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

[mikeledes]

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?

Sola, let’s talk about numbers here. How many Catholics are actually engaged in these debates? How many Catholics are in each of the opposing ranks. Frankly, not that many. The debates you list are mainly among theologians and scholars. Now lets compare that to the number of Protestant sects and denominations from the beginning of its history.

Secondly, most of these debates originate from the challenges unique to the last 100 years (i.e. new scientific discoveries, developments in historical research, archaeological discoveries, the cultural and sexual revolutions). How does the Church respond to these challenges? Like I said, the Church gives its theologians and scholars breathing room to work out a theological response to these challenges. If necessary, the Church gives a formal decision on the issue and all have to accept it.

Protestantism has been fractured from its birth. Now, there is no rule of faith that will absolutely prevent the rise of divisions and heresies. As long as there is sin, there will be division. However, the high level of division among Protestants clearly indicates that there is a higher propensity for division and splinter groups and division in Protestantism than among Catholics. If 1 out of 10 Americans suffer serious side effects from taking a particular medication while 1 out of 1000 Americans suffer from side effects taking another medication treating the same disease, the difference reflects on the medication.

The fact that Sola Scriptura has led to confusion from the start reflects the fact that it needs an objective interpreter. The fact that the Canon had to be discerned reflects the fact that an outside objective authority was needed to define its limits.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

I never said it did. I was only responding to your question. Even without an infallible canon, which didn’t come until after the Reformation, the church seemed to know what Scripture was which is demonstrated by her constant quoting of it.

Secondly, if the Old Testament is sufficient to communicate the Gospel, then why do we have the New Testament?

Do you deny the OT was sufficient to communicate the Gospel? If no, then you should be able to answer your own question. If yes, I will show you how wrong you are from the Scriptures themselves and then you need to explain how they were saved without it.

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.

No, it doesn’t because it speaks of all Scripture. It places no limit on the OT Scriptures only. At the time of 2 Timothy there were NT Scriptures that had been written.

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?

No one has been arguing for an “exclusive” relying on Scripture, but instead only Scripture is infallible and the highest authority, because it is God’s word.

I was referring to the concept of Papal Infallibility not being defined until the 20th century, but this is part of your rule of faith. You don’t even know today what is the infallible list of infallible pronouncements, so you are in no position to complain about the canon not being defined for a few hundred years.

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.”

I didn’t say it wasn’t a valid question. Instead I said it is a different question for a different discussion. If you want to talk about the canon then start another thread, because your position is much more inconsistent the mines. You claim an infallible list of books is needed, but even your church admit it was infallibly defined until after the Reformation. Furthermore, since you are fallible you can never reach infallible knowledge about the canon even though you claim it is required. A very illogical position so start the thread and we can discuss it all day.

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.

A number of churches claims this and they all have trust in Jesus Christ. This is not the beginning of a meaningful answer. Please try again with some substance.

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

That didn’t answer the question. How do you know?

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

This seems like a vicious circle. Which is first? Scripture, Tradition, or the Church? BTW, you still haven’t given me an infallible list of infallible Papal pronouncements. Waiting …

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 ultimately determined which books belong in the canon, but the church played a role in discovering this and collecting them. By faith I accept they were correct and I do not require infallible certainty. The early church didn’t either, because based on your church it didn’t’ happen until Trent. Your problem is that you claim infallible certainty is needed, but as a fallible person you can’t acquire it. You have to use your fallible reasoning to pick a church, which destroys your infallible certainty.

Now explain to me how you have infallible knowledge when you made a fallible decision to trust Rome?

 

[KathleenElsie]

An analogy:

I have old recipes some from my grandmother or even earlier. These recipes are the same ones as I have used for family meals for the last 38 years. But I now have grandchildren that do not live with us or near us and their parents want the same meals for their families. Some of their recipes are close and some are very different. They not the same and unfortunately have changed over time and not always for the better. So the time has come for me to write them down so others can follow and understand them.

