A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[Philthy]

Hi SS:

Yes, and I have freely mentioned that already. Here is the point. For the Protestant, sola Scriptura is in essence equal to the word of God as the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

Yes, but Scripture is not a rule book which is problematic to this hypothesis; in addition it contains statements in it which tell us to submit to things other than itself. That is not workable IMHO.
ss:

So this principal has been constant since creation.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
ss:

What has changed is the church’s access to the word of God. There were times when individuals were speaking the word of God so Scripture alone was not our only access to the word of God. However today no one can demonstrate any other source of the word of God besides Scripture and that is why it is sola Scriptura for the church today.

But who decided this and when and by what authority? Why did Scripture not clearly give us this “rule” of our faith? Im sorry, but it just doesnt add up. What you are proposing is logical, its just that you seem to have pulled it out of thin air very very late in the game.
ss:

Furthermore, I don’t see why sola Scriptura not being always practiced is supposed to be a winner for Catholicism. Your rule of faith has never been practiced before in the history of the church until the 20 century.

This is an unsubstantiated matter of opinion.
ss:

Under the Old Covenant there were no 3 sources of infallible teaching with a uninspired single person being the head. It wasn’t true for the Apostolic church. Even if you make the weak argument that Peter was the head, he at least was inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is not the case for Popes after him.

This isn’t worth responding to except to say that it does nothing to further your argument for sola scriptura.
ss:

We don’t see evidence for this in the early church. So it is the Catholic rule of faith which is truly the novelty in the church. They have elevated uninspired men to the level of infallibility which was basically unknown in the church until they decreed it in the 20th century. Does that bother you?

What bothers me is irrelevent to proving sola scriptura. Your opinion of the inspiration of a pope does nothing to further your argument for sola scriptura. Concentrate on WHO decided that we transition to your version of sola scriptura as the rule of faith, WHEN they decided to do it, and BY WHAT AUTHORITY they did it and WHY didnt they tell anyone else that this momentous change had come about in the Church. When you have some solid answers to these very fundamental questions people will begin to listen more carefully to what you have to say.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy-

As I have posted in another thread, we know with certainty that the Popes have maintained their Authority through Apostolic Succession:

Hi Randy -

Thanks for all your excellent posts. My choosing to respond to SS simply revolved around the concept of “absolute certainty” as a term I would avoid. It was not meant to refute the “certainty” you applied to Apostolic succession.

 

[Philthy]

I would grant you that there are witnesses in every generation to the church, but I don’t think you can say that same for the modern day Roman Catholic Church. At least not anything close to the unanimous consent that Rome says she has.

Im sure people have been saying the same thing for millenia.
I guess an “unchanging” church is just another one of those unwritten rules from our rulebook. There are many churches which lack this basic form of verification, in fact almost all of them - that was the point.
ss:

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement:

"There is no such thing as “absolute certainty” apart from faith."Do you mean one cannot have “absolute certainty” so we must have faith or do you mean one can only have “absolute certainty” by faith?

If you mean the former then maybe you can explain why Catholics always claim Protestants need infallible certainty about the canon? If you mean the latter then you basically contradict the meaning of faith.

I dont believe you can have “absolute certainty” (apart from mathmatics and defined situations) unless you get it directly from God. I wouldn’t drift too far on this topic - it won’t lead anywhere useful - I should not have brought it up.
With respect to your question as to why Catholics claim Protestants need infallible certainty about the canon: I would guess that the answer is that since you claim that knowledge of the faith is by Scripture alone then it becomes a requirement that you know what Scripture is. Again, assuming sola scriptura to be true, if you dont know what Scripture is (ie what the canon is) then you cannot know what the faith is. That would be my guess.

 

[Philthy]

Furthermore, I don’t see why sola Scriptura not being always practiced is supposed to be a winner for Catholicism.

