification" of the canon as the article of faith.
"I don't equate the Orthodox church or the church of Rome with "God's people"–if that's your tacit frame of reference."
Right so just as PBJ did you beg the question on who the "consensus" counts as "God's people" which you then use to drum up support in establishing the canon. It's cart before the horse. God's people who got the NT right (to varying degrees) in the early centuries blew it with the OT. And then they also blew it with other widely held doctrines you reject.
"SS doesn't preclude the need for textual criticism."
I brought that up in reply to your "If God intends his people to have the correct canon of Scripture then it isn't "ever-provisional" in practice."
So God intended his people to have the correct canon of Scripture, only he let disputed passages sneak in, which were detected as the field of textual criticism developed (which continues to develop) - that sounds like ever-provisional in practice.
"You're talking like Bart Ehrman, as if the Christian faith hinges on constant miraculous intervention to rewind or reset the watch."
The Christian faith doesn't hinge on that, but I dispute that SS is the Christian faith. I'm holding SS to its own standards.
(cont)
"It would be irrational to change a settled "opinion" unless it was poorly reasoned in the first place or new evidence comes to light which challenges the status quo."
Right so again "articles of faith" are no such thing in Protestantism - they are simply reasoned opinions based on the best available evidence we have according to whatever erudite scholars we sub-select for who bring their own biases, analytical methodologies, expertise, etc to the data set (that data set itself being a matter of opinion). It's a sea of ever-provisional opinion that can never rise higher.
"it can't be seriously argued that Catholic dogma is irreformable. Yes, there are diehard Catholic apologists who devote much special pleading to that futile cause, but Rome has clearly reversed herself on several crucial issues."
It can't be seriously argued that the Bible is inerrant. Yes, there are diehard conservatives who devote much special pleading to that futile cause, but archaeology, history, textual criticism, philology, etc clearly show the Bible is in error in several crucial issues.
It's quite easy to offer examples of irreformable dogma Rome has defined. And only one such example is needed to show the difference between Protestantism and Rome.
"A newly-discovered letter of Paul wouldn't contradict what he taught elsewhere. So we wouldn't have to recant traditional Protestant theology. "
And how is "what he taught elsewhere" which is the baseline standard for comparison irreformably identified? This is cart before the horse again.
"And you can't brush it off by saying the Roman church doesn't rely on SS. For Catholic theology is supposedly anchored in the once-for-all-time deposit of faith. Public revelation ended. "
Of course I can. The STM-triad is not subject to the same pitfalls as SS. So a deflection that both sides agree public revelation ended does no work (and again, even that claim itself is an article of faith under one system but mere opinion in the other). For a rule of faith to be taken seriously, at a minimum it needs to at least be self-consistent and coherent. The lack of a way to identify the irreformable scope and extent of the canon of Scripture according to the principles of SS/Protestantism would seem to make SS incoherent. Rome being completely wrong would not change that.
PBJ,
OOPS!
I mistakenly posted my humongous response to your even more humongous post about Peter/SS/Authority over on the section dealing with miracles.
I am not ignoring you. I posted it in two sections and that explains how I put it in the wrong place. But it is indeed there, waiting for you.
Cletus Van Damme said,
The Apostles and Christ preached with authority in offering their teaching and interpretation - they weren't saying go do some research and get back to me if you agree
Wrong: that is basically just what they did do! If you are reasoning with souls out of the scriptures then you are certainly trying to convince them thereby, and Christ Himself challenged souls to search the Search the scriptures for they testified of Him. (John 5:39)
And it was "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Corinthians 4:2) that they sought to convince souls.
The apostles could and did invoke authority in requiring obedience, but which authority itself was contingent upon Scriptural warrant for it," in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,"
" "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 6:4; 12:12)
And which apostolic qualifications and credentials Rome's purported "successors" manifestly fail of, while claiming what they did not.
For the basis for the integrity of their claims which was not that of a charism of assured veracity that kicked in when acting according to a certain infallibly defined formula, so that the Assumption is guaranteed to be true since they said it, without even Scriptural testimony of it or even early testimony from tradition.
that they did not violate Scripture (nor does RCism's authority) does not imply they followed SS. Otherwise we'd all be OT sola scripturists.
Rather, in contrast to the manifest Scriptural basis for the veracity of apostolic teaching, including the judgment of Acts 15 (see above posts ) that RCism's authority does not violate Scripture is based upon the premise that she alone is correct in any conflict as to what Scripture means.
For again, 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.
The point is I have no reason to subject myself to that ecclesiastical authority by its own claims. If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation?
At least you are consistent with your Roman reasoning, but you have just relegated yourself to being an anarchist who not only would be subject to the death penalty under the OT with its non-infallible judges, and might as well reject civil authority also, but you also invalidated the Lord's command to obey non-infallible authorities while they yet had a valid office! (Mt. 23:2)
What you are ignoring is that what gives allegiance is either love or fear, and while for the OT mag. it was mainly fear of punishment, which today is the same for the state, in the NT this was by shunning and spiritual power. Which to work requires the authority to manifest that it has such by what occurs to those who dissent. When Paul threatened to use a rod, (1Co. 4) it was not that of men.
Even Steve recognizes confessionalism is a smokescreen
You mean (if i understand this debate) opposing some men who want to presume papal-like universal authority over all translates into negating leadership requiring its members to assent to binding basic truths, so that the members of churches which most strongly hold to Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are characterized by moral and doctrinal anarchy?
While under the alternative, how much of what RCs are sppsd to believe and practice precludes any dissent?
And since the members follow leadership (with believe being more what they actually support and do than just profess) of which are more than the unchanging written word of God, then they would not be found in one century obeying leadership in exterminating all who theologically dissent from them, and in another century treating even proabortion prosodomy public figures and followers as members in life and in death? And being far more diverse and liberal in core faith and moral beliefs than than evangelical types?
Unfortunately any Protestant body offering the canon as irreformable is violating its own principles. If all confessions and protestant bodies' teachings are authoritative only insofar as they conform to Scripture and reject infallibility/divine authority in offering their teachings, then turning around and offering the canon (and its attendant doctrines of closure, inspiration, inerrancy) as irreformable violates its starting principles and claims.
Wrong, as insofar as it is held as settled and irreformable (note that RCs even disagree on whether Rome closed the canon) is based upon the same manner of warrant as established most of what we hold as Scripture as being so before there was a church of Rome.
According to Roman reasoning however, the Lord and His disciples had nothing authoritative to appeal to , as that awaited the validation of the infallible authority of Rome. No wonder all they can do is appeal to Scripture merely as a historically accurate document.
Hence Sproul's "fallible collection";
If all the contents are wholly inspired of God, then it is an infallible collection of infallible books, but not under the premise of a charism of assured formulaic infallibility, as per Rome.
All "articles of faith" remain ever-provisional, and hence cannot be articles of faith which are infallible by definition.
They are no less binding than the truth that there is one true God was before the church began.
And "consensus" begs the question - you assume "consensus" is the group that agrees with your provisional interpretation - you reject the "consensus" that differs with you on the OT canon or held other beliefs you reject. So appealing to consensus does no work for you.
Wrong, it means that rather than holding Truths as binding based upon the premise of assured magisterial or personal veracity as in autocractic Rome, and hence her professions of her own authority, instead they must be manifest as binding after the same manner that they became held.
Again the question remains, under the RC model, why should OT souls have heeded prophets who reproved the priestly powers that be, and why should 1st c.souls have followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected?
Secondly, any appeal to criteria outside of self-attestation and inner witness to establish the canon creates a canon above the canon and violates the principles of SS.
According to you, yet it is Scripture which attests to souls discerning both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium.
By requiring the latter and negating the former as means of assurance of Truth, then you also have effectively nuked the NT church.
CVD,
Let's back up. Notice how Catholic apologists frame the issue. Their modus operandi is to stipulate some artificial threshold of (alleged) religious certainty. They then try to put Protestants on the defensive. Unless we can cross their stimulative threshold of (alleged) religious certainty, sola scripture is a failure.
There are three fundamental problems with that framework:
i) Catholicism fails to offer religious certainty even on its own terms. Catholic apologists oscillate between two conflicting arguments. When attacking Protestantism or advertising Catholicism, they tout the superior religious certainty which Rome allegedly offers.
When, however, they are defending Catholicism against examples of theological error or reversal, they do an about-face and resort to various escape clauses and face-saving distinctions to savage the infallibility/indefectability of Rome from logical or historical disproof.
They end up with a position that's unfalsifiable at the cost of being unverifiable. When promoting Rome, they lead with (alleged) certainties. When defending Rome, they fade into vagueness.
ii) Another basic problem is a fatally flawed starting-point. As a Protestant, I don't begin by setting the bar at some a priori height, then spend the rest of my time trying to get over the bar.
Rather, I begin with reality. I begin with the church God has actually given us. I begin with revelation. I accept revelation as it comes to us from God's hand. I start with how God has chosen to reveal himself. What he's chosen to reveal and what he's chosen to keep to himself.
It's not incumbent on me to decide ahead of time how God is supposed to reveal himself or govern the church. It's not incumbent on me to cast the issue in terms of artificial, postulated conditions which must be met to warrant the assent of faith. I don't begin with a category of "irreformability," then measure the success of failure of my faith in those terms.
That's an exercise in theological fiction. It begins, not with revelation, not with providence, but with a Catholic's preconceived notion of what faith should be like or the church should be like.
I reject your fictional framework. I reject your diktats.
Catholics invent problems, then invent solutions to their manufactured problems. I don't play the game by your rules. The whole exercise is a self-referential confabulation from start to finish.
iii) To the extent that Catholics offers religious certainty, these are ersatz certainties in nonentities and nonevents. Historical fantasies like Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and virginity in partu. That's certain in the same sense that Legolas is the son of the elf-king Thranduil of Mirkwood.
Catholic dogmas are true by definition, but that's the nice thing about fiction–including pious fiction. It's true that Legolas is an elf. True–but imaginary.
The whole Catholic set-up is an elaborate exercise in make-believe.
That doesn't mean I reject the possibility of religious certainty. But I don't define it on your terms.
Let's take some examples of Rome's reversals on major theological issues:
I) Salvation outside the church
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/from-nulla-salus-to-tota-salus.html
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8
ii) The death penalty:
http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=41.cfm
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/antonin-scalia-and-his-critics-the-church-the-courts-and-the-death-penalty
iii) The inspiration of Scripture
http://vaticanfiles.org/2014/08/88-is-scripture-true-only-in-a-limited-way-the-truth-of-the-bible-according-to-the-pontifical-biblical-commission/
iv) The nature of tradition:
"In this connection I would like to relate a small episode that I think can cast much light on the situation. Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative…”Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into haven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Let's take another example of Rome reversing herself:
Any memory of old theories of verbal inspiration was to be omitted, and hence any form of an impersonal, mechanistic interpretation of the origin of Scripture... But this little word veritas that intruded here proved to be a living cell that continued to grow. But what did it mean? Only, "religious" or even "secular7' truth, to use the language of the 1962 schema? This was the real problem that now had to be taken up with full force both inside and outside the conciliar discussion. This did not happen, and new suggestions for the solution of the inerrancy question, as modem research posed it, could be made only hesitantly.
Form F was worked out in the third session of the Council. The first change that strikes us is in the title of Article 11: "Statuitur factum inspirationis et veritatis S. Scripturae." Inerrantia is replaced by the positive term veritas, which is notably extended in the text. In the course of the discussion on the schema in the autumn of 1964, various fathers from the Eastern and the Western Churches made important speeches on the necessity of an interpretation of the inerrancy of Scripture that would be in harmony with the latest findings of exegesis. It was variously pointed out that the doctrine of inerrancy received its particular and narrower formulation in the 19th century, at a time when the means of secular historical research and criticism were used to investigate the secular historical accuracy of Scripture, and this was more or less denied - which had inevitable consequences for its theological validity. The teaching office of the Church sought to concentrate its defense at the point of immediate attack: i.e. to defend the inerrancy of Scripture even in the veritates profanae generally defending the claim of the Bible and of Christianity to be revelation. To defend scriptural inerrancy in this sphere of secular truths various theories were employed which sought to prove the absolute inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of these conditions and attitudes. Because of the apologetical viewpoint from which they started, they were in danger of producing a narrowness and a false accentuation7 in the doctrine of inerrancy. Also in the area of the interpretation of Scripture and the rules pertaining to this we can see a similar phenomenon, which the Council observed in different spheres of theology and endeavoured to nullify: namely, the tendency to an apologetical isolation and the claim to absolutism of a partial view. With this kind of motivation for the defense of the inerrancy of Scripture in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, there was a weakening of the awareness that Scripture as the inspired, written word of God is supposed above all to serve the preservation and expansion of the saving revelation and reality given through Christ in the world. Of course it was always realized that this was the real purpose of Scripture. In the question of inerrancy, however, the emphasis was placed on the one-sided and isolated - accentuation of the veritates profanae. This tended to create uncertainty rather than a joyful confidence that God's truth and salvation remain present in the world in an unfalsified and permanent form--namely through the inspired word. It was necessary to reawaken this awareness. The doctrine of inerrancy needed its own centre and the right accentuation.
Cont. In this respect the most important contribution was undoubtedly the speech by Cardinal Koenig on 2 October 1964. Several other fathers who took part in the discussion from 2 to 6 October either verbally or in writing came back to this point. The Cardinal first of all pointed out the new situation that exists in relation to the question of inerrancy. As a result of intensive Oriental studies our picture of the veritas historica and the fides historica of Scripture has been clarified. Many of the 19th century objections to the Old Testament in particular and its reliability as an account of historical fact are now irrelevant But Oriental studies have also produced another finding: “ . . . laudata scientia rerum orientalium insuper demonstrat in Bibliis Sacris notitias historicas et notitias scientiae naturalis a veritate quandoque deficere." Thus Cardinal Koenig admitted that not all the difficulties could be solved.
The fact that this speech could be held in a plenary session without any protest being made is surely significant... Thus Cardinal Koenig implicitly gives up that premise that comes from the aprioristic and unhistorical thinking that has dominated teaching on inerrancy since the age of the Fathers: if one admits that a sacred writer has made a mistake, then one is necessarily admitting that God has made a mistake with the human author. The actual aim of inspiration allows us to find a better solution: one can still maintain the true influence of God on the human authors without making him responsible for their weaknesses. These relate only to the form or the outer garment of the Gospel, and not the latter itself, however much the two might be inwardly connected- indeed, without this genuine humanity, with all its limitations, Scripture would appear like a foreign body in our world. But God speaks to us in this way, in our language, from out of our midst.