The above analogy is why it sometimes takes time for a Tradition to be written down. It has not changed over time. But the way people remember it might have. So to preserve it for future generations we write them down.

Simple for Catholics to understand. Harder for other denominations to understand.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Ignoring the posts that answer questions is not the same as not having then answered.:banghead:

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ignoring the posts that answer questions is not the same as not having then answered.:banghead:

I’m sorry my lady, is this directed at moi? Believe me I haven’t ignored a post that answered my question. If I ignored a post it was for some other reason. Think on that.

 

[mikeledes]

SolaScriptura I never said it did. I was only responding to your question. Even without an infallible canon, which didn’t come until after the Reformation, the church seemed to know what Scripture was which is demonstrated by her constant quoting of it.

Based on your response, you apparently misuderstood my earlier question. The Church Fathers accepted the authority of Scripture, but there was no formal closing of the canon until several centuries later. The Council of Trent specifically dealt with the deuterocanonicals. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Councils of Trent and Hippo by now.

Do you deny the OT was sufficient to communicate the Gospel? If no, then you should be able to answer your own question. If yes, I will show you how wrong you are from the Scriptures themselves and then you need to explain how they were saved without it.

To this I quote: Acts 8:30-31

**30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31"How can I," he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.**

The Old Testament is able to communicate the Gospel if it interpreted in light of the New Testament, which at this point was in purely oral form.

No, it doesn’t because it speaks of all Scripture. It places no limit on the OT Scriptures only. At the time of 2 Timothy there were NT Scriptures that had been written

.

I agree . Only problem is that it never says only Scripture is the infallible rule of faith not the sole vehicle of divine revelation. If it’s the sole rule of faith, it should clearly state that.

No one has been arguing for an “exclusive” relying on Scripture, but instead only Scripture is infallible and the highest authority, because it is God’s word.

You just said the same thing using different words. What is the other thing you rely on besides Scripture? Must that other thing be tested against or derived from Scripture? If yes, then you are excluively relying on Scripture or an interpretation derived from Scripture.

I was referring to the concept of Papal Infallibility not being defined until the 20th century, but this is part of your rule of faith. You don’t even know today what is the infallible list of infallible pronouncements, so you are in no position to complain about the canon not being defined for a few hundred years.

The Trinity and Hypostatic Union were not formally defined until the fourth and fifth centuries. The fact that something is defined at a certain point in time does not mean it wasn’t believed before. By the way, papal infallibility was defined in the nineteenth century, not the 20th.

I

didn’t say it wasn’t a valid question. Instead I said it is a different question for a different discussion. If you want to talk about the canon then start another thread, because your position is much more inconsistent the mines. You claim an infallible list of books is needed, but even your church admit it was infallibly defined until after the Reformation. Furthermore, since you are fallible you can never reach infallible knowledge about the canon even though you claim it is required. A very illogical position so start the thread and we can discuss it all day.

The subject is Sola Scriptura. If we are going to discuss the authority of the Bible, we inevitably have to discuss who and by what authority determined the canon. If the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, then we should have an infallible knowledge of its limits. Unfortunately, the Bible itself does not provide a list of canonical books.

A number of churches claims this and they all have trust in Jesus Christ. This is not the beginning of a meaningful answer. Please try again with some substance.

And please respond without obnoxious comments. I do not question your intelligence and have not disrespected you. Please do the same. Can you please give me a couple of Protestant churches that make this claim? Can they historically trace themsleves back to the apostolic age? If they can’t, then what happened to the Christ’s Church for nearly over a millenia. If there was a mass apostasy, then Christ did not keep His promise.

That didn’t answer the question. How do you know?

You answered my previous question with another question, hence my answer. When I get an answer, I’ll respond to your question.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sola Scriptura This seems like a vicious circle. Which is first? Scripture, Tradition, or the Church? BTW, you still haven’t given me an infallible list of infallible Papal pronouncements. Waiting …

Whatever is binding on Catholics is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Secondly, the New Testament was given in oral form to the Church. Then members of the Church wrote the New Testament and members of the Church discerned what was canonical and what was not.