Sorry, I should have addressed this earlier. The reason why it is a winner for Catholicism is primarily because it discredits the nuanced form of sola scriptura you are describing. And again I will state that its not that what you propose is unreasonable, its just that it seems so contrary to the facts. I mean I like the idea of God just writing it all down logically, once and for all through the Apostles and that’s it for all time. Its very reasonable - but there is simply not enough evidence to support it. You want to talk about a lack of evidence for the hierarchy of Rome, but lets also discuss the lack of evidence for anyone making the momentous transition from oral tradition alone to sola scriptura. That should have been an immensely important event with considerable planning, writing and communication etc etc so everyone would be on board with the plan. But what are we left with exactly? Nothing but silence. If what you are proposing were true - that a transition from oral teaching to Scripture alone - were to take place at the end of the life of the last apostle, then somebody somewhere should have mentioned it clearly. In addition, Scripture should be void of any comments referring to “holding fast to tradition” and “being subject to the elders”. But we dont find most of the Apostles even mustering up the strength to write anything at all! In fact, we have to rely on two non-Apostles for 1/2 of our Gospels. And on what basis are we to be accepting those Gospels? Read Luke’s intro again if you havent recently. Its pathetically practical and what most would describe as uninspired. Why did Luke write? Because God told him to? Inspired him to? Because the advent of Sola Scriptura was soon approaching?
He says he’s writing because he DECIDED to so that Theophilus could basically compare Luke’s notes with the teaching he received and become more certain of it. It is not even clear that Luke expected anyone but Theophilus to read his writings.
Anyhow, there simply is too much missing from Scripture itself in support of SS, and too much said in Scripture contradicting SS, and too little historical support amongs the ECFs to meet the burden of proof for reasonableness in accepting SS IMHO. And if there was some sort of a transition from a time when it wasnt practiced to a time when it became the rule of faith, then somebody somewhere should have been perfectly clear about it, and they werent. That is why it is a winner for Catholicism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Yes, and I have freely mentioned that already. Here is the point. For the Protestant, sola Scriptura is in essence equal to the word of God as the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

Yes, but Scripture is not a rule book which is problematic to this hypothesis; in addition it contains statements in it which tell us to submit to things other than itself. That is not workable IMHO.

Who said anything about Scripture being a rule book? However, it does contains rules(i.e. do
and don’t). Obviously you haven’t been following the discussions very closely. Everyone knows the Scriptures point to other authorities besides itself. I’ve been yelling this from the rooftops to Catholics on this board since I got here. That is why we say the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith. There are a number of other authorities it points us to but they are not infallible(e.g. parents, government, church officers, …).

SolaScriptura:

What has changed is the church’s access to the word of God. There were times when individuals were speaking the word of God so Scripture alone was not our only access to the word of God. However today no one can demonstrate any other source of the word of God besides Scripture and that is why it is sola Scriptura for the church today.

But who decided this and when and by what authority? Why did Scripture not clearly give us this “rule” of our faith? Im sorry, but it just doesnt add up. What you are proposing is logical, its just that you seem to have pulled it out of thin air very very late in the game.

Who decided it? God did, when he gave the current church no other authority equal to His. When? I can’t give you an exact day, year, and time but even Augustine clearly communicated this when he said( I’m paraphrasing) things such as the follow:

1. 
   *]Only God is infallible
   *]Every bishop and every council can err
   *]We are free to disagree with bishops no matter what their standing
   
   This teaches the principle I’m advocating.
   

   

   SolaScriptura:
   

   Furthermore, I don’t see why sola Scriptura not being always practiced is supposed to be a winner for Catholicism. Your rule of faith has never been practiced before in the history of the church until the 20 century.

   This is an unsubstantiated matter of opinion.

   You break in the middle of a paragraph and call one of my sentences an “unsubstantiated matter of opinion”, however I substantiated it in the next few sentences that follow. You are free to break up a paragraph to respond to specific points, but you have to the read the paragraph as an entire argument.
   
   Now notice the substantiation for my last sentence above and how you respond to it.
   

   

   SolaScriptura:
   

   Under the Old Covenant there were no 3 sources of infallible teaching with a uninspired single person being the head. It wasn’t true for the Apostolic church. Even if you make the weak argument that Peter was the head, he at least was inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is not the case for Popes after him.

   This isn’t worth responding to except to say that it does nothing to further your argument for sola scriptura.

   Now see this is the substantiation for my sentence that your rule of faith hasn’t always been practiced. Above you said that I hadn’t substantiated it and know when I offer an argument for it you dismiss it, because it supposedly doesn’t further my argument. Of course it does because it shows your own reason for dismissing sola Scriptura(i.e. it wasn’t always practiced by the church ) applies more so to your own rule of faith. If an argument is self-refuting then it is not a good argument.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

We don’t see evidence for this in the early church. So it is the Catholic rule of faith which is truly the novelty in the church. They have elevated uninspired men to the level of infallibility which was basically unknown in the church until they decreed it in the 20th century. Does that bother you?