A number of Council fathers followed the example of Cardinal Koenig and refer to him as an authority: others, admittedly in the minority, produced the traditional statements, without, however, dealing with the new points raised by Cardinal Koenig. H. Vorgrimler, ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (Herder & Herder, 1969), 3:204-207
"God's people who got the NT right (to varying degrees) in the early centuries blew it with the OT. And then they also blew it with other widely held doctrines you reject."
i) That's simplistic. Some people got it right (e.g. Jerome) and some got it wrong.
ii) Moreover, early church fathers were better positioned to be historical witnesses to the NT canon than the OT canon.
Apart from the NT witness to the OT canon, the Jews were better positioned to be historical witnesses to the OT canon than most church fathers.
"Protestantism can easily deflect the charge by actually offering infallible/irreformable teachings/interpretations."
The Bible contains infallible teachings. LIkewise, the NT contains infallible interpretations of the OT.
That's good enough for me. Pity it's not good enough for you.
"Right so again 'articles of faith' are no such thing in Protestantism - they are simply reasoned opinions based on the best available evidence we have according to whatever erudite scholars we sub-select for who bring their own biases, analytical methodologies, expertise, etc to the data set (that data set itself being a matter of opinion)."
i) You're straining to typecast me in your imaginary drama. But I don't select for commentators who agree with me. I don't know ahead of time how many will agree with me. I own commentaries by liberals, conservatives, Catholics, charismatics, Arminians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Dispensationalists, Calvinists, &c. You've miscast me in your imaginary drama.
ii) You're recycling postmodernist cliches about how everyone is biased. One problem with that line of attack is that it boomerangs on Catholicism. The Latin Fathers were culturally conditioned. The Scholastic theologians were culturally conditioned. The popes were culturally conditioned. Rome's representatives are not exempt from bias, social conditioning, &c. Do you think the views of Pope Francis aren't shaped by Latin American history?
iii) There's not much methodological difference between contemporary Catholic and Protestant commentators. Catholic Bible scholars like Ray Brown, John Meier, Joseph Fitzmyer, Luke Timothy Johnson, Mgr. Jerome Quinn, John J. Collins, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor et al. use the same toolkit as Protestant Bible scholars. The main difference is that contemporary Catholic Bible scholars are overwhelmingly liberal.
iv) I admit that my own viewpoint is historically situated. No doubt my views are influenced by where and when I was born and raised. I don't apologize for that. That's a reflection of divine providence. Assuming that's a problem, it's beyond my control.
Popes, Catholic bishops, Catholic theologians et al. don't form their views in a hermetically-sealed bubble chamber.
Catholic apologists bask in safe abstractions about the religious certainty afforded by Rome. But it looks very different at ground level.
For instance, consider how complicated and iffy it is to interpret just one famous papal proclamation:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/catholic-augury.html
Likewise, Cardinal Dulles penned a monograph on the magisterium, which I reviewed:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterium-in-nt.html
PBJ,
"If you are reasoning with souls out of the scriptures then you are certainly trying to convince them thereby"
Agreed. Why you think Christ/Apostles appeal to Scripture therefore entails sola scriptura or a denial of their divine authority escapes me. RCs appeal to Scripture in defense of their doctrines - that doesn't mean they follow SS or deny RCism's claims to authority.
"The apostles could and did invoke authority in requiring obedience,"
Bingo. They invoked divine authority (many passages can be adduced). Protestantism and its confessions do not.
"but which authority itself was contingent upon Scriptural warrant for it"
You cite 2 Cor to justify your claim Christ and the Apostles' authority was contingent upon Scriptural warrant - this is cart before the horse again - why is 2 Cor Scripture in first place? Because Paul wrote it under divine authority. You can't rig the game.
"And which apostolic qualifications and credentials Rome's purported "successors" manifestly fail of, while claiming what they did not."
The Reformers would carry more weight if they did "wonders and mighty deeds" to prove themselves approved by God. This was one of Francis de Sales arguments. But they fell far short of that.
"RCism's authority does not violate Scripture is based upon the premise that she alone is correct in any conflict as to what Scripture means."
The point is simple - a claim to divine authority to offer infallible interpretation/teaching does not impugn Scripture's authority, otherwise Christ and the Apostles impugned Scripture's authority.
"which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares."
Very good. We see the difference between the two systems clearly now. One is making the necessary claim to warrant assent of faith, the other is not.
"At least you are consistent with your Roman reasoning"
Yes, and I've been trying to see how you are consistent with your Protestant reasoning. If a system is inconsistent, that's an indicator of falsity.
"but you also invalidated the Lord's command to obey non-infallible authorities while they yet had a valid office!"
We obey non-infallible authorities all the time. The point is if we are to assent to divine revelation, it must be taken on the authority of another - it is supernatural, not natural revelation. So bodies rejecting the divine authority and even ability to identify articles of faith aren't worth considering in the first place - they've shot themselves in the foot.
"Even Steve recognizes confessionalism is a smokescreen
You mean (if i understand this debate)"
All I am saying is that confessionalism is a paper tiger authority. Confessions "authority" is undermined by the claims those confessions make in saying that synods can err (which produced said confessions) and any teaching is authoritative insofar as it conforms to Scripture - that obviously applies to the confessions themselves. Hence the history of revisions and impossibility of checking one confession's authority over the other, as Steve was pointing out. Sola ends up reducing to solo - so as I said I have no reason to subject myself to that ecclesiastical authority by its own claims. If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation?
(cont)
"Wrong, as insofar as it is held as settled and irreformable (note that RCs even disagree on whether Rome closed the canon)"
Let's grant that Rome allows for an open canon if a lost letter of Paul was discovered. Is that catastrophic to the STM-triad of authority? No. Just as asterisked passages are not. That's one of the advantages of having a triad of parallel authorities (which is why God ordained such). Now is an open canon and disputed passages catastrophic to SS as the sole final authority? I would think so - if Scripture interprets Scripture and is the sole final authority, it seems rather important that the scope and extent of the recognized canon be irreformable and closed. How can you have a sole infallible standard when that standard itself is reformable?
"is based upon the same manner of warrant as established most of what we hold as Scripture as being so before there was a church of Rome."
Your same manner of warrant is just tentative plausible opinion. It's not being offered under any divine authority or as irreformable. It is ever-provisional. Further your "manner of warrant" seems to appeal to apostolic authorship (tradition) as well as corporate reception (magisterium), but given SS, such appeals to establish the rule of faith are unjustified and ad hoc. You don't climb up the ladder, and then kick the ladder. I note such appeals are perfectly consistent with the STM-triad rule of faith.
"According to Roman reasoning however, the Lord and His disciples had nothing authoritative to appeal to , as that awaited the validation of the infallible authority of Rome."
The Lord and His disciples were inspired and infallible. And they claimed divine authority. Protestantism does not.
"If all the contents are wholly inspired of God, then it is an infallible collection of infallible books, but not under the premise of a charism of assured formulaic infallibility, as per Rome. "
As Steve mentioned, ontologically this is true. The issue is the identification/recognition of those books. Since you tried to deflect to the ontological nature of the canon, I assume that's a concession that Sproul's remark is correct.
"why should OT souls have heeded prophets who reproved the priestly powers that be, and why should 1st c.souls have followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected?"
Because the prophets and itinerant preachers performed signs and wonders to demonstrate their authority as revelation was still developing. The Reformers offer no such miracles, so I have no reason to take them seriously, and further still since they reject divine authority to identify articles of faith, I have further reason not to take them seriously - they need to at least make the claim (as Christ and the Apostles did).
"According to you, yet it is Scripture which attests to souls discerning both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium. "
What do you mean according to me? SS says Scripture is the sole final infallible authority in matters of faith. The extent/scope of the canon and that it is inspired and inerrant would seem to be a matter of faith. So it would seem that to be consistent with SS principles, you would need to demonstrate the extent/scope of the canon from some combination of self-attestation and inner witness.
"then you also have effectively nuked the NT church. "
The NT church that followed both tradition and writings right? Since SS wasn't operative during time of inscripturation. The church was operating for quite a few decades before the NT was completed. So I haven't nuked anything.
(cont)
"their integrity as Truth is subject to what it written as supreme"
This is more cart before the horse. If what was written was supreme in the manner you characterize, how would the NT and citations of approved oral tradition ever become part of the canon? The standard itself that you say they were subjecting their teaching to had not yet been set.
"Because being supreme means a certain Prophet would reprove the oral torah by Scripture, rather than making it equal with Scripture under supreme magisterial authority, as with the Scribes and Pharisees and Rome."
This doesn't answer the question. If what was written was supreme, why didn't God send OT prophets to rebuke Jews from following the oral Torah and to only heed the written word? Why did Jewish sects hold differing canons?
"But only all of Scripture is wholly inspired of God, which tradition and infallible teaching arr not, and alone is the supreme standard, by which all is tested."
So do you test the extent/scope of the canon by that sole standard?
"Thus Moses heard and obeyed the word of God, and souls heeded him, and to whom god provided an extensive scope revelation of His will in the written Law to an extensive scope of people."
Did that include the Oral Torah? If what Moses was given was the supreme standard, how did the rest of the OT and NT canon get added?
"But as the word of God was written, it became the supreme standard, as is abundantly evidenced."
Abundantly evidenced where? SS wasn't operative during the apostolic era, so any citation of Scripture won't do any work for you since the writers couldn't have meant such, and authorial intent matters in your "ghm is the only proper way to interpret Scripture's meaning" exegetical approach.
"Rather, the authority of the apostles and the the veracity of their teaching rested upon manifest Scriptural warrant in principal and or precept, in word and in power, thus Paul's appeal such in manifesting apostleship for the lost and the laity to judge them by."
The apostles wrote Scripture and had divine authority. You again are arguing like they were and we all should be OT Sola Scripturists.
"In contrast, while Scripture may be cited by Rome for support, it only assuredly means what she says, and cannot be allowed to correct her, nor is the weight of its evidence the basis for assurance by a RC, as with evangelicals."
Any non-believing Jew could make this exact argument to reject Christ and the Apostle's authority and interpretation/teaching of the OT.
(end)
"And as seen even in this thread, an RC appeals to the Bible merely as an accurate historical document in attempting to provide warrant for assent to Rome, as it makes the infallible mag. of Rome essential for knowing what Scripture consists of."
I'm open to other ways that are *consistent and coherent* for identifying the canon and its attendant doctrines. SS so far has not proved a promising candidate. Rome at least is consistent in its claims and starting principles.
"And once one renders implicit assent to Rome, a faithful he is not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching by examination of the evidence, as the matter is settled based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, and his one duty is to follow the pastors."
Faith works with reason and seeks understanding. Of course we can investigate teachings to better understand them. But holding RC teaching ever hostage to my provisional opinions means I would not have submitted to RC's claims of divine authority in the first place - nothing would have changed pre and post submission. It would be like an NT believer who accepted and submitted to Christ/Apostles' claims to authority, but then constantly held their current and future teachings perpetually in a dock to freely reject if his opinion changed. Such a person would not have really submitted to the claims of authority Christ/Apostles were making, nothing changed after submission.
Steve,
"Their modus operandi is to stipulate some artificial threshold of (alleged) religious certainty."
The only stipulation I'm making is that articles of faith are irreformable. If you think that is "setting the bar at some a priori height" you're free to demonstrate how.
"When, however, they are defending Catholicism against examples of theological error or reversal, they do an about-face and resort to various escape clauses and face-saving distinctions to savage the infallibility/indefectability of Rome from logical or historical disproof. "
When, however, conservatives are defending inerrancy against examples of error or corruption, they do an about-face and resort to various escape clauses and face-saving distinctions to salvage the inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture from logical or historical disproof.
"They end up with a position that's unfalsifiable at the cost of being unverifiable."
Rome's claims can be falsified. However, in examining a system, it is important to evaluate that system by its *own* defined standards and criteria. Rome has defined her standards for infallibility, you may think it should operate differently, but you can't then disprove its claim by foisting your foreign standard upon it (your examples of alleged contradiction suffer from this). Just as you would not let atheists get away with foisting their standard upon how inerrancy should work in examining your position. There are many examples of how Rome could be falsified - if tomorrow it infallibly taught that Christ was not divine or that Book of Mormon is inspired or Mary is eternal, there goes infallibility.
"I begin with revelation. I accept revelation as it comes to us from God's hand. I start with how God has chosen to reveal himself. What he's chosen to reveal and what he's chosen to keep to himself."
All of these are articles of faith and so should be infallible and irreformable. So Protestantism should have a way to offer such.
"Apart from the NT witness to the OT canon, the Jews were better positioned to be historical witnesses to the OT canon than most church fathers."
So God intended and illuminated the minds of God's people to get the NT right (well, most of it depending on who and where) in the early centuries, but clouded their minds so they blew the OT but kept it clear among those who rejected his Son and were no longer His people. Odd.
And again appealing to this consensus of "God's people" in establishing the canon is invalid - you can’t use a posteriori knowledge in justifying/recognizing the canon since that wasn’t used in the process of its initial recognition.
"The Bible contains infallible teachings. LIkewise, the NT contains infallible interpretations of the OT."
On what basis do you offer that? Does every book of the bible (indeed every verse given textual criticism) claim infallibility for itself? Many books have written about God, Jesus, and the like that you reject as canonical.
If one’s system precludes the ability to distinguish articles of faith from opinion, then one also precludes the ability to identify any proposed religious authority as having any greater authority than that of plausible opinion. That holds for "Scripture" (however that may be tentatively defined according to Protestantism's principles) as an authority as well as any other proposed authority. Affirming scriptural inerrancy/inspiration just becomes yet another opinion among others, according *to that principle*. That's why liberal Protestants denying inerrancy are not violating Protestantism's starting principles. By deflating the church’s authority and notions of infallibility, Protestantism in one swoop opens the door for liberalism to do the same with Scripture.
(cont)
"That's good enough for me. Pity it's not good enough for you."
So what happens when you interpret the NT? Can such an interpretation or teaching ever become irreformable based on Protestantism's starting principles?
"You're straining to typecast me in your imaginary drama. But I don't select for commentators who agree with me. I don't know ahead of time how many will agree with me. I own commentaries by liberals, conservatives, Catholics, charismatics, Arminians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Dispensationalists, Calvinists, &c."
Right - and I would assume you admit your own fallibility and inherent limitations. You can't study everything, nor do you have time to become competent, let alone an expert, in every field that touches upon the bible and biblical exegesis. The current state of the historical/philological/archaeological/hermeneutic/sociological/etc fields is based on the best available evidence and analyses we have right now. Erudite scholars disagree on the interpretation/analysis of the same data sets and are often basing conclusions on abductive/inductive reasoning rather than deductive and hence only offering tentative probable opinion. Scholars disagree on what the raw data even consists of, let alone how to properly analyze it or what weight to give various parts of it. And this is all upstream from the point where you apply your current provisional filtering of that state of analysis to accept certain conclusions as opposed to other ones.