God ultimately determined which books belong in the canon, but the church played a role in discovering this and collecting them. By faith I accept they were correct and I do not require infallible certainty. The early church didn’t either, because based on your church it didn’t’ happen until Trent. Your problem is that you claim infallible certainty is needed, but as a fallible person you can’t acquire it. You have to use your fallible reasoning to pick a church, which destroys your infallible certainty.

I accept the Bible, Tradition, and the Magisterium by faith. I know that God guides His church and I know that when the Church determined what belonged in the canon, that God infallibly guided them to that decision. You may not want to accept it, but you have accepted this decision and believe it is infallible.

Now explain to me how you have infallible knowledge when you made a fallible decision to trust Rome?

I trust Jesus and trust that He will keep His promise. I believe that the Bible and History point to the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ and only in that Church can Christ’s promise be fulfilled.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

Based on your response, you apparently misuderstood my earlier question. The Church Fathers accepted the authority of Scripture, but there was no formal closing of the canon until several centuries later. The Council of Trent specifically dealt with the deuterocanonicals. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Councils of Trent and Hippo by now.

No, the Council of Trent dealt with the canon. Hippo and Carthage also dealt with the canon, but neither council was considered infallible. Based on your reasoning the church went without an infallible canon until Trent and survived fine, but now one must have this infallible canon. Not only that the Jews went without an infallible canon for their entire 6,000 or more years, but now for polemical purpose an infallible canon is absolutely necessary. Doesn’t make sense.

To this I quote: Acts 8:30-31

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The Old Testament is able to communicate the Gospel if it interpreted in light of the New Testament, which at this point was in purely oral form.

You are disappointing me Micheal. How were the OT saints saved before the NT was written to give them this light?

.

I agree . Only problem is that it never says only Scripture is the infallible rule of faith not the sole vehicle of divine revelation. If it’s the sole rule of faith, it should clearly state that.

As I have told you now about 100 times, Sola Scriptura is arrived at by good and necessary consequence not an explicit statement. By the way, shouldn’t Scripture or early Oral Tradition say the Bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex Cathedra if this is true? You are really the master of self-refuting arguments.

You just said the same thing using different words. What is the other thing you rely on besides Scripture? Must that other thing be tested against or derived from Scripture? If yes, then you are excluively relying on Scripture or an interpretation derived from Scripture.

If you can’t see the difference between those two statements then I don’t know if I can be of much help to you. If I was exclusively relying on Scripture then I wouldn’t consult anything else. I would just go straight to Scripture and only Scripture. Verifying other sources to make sure they are not contradicting Scripture does not mean you are not relying on them. There are historical details and facts that one could rely to better understand Scripture. Maybe you should understand what exclusive means.

The Trinity and Hypostatic Union were not formally defined until the fourth and fifth centuries. The fact that something is defined at a certain point in time does not mean it wasn’t believed before. By the way, papal infallibility was defined in the nineteenth century, not the 20th.

OK, but why do you make such a big deal about the Scriptures not being defined for a few hundred years when part of your rule of faith wasn’t defined for 20 … errr … I mean 19 centuries? Once again your inconsistencies are amazing.

The subject is Sola Scriptura. If we are going to discuss the authority of the Bible, we inevitably have to discuss who and by what authority determined the canon. If the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, then we should have an infallible knowledge of its limits. Unfortunately, the Bible itself does not provide a list of canonical books.

Related but two different discussions. If you want to start a thread on the canon then by all means do so.

And please respond without obnoxious comments. I do not question your intelligence and have not disrespected you. Please do the same. Can you please give me a couple of Protestant churches that make this claim? Can they historically trace themsleves back to the apostolic age? If they can’t, then what happened to the Christ’s Church for nearly over a millenia. If there was a mass apostasy, then Christ did not keep His promise.

Almost every church in each of these denominations would make that claim: PCA, OPC, URC, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Eastern Orthodox, and others. I guess I’m getting a little tired of answering the same ole arguments over and over from you. All you do is switch a few words or scenarios around, but the argument is basically the same. I’ve told you before you are not advancing the conversation.