What bothers me is irrelevent to proving sola scriptura. Your opinion of the inspiration of a pope does nothing to further your argument for sola scriptura. Concentrate on WHO decided that we transition to your version of sola scriptura as the rule of faith, WHEN they decided to do it, and BY WHAT AUTHORITY they did it and WHY didnt they tell anyone else that this momentous change had come about in the Church. When you have some solid answers to these very fundamental questions people will begin to listen more carefully to what you have to say.

The above is relevant. This is a discussion, not a trial and I’m on the witness stand and you are the prosecutor. You have to answer questions also. I’m willing to answer any question you ask, but I’m also going to ask you questions. If you are not willing to answer any tough questions then there is no use in us talking. Now the questions I ask will not be random and on any point, but a point germane to the discussion. They will reveal your inconsistency, your objection is a case of special pleading, or other fallacious reasoning.

So the above question to you demonstrates that the question you asked me about “When”, “By What Authority”, “Why” are equally valid for your novel rule of faith(i.e. Infallilble person in Rome, infallible Tradition that we have no real evidence is the word of God unless it is in Scripture, and infallible Scripture ). Think on those things.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I dont believe you can have “absolute certainty” (apart from mathmatics and defined situations) unless you get it directly from God. I wouldn’t drift too far on this topic - it won’t lead anywhere useful - I should not have brought it up.

That is fine if you don’t want to discuss it, but I will respond to your answer, because I believe once again we see a case of inconsistency from the Catholic side. On one hand you claim “absolute certainty” cannot be had and therefore we have faith( I’m paraphrasing). But this is how you explain the Catholics who claim we need infallible certainty in reference to the canon.
Philthy;1857407:

With respect to your question as to why Catholics claim Protestants need infallible certainty about the canon: I would guess that the answer is that since you claim that knowledge of the faith is by Scripture alone then it becomes a requirement that you know what Scripture is.

Yes, but do we have to infallibly know is the question? You claim your rule of faith is Scripture, Pope & Teaching Magisterium, Tradition. So since you claim “knowledge of the faith” is by three sources does that mean you have to know three things infallibly? You have already said you know nothing with absolute certainty so do you think the Catholic common polemic is a good argument?

Again, assuming sola scriptura to be true, if you dont know what Scripture is (ie what the canon is) then you cannot know what the faith is. That would be my guess.

Yes, but do you see how that argument destroys your own position? If your three infallible sources are the rule of faith don’t you have to infallibly know what each consist of? Can you give me a list of the infallible traditions, the infallible teachings of the Pope, and the Magisterium?

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Furthermore, I don’t see why sola Scriptura not being always practiced is supposed to be a winner for Catholicism.

Sorry, I should have addressed this earlier. The reason why it is a winner for Catholicism is primarily because it discredits the nuanced form of sola scriptura you are describing.

But the Catholic rule of faith is also discredited with this line of argument so your position is not the winner. The three infallible sources being the rule of faith is a novelty.

Philthy:

And again I will state that its not that what you propose is unreasonable, its just that it seems so contrary to the facts. I mean I like the idea of God just writing it all down logically, once and for all through the Apostles and that’s it for all time. Its very reasonable - but there is simply not enough evidence to support it. You want to talk about a lack of evidence for the hierarchy of Rome, but lets also discuss the lack of evidence for anyone making the momentous transition from oral tradition alone to sola scriptura.

It is not that big of a transition when you understand that the principle is God alone is infallible. So the sola Scriptura is equivalent to that principle. The church from Adam and Eve has always had God’s word, though sometimes in different means(i.e. spoken and written ). However, today we only have God’s word in a written format, but it is still the same principle, that is only God is infallible. The really big transition is the one put forward by your church.

Philthy:

That should have been an immensely important event with considerable planning, writing and communication etc etc so everyone would be on board with the plan. But what are we left with exactly? Nothing but silence.

Where do we have your rule of faith being put forward with everyone in on the plan? Nowhere, not even a hint of it. It would have been extremely helpful to the early church when they were battling the heretics to know they had an infallible Pope. I’m also sure they would have chronicled the list of infallible Oral Traditions that the Apostle’s left.

Philthy:

If what you are proposing were true - that a transition from oral teaching to Scripture alone - were to take place at the end of the life of the last apostle, then somebody somewhere should have mentioned it clearly. In addition, Scripture should be void of any comments referring to “holding fast to tradition” and “being subject to the elders”.

Obviously you have some catching up to do on the arguments and you need to reflect on all your arguments and apply them to your tripartite system.