Such criteria does not and cannot form the basis for articles of faith. You trade submission to an infallible magisterium that can offer articles of faith to a self-admitted fallible scholarly magisterium that has erudite scholars on all sides of various questions that can offer you nothing more than plausible opinion by its own admission. You've dropped an anchor in a raging sea, but the anchor is far too light and short. This is why the validity of doctrines is not driven solely by competing scholarship – such by its nature is ever-provisional and always subject to change and ignorance of heretofore unconsidered or undiscovered documents/evidences/ideas/analysis.
One who submitted to Christ/Apostles did not thereafter continually hold their past and future teachings hostage to his own personal interpretation or arbitrary threshold of acceptance before he would submit to them. Those who did, left to their detriment.
If all religious truths reduces to probable/confident opinion, we're stuck in sheer fideism, or you reduce articles of faith to natural knowledge and we become stark rationalists.
"You're recycling postmodernist cliches about how everyone is biased. One problem with that line of attack is that it boomerangs on Catholicism. The Latin Fathers were culturally conditioned. The Scholastic theologians were culturally conditioned. The popes were culturally conditioned. Rome's representatives are not exempt from bias, social conditioning, &c. Do you think the views of Pope Francis aren't shaped by Latin American history?"
So atheist or liberal biblical scholars aren't biased in their methodology? You recently blogged Aland's conclusion on early ecclesiology - do you follow his conclusions regarding the canon/authorship and apostolic charismatic office structure? If not, is it because you don't agree with his methodology and presuppositions that lead him to that conclusion but do when it agrees with you against Rome? A good portion of your posts on your blog are focused on pointing out biases in the scientific and biblical academic communities - are you following postmodernist cliches in your analysis?
There's no boomerang because RCism claims divine authority and protection in offering its doctrines. Protestantism does not.
(end)
"There's not much methodological difference between contemporary Catholic and Protestant commentators. Catholic Bible scholars ... use the same toolkit as Protestant Bible scholars."
Rome sees ghm exegesis as useful, but limited and not the sole final tool in which to ascertain divine truth - that's already a methodological difference. GHM does not answer whether it is to be the primary (let alone ultimate) method to be used in ascertaining divine truth, or if it is to be combined with other methods, nor does it answer how it should best be applied to the biblical data (hence the differing conclusions amongst ghm-only proponents). And it is itself subject to change as scholarly/historical analysis and evidence in the fields that inform it grows and develops - it's built on shifting sands of changing data and abductive/inductive reasoning and tentative probable conclusions. So it again doesn't get you out of the sea of opinion. So while Roman scholars may use some of the same toolkit as Protestants, they also have a much larger shop with supervisors they are working in - they aren't stuck with the toolkit alone.
"I admit that my own viewpoint is historically situated. No doubt my views are influenced by where and when I was born and raised."
So the sea rages on.
"I don't apologize for that. That's a reflection of divine providence. Assuming that's a problem, it's beyond my control."
It's not a problem if you recognize God ordained a way for your faith not to be held hostage and ever-provisional to those conditional circumstances.
"Popes, Catholic bishops, Catholic theologians et al. don't form their views in a hermetically-sealed bubble chamber."
Sure - which is partly why infallibility is a negative protection against error and has specific criteria to be met.
(i posted to the wrong forum again (thought i closed that tab among the 100 others , which will be deleted)
Guy tries,
PBJ,
"It means the hierarchical structure of Rome is invisible in the NT."
There is indeed a hierarchical structure in the NT. Paul's letter to Timothy reveals 4 generations of Bishops.
Again you fail to understand the argument. I already affirmed ordination of elders, but in context i was referring to "the hierarchical structure of Rome" as described.
You seem to focus on "supreme exalted infallible".
Is Jesus supreme exalted and infallible?
Did he give this status to the Church that was going to speak for him, preserve his teaching and constitute his bride and body down through the ages after his Ascension?
If not, why did Christ start a Church? What is it for? Who needs it?
You seem to focus on ignoring what has refuted your argument time and time again and just moving on by repeating it.
It remains that the premise behind your polemic is that transmission and discernment of Truth, and preservation of it, and of faith and thus his people and body down through the ages requires a perpetual infallible magisterium
But which you cannot show was ever necessary before, as God always provided and preserved His truth, and faith and His own without an infallible magisterium, and even by raising up prophets from without it, and which is how the church began.
And under Rome, as shown, the church of Rome can descend to a very sorry state, according to her own.
How do you know there was to be no "such line". What does Church history say? Read the Fathers.
Sure, you want to look at the "unbroken line" of popes? Lets do it, and see how many did not even gain their seat by the Biblical means, and were not even qualified to be church members in the NT. Rome confuses the NT church with the physical theocracies of the OT.
Are you saying Paul ruled the universal Church?"in which James gives the definitive sentence,"
Why is it so difficult for you to see that the argument was the absence of the Roman papacy in the light of what Scripture actually says, and the absence of what would be needed for it to be what Rome makes it into?
Where is this supreme infallible magisterium even in all the descriptions of the "better promises" of the new covenant in Hebrews? Where is even Peter? Or even corporate submission to him as the supreme head enjoined or made an issue in any of church epistles, or in the Spirit's letters to the churches in Rv. 2,3 with their many issues and needs?
As for Paul, he was not pope but he certainly did or was many things things as if he was, or after the manner of things RCs invoke to support Peter as pope..
James did not establish doctrine. He established a temporary pastoral discipline that is no longer binding to today. I Ever eat a blood rare steak? )
Peter established the infallible doctrine still binding today, that Gentiles can enter the Church as Gentiles.
He established a doctrinal basis for the Gentiles entering the church, confirmative of what Peter had made appeal to, and thus James determined what should the churches should do.
There simply was no other final definitive judgment but that, as Peter only appealed, to them to see what God has done by the evangelical gospel which provided it, and thus act accordingly, but did not decree, much less as "according to the authority I have." And which understanding of the Gentiles adoption Paul and Barnabas confirmed, as they were also reaching the Gentiles as being part of the one new man. Thus Paul's censure of Peter in Gal. 2.
Again. Peter as a leader simply does not translate into the Roman papacy.
To be cntd.
"And after that he is simply listed second as one of those who appeared to be pillars,"
Guy again,
Actually, James prefaced his remarks with, "Okay, you have heard what Simon had to say,...". Then tacked on his rules about scandalizing Jewish Christians.
The "pillars" aspect refers to Gal. 2, while your minimizing of James is wrong, as he first supplied clear Scriptural warrant for this inclusion, while the restrictions also have sound Scriptural support.
PBJ, please notice the book of Acts does not even mention Peter and Paul as being dead yet.
Please note the apostle James as martyred and thus Herod had his eyes on Peter next. (Acts 12:2,30
Notice that James' death did not shake up the Church but Peter's incarceration sure did.
Evidence believers did not pray for the dead, while praying for a living apostle, Peter no less being headed for martyrdom ought to be important. Yet according to your rules the importance of apostolic succession is not there.
Yes and those elders performed priestly functions not allotted to the general Christian population. They anointed, they absolved from sin, they prayed over the sick, the rules and, according to Jude, they seem to have burnt incense which was a form of sacrifice.
Wrong. Jude says nothing about elders period, let alone burning incense, while elder in Israel could also anoint, (2Sam. 5:3) and James 5 connects forgiveness with healing, as in Mt. 9:1-6, and which forgiveness=healing is clearly inferred in the general exhortation to all believers to "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." (James 5:16)
God can have mercy in response to intercessory prayer for one who is being chastened for sins.
In any case this does not apply to Rome, as contrary to Script here, her "extreme unction" is basically a precursor to death, not healing.
And even if elders/bishops were shown to have a uniquely sacrificial function, it would not warrant helping out the Holy Spirit by giving them the title of "hierus" ("kohen in Hebrew; "priest" is from old Eng. "preost" for presbuteros, but adopted for "hierus" equating it with presbuteros) since He never does, which is only used for Jewish and pagan priests
"The ordination of elders and deacons is the only ordination seen in the life of the church."
You forget Matthias took Judas' episcopate.
No i did not. I thus said in the life of the church, which did not formally begin until Pentecost, and the pouring out of the Spirit, and His gifts . (1Co. 12)
Actually, EO does say Peter was chief. Plus, some of the greatest defenders of the Papacy were eastern Fathers like Chrysostom.
Not your Roman chief. For one, take away his assured infallibility and see what goes with it. Besides other differences .
2 b ctnd.
Guy again,
It means the Church was given a mission by Christ and a promise of success in carrying out that promise.
If the Church can fail, then Christ fails. And you have absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy. Any appeal to the perspicuity of scripture falls flat on its face as defectible Church wouldn't even be able to tell you, with any certitude, just which of the books floating around constitute scripture or make any pronouncements on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity or anything else.
Well then it remains that the church began with bunch of people who had no promise of perpetuation, but somehow maintained a distinct identify and faith for over a thousand years.
And thru whom came the Messiah, but since the people had no way of knowing what was of God or what was not, they could only guess.
And so the church began with a bunch of itinerant preachers quoting from merely historical documents,
and with a bunch of souls following them "who had absolutely no way of knowing true doctrine from heresy."
Thus this entity called a church must be invalidated, though it seems to yet have some followers today.
As the Jewish mag. rejected Christ as having no valid authority from them whom He reproved by Scripture, so would Rome in her like presumption.
Maybe tweek it to say "Church" means biblical/Papal. Roman is an adjective given us by Protestants.
Actually, Rome has used the word "Roman" to describe herself. Want examples?
"But both what "church" means and indefectiblity and whether she has ever become corrupt in faith or in morals is autocratically determined by her!"
And who else? Christ did establish the Church, didn't he?
And thus once again you confirmed the autocratic nature of your church and her circularity, besides invalidated the NT church, which did not begin under the premise of assured veracity, but by souls discerning what was of God based upon Scriptural substantiation.
Guy goes,
PBJ,
I disagree. I think if the Council fathers had "searched the scriptures", they would not have abrogated the rule of circumcision given to Abraham.
Gen 17:13 says the covenant rule of circumcision was to be "perpetual".
Wrong; circumcision was just part of the ritual laws, and it signified salvation under the Law, which included many perpetual statutes which the Scripture-based gospel abrogated under the New covenant, which the apostles (and whoever wrote Hebrews) showed by the Scriptures.
The apostles in Acts 15 certainly were not ignorant of Scripture or negligent in studying it as you make them to be (in ignoring/dismissing what i showed you), and to hold that they did not make this judgment in the light of Scripture is absurd, though consistent with the superfluous place of Scripture in so much Roman reasoning.
Already, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [the Lord] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." " that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:27,44,45)
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures , (Luke 24:45) And gave them a charge that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations," preceded by being "endued with power from on high" in Jerusalem. (LK. 24:47,49)
And which understanding of the Scriptures they showed in so tarrying, awaiting the pouring out God's spirit upon all flesh that Joel 2:28 prophesied. And which signified the latter-days which Joel proceeds to describe, in which "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered [saved]." (Joel 2:32)
And which Scripture text, among others, Peter preaches from in Acts 2, "showing from Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" as Apollos id (Acts 18:38). "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (1Co. 15:3,4)
Moreover, that the coming of the Messiah instituted a profound latter-day change was seen even in the charge that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations," and by Acts 15 Peter had already had his liberating vision consistent with this abrogation, and then he experienced what this meant.
Thus in Acts 15 Simeon (James calls him, not Peter/stone) reiterated the evangelical gospel of grace ("hear the word of the gospel, and believe," God "giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us" "purifying their hearts by faith," even before baptism), so "that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."(Acts 15:7-9)
And which gospel Paul said and showed was, "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," and "by the scriptures of the prophets...made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Rm. 1:1,2; 16:26)
Furthermore, rather than being of those who do not search the Scriptures, and would simply abrogate perpetual statutes without a sound Scriptural basis, as per RC arrogance, the first thing James does, who is giving the doctrinal basis for salvation of the Gentiles by grace without literally keeping all the Law, is to invoke Scripture.
"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written," (Act 15:15) quoting prophet Amos 9:11,12 (from the LXX) who foretells this latter-day harvest of Gentile souls in building a spiritual temple . (cf. Is. 16:5; 33:20)
To be continued:
Pt. 2
This Scriptural gospel Paul was already preaching, that "by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 13:39) which meant the washing of regeneration and adoption by God not on the basis of law-keeping (though faith effects obedience unto fulfilling its intent: Rm. 8:4) or keeping the ritual laws, which included circumcision.
And as Paul shows in Gal,. 5:1-4ff religious circumcision constituted submission to the salvation under the Law.
And implicit in all this is the progressive realization by them of the New Covenant - instituted by the death of the Messiah - which as Hebrews (I think Apollos wrote it) makes clear, is distinctly "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," (Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9)
"Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." (Hebrews 9:10)
While the apostles did not realize the full implications of this at first, the fact they surely knew was that there are many everlasting, forever, perpetual (‛ôlâm) statutes and ordinances, like as offering the heave offering being a perpetual statutes, and the 7th day Sabbath was a perpetual covenant. But we do not see the apostles regularly keeping either as under the Law.
Therefore, that Christ had come, died and rose and provided salvation for all, that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43) and its implications, was solidly based upon Scripture.
Which manifested the latter-day realization of the New Covenant, though the fuller realization of which in the ecclesial terms of the "one new man" would be revealed and expressed primarily via Paul. Thanks be to God.
Yet RCs have the apostles preaching this message as true based upon their own authority, not that of Scripture by which Christ validated His Messiahship, mission and message by, and thus the very apostles!
Cletus Van Damme asks,
Where does the passage say Scripture is supreme and sole infallible authority? A rebuke of corrupted tradition is not an indictment of all tradition.
If all Scripture is wholly inspired (which neither tradition as conveyed by Rome or her infallible decrees can be said to be) then it is thus infallible it is not?
And if it reproved the supreme magisterium and claimed traditions,
and was the Source which Christ referenced to as coming from the mouth of God, and which He used to defeat the devil (Mt. 4:4ff: the devil also did not quote tradition as authoritative, for he knows what is),
and is what "the word of God/the Lord" is directly or subsequently most always was transmitted by,
and by which Truth claims were tested by and established upon, in word and in the power Scripture testifies to, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
and thus by which Christ Himself validated His Messiahship, mission and message by, (Lk. 24:44)
and thus opened He up the minds of the disciples to, (Lk. 24:45) not tradition,
who also showed from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, (Acts 18:28)
and that the gospel, by faith in which the church exists, was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith," (Rm. 16:26)
and upon which the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel,
then it is second to what?
And see here (via pop up view) partial but extensive list of references to the word of God as being written and substantiating the claim that, as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims.
Thanks be to God.