You answered my previous question with another question, hence my answer. When I get an answer, I’ll respond to your question.

I’m not sure what previous question you are talking about.

 

[mikeledes]

SolaScriptura No, the Council of Trent dealt with the canon. Hippo and Carthage also dealt with the canon, but neither council was considered infallible. Based on your reasoning the church went without an infallible canon until Trent and survived fine, but now one must have this infallible canon. Not only that the Jews went without an infallible canon for their entire 6,000 or more years, but now for polemical purpose an infallible canon is absolutely necessary. Doesn’t make sense.

The Jews could not have a closed canon because Divine Revelation had not ceased. The Church has Tradition, hence it does not have the absolute necessity of relying on an infallibly defined canon. If you rely on Scripture alone for matters of faith and doctrine, then an infallibly defined canon would be necessary. Last time I checked, most Protestants do not question the books they received as canonical and inspired.

You are disappointing me Micheal. How were the OT saints saved before the NT was written to give them this light?

By accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? The Old Testament saints put their trust in God’s promises, but they did not have concscious knowledge of Jesus Christ.

As I have told you now about 100 times, Sola Scriptura is arrived at by good and necessary consequence not an explicit statement. By the way, shouldn’t Scripture or early Oral Tradition say the Bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex Cathedra if this is true? You are really the master of self-refuting arguments.

You also use the “good and necessary consequece” argument to defend infant baptism. Unfortunately, many of your fellow Protestants do not see that “good and necessary consequence.” This is a very subjective argument. Since you do not have an infallible authority to draw that conclusion, you have no assurance if it is truly a goof and necessary consequence. Silence does not mean that papal infallibility was not upheld in the first three centuries, though I will have to do more research on this in oder to answer your question adequately.

If you can’t see the difference between those two statements then I don’t know if I can be of much help to you. If I was exclusively relying on Scripture then I wouldn’t consult anything else. I would just go straight to Scripture and only Scripture. Verifying other sources to make sure they are not contradicting Scripture does not mean you are not relying on them. There are historical details and facts that one could rely to better understand Scripture. Maybe you should understand what exclusive means

.

And I’m disappointed that you cannot see the difference between doctrine and history and cannot engage in a discussion without insulting comments. I am talking about relying on Scripture alone for doctrine (faith and morals), not for historical information.

OK, but why do you make such a big deal about the Scriptures not being defined for a few hundred years when part of your rule of faith wasn’t defined for 20 … errr … I mean 19 centuries? Once again your inconsistencies are amazing

.

I don’t make a big deal about the Scriptures being defined several centuries later because I see no problem with that, at least from a Catholic persepctive. The Magisterium has always been at work teaching, defining, and exhorting. The Church has generally exercised its infallibility in the form of Councils. The fact that a teaching was fromally defined centuries later does not mean that it did not exist prior to that.

Related but two different discussions. If you want to start a thread on the canon then by all means do so.

They are directly related. If you are going to say the Bible is the sole rule of faith, you must have a clear definition of what it is.

Almost every church in each of these denominations would make that claim: PCA, OPC, URC, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Eastern Orthodox, and others. I guess I’m getting a little tired of answering the same ole arguments over and over from you. All you do is switch a few words or scenarios around, but the argument is basically the same. I’ve told you before you are not advancing the conversation.

And all the churches you listed were founded after 1500, as in over a millenia after Christ founded His Church. Concerning the Orthodox, they have an apostolic heritage and do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

I’m not sure what previous question you are talking about.

The one that you responded to earlier.

God bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Jews could not have a closed canon because Divine Revelation had not ceased. The Church has Tradition, hence it does not have the absolute necessity of relying on an infallibly defined canon. If you rely on Scripture alone for matters of faith and doctrine, then an infallibly defined canon would be necessary. Last time I checked, most Protestants do not question the books they received as canonical and inspired.