Philthy:

But we dont find most of the Apostles even mustering up the strength to write anything at all! In fact, we have to rely on two non-Apostles for 1/2 of our Gospels. And on what basis are we to be accepting those Gospels? Read Luke’s intro again if you havent recently. Its pathetically practical and what most would describe as uninspired. Why did Luke write? Because God told him to? Inspired him to? Because the advent of Sola Scriptura was soon approaching?

He says he’s writing because he DECIDED to so that Theophilus could basically compare Luke’s notes with the teaching he received and become more certain of it. It is not even clear that Luke expected anyone but Theophilus to read his writings.

Actually, just about all the NT letters were occasional, but so what? How does any of the above rule out their inspiration? Show me where the Apostles spoke of an infallible Pope in Rome? But you see that doesn’t slow you down a bit. Catholics are so anxious to refute sola Scriptura that they don’t think through the implications of their arguments. Your church’s position wasn’t explicitly defined until the 20th century!!! However, you have the temerity to ask “When” was sola Scriptura defined. You can’t even list the times when Popes have spoken infallibly. Catholic scholars and apologists disagree, but you don’t think about that when asking Protestant for how they know the canon of their rule of faith. Not only can’t you list what Oral Tradition is, Catholics even disagree when they define it. Some say it is an interpretational guide to the Scriptures. Some say it is a separate body of revelation. What do you say it is?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Anyhow, there simply is too much missing from Scripture itself in support of SS, and too much said in Scripture contradicting SS, and too little historical support amongs the ECFs to meet the burden of proof for reasonableness in accepting SS IMHO. And if there was some sort of a transition from a time when it wasnt practiced to a time when it became the rule of faith, then somebody somewhere should have been perfectly clear about it, and they werent. That is why it is a winner for Catholicism.

It is only a winner in your mind because you fail to apply the same criteria your own position which comes out a lot worse. What evidence is there in Scripture for an infallible person( who wasn’t inspired) who would live in Rome? The early church clearly rejected this. Protestants would have a problem accepting an infallible Oral Tradition from the Apostles if you could demonstrate you have it. The problem is Rome wants us to accept it on her word. Can’t do that my friend.

 

[Philthy]

SolaScriptura:

Who said anything about Scripture being a rule book?

Scripture is a collection of writings commonly referred to as a book. You claim it is the rule of faith. It is then, the book of the rules of the faith; a rule book of the faith.

SolaScriptura:

There are a number of other authorities it points us to but they are not infallible(e.g. parents, government, church officers, …).

But these “other authorities” were the means for determining Scripture. You cannot choose to rely on them completely in this one respect and subsequently deem them fallible in all other respects without justification.

SolaScriptura:

Who decided it? God did, when he gave the current church no other authority equal to His.

A restatement of you premise is not a supporting argument. Where does Scripture tell us this? Why doesn’t, “whoever hears you hears me” contradict this? Why doesnt “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” contradict this?

SolaScriptura:

When? I can’t give you an exact day, year, and time but even Augustine clearly communicated this when he said( I’m paraphrasing) things such as the follow:

Surely for something so monumentally important we dont need to rely on fallible authorities 300 years after the fact. That point alone raises some serious questions for your position. The fact that Augustine was a Bishop of the Catholic Church which he credits with providing Scripture also does not help your cause. Lastly, not everyone would agree with your assessment of Augustine’s concept of authority. Do we or do we not have an infallible means of corroborating your claim?

SolaScriptura:

You break in the middle of a paragraph and call one of my sentences an “unsubstantiated matter of opinion”,

Here’s the sentence I responded to:

SolaScriptura:

Your rule of faith has never been practiced before in the history of the church until the 20 century.
however I substantiated it in the next few sentences that follow.

Lets take a look at your “substantiation”…

SolaScriptura:

Under the Old Covenant there were no 3 sources of infallible teaching with a uninspired single person being the head.

Im going to assume that this is the invention of the 20th century that you are referring to. Are you claiming that this structure was not in place until the 20th century? There was no Pope, no magisterium etc. until the 20th century? Dont you think that is just a little bit overstated? And as far as substantiation, what exactly have you offered to counter my reply,“You are correct, it wasnt there under the Old Covenant - it developed during the Apostolic and post-Apostolic era” Very little as far as I can see.

SolaScriptura:

It wasn’t true for the Apostolic church. Even if you make the weak argument that Peter was the head, he at least was inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is not the case for Popes after him. We don’t see evidence for this in the early church.So it is the Catholic rule of faith which is truly the novelty in the church.