Would the Bereans have been commended had they rejected Paul's message because it violated their interpretation of Scripture?
Only if they could show they were right. If there was disagreement, you would not see the apostles or their prelates claiming any assured veracity that kicked in whenever they spoke universally on faith and morals, but instead you would see them doing what they did do in establishing the Scriptural basis for the gospel,
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom 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)
How could NT believers practice SS - SS wasn't operative during inscripturation by definition, as people like White freely admit.
The did operate under SS, as in manifesting Scripture as alone being the supreme standard, with its substantiated being what men of God were established by, even itinerant preachers whom the seat of Moses rejected.
Sola prima alone is contrary to sola ecclesia.
If you have another supreme standard, which Truth claim (even that the church is of God) must show conformity with, name it?
As for sufficiency, that was more material than later, yet from the beginning Scripture materially provided for additional complementary writings being provided and recognized as being so, in conflation with what preceded it. Some RCs allow more could hypothetically be added to the canon.
To be continued:
Cletus Van Damme said,
The Apostles and Christ preached with authority in offering their teaching and interpretation - they weren't saying go do some research and get back to me if you agree
Wrong: that is basically just what they did do! If you are reasoning with souls out of the scriptures then you are certainly trying to convince them thereby, and Christ Himself challenged souls to search the Search the scriptures for they testified of Him. (John 5:39)
And it was "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Corinthians 4:2) that they sought to convince souls.
The apostles could and did invoke authority in requiring obedience, but which authority itself was contingent upon Scriptural warrant for it," in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,"
" "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 6:4; 12:12)
And which apostolic qualifications and credentials Rome's purported "successors" manifestly fail of, while claiming what they did not.
For the basis for the integrity of their claims which was not that of a charism of assured veracity that kicked in when acting according to a certain infallibly defined formula, so that the Assumption is guaranteed to be true since they said it, without even Scriptural testimony of it or even early testimony from tradition.
that they did not violate Scripture (nor does RCism's authority) does not imply they followed SS. Otherwise we'd all be OT sola scripturists.
Rather, in contrast to the manifest Scriptural basis for the veracity of apostolic teaching, including the judgment of Acts 15 (see above posts ) that RCism's authority does not violate Scripture is based upon the premise that she alone is correct in any conflict as to what Scripture means.
For again, 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.
The point is I have no reason to subject myself to that ecclesiastical authority by its own claims. If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation?
At least you are consistent with your Roman reasoning, but you have just relegated yourself to being an anarchist who not only would be subject to the death penalty under the OT with its non-infallible judges, and might as well reject civil authority also, but you also invalidated the Lord's command to obey non-infallible authorities while they yet had a valid office! (Mt. 23:2)
What you are ignoring is that what gives allegiance is either love or fear, and while for the OT mag. it was mainly fear of punishment, which today is the same for the state, in the NT this was by shunning and spiritual power. Which to work requires the authority to manifest that it has such by what occurs to those who dissent. When Paul threatened to use a rod, (1Co. 4) it was not that of men.
Even Steve recognizes confessionalism is a smokescreen
You mean (if i understand this debate) opposing some men who want to presume papal-like universal authority over all translates into negating leadership requiring its members to assent to binding basic truths, so that the members of churches which most strongly hold to Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are characterized by moral and doctrinal anarchy?
While under the alternative, how much of what RCs are sppsd to believe and practice precludes any dissent?
And since the members follow leadership (with believe being more what they actually support and do than just profess) of which are more than the unchanging written word of God, then they would not be found in one century obeying leadership in exterminating all who theologically dissent from them, and in another century treating even proabortion prosodomy public figures and followers as members in life and in death? And being far more diverse and liberal in core faith and moral beliefs than than evangelical types?
Unfortunately any Protestant body offering the canon as irreformable is violating its own principles. If all confessions and protestant bodies' teachings are authoritative only insofar as they conform to Scripture and reject infallibility/divine authority in offering their teachings, then turning around and offering the canon (and its attendant doctrines of closure, inspiration, inerrancy) as irreformable violates its starting principles and claims.
Wrong, as insofar as it is held as settled and irreformable (note that RCs even disagree on whether Rome closed the canon) is based upon the same manner of warrant as established most of what we hold as Scripture as being so before there was a church of Rome.
According to Roman reasoning however, the Lord and His disciples had nothing authoritative to appeal to , as that awaited the validation of the infallible authority of Rome. No wonder all they can do is appeal to Scripture merely as a historically accurate document.
Hence Sproul's "fallible collection";
If all the contents are wholly inspired of God, then it is an infallible collection of infallible books, but not under the premise of a charism of assured formulaic infallibility, as per Rome.
All "articles of faith" remain ever-provisional, and hence cannot be articles of faith which are infallible by definition.
They are no less binding than the truth that there is one true God was before the church began.
And "consensus" begs the question - you assume "consensus" is the group that agrees with your provisional interpretation - you reject the "consensus" that differs with you on the OT canon or held other beliefs you reject. So appealing to consensus does no work for you.
Wrong, it means that rather than holding Truths as binding based upon the premise of assured magisterial or personal veracity as in autocractic Rome, and hence her professions of her own authority, instead they must be manifest as binding after the same manner that they became held.
Again the question remains, under the RC model, why should OT souls have heeded prophets who reproved the priestly powers that be, and why should 1st c.souls have followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected?
Secondly, any appeal to criteria outside of self-attestation and inner witness to establish the canon creates a canon above the canon and violates the principles of SS.
According to you, yet it is Scripture which attests to souls discerning both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium.
By requiring the latter and negating the former as means of assurance of Truth, then you also have effectively nuked the NT church.
If God intended SS as the rule of faith, why was the recognition of the full canon amongst his people a centuries-long process (that many still ended up blowing with the OT canon)?
The former presumes SS must be held as a historical constant, which is need not. Rather it is valid as being consistent with the degree of light given.
Before Moses what was the standard for Truth by which men were held accountable? As with after Moses and even today for some, it can simply be the only light they have realized.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)
However, the superior revelation was the Law, by which it was judged whether the Gentiles (by God's grace) did by nature the things contained in the Law.
And which Law was established as being by God in the light of the attestation God gave it, to which further truth claim writings would be judged by. (Is. 8:20)
And yet as the Christ of the gospel became manifest as the superior revelation of God, thus there comes "the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2:16)
Likewise, as the written word became the supreme sufficient standard, then souls will be judged by it, even though at one time there was no written word.
For as God gives light, including what is of God, then He calls souls accountable to obey it. Therefore, even though the Pharisees rejected Christ, they will be judged by Him.
For while the powers that be are to affirm what is of God, yet both men and writings of God are what they are regardless. And thus in sentencing the lost, they will be judged according the light they had as corresponding to Scripture, according to what they had, not according to what they had not. (Lk. 12:42; cf. 2Cor. 8:12)
Moreover, the gospel itself was established upon writings that had been established as Scripture, though for the RC this is impossible, since there was no infallible magisterium to tell the people what men and writings were of God and what was not.
Instead, the Lord and His apostles would have to teach, "thus saith a historically accurate document."
Yet it is certainly seems evident that most of the books we hold as Scripture were held as authoritative by the time of Christ, with more being progressively established as such by the same means previous ones were.
Too tired to write more.
Three quick points regarding the perpetuity of circumcision:
i) Circumcision was a covenant sign. A sign is not the essence of what it signifies.
ii) The perpetuity of a covenantal command is indexed to the duration of the covenant. It's a way of saying the command remains in force so long as the covenant remains in force. But covenantal commands don't ipso facto outlive the covenants in which they adhere.
iii) The Abrahamic covenant is subsumed in the new covenant. The new covenant is not just a republication of the Abrahamic covenant. As such, it has its own covenant signs.
Here's further evidence of Rome's doctrinal reversals. Just compare the positions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Leo XIII, long before Vatican II, with the positions of the PBC under recent popes, after Vatican II. There's been a tectonic shift away from traditional adherence to the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
PBJ,
Your last 3 posts to me were reposts I think already in this thread - I replied to those above starting at 3:46 timestamp if you wish to interact with them. But you did add another post with some new stuff I'll reply to:
"If all Scripture is wholly inspired (which neither tradition as conveyed by Rome or her infallible decrees can be said to be) then it is thus infallible it is not?"
Of course it's infallible. That does not entail it is the sole final authority. On what basis do you offer it as wholly inspired according to your starting principles?
"And if it reproved the supreme magisterium and claimed traditions,"
Reproving certain traditions does not reprove tradition wholesale or en toto. If as most SS adherents agree, oral tradition was operating during NT times that was later inscripturated - then obviously Christ could not be using Scripture to condemn tradition wholesale - otherwise oral tradition would never transition into getting inscripturated in the first place.
"and was the Source which Christ referenced to as coming from the mouth of God"
Christ gave revelation through his speech and acts. He wasn't walking around just citing OT Scripture like a robot. Nor did the Apostles.
"and by which Truth claims were tested by and established upon"
The Apostles and Christ were not OT Sola Scripturists. I don't know why you persist arguing as if they were - the NT is part of your canon - the apostolic oral tradition you claim was fully inscripturated is part of your canon. Your argument would preclude the NT from existing.
"then it is second to what?"
It's not second to anything. Parallel authorities are not hierarchical authorities.
"Only if they could show they were right. If there was disagreement, you would not see the apostles or their prelates claiming any assured veracity that kicked in whenever they spoke universally on faith and morals, but instead you would see them doing what they did do in establishing the Scriptural basis for the gospel"
Your argument makes the Apostles' claims to divine authority completely superfluous and irrelevant. They weren't. Nor do articles of faith reduce to how well one can argue his provisional interpretation of some selected sources. Christ did not tell the Jews to go run and consult as many rabbis and scholars as they could and weigh the arguments and then if you agree with me, go ahead and follow as long as your tentative opinion of my continued teachings meets your arbitrary threshold for acceptance.
"The did operate under SS, as in manifesting Scripture as alone being the supreme standard"
This is silly. If they operated under SS, the NT canon doesn't exist. As White said: "You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn't work there!” Of course it doesn't. Who said it did?"
"If you have another supreme standard, which Truth claim (even that the church is of God) must show conformity with, name it?"
Rome's standard is the STM-triad. Scripture is part of that. So please stop arguing as if Rome doesn't consider Scripture authoritative - that's why citing examples of Christ/Apostles appealing to Scripture does not establish your case.
i) Catholicism fails to offer religious certainty even on its own terms. Catholic apologists oscillate between two conflicting arguments. When attacking Protestantism or advertising Catholicism, they tout the superior religious certainty which Rome allegedly offers.
When, however, they are defending Catholicism against examples of theological error or reversal, they do an about-face and resort to various escape clauses and face-saving distinctions to savage the infallibility/indefectability of Rome from logical or historical disproof.
Yes, we are told we need the pope for unity, and censure engaging in interpretation in order to determine Truth, yet as needed they exclude parts of papal encyclicals and bulls, and debate over what is infallible or not, a well as what they mean.
And TradRCs interpret church certain key RC teachings differently than V2 RCs.
As well as what the "pope really meant" in his latest remarks.
Like,
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. -http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/father-the-atheists-even-the-atheists
Here's further evidence of Rome's doctrinal reversals. Just compare the positions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Leo XIII, long before Vatican II, with the positions of the PBC under recent popes, after Vatican II.
There's been a tectonic shift away from traditional adherence to the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
And in the past, earlier in the last century the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) could issue authoritative rulings on what may and may not be taught regarding Scripture.
Praestantia Scripturae, Pope St.Pius X:
“We now declare and expressly enjoin that all without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter,..nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and rashness or be therefore without grave fault.
But as with many other things of Rome, this was changed.
Yet what it said here regarding the discernment of a "canon" of sacred Scripture is worth providing:
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH, Pontifical Biblical Commission, Presented on March 18, 1994
One thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones....
The discernment of a "canon" of sacred Scripture was the result of a long process The communities of the Old Covenant (ranging from particular groups, such as those connected with prophetic circles or the priesthood to the people as a whole) recognized in a certain number of texts the word of God capable of arousing their faith and providing guidance for daily life; they received these texts as a patrimony to be preserved and handed on. In this way these texts ceased to be merely the expression of a particular author's inspiration; they became the common property of the whole people of God.
— http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm#3
But according to some RCs, theses souls, since they lacked an infallible magisterium,
had "absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy" and "wouldn't even be able to tell you, with any certitude, just which of the books floating around constitute scripture."
Such are the conclusions resulting from the cultic codependency Rome fosters on one side of the isle.
Your last 3 posts to me were reposts I think already in this thread ...
Actually, i posted some in the wrong thread due to having that tab open. Then i reposted it to the right forum. Been a long day. Sorry.
Of course it's infallible. That does not entail it is the sole final authority.
This was part of collective reasons, but would you agree that being wholly inspired of God makes God the actual author, and is superior to what Rome teaches as tradition or infallible decrees, as they are not wholly inspired of God and do not have God as their actual author like as Scripture does?
Or does something merely being True have the same power as that which God breathes?
And do you know of any other body of Truth as comprehensive as Scripture that is the infallible word of God?
On what basis do you offer it as wholly inspired according to your starting principles?
See my above quote from the PBC. Scripture provides for this discernment.
Reproving certain traditions does not reprove tradition wholesale or en toto. If as most SS adherents agree, oral tradition was operating during NT times that was later inscripturated - then obviously Christ could not be using Scripture to condemn tradition wholesale
And where did i argue that, rather than affirming that the NT affirms some of tradition as well as some of what pagans wrote? But with Scripture being what it is proved by.
But while Scripture reproved some of tradition as erroneous, the latter never reproved the former.
Christ gave revelation through his speech and acts. He wasn't walking around just citing OT Scripture like a robot. Nor did the Apostles.
Of course He did, an SS type preachers also do more than just cite OT Scripture like a robot as you say, but the point remains that they established their truth claims by Scripture, explicitly or implicitly.
>"and by which Truth claims were tested by and established upon" <
The Apostles and Christ were not OT Sola Scripturists. I don't know why you persist arguing as if they were - the NT is part of your canon...Your argument would preclude the NT from existing.
Then you are not comprehending what i argued, which was that NT Truth claims were tested by and established upon the OT, and which provides for further writings being given and discerned as being Scripture
I am not arguing for formal sufficiency of the OT, nor know any SS advocates that do.
>"then it is second to what?" <
It's not second to anything. Parallel authorities are not hierarchical authorities.
But it also is not parallel, except due to the magisterium effectively being supreme, since Scripture only consists of and assuredly means what she says it does, and then making Scripture equal to what it deems the word of God in amorphous tradition.
Your argument makes the Apostles' claims to divine authority completely superfluous and irrelevant. They weren't.