Of course the early church needed a canon. How do you think they settle their disputes? Was it not by referring to the Scriptures? But if what you are saying is true they had no right to refer to the Scriptures because they might not have really been the Scriptures. They could have been appealing to uninspired books to settle debates. Why wasn’t it no one told them they couldn’t even be sure if they were referring to Scripture? The same is true for the Jews, Jesus, and the Apostles. They all referred to Scripture, but once again how is this possible based on your reasoning?

By accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? The Old Testament saints put their trust in God’s promises, but they did not have concscious knowledge of Jesus Christ.

And God’s promises included a savior, even if they didn’t see Him. We don’t see Him either. It is the Gospel that saves both OT and NT saints.

You also use the “good and necessary consequece” argument to defend infant baptism. Unfortunately, many of your fellow Protestants do not see that “good and necessary consequence.” This is a very subjective argument. Since you do not have an infallible authority to draw that conclusion, you have no assurance if it is truly a goof and necessary consequence. Silence does not mean that papal infallibility was not upheld in the first three centuries, though I will have to do more research on this in oder to answer your question adequately.

Look, I’m not going over the same argument with you again and again. Either you are unable or unwilling to move on. Your argument is subjective about an infallible church. It is based on your personal reasonings and private interpretations. You have no more assurance than I. Saying you have an infallible authority doesn’t make it so. The arguments I would use for infant baptism are more sound than the arguments you would use for an infallible Pope. Now look at your special pleading. “Silence does not mean that papal infallibility was not upheld in the first three centuries…”, but yet you constantly argue that silence about sola Scriptura proves it is wrong.

And I’m disappointed that you cannot see the difference between doctrine and history and cannot engage in a discussion without insulting comments. I am talking about relying on Scripture alone for doctrine (faith and morals), not for historical information.

Yes, but I’m critiquing your rule of faith, because every argument you try to use against Scripture cuts the branch off that you are sitting on. I’m not trying to be insulting, but you have been using the same tired argument for almost 2 weeks. I answer it and you disappear for while and we start talking about something else then you go right back to it. Eventually when you are pressed enough on this you start talking about the canon again. For heaven’s sake advance the argument!! Explain to me how a fallible person of yourself can have the infallible knowledge that you claim is necessary for me in reference to the canon? Tell me the infallible list you have of for your rule of faith(i.e. ex Cathedra statements)? If you cannot then why is it necessary for me to have an not yourself? Explain why the OT covenant people and the church didn’t need an infallible canon until Trent, even though they quoted copiously from the Scriptures and used them in matters of life and death? Explain why parts of your rule of faith was not defined until the 19th century, and that is OK, but if the canon is not defined for a few hundreds years it is not ok? Explain why your church has disagreements on important doctrines and that is OK, but if Protesants disagrees on Baptism it is a sign of Sola Scriptura not being workable? Until you can answer some of these questions in a non fallacious manner you need to quit using the same ole tired arguments.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I don’t make a big deal about the Scriptures being defined several centuries later because I see no problem with that, at least from a Catholic persepctive. The Magisterium has always been at work teaching, defining, and exhorting. The Church has generally exercised its infallibility in the form of Councils. The fact that a teaching was fromally defined centuries later does not mean that it did not exist prior to that.

Heads I win, tail you lose. If it is not define it is still there. You claim it is not a big deal for the Scriptures not to be defined. It is also a big deal for the Papal Infallibility not to be defined. When was Holy Tradition defined to be infallible? Your entire rule of faith is almost missing any kind of real definition in the first 3 centuries.

They are directly related. If you are going to say the Bible is the sole rule of faith, you must have a clear definition of what it is.

Tell you what I will start a thread on the canon. See you there.

And all the churches you listed were founded after 1500, as in over a millenia after Christ founded His Church. Concerning the Orthodox, they have an apostolic heritage and do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

The denominations were formed in a split from Rome. It does not automatically follow that your path is the right one. You are begging the question. Furthermore, it doesn’ t matter that the EO do not believe in Sola Scriptura they do not believe in Papal Infallibility either. The point is they are church that makes the same claim as your church. Isn’t that what you asked for anyway?