And here we have the big substantiation: You consider the argument for Peter as the head of the Church weak. And why is it weak? As far as I can see it is because you are of the opinion that Popes do not recieve inspiration by the Holy Spirit. And that assessment was based on what, exactly? Your opinion.
But you have more - “We dont see evidence for this in the early Church” I guess my first question is, "Who is the “we” that doesnt see it? Some do see it, and some do not. That is hardly substantiation. And lastly, I will point out that you failed to discuss 19 centuries of the 20 century claim that you made. Your opinion based argument is basically limited to the 1st century, yet your original claim stretches all the way to the 20th century. That is why I characterized it as A) Unsubstantiated and B) a matter of opinion.

Con’d - and worth reading before responding…

 

[Philthy]

SolaScriptura:

They have elevated uninspired men to the level of infallibility which was basically unknown in the church until they decreed it in the 20th century. Does that bother you?

I will admit a level of ignorance on the formal “decree of infallibility” so I need to review it. If this is the statement which pulls your whole argument together then I missed it out of ignorance and apologize. I am weakly familiar with various ECFs and the support of the primacy of Rome, but certainly not familiar enough to discredit your claim on that basis.

SolaScriptura:

Above you said that I hadn’t substantiated it and now when I offer an argument for it you dismiss it, because it supposedly doesn’t further my argument. Of course it does because it shows your own reason for dismissing sola Scriptura(i.e. it wasn’t always practiced by the church ) applies more so to your own rule of faith.

The fact that it wasnt always practiced by the Church is only part of my objection. As I have said, its not that it is irrational, its just that the facts simply dont seem to support it. I find the absence of it in Scripture and the silence of the transition to it in history compelling. And, in addition, the functional impossibility of it as the rule of faith -which is clearly demonstrated by the current interdenominational theological variablility and historical intradenominational theological variability (communion, contraception,…) throughout it’s brief history - in the churches which espouse it.
Please try not to be offended by my responses. I dont mean to insult you and I will try to be more charitable. I consider you a brother in Christ and I dont pretend to be in a position to judge you at all. I truly believe that That which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
Phil

 

[Philthy]

It is only a winner in your mind because you fail to apply the same criteria to your own position which comes out a lot worse. What evidence is there in Scripture for an infallible person( who wasn’t inspired) who would live in Rome?

You are absolutely right, I don’t apply the same criteria to my position. And why not? Because MY POSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CRITERIA - YOURS DOES. Catholics do not look to Scripture per se as the rule of faith in the manner which SS adherents do. When Catholics argue for the Catholic position from Scripture alone, it is out of consideration for those who adhere to SS, not because our position requires it. This is a considerable error in your analytical reasoning to assume that Catholics are bound by the constraints imposed by your own position - you need to rethink this objection rigorously.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You [Sola Scriptura] want to talk about a lack of evidence for the hierarchy of Rome, but lets also discuss the lack of evidence for anyone making the momentous transition from oral tradition alone to sola scriptura. That should have been an immensely important event with considerable planning, writing and communication etc etc so everyone would be on board with the plan. But what are we left with exactly? Nothing but silence. If what you are proposing were true - that a transition from oral teaching to Scripture alone - were to take place at the end of the life of the last apostle, then somebody somewhere should have mentioned it clearly. In addition, Scripture should be void of any comments referring to “holding fast to tradition” and “being subject to the elders”.

Dead on the money.

Because sola Scriptura was never practiced during Scriptural times, for it to be required of us now would be to require a major epistemological paradigm shift—one totally unprecedented in the history of God’s dealings with man.

If such a radical shift in theological method were to occur upon the deaths of the apostles, then surely they would have warned us about it. There should be passages (and there must be passages, after all, since the apostles orally transmitting this idea won’t do, under the theory of sola Scriptura), in which the apostles say:

“Listen, guys, after we’re dead, gather up all our writings and listen to them alone; forget everything we said outside of what is in our writings, every teaching and commandment we gave you; none of it is relevant. Oh yeah, and make sure you get everybody a copy of our writings, because everyone is supposed to read them and be ultimately responsible for firguring them out, with others no more than giving advice about what they mean.”