No, i do not make it irrelevant because i provide the basis for it and what they taught, versus Rome, which claims a greater power, yet fails of their qualifications and credentials as ministers of the New Covenant.
Christ did not tell the Jews to go run and consult as many rabbis and scholars as they could and weigh the arguments and then if you agree with me, go ahead and follow as long as your tentative opinion of my continued teachings meets your arbitrary threshold for acceptance.
A false dilemma. No, he did not tell them to do as a RC would, that of consulting the magisterium and follow them.
But He actually did appeal to the judgment of the common people to discern that He was of God. As did the apostles, "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2Cor. 4:2)
Which some RCs find incomprehensible or untenable due to their magisterial source of security.
>"The did operate under SS, as in manifesting Scripture as alone being the supreme standard" <
This is silly. If they operated under SS, the NT canon doesn't exist. As White said:...
Again, you need to read the argument in context. Here i was only dealing with the aspect of SS that holds Scripture as supreme. I do not think White is denying the status of Scripture as being supreme prior to the NT being completed, but to its status of sufficiency that SS holds it as having after that.
And which i acknowledged as regards sufficiency, that was more material than later, yet from the beginning Scripture materially provided for additional complementary writings being provided and recognized as being so, in conflation with what preceded it.
Rome's standard is the STM-triad. Scripture is part of that. So please stop arguing as if Rome doesn't consider Scripture authoritative - that's why citing examples of Christ/Apostles appealing to Scripture does not establish your case.
I did not say that Rome does not consider Scripture as the authority, but as said in my next post, that RCism's authority does not violate Scripture is based upon the premise that she alone is correct in any conflict as to what Scripture means. Thus she is effectively the supreme irrefutable authority, as if she was Scripture.
Steve,
"There's been a tectonic shift away from traditional adherence to the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
A Protestant has no 100% trustworthy way to distinguish between development and heresy.
If you believe the Church can fail or has failed, you destroyed Christianity.
James,
"Where is the exact infallible content that establishes Peter as infallible? Do you have somewhere other than the Bible, the very word of God that says, "Peter is infallible"?
As a follow-up, do you have any non-Biblical infallible "Word of God" historical facts about Peter, and where are they?"
Do you believe Christ to be infallible? Yes, James, you do.
Did Christ establish a system/organization to convey his message and grace to generations after his Ascension? I hope you answer in the affirmative.
Was that authority Christ established built upon the foundation of 12 men?
Did Christ tell the Apostles they would be his witnesses until the farthest corners of the earth?
Did Christ realize those 12 men would all die before the Gospel message was carried to the ends of the earth?
In order to assure his message was carried to the entire world without any adulteration, he would not have to give that Church the charism of indefectibility.
The Bible and the witness of the Fathers say Peter was the head of the group authorized to rule the Church.
Simple logic, James, says the head of an infallible body must be infallible.
Do you trust your own mind James? Do you bet your life on your doctor's trustworthiness every time you take prescription drugs? Do you trust the road signs along the freeway to get you where you want to go? Do you know with assurance which shoe to put on your left foot? How about your right foot?
My faith in an infallible Pope is a reasonable faith.
James,
Terms like"supremacy"," Prince of the Apostles", "infallible", and "Vicar of Christ on Earth" turn PBJ off.
Yet he is willing to concede a smelly Fisherman named Pete to be the chief of a group of hippie Jesus Freaks having Bible study in the back of a VW bus or on the beach.
I have asked you already but your answer didn't sink in. Where do you stand? Are you with PBJ who says Peter was head honcho, top dog, numero uno, etc. ( anything but "Pope" ) of rag taggle group of Bible freak hippie dudes?
Or do you fib like Steve who says he can hardly even find Peter mentioned anywhere in the NT? At least, he sees Peter to be no more significant than, say, Bartholomew or Andrew?
Please, PBJ or Steve? Are you going to be hung up on a knee-jerk revulsion to anything Catholic like PBJ is, or, are you going to lie through your teeth like Steve?
If you are like PBJ, we can work on it. If you are in flat denial of the elephant standing on the pages of the New Testament, we will have to end all discussion as honesty is a prerequisite for dialogue.
So, what say you about Peter's role, if any, in the early Church?
PS Do you think the term "lie" to be a violation of Hebrews 12? How about, "Flat denial"?
James,
Upon reflection, perhaps my question I put to you is unfair.
I know how you don't want to get in harm's way of the formidable Steve Hays juggernaut nor undermine PJB's vigorous belittling of Peter's role as anything more than, maybe, the tallest, most boisterous or toughest of a disorganized bunch of fishermen turned Jesus freak.
Let me back up and ask you why, in every list of the 12, Peter is always first and Judas is always last?
Was it because Peter was chosen first and Judas last to be an Apostle?
Maybe Peter was eldest and Judas the youngest?
Perhaps you would like to shoot back that Paul puts Cephas second sometimes?
We can chat about all that.
My question to you, Mr.James Swan, is, why is Peter always first although the numbering varies after that, the only exception being Judas?
I am not asking about infalliblity or anything so outlandish as that. ( Of course, I am leading you there ). I am not asking where the Bible says Peter was "Prince of the entire Church, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Authority with the powers of binding and loosing, the Key Bearer, and Ruler of all the kings of the whole world". Don't be timid. I am just asking you why Peter is first in every list of the 12 men Jesus would say were going to sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
It's your blog James. We are guests in your house. Don't be afraid of Jumping right in. You have read and studied a lot of history as anyone can tell from your articles. Your opinion matters as much as Steve's or PBJ's. Stand up and be counted. Take charge.
A Protestant has no 100% trustworthy way to distinguish between development and heresy.
If you believe the Church can fail or has failed, you destroyed Christianity.
If you believe an infallible magisterium is necessary to distinguish between development and heresy, having "absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy" as you say, than you destroyed Christianity, as it began with souls unable to really know that some itinerant preachers were of God, and was grafted into a root that was absolutely unable to even know what Scripture was.
And if you believe the God's promise to be with His disciples and to overcome the gates of Hell mean the visible hierarchy are always preserved from corruption in faith (possessed, not merely professed) or in morals, versus God always persevering a remnant of true believers which make up the body of Christ, then you have destroyed NT Christianity.
And instead have sanctioned leadership who did such things as gained their seat using the sword of men, or were sexually or otherwise immoral, and a condition (Western Schism) in which.
"according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct." — Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,
Cardinal Ratzinger observed, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. - “Principles of Catholic Theology,” p.196
Paul Johnson described the existing social situation among the clergy: “Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation.... As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)
In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681.] “As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body .
... These were not, I confess, new scandals: I should rather say that the barbarism and ignorance of preceding centuries, in some sort, concealed such vices; but,, on the subsequent revival of the light of learning, the spots which I have pointed out became more manifest, and as the unlearned who were corrupt could not endure the light through the pain which it caused to their eyes, so neither did the learned spare them, turning them to ridicule and delighting to expose their turpitude and to decry their superstitions.” — Charles Hardwick A History of the Articles of Religion; http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Oldies/Thirty-Nine/hardwick39.htm
James,
Steve would dismiss my question to you as an example of my stupidity or inability to follow the line of discourse.
PBJ would probably respond with something about my question reveals that I am an unregenerate sheep in a system of works righteousness ruled by a romish usurper.
As you have not (yet) been as nasty as they have been, I will save you a little embarrassment and trouble and just tell you now that the Bible actually calls Peter the "chief" Apostle.
In Matthew's list of the 12, it starts out by calling Simon Peter the *First*.
This word in Greek does not mean the initial one in a sequence. Rather, it means "chief" as we see when Jesus asks the Apostles, " Who among you will be first?" Or like St. Paul when he calls himself the "First among sinners".
So, are you on board with Peter being the chief Apostle or not? The Bible says so.
Let me know as I have a follow up question for you.
In this connection I would like to relate a small episode that I think can cast much light on the situation. Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously
Thanks Steve for the quote. "Heaven" was misspelled in yours, while what it really means is that Rome can "remember" as early tradition whatever fables later developed, or whatever fables from any period, all under the pretext of the promise of the Spirit leading His disciples into all Truth.
Which misappropriation is all a cult needs to justify its autocratic esoteric presumption to essentially add to Scripture what does not teach, and (as in such cases as prayer to the departed) is contrary to what it does teach.
In contrast:
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy;...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. (2 Peter 1:19,21)
In order to assure his message was carried to the entire world without any adulteration, he would not have to give that Church the charism of indefectibility.
This repeatedly proffered premise, out of which your extrapolate perpetual magisterial infallibility, has been repeatedly refuted by the very fact that God never needed a perpetual infallible magisterium to preserve His word and the root which bore the church, the one new man. (Rm. 11:18)
One could likewise argue that in order to have been
"committed the oracles of God," (Romans 3:2)
and be the recipients of
"the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen," (Romans 9:4-5)
And to have received the sure word of God,
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7-8)
Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: (Nehemiah 9:13)
With an everlasting priesthood:
And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. (Exodus 40:15)
And to realize such promises as,
For the Lord thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. (Deuteronomy 4:31)
...he will ever be mindful of his covenant. (Psalms 111:5; cf. Lv. 26:42,45; Ps. 105:8; 111:9; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 1:5; 9:31; Mic 7:18)
Good and upright is the Lord: therefore will he teach sinners in the way. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. (Ps. 25:8,9)
I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. (Ps. 32:8)
And to have the seat of Moses preserved for around 1500 years, (Mt. 23:2)
...then this entity must have possessed assured infallibility.
Yet God did remember His covenant, and did preserve the seed of Abraham by faith, even if was a relative remnant, the elect, as usual.
And upon which foundation the church began, as while the leadership of those who sat in the seat of Moses failed, God has ways of keeping His promises and people by raising up men from without it to feed his flock, and to realize Divine promises under and of the New Covenant.
Which Hebrews details, but from which a promise of an infallible magisterium is utterly absent from.
And which church began with souls whom you relegate as having absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy," and to know just which of the books floating around constitute scripture or make any" theological pronouncements, following men whom under the Roman model were to be rejected due to dissent from the stewards of Scripture, etc.
Please, PBJ or Steve? Are you going to be hung up on a knee-jerk revulsion to anything Catholic like PBJ is, or, are you going to lie through your teeth like Steve?
What? Why i just posted a good description of how the people discerned writings as being of God (and likewise men), without an infallible mag. whom you effectively relegate as having absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy, or ability able to tell, with any certitude, just which of the books floating around constituted scripture. or make any theological pronouncements!
If you are like PBJ, we can work on it.
There is nothing to work on. Your fundamental absurd premise that "once supremacy is admitted, infallibility follows by necessity" has been blown to smithereens by the reality that is is manifestly not Scriptural, and in fact would have required 1st c. souls to have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses.
And the manner of leadership of the Peter of Scripture simply does not translate into the infallible Roman papacy, as even your EO "brethren" contend, nor into successors of his office.
Much less men who were not even fit to be church members in the NT church, and who "climbed up some other way" to office than what is Biblical in the NT.
Yet he is willing to concede a smelly Fisherman named Pete to be the chief of a group of hippie Jesus Freaks having Bible study in the back of a VW bus or on the beach.
honesty is a prerequisite for dialogue.
You are a contradiction with yourself. Being itinerant preachers as regards how the magisterium considered them, does not translate into the pejorative of "a group of hippie Jesus Freaks in the back of a VW bus," though under the Roman model for determining authority these officially unsanctioned preachers might as well be said to have been so.
Your recourse to such Roman ranting can be tolerated due to it providing example after example of the specious nature of refuted typical papal polemics.
why is Peter always first although the numbering
Why continually argue using a dead horse? It has been repeatedly shown that Petrine leadership does not translate into the supreme infallible Roman papacy or its perpetuation;
Nor does supremacy translate into infallibility, nor is that essential for discernment of writings or preservation of faith and the people of God.
Period.
Even Newman confesses,
While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. - Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 165
Instead of the church seeing Peter as the first of a line of supreme heads, this was something that developed, which is even what other Catholic scholars find.
Paul Johnson, Stonyhurst and Magdalen Colleges, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian:
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] ...had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.
With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked,...
With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...
[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...
...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 61,63)
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops:
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry.
This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 224
American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” 1970, pg 72.)
PBJ,
"... God always persevering a remnant of true believers which make up the body of Christ,...".
In Matt 16 I don't see Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in order for him to bind and loose doctrine and disciple for an invisible "remnant of true believers".
Tell me about this remnant. Wouldn't it be better to say "remnants"? I mean, the remnant hiding out from the Roman authorities with their invisible ( non existent ) Bibles in England was not in contact with the true believers living underground in Hungary or Spain, was it?
What doctrines did these remnants all hold in common? Besides Sola Scriptura and JBFA of course.
Did they all renounce infant Baptism? Prayers for the dead? Were they uniform in their denial of Mary being a Perpetual Virgin? How did these disparate, invisible remnants hold doctrinal unity> How did they discipline trouble makers? Did they excommunicate, shun or disfellowship heretics?
Can you name any of these groups or even some of their more notable leaders?
Were the Albigensians, Waldensians and Bogomils all examples of these remnants of true believers?
And of course, I still gotta know, how did all of these remnants of true believing "Bible Only" Christians do all this without any Bibles before Gutenberg's time?
PBJ,
My "Roman ranting" about Peter always being named first and in Matthews list even named *Chief* is not "beating a dead horse".
A horse is dead until it has been killed. You have not killed the old nag yet.
You say Peters leadership does not translate into infallibility. No?
Was Peter the leader of the leaders of an infallible Church?
Your problem, PBJ, is not just about Peter. It is first and foremost a whopping misunderstanding of just what constitutes the Church.
You also misunderstand the role of the Apostles in the Church.
It is only natural you don't understand the role of chief of those Apostles in that Church.
PBJ, ask yourself this question, What provision did Jesus make for the transmission of his teaching and grace down through the ages after his departure?
What would be some of the marks or attributes of that system, or whatever you want to call it, he established to continue his presence in the world?
Did he commission the writing of a book? Or did he commission a body of men to go forth and preach, Baptize, bind and loose and "Do this in memory of me"?
IOW, did Jesus establish a Church or not?
If you answer in the affirmative, why did he establish a Church?
Wouldn't that Church need to be a visible entity? You know, with some sort of structure, maybe even a hierarchy?
"The Reformers would carry more weight if they did 'wonders and mighty deeds' to prove themselves approved by God. This was one of Francis de Sales arguments. But they fell far short of that."
i) How many popes, priests, Latin Fathers, scholastic theologians, bishops, and cardinals perform miracles to prove themselves approved by God? Your argument cuts both ways.
ii) In addition, your argument is a red herring. The Reformers weren't prophets. Signs and wonders are irrelevant in this situation.
The only salient question is whether their exegetical and church historical arguments are superior to those of Rome. The fact that you deflect their arguments by broaching the question of miraculous confirmation is a backdoor admission that your side lost the argument.