The one that you responded to earlier.

I don’t know what you are talking about. Post the question.

 

[mikeledes]

Explain to me how a fallible person of yourself can have the infallible knowledge that you claim is necessary for me in reference to the canon? Tell me the infallible list you have of for your rule of faith(i.e. ex Cathedra statements)? If you cannot then why is it necessary for me to have an not yourself? Explain why the OT covenant people and the church didn’t need an infallible canon until Trent, even though they quoted copiously from the Scriptures and used them in matters of life and death? Explain why parts of your rule of faith was not defined until the 19th century, and that is OK, but if the canon is not defined for a few hundreds years it is not ok? Explain why your church has disagreements on important doctrines and that is OK, but if Protesants disagrees on Baptism it is a sign of Sola Scriptura not being workable? Until you can answer some of these questions in a non fallacious manner you need to quit using the same ole tired arguments.

Answer this question: Are you or are you not absolutely sure that all of the books contained in your Bible are inspired? I, for one, can say yes. The OT saints had the Law of Moses and the Prophets. The canon was not closed because God’s revelation was not complete. The Magisterium as the official infallible interpreter of the Divine Revelation has existed before the nineteenth century and the church has exercised its infallibilty, primarily in the form of councils. Because something was defined later in time does not mean it did not exist prior to that. The Assumption was formally defined in 1950, and yet belief in the Assumption pre-exsited that declararion by over a millenium (even the Orthodox Church believes in the Assumption).

Protestants not only have theological disagreements, but they form their own churches based on these disagreements, destroying the visible unity that should exist in God’s church. All Catholics believe in the seven sacraments, that salvation is by grace and not by faith alone, that baptism is the normative means by which justification is conferred, that Christ Himself established the Papacy, etc. Of all the disagreements that you list, how many Catholics participate in that debate. Those debates are primarily confined to theologians and scholars. It all boils down to numbers. List all of the so-called Catholic splinter groups and then make a list of the Protestant sects and you will see a vast difference.

The debates in the Catholic Church primarily center around the challenges of the modern world (science, sexual and cultural revolution, religious liberalism, etc). What kind of theological response the Church should give to these challenges? In other words, external forces are conteributing to the disagreements. In Protestantism, the debates are not only centered arond Conservatives vs. Liberals, but on the nature of salvation. Is baptism necessary for salvation or not?
Is it baptismal regeneration or not? Is it eternal security or not? Pentecostals say that speaking in tongues is a sign that you have the Holy Spirit and are hence saved, while others will say that speaking in tongues is a sign that you are not saved because it is of demonic origin, speaking in tongues having ceased with the completion of Divine Revelation.

Here is a Calvinist view of the Arminian “heresy.”

geocities.com/pvrosman/The_Poisonous_Petals_Of_The_Arminian_LILAC.html

Here is a discussion on the differing opinions on tongues:

geocities.com/lakestationupc/bblstdy/Apost-Vc/tracts/TDoD.htm

Catholics can debate on an issue that has not been formally defined or is unclear, but they must obey the parameters established by the Church. Such parameters do not exist in Protestantism and that is why the level of splintering is far greater among Protestants then Catholics. If I am subject to Scripture Alone for matters of doctrine, then the only true parameters are the ones my conscience establishes.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

Umm … no, I said your rule of faith wasn’t there.
Strawman you are attacking.

Im sorry - I didnt mean to argue against something you didnt say, I simply didnt know what you meant by the “rule of faith” and you didnt bother to include it until this post…
ss:

I didn’t say the structure wasn’t there… I said your rule of faith(i.e. infallible Scripture, infallible Oral Tradition, infallible Bishop in Rome) wasn’t there.

Before I forget, I moved one of your statements above to connect it with your definition of “rule of faith” so that my response makes more sense- Im not trying to misrepresent you.