Needless to say, there are no such passages. Instead, we find the apostles making arrangements for their teachings to be carried on in oral form

If sola scriptura cannot be proven from the pages of scripture (as has already been agreed in this thread), then it is a false tradition of Protestant men and worse, a lie from the depths of Hell itself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are absolutely right, I don’t apply the same criteria to my position. And why not? Because MY POSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CRITERIA - YOURS DOES. Catholics do not look to Scripture per se as the rule of faith in the manner which SS adherents do. When Catholics argue for the Catholic position from Scripture alone, it is out of consideration for those who adhere to SS, not because our position requires it. This is a considerable error in your analytical reasoning to assume that Catholics are bound by the constraints imposed by your own position - you need to rethink this objection rigorously.

Philthy-

I have had others in this forum make a big deal out of the fact that I appealed to scripture to make a point. They thought that this somehow undercut the strength of the Catholic argument.

Although you and I are members of the original “Bible Church”, the Church that God chose to write, canonize and interpret the Bible for the world, we do well always and everywhere to remember that our separated brethren need “Bible verses” to prove everything.

If we were debating with Catholics or non-Christians, of course, we’d have our full arsenal of tradition, history and the ECFs at our disposal, as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dead on the money.

Because sola Scriptura was never practiced during Scriptural times, for it to be required of us now would be to require a major epistemological paradigm shift—one totally unprecedented in the history of God’s dealings with man.

If such a radical shift in theological method were to occur upon the deaths of the apostles, then surely they would have warned us about it. There should be passages (and there must be passages, after all, since the apostles orally transmitting this idea won’t do, under the theory of sola Scriptura), in which the apostles say:

“Listen, guys, after we’re dead, gather up all our writings and listen to them alone; forget everything we said outside of what is in our writings, every teaching and commandment we gave you; none of it is relevant. Oh yeah, and make sure you get everybody a copy of our writings, because everyone is supposed to read them and be ultimately responsible for firguring them out, with others no more than giving advice about what they mean.”

Needless to say, there are no such passages. Instead, we find the apostles making arrangements for their teachings to be carried on in oral form.

One more point, I think the following passage is very intriguing:

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make just prior to his death to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure?

He sure as heck didn’t write a bunch of books that made their way into the New Testament, now did he? :nope:

**Apostolic Succession. God’s plan for the Church. :clapping: **

 

[SolaScriptura]

Scripture is a collection of writings commonly referred to as a book. You claim it is the rule of faith. It is then, the book of the rules of the faith; a rule book of the faith.

I’m sure you understand words have different meanings. Rule in “rule of faith” has the meaning of standard or guide, not rules in the sense of dos and don’ts. Furthermore, Scripture also is one part of your “rule of faith” with the other two being Tradition and the Magisterium. So is it a book of rules for you?

But these “other authorities” were the means for determining Scripture. You cannot choose to rely on them completely in this one respect and subsequently deem them fallible in all other respects without justification.

What do you mean by “rely on them completely in this one respect and subsequently deem them fallible in all other respects without justification”? I regard them as fallible in all situations. The only people who are not fallible are those who are inspired of God which even your church agrees is not the case for anyone after the Apostles. Furthermore, fallible does not mean always in error. However, it seems like you are arguing for “absolute certainty” again, even though you disagreed with it previously. Do you believe “absolute certainty” is required for the canon?

A restatement of you premise is not a supporting argument. Where does Scripture tell us this? Why doesn’t, “whoever hears you hears me” contradict this? Why doesnt “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” contradict this?

It wasn’t a just a restatement of the premise, it was an answer to your question. If you want a different answer then you must ask a different question. Also you need to make an argument for the contradiction if you believe it is there, because I don’t believe it is a contradiction.

Surely for something so monumentally important we dont need to rely on fallible authorities 300 years after the fact. That point alone raises some serious questions for your position.

No it doesn’t. Are you arguing that we need infallible knowledge for this? Do you have infallible knowledge for belief in the content of your rule of faith? Please answer me that question.

The fact that Augustine was a Bishop of the Catholic Church which he credits with providing Scripture also does not help your cause. Lastly, not everyone would agree with your assessment of Augustine’s concept of authority. Do we or do we not have an infallible means of corroborating your claim?

I don’t require infallible means do you? If so I would like to know how a fallible person as yourself was able to come to infallible certainty. In reference to Augustine, yes it does help my cause, because it shows your rule of faith(i.e. Scripture, infallible Tradition, infallible Pope) was unknown to him. You are claiming sola Scriptura is a big shift and there should be some indication of it taking place, well my question is the same to you. Not only that, but there is clear contradiction of your claim, by the greatest father of the western tradition. Your assertion that it doesn’t help my case is nothing but an assertion. Furthermore, saying not everyone agrees with me is not an argument. Who doesn’t agree with me and why? What evidence do they have for their not agreeing with me?