One doesn't need to perform a miracle to present a logical argument from Scripture. A miracle won't make an illogical argument logical or a logical argument more logical than it already is.
And the way to be approved by God is to be faithful to his Word. The Reformers don't require any divine authorization over and above the divine authorization of Scripture itself. A sound interpretation of Scripture carries the divine authority of Scripture. For a sound interpretation of Scripture captures the sense of Scripture. Likewise, a necessary inference from Scripture carries the divine authority of Scripture.
"Because the prophets and itinerant preachers performed signs and wonders to demonstrate their authority as revelation was still developing."
There's no evidence that every OT prophet and/or Bible writer performed miracles.
"The Reformers offer no such miracles…"
Aside from your double standard (see above), there are many reported miracles involving the Huguenots and the Covenanters (among other Protestants), so be careful what you ask for:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/let-god-arise.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/huguenot-miracles.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-charismatic-covenanters.html
Let's grant that Rome allows for an open canon if a lost letter of Paul was discovered. Is that catastrophic to the STM-triad of authority? No. Just as asterisked passages are not.
Really? The deposit of faith can be added to?
"Now is an open canon and disputed passages catastrophic to SS as the sole final authority? I would think so - if Scripture interprets Scripture and is the sole final authority, it seems rather important that the scope and extent of the recognized canon be irreformable and closed. How can you have a sole infallible standard when that standard itself is reformable?"
i) To begin with, this is just a hypothetical. And it's not "open" in the sense of new future revelation. Rather, the hypothetical concerns old past revelation.
ii) Since a lost letter of Paul would be Scripture, finding a lost letter of Paul would hardly be incompatible with sola scripture. If we now had a 14th letter of Paul, that doesn't change the Scripture-only principle. It's not something other than Scripture.
iii) An additional Pauline letter wouldn't contradict Scripture. It wouldn't violate "Scripture interprets Scripture."
"The only stipulation I'm making is that articles of faith are irreformable. If you think that is "setting the bar at some a priori height" you're free to demonstrate how."
i) Yes, "irreformable" is an a priori stipulation. There's no justification for that demand. For instance, why should we insist on *irreformable* articles of faith rather than *true* articles of faith?
ii) Moreover, that's not your only stipulation. Another artificial stipulation is what you posit to "warrant to the assent of faith."
OOPS,
A dead horse is NOT dead until killed.
Cont.
"When, however, conservatives are defending inerrancy against examples of error or corruption, they do an about-face and resort to various escape clauses and face-saving distinctions to salvage the inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture from logical or historical disproof."
Two basic problems with your attempted tu quoque:
i) I've documented cases, including from Catholic sources, where Rome reversed course. Even if your tu quoque were successful, proving that Protestants have a parallel problem does nothing to disprove your own.
ii) Unlike me, you haven't documented your allegation.
"Rome's claims can be falsified."
How are the Immaculate Conception, virginity in partu, and Assumption of Mary falsifiable? How is transubstantiation falsifiable?
"However, in examining a system, it is important to evaluate that system by its *own* defined standards and criteria."
It's legitimate to evaluate a system on either internal and external grounds.
"Rome has defined her standards for infallibility, you may think it should operate differently, but you can't then disprove its claim by foisting your foreign standard upon it (your examples of alleged contradiction suffer from this)."
i) To the contrary, I can judge a system by a foreign standard so long as I justify my foreign standard.
ii) And if, for the sake of argument, we grant your contention, then you can't invoke Catholic criteria to disprove Protestantism.
"Just as you would not let atheists get away with foisting their standard upon how inerrancy should work in examining your position."
I don't simply deny their standards. I challenge their standards.
"So God intended and illuminated the minds of God's people to get the NT right (well, most of it depending on who and where) in the early centuries, but clouded their minds so they blew the OT but kept it clear among those who rejected his Son and were no longer His people. Odd."
Historical knowledge doesn't depend on illumination, but personal or historical memory.
"And again appealing to this consensus of "God's people" in establishing the canon is invalid…"
I didn't deploy a consensus argument to establish the canon.
"…you can’t use a posteriori knowledge in justifying/recognizing the canon since that wasn’t used in the process of its initial recognition."
That's an illogical principle. Take the stock distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. I had a great-grandfather who believed in the Civil War because he fought in the Civil War. But that's not why I believe in the Civil War. I believe in the Civil War because I've read things about it and seen period photographs.
There can be evidence for the canon which wasn't used in the process of initial recognition. Neglected evidence is still evidentiary and probative.
"On what basis do you offer that? Does every book of the bible (indeed every verse given textual criticism) claim infallibility for itself?"
For starters:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/plenary-verbal-inspiration.html
Cont. "By deflating the church’s authority and notions of infallibility, Protestantism in one swoop opens the door for liberalism to do the same with Scripture."
Your denomination is increasingly dominated by liberals. You have a paper theory that's at odds with the facts on the ground.
"So what happens when you interpret the NT? Can such an interpretation or teaching ever become irreformable based on Protestantism's starting principles?"
Once again, you're imposing your tendentious categories on me. It's sufficient that a teaching be true.
"Right - and I would assume you admit your own fallibility and inherent limitations."
And I admit the fallibility and inherent limitations of bishops, popes, church fathers, and scholastic theologians.
"And this is all upstream from the point where you apply your current provisional filtering of that state of analysis to accept certain conclusions as opposed to other ones.
You mean…the way popes, church fathers, scholastic theologians et al. apply their timebound provisional filtering to accept certain conclusions as opposed to other ones?"
"Such criteria does not and cannot form the basis for articles of faith. You trade submission to an infallible magisterium that can offer articles of faith to a self-admitted fallible scholarly magisterium that has erudite scholars on all sides of various questions that can offer you nothing more than plausible opinion by its own admission."
No, I trade submission to a fallible magisterium with infallible pretensions that's incompetent to offer articles of faith to consulting scholars and theologians who must argue for their conclusions by appeal to reason and evidence. Whose process of arriving at their conclusions is transparent and accountable to the scrutiny of the reader. Scholarship is not a magisterium. Reading commentaries is not an act of submission. It's not an argument from authority. You're indulging in sloppy, boilerplate rhetoric.
"One who submitted to Christ/Apostles did not thereafter continually hold their past and future teachings hostage to his own personal interpretation or arbitrary threshold of acceptance before he would submit to them."
i) To begin with, subscription to Catholicism is "hostage" to your own plausibility structures.
ii) You're the one who's setting up an arbitrary threshold of acceptance before you submit to Christ, the apostles, and the prophets.
"If all religious truths reduces to probable/confident opinion, we're stuck in sheer fideism, or you reduce articles of faith to natural knowledge and we become stark rationalists."
i) You are pointing Protestants to a Catholic target, then telling us that that's the target we should aim for. Unless we hit that target, our religious epistemology is a failure.
But that simply begs the question. If your target is the wrong target, then the fact that we miss your target does nothing to disprove or even undermine the Protestant position.
All you've done, all any Catholic apologist ever does, is to posit that sola scripture fails because it falls short of your target. So what? Hitting your arbitrary target isn't what God requires of me–or you, for that matter. It's just an exercise in misdirection. And evasion of your true religious duties.
ii) Moreover, your argument is just a rehash of the same stale argument that Michael Liccione has been dishing out for years. I've been over that ground repeatedly. For instance:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/arian-wolves-in-papal-vestments.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/clashing-paradigms.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/tarot-card-catholicism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/once-upon-a-priori.html
cont. "There's no boomerang because RCism claims divine authority and protection in offering its doctrines."
The operative word is "claims." You haven't begun to demonstrate that claim. What you've done is to begin with your preconception of what you think Christianity should be like, then shop around for an available religious tradition that suits your preconception. You haven't justified your preconception. Rather, you take that for granted. You begin with your self-imposed necessity, then cast about for something to feed it.
By contrast, I begin with revelation. What are my duties to God? That's something to be discovered, not posited. Something I find out by reading God's word. You dictate to God, I listen to God.
"So atheist or liberal biblical scholars aren't biased in their methodology?"
You mean the liberal bias of contemporary Catholic Bible scholars?
"Rome sees ghm exegesis as useful, but limited and not the sole final tool in which to ascertain divine truth - that's already a methodological difference. GHM does not answer whether it is to be the primary (let alone ultimate) method to be used in ascertaining divine truth, or if it is to be combined with other methods, nor does it answer how it should best be applied to the biblical data (hence the differing conclusions amongst ghm-only proponents). And it is itself subject to change as scholarly/historical analysis and evidence in the fields that inform it grows and develops - it's built on shifting sands of changing data and abductive/inductive reasoning and tentative probable conclusions. So it again doesn't get you out of the sea of opinion. So while Roman scholars may use some of the same toolkit as Protestants, they also have a much larger shop with supervisors they are working in - they aren't stuck with the toolkit alone."
i) To begin with, there's a difference between the party line and how modern Catholic Bible scholars actually exegete Scripture.
Officially, Rome can't dispense with the allegorical method because too much Catholic dogma is traditionally invested in the allegorical method. You can only prooftext Catholic dogma from Scripture by resort to fanciful interpretations. Take the comical prooftexting of Ineffabilis Deus.
So Rome must hold in tension two or more conflicting hermeneutical methods. It's quite a strain.
ii) But that stands in contrast to how modern Catholic Bible scholars actually exegete Scripture. For instance:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/interpretation-of-scripture-in-defense.html
"Sure - which is partly why infallibility is a negative protection against error and has specific criteria to be met."
Which assumes what you need to prove.
Steve,
"One doesn't need to perform a miracle to present a logical argument from Scripture."
So true! I need not walk on water in order to demonstrate that Peter's supremacy over Christ's infallible Church means he too was infallible.
" A miracle won't make an illogical argument logical or a logical argument more logical than it already is."
Whoa! A miracle proves the doctrine espoused by the miracle worker to be true.
And, by your own admission, Luther didn't do any.
No, every Pope doesn't perform miracles. But the first one did. With his shadow even.
The first popes of Protestantism did not.
As for those Huguenot miracles, were they investigated by a hostile panel of atheist doctors? You know, like the ones at Lourdes are? Or the Image of Guadalupe? Or even the Shroud of Turin? Were those Huguenot miracles attested to by Freemasons as was the one at Fatima?
Steve,
1. Does God exist? Can it be demonstrated from observing nature and examining the morality all men have written on their hearts?
2. Would that God want to reveal Himself to the rational creatures He created?
3. If He has revealed Himself, would He verify this by miracles and fulfillment of prophecy?
4. Of the various claimants to be the true religion, how many can meet the requirements listed?
5. Having established that God has indeed revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, we see that He also established a Church. What would be some of the marks of that Church? Is that Church still with us today? Where?
5. Only the Catholic Church even claims to be that Church. No major Protestant denomination even claims to have the marks needed to be the Church founded by Christ.
You say,
" I begin with revelation. What are my duties to God?"
Revelation reveals Christ's Church ( that what "Apocalypse" means, to draw back the bridal veil and expose the bride on the wedding night ).
Your chief duty to God is obedience. Get in that Church.
" Something I find out by reading God's word."
Who in God's written came to faith by reading the Bible only?
"You dictate to God, I listen to God."
Oh, please! Without an objective standard, you only have a burning in the bosom when reading God's written word.
The two faces of Guy:
On the one hand:
"Whoa! A miracle proves the doctrine espoused by the miracle worker to be true."
On the other hand:
"Augustine writes of a vestal virgin who, miraculously, carried water in a sieve to prove she had not broken her vows. God did not do the miracle to support the Roman religion."
On the one hand:
"No, every Pope doesn't perform miracles. But the first one did. With his shadow even."
On the other hand:
"were they investigated by a hostile panel of atheist doctors?"
Moving along:
"What would be some of the marks of that Church?"
Nothing like circular reasoning:
How do I know Rome is the true church? Because Rome has the marks of the true church?
How do I know those are marks of the true church? Because Rome dictates what true marks are, and Rome interprets the marks in reference to itself.
"Oh, please! Without an objective standard, you only have a burning in the bosom when reading God's written word."
Notice how, for Guy, the word of God is not itself an objective standard. For Guy, the Bible is on a par with the Book of Mormon. The Pope is the tiebreaker.
" Do you know with assurance which shoe to put on your left foot? How about your right foot?"
The more apt question is whether Guy is putting the left foot or right foot in his mouth. In fact, there's empirical evidence that he can do both at the same time.
"A Protestant has no 100% trustworthy way to distinguish between development and heresy."
i) Notice he does nothing to disprove the demonstrable fact that Rome has reversed itself on the plenary inspiration of Scripture. So he offers a decoy to deflect attention away from Rome's hard left turn.
ii) According to Guy's infidel position, if the apostle John writes a letter (e.g. 1 John) with the express purpose of distinguishing truth from heresy, that isn't trustworthy.
So Guy is siding with John's opponents.
"If you believe the Church can fail or has failed, you destroyed Christianity."
Of course, the NT never equates the survival of the church with ecclesiastical infallibility.
"No, every Pope doesn't perform miracles. But the first one did. With his shadow even."
Guy is too dense to anticipate obvious counters:
i) He only knows about that because he read it in the Bible.
ii) What about other miracle-workers in Acts?
"And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand" (13:11).
"So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (Acts 14:3).
"8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking" (Acts 14:8-10).
"11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
"8 It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him. 9 And when this had taken place, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured" (Acts 28:8-9).
"As for those Huguenot miracles, were they investigated by a hostile panel of atheist doctors?"
i) Were the (alleged) miracles which Francis de Sales appealed to investigated by a hostile panel of atheist doctors?
ii) Were Peter's miracles in Acts, which you cite, investigated by a hostile panel of atheist doctors?
iii) As for medical verification of Protestant miracles:
Rex Gardner, Healing miracles: A doctor investigates (Darton, Longman and Todd,1986)
Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Baker Academic, 2011)
Be careful what you ask for!
"You know, like the ones at Lourdes are?"
You mean like this? As Stanley Jaki notes:
"Incidentally, neither of those miraculous healings was recognized by the Church. The second, the miraculous healing of the 18-month old baby boy, was probably never put forward for Church approval, a long and arduous process. The other, the Marie Bailly case, was repeatedly discussed at various levels by the Medical Bureau in Lourdes and finally in Paris at its highest or International Committee. The year was 1964. A decision was made against the miraculous nature of the cure."
Steve,
The vestal virgin's miracle was not done to prove the Roman religion. The virgin was not claiming anything of the kind. She was only claiming that she had not violated her vow of virginity. God attested to that and that only in order to save her life.
I am glad you like Stanley Jaki. I met him on a couple of occasions. I think I have all of his books. You ought to read his book on Fatima.