OK, so you acknowledge that the “structure” was there, but the “rule of faith” was not, and by the rule of faith you mean that “infallible Scripture” wasnt there and/or infallible Oral Tradition and/or infallible Bishop in Rome. I think they were there under God’s providence and inspiration cloaked as mere human endeavors and that the full realization of what God had provided was not appreciated. Kinda like when Luke wrote his “Gospel” which is really his collection of the evidence of OTHER witnesses which he put together because he “decided” to. ANYONE with an open mind reading the intro to his Gospel would be forced to come to the conclusion that it is most definitely not “inspired” its simply a guy putting together the stories of others. But in reality, much later, it came to be recognized as the work of he Holy Spirit and is an undisputed part of the canon. In the same way that God operated through Luke to produce Scripture I believe God operated through the “structure” of the Catholic Church which - like Luke’s work - was later recognized as the work of God.
ss:

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.

I dont think so - that is also true of the New Covenant and I presume you dont consider that “novel” in the same sense. The fact that God dealt with his people differently in the past seems irrelevent.
ss:
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?

You already admitted that some view Peter in this way ('weak argument you called it) both from Scripture (Matt 16:18) and historical accounts which place Peter’s death at Rome - do you want me to list the men after him recognized as Vicar of Christ?
ss:

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?

I’ll tell you what - you evidentially prove anyone - including the Apostles - taught infallibly and I will know how to respond better to your request. I dont know how one proves infallibility with evidence. It would seem to me that fallibility can be demonstrated but proving infallibility is different.
ss:
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!!

Who’s point are you proving - yours or mine? This is better than nothing - which is the evidence you have produced so far, witnessing the transition from oral authority to SS; and it is from a Protestant scholar. Where is the huge mobilization that should have occurred at the death of the last Apostle to transition the Church into the new era of “Sola Scriptura”? Unlike my position, which contains hints over 1600 years ago, there is not even a HINT that a fundamental transition of the rule of faith has occurred.
ss:

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.

Correct - you offered nothing after Augustine to support your contention which stretched all the way to the 20th century. I know its a bitter pill to swallow, but not being “official” dogma does not mean it did not operate as the rule of faith in the Church…

 

[Philthy]

"philthy:

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.

No it is not - its not even close; I cant help you if you’re not able to see that or not prepared to admit it. Have you ever read Grudem’s Systematic Theology? Every topic has a variety of “possible” interpretations none of which will ever be declared as the “truth” once and for all time. But the truth being declared once and for all happens in the Catholic Church, and once it happens the debate is largely over. The fact that some topics are still unrevealed and debated among Catholic theologians is irrelevent. The fundamental difference is that the Catholic rule of faith produces unity and accountability and sola scriptura does not and has not because it cannot. What it does do is slowly relegate more and more of the faith into the "disputable issues’ category so that everyone can gather under the giant umbrella of “Protestantism” and pretend that all the real, hard differences which exist are not significant at all - there are only a few, central beliefs and all the rest is “disputable”.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Im sorry - I didnt mean to argue against something you didnt say, I simply didnt know what you meant by the “rule of faith” and you didnt bother to include it until this post…
It is surprising that you don’t know what “rule of faith” means. This is very common in Christianity from all churches. What does it mean for your church?
Philthy;1862882:

OK, so you acknowledge that the “structure” was there, but the “rule of faith” was not, and by the rule of faith you mean that “infallible Scripture” wasnt there and/or infallible Oral Tradition and/or infallible Bishop in Rome.

Well it depends on what you mean by structure. All I stated was that I didn’t make that argument, not that I agree with your argument for structure.

I think they were there under God’s providence and inspiration cloaked as mere human endeavors and that the full realization of what God had provided was not appreciated. Kinda like when Luke wrote his “Gospel” which is really his collection of the evidence of OTHER witnesses which he put together because he “decided” to. ANYONE with an open mind reading the intro to his Gospel would be forced to come to the conclusion that it is most definitely not “inspired” its simply a guy putting together the stories of others. But in reality, much later, it came to be recognized as the work of he Holy Spirit and is an undisputed part of the canon. In the same way that God operated through Luke to produce Scripture I believe God operated through the “structure” of the Catholic Church which - like Luke’s work - was later recognized as the work of God

.