Here’s the sentence I responded to:

SolaScriptura:

Your rule of faith has never been practiced before in the history of the church until the 20 century.

however I substantiated it in the next few sentences that follow.

Lets take a look at your “substantiation”…

SolaScriptura:

Under the Old Covenant there were no 3 sources of infallible teaching with a uninspired single person being the head.

But as you go on to note I made three points, with the above statement being one of them. We will see in your response this time you interact with each one, which shows I did attempt to substantiate the charge. You may have found it unconvincing, but that is what you have to show instead of just claim my argument was unsubstantiated. Now lets look at how you responded to my substantiation.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Im going to assume that this is the invention of the 20th century that you are referring to. Are you claiming that this structure was not in place until the 20th century?

Umm … no, I didn’t say the structure wasn’t there, I said your rule of faith wasn’t there.

There was no Pope, no magisterium etc. until the 20th century?

Strawman you are attacking.

Dont you think that is just a little bit overstated?

No, it is your caricature that is overstated. I never mentioned anything about the “structure” not being there, that is your caricature. I said your rule of faith(i.e. infallible Scripture, infallible Oral Tradition, infallible Bishop in Rome) wasn’t there.

And as far as substantiation, what exactly have you offered to counter my reply,“You are correct, it wasnt there under the Old Covenant - it developed during the Apostolic and post-Apostolic era” Very little as far as I can see.

What? If you agree that your rule of faith wasn’t present until the Apostolic and post-Apostolic period then you have excluded the majority of the time God was dealing with his people. This goes along way to establishing the point that your rule of faith is novel. However, you go on to claim it was developed during the Apostolic and post-Apostolic era, but this is all assertion. Show me the Apostolic evidence for an infallible Pope in Rome? Show me the post-Apostolic evidence for an infallible Pope in Rome?

And here we have the big substantiation: You consider the argument for Peter as the head of the Church weak. And why is it weak? As far as I can see it is because you are of the opinion that Popes do not recieve inspiration by the Holy Spirit. And that assessment was based on what, exactly? Your opinion.

It is weak, because even if there is evidence for Peter being the first Pope of Rome where is the evidence for gift of infallibility being passed on to every Pope of Rome? Care to offer some evidence?

But you have more - “We dont see evidence for this in the early Church” I guess my first question is, "Who is the “we” that doesnt see it?

The entire Eastern Church, the entire Protestant church, fathers from the West(e.g. Augustine), and Patristic scholars such as J.N.D. Kelley when he says:

What is perhaps more significant , there are only occasional hints(e.g. in the shout, “Peter has spoken through Leo”, with which the bishops at Chalcedon greeted Leo’s Tome) that St. Peter’s authority was mystically transmitted to, and as a result present in, his successors in the Roman see.( “Early Christian Doctrines”, J.N.D. Kelly p 408

Here Kelly says we only have a few hints, not the full teaching and this was in the 4th century!!

Some do see it, and some do not. That is hardly substantiation.

You want to offer some evidence for those who don’t?

And lastly, I will point out that you failed to discuss 19 centuries of the 20 century claim that you made. Your opinion based argument is basically limited to the 1st century, yet your original claim stretches all the way to the 20th century. That is why I characterized it as A) Unsubstantiated and B) a matter of opinion.

I offered Augustine which was a few centuries after the first. Furthermore, your church didn’t define it until the 20th century so that is when it became official dogma. Therefore, it wasn’t before that point.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Above you said that I hadn’t substantiated it and now when I offer an argument for it you dismiss it, because it supposedly doesn’t further my argument. Of course it does because it shows your own reason for dismissing sola Scriptura(i.e. it wasn’t always practiced by the church ) applies more so to your own rule of faith.

The fact that it wasnt always practiced by the Church is only part of my objection.

OK, but it should be equally a part of your objection against your own rule of faith.

As I have said, its not that it is irrational, its just that the facts simply dont seem to support it. I find the absence of it in Scripture and the silence of the transition to it in history compelling.

But the same is more so true for you position. There is nothing in the Scripture that says a Bishop in Rome will be given the gift of infallibility. It wasn’t true under the Old Covenant as you have already admitted so the silence of transition to it in history should be all the more compelling.

And, in addition, the functional impossibility of it as the rule of faith -which is clearly demonstrated by the current interdenominational theological variablility and historical intradenominational theological variability (communion, contraception,…) throughout it’s brief history - in the churches which espouse it.