Your reference to various miracles being either debunked or just not positively affirmed by the Church supports my assertion that the miracles at Lourdes are rigorously scrutinized not only by secular authorities but by the Church herself.
Because some reported miracles are not accepted in no way proves all are turned down. No way! Google the case of Jack Traynor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Traynor_%28Royal_Marine%29
Finally, the post about me putting my left/right foot in my mouth is cute. I kinda' chuckled.
But that is it.
Is it an argument? From the Bible? Logic? The Fathers?
I enjoy the horse play too but could we focus on whether or not Peter was the Pope and your error the Bible being the final authority in doctrine and disciple for 1,450 years before the time of Gutenberg?
If you want to goof around,fine, but remember Stevo, you are the one with a picture of some old lover boy from the 1940s holding a gun, not me.
In Matt 16 I don't see Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in order for him to bind and loose doctrine and disciple for an invisible "remnant of true believers".
And just who said they were invisible? The only church that is basically invisible in the Bible is one looking to an infallible supreme head in Rome as pope #1;
and with assurance of Truth being based upon the premise of a charism of assured magisterial veracity;
with clergy distinctively given the same distinctive title as Jewish sacerdotals;
and with virtually all being presumed to have the gift of celibacy;
and with preservation of faith being defined by what is merely professed;
and sprinkling infants to make them formally justified by their own holiness and fit for Heaven;
and offering indulgences to reduce time for souls suffering in purgatory to atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven;
and kneeling before statutes, praising the entity it exists as having uniquely Divine power, and asking for heavenly aid from them;
among other things.
And the binding and loosing was not restricted to Peter, nor was it new, (Dt. 17:8-13) applies to all powers that be are ordained of God, the essential basis for which is manifest faith and call, not formal patriarchial descent. Thus did the church begin. Even those who resist the just rule of civil authority resisteth the ordinance of God and shall receive to themselves damnation. (Rm. 13:1-3)
The problem with Rome's prelates is that they are not NT authorities, but are a mixture of Judaism, paganism and Christianity, and which separate sacerdotal class titled "hiereus"="priests" the NT knows nothing of, except in Judaism and paganism.
And which has used the power of the sword to obtain power and conformity.
Tell me about this remnant. Wouldn't it be better to say "remnants"?
No, for as in time past, the relative remnant is that of all true believers, even in Rome, however few, who are saved by Abrahamic faith in the gospel of grace.
What doctrines did these remnants all hold in common?
To be of the elect they need not to hold to any thing more than the same saving faith any convert can be saved by, which places one in the body of Christ and kingdom of God.
The redeemed have come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him.
Did they all renounce infant Baptism? Prayers for the dead? Were they uniform in their denial of Mary being a Perpetual Virgin?
They mav not have in ignorance, any more than I did after i became manifestly born again while still a RC and realized its profound changes in heart and life, and sought to serve God by becoming a CCD teacher and lector. But my new found avid hunger and love to know how to please God, and the availability of the Bible and evangelical teaching which fed that hunger led me to better pasture.
How did these disparate, invisible remnants hold doctrinal unity> How did they discipline trouble makers? Did they excommunicate, shun or disfellowship heretics?
You are anachronistically presuming Catholicism was as doctrinally cohesive before Trent as after it, and that even the ECFs were.
As Pelikan found, “If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.
Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, 47,51-52). More
And what of Rome today? You can be a new ager or a prosodomite, proabortion proMuslim public figure and still be treated as a member in life and in death.
And RCs throw stones at conservative evangelical churches, and want them to follow a church with pope who has affirmed universalism!
Steve,
And you would really like the late Fr. Jaki's spin on why the Pharisees rejected Maccabees even before Luther did.
He says it was because Maccabees is the only place in the Bible where Creatio ex Nihilo is unambiuously taught. The Jews of the time had fallen into a Kabbalistic cosmology that said the world was an eternal emanation and therefore "monogenes". That is why they couldn't buy Christ's claim to be the Only Begotten.
And he is famous for his explanation of why Christianity is really the only purely theistic religion. Both Judaism and Islam fell into pantheism in the middle ages die to their denial of Christ being the Son.
As for his tome on Fatima, he actually says there are natural explanations for the "Miracle of the Sun" just as there are natural explanations for the plagues of Egypt. Yet he was a believer in Fatima. How so? Because he placed the miracle in the prophecy, not the sky.
I won't say more as I don't want to ruin the book for you and give away the ending.
I am especially beholden to Hungarian Fr. Jaki for putting my bitchy old Hungarian mother in law in her place.
Love to drop names with you Steve. When are you gonna ask how I know some rather big guns in world of baroque music?
PBJ,
Your litany of stuff that proves the Papcy to be apostate is pure question begging.
For example, if the Church is indeed infallible as I assert, and it teaches a doctrine like, oh lets say, indulgences for instance, you jump up and say that the Church is teaching heresy and therefore not infallible.
You have it backwards. If an infallible Church teaches indulgences,PBJ, you are supposed to get on board with it.
You might as well say that the earth was once populated by little blue men until homo sapiens came along and ate them.
If I ask for proof that these blue men ever existed you say, " I can't give you any evidence. It was all eaten up. That proves my assertion".
PBJ, you say Christ the head is holy but His body is adulterous and corrupt.
If the Church can fail, every member in it can too. That includes you and your private interpretation of the Bible.
What would the Ethiopian Eunuch say about you? He knew the scripture was inspired. But he need an ordained minister of the Church to help him understand it.
It's all or nothing. Either the Church is infallible or nobody and nothing is.
A horse is dead until it has been killed. You have not killed the old nag yet.
Then you must be blind, forgetful or manifestly self deceived and insolent?
You say Peters leadership does not translate into infallibility. No?
You have to ask me this? Why can't you show me where leadership ever translated into infallibility in Scripture, except if it was God, rather than insist it must?!
Was Peter the leader of the leaders of an infallible Church?
What do you think in the light of what i have showed you? Assured infallibility is nowhere shown to be essential for the transmission, discernment, and preservation of Truth, faith and a people.
Period (again). Stop flailing and deal with it, and how you nuked the NT church but disallowing the souls whom it began with as having any way of know true doctrine from heresy," and knowing just which of the books floating around constitute scripture.
Your problem, PBJ, is not just about Peter...It is only natural you don't understand the role of chief of those Apostles in that Church.
No, rather your problem is that i do and you cannot show your papacy and where an infallible magisterium is essential to discern and preserve both men and writings of God.
Did he commission the writing of a book? Or did he commission a body of men to go forth and preach,
Been there and done that, and more mindless parroting of this refuted polemic, as if the church had no foundation in Scripture, will not help you.
The fact that the oral preaching of the Lord and His disciples was established upon Scriptural substantiation, not the RC premise of assured veracity, and with more complementary conflative writings being added to it - which Scripture provided for - only helps my case, not yours cultic church.
did Jesus establish a Church or not?
If you answer in the affirmative, why did he establish a Church?
Wouldn't that Church need to be a visible entity? You know, with some sort of structure, maybe even a hierarchy?
Again, you are ignoring what i said.
I affirmed the church has visible expression, but in which it is joined with
the unregenerate, as Rome well attests, and cannot be the one true church. affirmed the magisterial office "to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions," etc,. and also dealt with objections.
You just reject their validity under the false premise that formal unbroken historical descent from non-existent NT "priests" is essential, which she herself does not have, but which charge is dismissed under the premise that Rome can autocratically determine that as undeniably the case.
PBJ, ask yourself this question, What provision did Jesus make for the transmission of his teaching and grace down through the ages after his departure?
He began His church in dissent from the valid magisterium, using men they rejected and who reproved them, establishing Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation.
They in turn ordained presbuteros/episkopos, this being the same office, not hiereus=priests, with the criteria being faith and character, and who were normally married, whose primary function was to preach the word.
And all of which is set in contrast to the priesthood of Rome, though as with other corrupt rulers, God allowed them in judgment as with Israel wanting a king, and allowing evil ones.
And also like Israel, the visible church basically existed as tow kingdoms, with their respective tribes.
Yet as before when God would raise up prophets, wise men and scribes, though with varying degrees of imperfection themselves, to judge corrupt rulers, so after the declension of Rome reached its lowest level. God sent reforrmers to correct her.
But like Israel of God, he leadership hardened her heart and would not be reformed, but instead doubled down in affirming errors, while engaging i some moral reform in giving herself a form of Godliness.
Thus she compelled division, (1Cor. 11:19) and like the elitist Diotrephes she exalted herself even more, to her own damnation,
Meanwhile, others ordained from one of her former priests, and others whom God called as at the first, continued ordination, and further rejected some of the other erroneous accretions of Catholicism.
This would lead to many great revivals of virulent Christian faith, and a great influx of souls into the body of Christ, and even great nations to arise and prosper.
However, t the tribalism which Rome first compelled as the souls of good men were endangered by her (as they always are when men are exalted above Scripture) tended too often to be the recourse in the face of difficulties, though it has tended to work toward more outreach.
But which is actually consistent in principal with the means of the limited unity in the NT church. For it was under men who were most manifestly apostles of God (though even them the churches showed significant disparity, for which they were not pointed toward a supreme pope in Rome). Lying did not go well in Acts 5, and the rod Paul threatened was to be feared, but was not that of men, while he labored in love in caring for the churches.
But which manner of leadership is wanting today (though reasons for division are more complex than one), and most certainly is not seen in the leadership of Rome.
Yet those who hold most strongly to the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being supreme as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, testify to far stronger commitment and unity in core values and Truth than the variegated fruit of Catholicism;
And which class have historically been so unified in basic truths - which is all that can be said is seen in Rome overall, if that - that they have been the foremost adversaries against cults which deny them, as well as against inventions of Rome.
ii) In addition, your argument is a red herring. The Reformers weren't prophets. Signs and wonders are irrelevant in this situation.
Not in the foretelling sense, or actually as having that gift, and neither did John the Baptist do signs and wonders, but in function Reformers were forthtellers, and consistent at least in principal with what the Lord would do when leaders needed rebuke:
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (Matthew 23:34)
Likewise did Rome who would not be reproved.
Meanwhile, the New Birth from Above is the most essential miracle, praise God, but which few RCs manifestly have realized. Been there.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-charismatic-covenanters.html
Never knew or saw that. Thank God, you have so much on your site.
"Or the Image of Guadalupe"
Wasn't that debunked by D. A. Brading in Mexican Phoenix. Our Lady of Guadalupe: Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries. (Cambridge University Press, 2001)?
"Or even the Shroud of Turin?"
i) The authenticity of the Shroud is disputed. To my knowledge, the Vatican has never committed itself to the authenticity of the Shroud.
ii) But assuming for the sake of argument that it's authentic, how would that constitute a Catholic miracle? It didn't originate in the church of Rome. It's no more Roman Catholic than the Elgin Marbles are English–just because they current reside in the British Museum.
If it's authentic, then it's a Jewish miracle or Christian miracle, not a Catholic miracle.
"Were those Huguenot miracles attested to by Freemasons as was the one at Fatima?"
i) To begin with, you need to distinguish between eyewitness reports and reports about eyewitnesses. An account about an (alleged) eyewitness (i.e. a newspaper story) is not the same thing as an account by an eyewitness.
ii) You don't specify what "miracle" you're alluding to. Is that the "miracle of the sun"?
If so, Stanley Jaki, for one, interprets that as an optical illusion generated by ice crystals refracting sunlight. In that event, it was a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural phenomenon.
It wouldn't be intrinsically miraculous. At best, it would be preternatural or miraculous in the sense of uncanny timing. The technical term for that is a coincidence miracle.
Assuming we classify it as a "meteorological miracle" (a la Jaki), that's something it shares in common with astronomical or meteorological miracles reported by the Huguenots.
Moreover, many answered Protestant prayers also count as coincidence miracles.
So even if we give the "miracle of the sun" at Fatima the full benefit of the doubt, it has fierce competition.
"Rome's claims can be falsified."
In one sense, I agree with you. Rome's claims are eminently falsifiable–when judged by impartial criteria. Not just falsifiable, but falsified.
"However, in examining a system, it is important to evaluate that system by its *own* defined standards and criteria."
i) Ah, there's the catch. So now you're claiming that it's only falsifiable by its own standards and criteria. Of course, that's a way of rendering a system unfalsifiable. The standards and criteria are formulated so that nothing in practice can ever count as evidence against it.
ii) Admittedly, that takes a certain amount of foresight. Since Rome is having to make things up on the fly, it may trip itself up even on internal grounds.
iii) Apropos (ii), let's go back to your notion of a tiebreaker. The pope is the tiebreaker.
Even if we grant that for the sake of argument, who breaks the tie when the legitimacy of the pope is the very issue in dispute? A pope can't be the tiebreaker to adjudicate which claimant is the true pope and which is the antipope, for that's viciously circular. Only the true pope can play that role. So you need a tiebreaker above the pope to resolve that dilemma. And that isn't just hypothetical.
"Is that catastrophic to the STM-triad of authority?"
Let's clear that up. Rome doesn't have a triadic authority. It isn't STM. It's only M. Indeed, just a subset of M. The triad is illusory.
It isn't scripture plus tradition plus the magisterium, for scripture only means what the magisterium says it means, and tradition only means what the magisterium says it means. Scripture and traditional have no independent authority. Only the magisterium.
So it boils down to the magisterium, which boils down to the papacy, which boils down to the current pope. It isn't the magisterium in general, or even the papacy in general. In Catholicism, Christianity is whatever the current pope says it is.
PBJ,
Your litany of stuff that proves the Papcy to be apostate is pure question begging.
For example, if the Church is indeed infallible as I assert, and it teaches a doctrine like, oh lets say, indulgences for instance, you jump up and say that the Church is teaching heresy and therefore not infallible.
You have it backwards. If an infallible Church teaches indulgences,PBJ, you are supposed to get on board with it.
Are you serious??? That the church is infallible is just what pure question begging is! My statement rests upon the evidence of Scripture, while yours rests upon the premise that only by the infallible magisterium can one rightly discern what Scripture is and means, as you argued, which is both circular and nukes the NT church.
You might as well say that the earth was once populated by little blue men until homo sapiens came along and ate them.
If I ask for proof that these blue men ever existed you say, " I can't give you any evidence. It was all eaten up. That proves my assertion".
Absurd. I actually provided the evidence against your little blue men, and refuted your inane arguments, while you require me to believe little blue men with funny hats cannot be wrong, since I need i someone who cannot be wrong in order to what what is right.
PBJ, you say Christ the head is holy but His body is adulterous and corrupt.
If the Church can fail, every member in it can too.
That also is absurd, as i never said His whole body was adulterous and corrupt, and in fact i made a distinction btwn the body of Christ which is 100% made up of believers, versus what passes for the visible church (at or of...). which contains both regenerate and unregenerate.