The same is all the more true for your rule of faith. There intra debates on the predestination, inerracy of Scripture, sufficiency of Scripture, infallibility of councils, infallible papal statements, and others. As a matter of fact there have been debates in the Christian church from the first century, so what does that mean?

Please try not to be offended by my responses. I dont mean to insult you and I will try to be more charitable. I consider you a brother in Christ and I dont pretend to be in a position to judge you at all. I truly believe that That which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

I’m not offended at all. You have said nothing to offend me and I hope the same is true of my words.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

It is only a winner in your mind because you fail to apply the same criteria to your own position which comes out a lot worse. What evidence is there in Scripture for an infallible person( who wasn’t inspired) who would live in Rome?

You are absolutely right, I don’t apply the same criteria to my position. And why not? Because MY POSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CRITERIA - YOURS DOES. Catholics do not look to Scripture per se as the rule of faith in the manner which SS adherents do. When Catholics argue for the Catholic position from Scripture alone, it is out of consideration for those who adhere to SS, not because our position requires it. This is a considerable error in your analytical reasoning to assume that Catholics are bound by the constraints imposed by your own position - you need to rethink this objection rigorously.

You totally missed the point. I’m not saying apply my rule of faith(i.e. solaScriptura), but instead I’m speaking in reference to your own rule of faith. You were critiquing sola Scriptura based on history and supposedly it not being practiced during the time of the Apostles. My point is that neither was your rule of faith, therefore if you apply your critique to your own rule of faith it destroys your position.

 

[mikeledes]

SolaScriptura Not having a formally defined canon does not negate the fact that they still used the Scriptures. This is evident in the early fathers how they quoted from Scriptures. Furthermore, the OT was enough to communicate the Gospel. Remember in 2 Timothy 3 Paul tells Timothy he had the Scriptures from childhood( OT Scriptures ) which were enough to teach him faith in Christ Jesus. But once again I turned your question back on you. If an infallible magisterium was necessary why wasn’t in formally defined until the 20 century? Where is the canon of infallible tradition?

Using Scriptures does not automatically make it the sole infallible rule of faith and the sole vehichle of divine revelation. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches extensively use the Bible, but neither one belivees in Sola Scriptura. Secondly, if the Old Testament is sufficient to communicate the Gospel, then why do we have the New Testament? So I guess you’re arguing material sufficieny vs. formal suffciency here? At least you recognize that 2 Timothy 3 specifically refers to the Old Testament and that undermines the Sola Scriptura interpretation of that verse. If the early Christians did not formalize the canon until several centuries later, that indicates that they did not exclusively rely on it. Regarding the Magisterium being defined in the 20th Century, what are you referring to?

Typical Catholic dodge. When they can’t anywhere with sola Scriptura the switch to the canon. The problem is these same fallacious questions have been answered time and time again. It is like we are in this vicious circle. Lets leave the canon alone for the time being and deal with sola Scriptura or we can leave sola Scriptura alone and deal with the canon.

I’m sorry that you see it that way, but this is a valid question. You believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. And yet this rule of faith did not fall neatly bound from the sky. There is no divinely inspired table of contents. It was collected and put together by human beings. Moreover, several of the books you accept as canonical were in dispute. If you don’t believe those who discerned which books were (name removed by moderator)sired did not excercise infallible authority, then how are you so certain that the books you accept are canonical are truly “God-breathed.”

Sigh … how do you know with absolute certainty that of all the churches proclaiming to be the true church you have picked the right one?

Which one came first? Which one can at least claim structural continuity with the early church? And if I have absolute trust in Jesus Christ, I trust that he will keep His promise and not allow the gates of hell to prevail against His Church.

How do you know what Rome says is infallilble tradition(i.e. Papal Infallibility, Bodily Assumption) is really infallible?

The same way I know the books the Church discerned as being inspired are inspired.

A church can tell you they have an infallible spokesperson and they alone can rightly interpret Scripture and Tradition, but that still does not make them infallible.

Several Popes believed heretical doctrines

.

All three work together. Scripture reaffirms Tradition, Tradition reaffirms Scripture, and both reaffirm and validate the Magisterium. If something is the sole infallible rule of faith, it should be able to validate itself. And yet, the Bible nevers lists the books that are inspired. Consequently, it depends on an outside and objeactive authority to determine which books were canonical.

Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.

If only I could get an answer to my question. Who determined which books belong in the canon? How do you know they made no errors in judgement since they had no infallible authority?

God Bless,
Michael