And which body has visible manifestation, but sometimes it is much restricted by the unregenerate leadership or other members of the visible entity called the church.
Likewise Paul said, Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Romans 9:6-7)
And it is you who have it backwards, as only if every member fails and the church fail.
What would the Ethiopian Eunuch say about you? He knew the scripture was inspired. But he need an ordained minister of the Church to help him understand it.
He would say Guy told me that without an infallible magisterium I could not know what Scripture consisted of, or know if this guy running along my chariot is of God or not.
But since supremacy means infallibility, then i will ask my king back home.
Meanwhile, contrary to you, since both men and writings of God were assuredly discerned as being of God without the AIM of Rome, the eunuch was reading Scripture, but a fallible deacon helped him to understand it.
Yet multitude other non-infallible souls well understood Scripture without an infallible magisterium. Such as,
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:19)
And were taught by non-infallible men:
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)
All of which is consistent with my position, which does not exclude teachers, as Scripture provides for and affirms them and the magisterial office, but not as having a charism of assured infallibility. Try to comprehend that before you come up with more invalid arguments
It's all or nothing. Either the Church is infallible or nobody and nothing is.
Manifestly unscriptural, untenable Absurd, inane and insane. Let me know when you can prove your fundamental premise that without an infallible magisterium no one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements, and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility.
Until then you have taken too much of my time.
Speaking of the "infallible" church of Rome, here's what the Pope emeritus said about the "infallible" Vatican II council:
Ratzinger’s commentary on the first chapter of Gaudium et Spes contains still other provocative comments. The treatment of conscience in article 16, in his view, raises many unsolved questions about how conscience can err and about the right to follow an erroneous conscience. The treatment of free will in article 17 is in his judgment “downright Pelagian.” It leaves aside, he complains, the whole complex of problems that Luther handled under the term “ servum arbitrium ,”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/from-ratzinger-to-benedict
"I won't say more as I don't want to ruin the book for you and give away the ending."
I wrote a long review of his book back in 2007. Sorry to rain on your parade, but your little parade was all wet well before i came along.
"Your reference to various miracles being either debunked or just not positively affirmed by the Church supports my assertion that the miracles at Lourdes are rigorously scrutinized not only by secular authorities but by the Church herself."
So now you're backpedaling on the scope of your original claim.
Steve,
"Guy is too dense to anticipate obvious counters:
i) He only knows about that because he read it in the Bible"
Steve, I did indeed see it coming. I have addressed this more than once but you are to dense to comprehend.
You seem to think you have to defend the Bible against me. Tsk, tsk. Do you recall me mentioning my visit to the museum where I saw Bibles hand copied by monks and decorated with gold?
Why would they embellish the Bible with gold unless they deemed it worthy of such embellishment?
Are there any Protestant Bibles from that era decorated in a similar manner? Are there any hand copied Protestant Bibles of 66 books reserved in a museum somewhere?
(Please tell me how stupid I am for not realizing Gutenberg's printing press made hand copying obsolete. Tell me again how SS and the Reformation could not have happened without the printing press ).
Anyway, back to your observation that I read of Peter in the Bible.
Yes, I sure did. Does that prove inspiration?
No, it does not.
Steve,
You seem to think I deny that Paul performed miracles.
What on earth are you thinking?
I don't base my argument about Peter on just one passage of the Bible ( although Matt 16 takes the cake).
I base it on the 200 references all together.
Paul did miracles. Paul wrote scripture. Paul...
Paul was not given the keys to the Kingdom.
To Cletus Van Damme:
Sorry for not seeing your reply. Often takes me hours to type posts so i am trying to catch up.
Why you think Christ/Apostles appeal to Scripture therefore entails sola scriptura or a denial of their divine authority escapes me.
Why you think Christ/Apostles appeal to Scripture dos not support the supremacy of Scripture, ad its sufficiency as providing for this substantiated preaching, but supports sola ecclesia escapes me.
They invoked divine authority (many passages can be adduced). Protestantism and its confessions do not.
I was referring to such things as fellowship and spiritual means of judgment. You think that characterizes Rome?
Yet do you think a SS evangelical type (Calvary Chapel to Reformed) minister or those under them typically can preach whatever they wants with no consequences? But which is much the case with Rome?
Or that the people are not warned of the consequences of disobedience?
So that the liberal members feel quite at home, as is quite evidently much the case with Rome ?
Rome's disciplinary exercise of "authority" is largely paper, while in the NT is was with power. I was just reading of George Wishart, 1513-1546,
Admittedly we need more of such.
You cite 2 Cor to justify your claim Christ and the Apostles' authority was contingent upon Scriptural warrant - this is cart before the horse again - why is 2 Cor Scripture in first place? Because Paul wrote it under divine authority. You can't rig the game.
God can give divine authority to a mule to speak, but how did Paul validate he obtained divine authority? By infallibly claiming he was infallible, or because he was chosen by One who himself validated His mission and message upon Scriptural substantiation?
And which Paul did himself. RCs have he idea that the NT church began without a foundation, as if proclaiming itself was essential to know what was of God, as has been asserted here, and thus is to be believed because she says she is.
You can't rig the game.
The Reformers would carry more weight if they did "wonders and mighty deeds" to prove themselves approved by God. This was one of Francis de Sales arguments. But they fell far short of that.
And how much more Rome. I have seen both sides after becoming born again, and it seems most RCs and their prelates would need electric shock treatments to even mimic effects of the regeneration, the most essential miracle.
But John did no miracle, but the common people held that he "was a prophet indeed," and that all things that he spoke of Christ were true. (John 10:41) Contrary to the judgment of the then-valid historical magisterium that would be followed by RC,
Likewise souls saw the truth of Reformed basics, though the visible magisterium would not be reformed.
>" [that] RCism's authority does not violate Scripture is based upon the premise that she alone is correct in any conflict as to what Scripture means. "<
The point is simple - a claim to divine authority to offer infallible interpretation/teaching does not impugn Scripture's authority, otherwise Christ and the Apostles impugned Scripture's authority.
This was what i corrected, that of Scripture only having authority, versus supreme authority, versus man claiming assured infallible authority. Christ could as being God manifest in the flesh, but i am yet to be convinced of the deity of Rome.
>"which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares."<
Very good. We see the difference between the two systems clearly now. One is making the necessary claim to warrant assent of faith, the other is not.
Meaning, we are making the necessary claim to warrant assent of faith, that of presenting evidence under the premise that one can correctly discern what is of God and trust Him and it.;
while the other requires assent to her in order to know what is of God (for as told her, otherwise one has no way of knowing), thus Scripture is only appealed to as a historically reliable document. And therefore when one does not honestly find the evidence for assent to Rome compelling they basically require assent to Rome fiest ("the Church® gave you the Bible; she correctly knows what it means, not you").
Yes, and I've been trying to see how you are consistent with your Protestant reasoning. If a system is inconsistent, that's an indicator of falsity.
The problem is with your understand of Protestant reasoning, and in applying it to me.
>"you also invalidated the Lord's command to obey non-infallible authorities while they yet had a valid office! (Mt. 23:2)"<
We obey non-infallible authorities all the time.
But which is inconsistent with your rejection of assent to authorities if they are not infallible. "If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation?"
And there is no "or" for as argued here, if it is not infallible if it may err, and thus has no real authority and warrant to obey it.
But just where do you see in Scripture that an authority must be infallible to have just and compelling authority?
The point is if we are to assent to divine revelation, it must be taken on the authority of another - it is supernatural, not natural revelation.
But which excludes non-infallible authority, and thus it remains that you reject Christ's command of conditional obedience to non-infallible authority and its validity, And thus OT obedience.
And also the assent to divine revelation that was foundational to the church, since this assent was realized under non-infallible authority.
So bodies rejecting the divine authority and even ability to identify articles of faith aren't worth considering in the first place - they've shot themselves in the foot.
That Prot bodies reject divine authority would be news to them, or that they do not have Truths requiring assent, except for the typical RC definition of "Protestant that is so wide that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it.
I knew the evang churches in my experience were/are not libertarian.
ll I am saying is that confessionalism is a paper tiger authority.
You mean Rome? I have never been a part of a church for any length of time that a Ted Kennedy would even feel comfortable in for one service, and if the pastor knew you denied the apostle's creed, and inspiration of Scripture etc. then you would not be teaching, to say the least.
It is RC's, not those who hold most strongly to the evangelical type view of Scripture as wholly accurate and inspired, that are typically liberal as the overall fruit of Rome are.
Confessions "authority" is undermined by the claims those confessions make in saying that synods can err
By which you again marginalize OT authority, as that was not infallible, though disobedience could incur the death penalty. Yet it is obvious they could err. So can SCOTUS, but it seems to have some authority.
and any teaching is authoritative insofar as it conforms to Scripture - that obviously applies to the confessions themselves.
Indeed. As before in Scripture, while obedience to the magisterium was enjoined, (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 23:2) there was the possibility that it was in error, and when it became supreme, there could even be realized the condition Rome fell, in which "religion was almost extinct," and the "true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution."
But the early church established itself based upon Scriptural substantiation, not by presuming their office possessed a charism of assured infallibility that would kicked in whenever they spoke according to scope and subject-based criteria.
While as seen in cults, sola ecclesia can also effect great, if unScriptural, unity, yet the idea of a magisterium resorting to effectively or formally claiming perpetual assured infallibility is a novel one in the NT.
From the beginning, from Moses vs. the magicians to Christ and the church versus the Pharisees, those who claim authority must compete with other claimants. Had the Pharisees been reformable, they would have seen the kingdom established with them.
Once the church itself gained victory, then it faced other enemies such as the Arians, but it began to rely more upon tradition and the use of the sword of men than the power of Scripture. Today a typical JW putting his time in (ever wonder why they walk so slow?) fears more a fundamental evangelical armed with a Bible than a Catholic with a crucifix.
But faced with Scriptural doctrinal reproof by Reformers then Rome remained recalcitrant, thus necessitating a split. And he recourse is to basically assert Scripture, history and tradition are only assuredly what she says they are. Thus those who seek to be persuaded by manifestation of the truth must flee from her critical deformity
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour."— Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
Hence the history of revisions and impossibility of checking one confession's authority over the other, as Steve was pointing out
The scope of which does not really change the gospel, while Rome has hardly settled all disputes, and does not really require conformity to a great degree. The fact remains that churches that strongly hold to the very thing said to created divisions sees the greatest unity, and less of those who deny commonly held classic evangelical truths
Meanwhile the EOs and the SSPX type RCs testify to the problem of Roman revision, and of the lack of an infallible interpreter for their supreme authority.
Sola ends up reducing to solo - so as I said I have no reason to subject myself to that ecclesiastical authority by its own claims. If it rejects infallibility or divine authorization and its teachings are ever-provisional, why should I heed it when it conflicts with my interpretation?
Again, this leaves you as an anarchist that would likely be dead under the non-infallible magisterium that God enjoined submission to, and one that cannot be trusted to submit to civil authority today. And there are effects of disobedience to valid non-infallible church authority.
It is actually RCs who dissent the most from the paper teachings and authority of their church, not those who hold most strongly to Scripture as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God.
Cletus Van Damme says,
How can you have a sole infallible standard when that standard itself is reformable?
That would be no more a problem than additional popes and "remembering" traditions that had been "forgotten" is to Rome's authority. Accepting additional writings as being of God does not make the standard reformable as in changing its authority and that of her doctrine.
>"based upon the same manner of warrant as established most of what we hold as Scripture as being so before there was a church of Rome"<
Your same manner of warrant is just tentative plausible opinion. It's not being offered under any divine authority or as irreformable. It is ever-provisional.
Thus your invalidate the authority of the very texts to which the Lord and His disciples appealed to, since the (quite evident accepted) authority of these writings were established under non-infallible authority!
your "manner of warrant" seems to appeal to apostolic authorship (tradition) as well as corporate reception (magisterium),
It justifies non-infallible souls correctly being able to discern both writings and men as being of God, which is how the church began, with God confirming, and likewise that Rome is not.
If RCs cannot allow this means of being convinced then that is their problem.
While both men and writings of God are what they are regardless of the affirmation of men, and will be judged by them, yet those who do affirm them as being so and authoritative are not saying that the means by which they found them as being so means they are assuredly infallible as Rome presumes of herself, but are like Philip who "findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45)
You don't climb up the ladder, and then kick the ladder.
But RCs do. They can only appeal Scripture as a merely historically accurate document, since it must be disallowed that souls can discern it as Scripture without their infallible mag, as said here, but which affirms one can discern Rome as infallible, but "having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all."
And if one does not find Rome worthy of the implicit assent she mandates (if limited), then it is because one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or teaches without the IM.
The Lord and His disciples were inspired and infallible. And they claimed divine authority. Protestantism does not.
Wrong. Protestantism was based upon the premise that its preaching was correct/authoritative on the authority of another, appealing to Scripture.
And while the Lord's disciples could and did speak Truth, and writers were wholly inspired of God, yet that did not make them assuredly infallible as per Rome's claims for herself. And yet that they and their words were of God and that the Lord was inspired and infallible was also established upon Scripture, not as if He and the church arrived from Heaven with no foundation of warrant in Scripture.
And said unto them, Thus it is written...(Luke 24:46-47)
"the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1-2; 16:26)
2b ctd.
"But that is it. Is it an argument? From the Bible? Logic? The Fathers?"
Yes, that's it. And the reason that's it is because you keep repeating the same dumb argument,s after your dumb arguments have been repeatedly refuted. So, after a while, we give your dumb arguments the silent treatment. You then express surprise that we stopped responding to the 10th iteration of your dumb arguments.
You pose these rhetorical questions: "Do you bet your life on your doctor's trustworthiness every time you take prescription drugs? Do you trust the road signs along the freeway to get you where you want to go? My faith in an infallible Pope is a reasonable faith"
But as has been pointed out, you consistently fail to justify your leap from what's (alleged) reasonable to what's infallible? By what valid process of logical deduction do you derive the greater claim from the lesser claim?
Richard Whately wasn't arguing for infallibility. His methodology doesn't yield infallible conclusions.
So that's your problem. You don't seem to be bright enough to see the problem on your own. Then even after someone shows it to you, you are still too dim to perceive the problem.
The alternative explanation is that you're willfully dishonest. Of course, those aren't mutually exclusive explanations. You could be both obtuse and dishonest.
Keep in mind that your faith in the pope isn't even reasonable, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. But even if it were, your argument remains fallacious.
"Your reference to various miracles being either debunked or just not positively affirmed by the Church supports my assertion that the miracles at Lourdes are rigorously scrutinized not only by secular authorities but by the Church herself."
So having mentioned a number of "miracles," when they're shot down, he slinks away with his tail between his legs.
Post a Comment