Well anyone can make an argument like this. I believe the structure for sola Scriptura was there. The Mormons believe their structure was there. The Watchtower believes their structure was there. This is not a rational argument but special pleading.

I dont think so - that is also true of the New Covenant and I presume you dont consider that “novel” in the same sense. The fact that God dealt with his people differently in the past seems irrelevent.

Why do you think it is called the NEW Covenant? Because it is new!! Furthermore, this analogy breaks down on some many points it is amazing that you tried to use it. The OT clearly promised a New Covenant. Jesus clearly spoke of the New Covenant. None of this is remotely true for your rule of faith. So the argument still stands. It is a theological novelty with no support from the Scriptures. There is nothing that hints at the Bishop in Rome being infallible.

You already admitted that some view Peter in this way ('weak argument you called it) both from Scripture (Matt 16:18) and historical accounts which place Peter’s death at Rome - do you want me to list the men after him recognized as Vicar of Christ?

You are reading more into my statements then what I’m saying. No matter how you interpret Matt 16:18 is says nothing about infallibility being granted to the Bishops of Rome alone. I want you list where Scripture and/or Tradition speak of Peter’s successor being given the gift of infallibility in the Apostolic period or the period right after.

I’ll tell you what - you evidentially prove anyone - including the Apostles - taught infallibly and I will know how to respond better to your request. I dont know how one proves infallibility with evidence. It would seem to me that fallibility can be demonstrated but proving infallibility is different.

The Scriptures are the evidence. They are said to be speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God cannot err. Show me similar evidence for the Bishops in Rome?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Who’s point are you proving - yours or mine? This is better than nothing - which is the evidence you have produced so far, witnessing the transition from oral authority to SS; and it is from a Protestant scholar. Where is the huge mobilization that should have occurred at the death of the last Apostle to transition the Church into the new era of “Sola Scriptura”? Unlike my position, which contains hints over 1600 years ago, there is not even a HINT that a fundamental transition of the rule of faith has occurred.

It is proving my point. Kelly first makes statements like the following right before that comment:
On the other hand, there is no suggestion in the Greek fathers that St. Peter’s position as leader carried with it a status different in kind from that of the other apostles(Early Christian Doctrines”, J.N.D. Kelly p 408)

He lists some other statements showing how the fathers didn’t believe Peter had any special privilege and then he makes that statement that it is even more telling there was no positive affirmation of this gift except for the small hint. However, even with that hint it speaks of authority not infallibility. The two are different you know.

Correct - you offered nothing after Augustine to support your contention which stretched all the way to the 20th century. I know its a bitter pill to swallow, but not being “official” dogma does not mean it did not operate as the rule of faith in the Church…

But I have explicit evidence from Augustine the greatest father in the West that only God’s word is infallible and all Bishops can err. Furthermore, the principle of God’s word only being infallible is consistent with the entire church from Adam and Eve, so it is not a novelty. Your theory is not present in the first 6,000 years of the God’s covenant people and there is no positive teaching of it in the Apostolic church or the early fathers. Your rule of faith is still denied by all of Christendom except your church. It was not officially defined until the 19 century. That is not an impressive record for a church that claims unanimous consent for all its teaching. Oh, and I now unanimous consent doesn’t mean every single person, but nevertheless it doesn’t work with the definition your church uses.

 

[mikeledes]

The quote you provided on Saint Augustine, Sola, does not prove your argument. The Magisterium is subject to Divine Revelation and must faithfully interpret and serve it. He never mentions the Bishop of Rome by name.

** Philthy **- No it is not - its not even close; I cant help you if you’re not able to see that or not prepared to admit it. Have you ever read Grudem’s Systematic Theology? Every topic has a variety of “possible” interpretations none of which will ever be declared as the “truth” once and for all time. But the truth being declared once and for all happens in the Catholic Church, and once it happens the debate is largely over. The fact that some topics are still unrevealed and debated among Catholic theologians is irrelevent. The fundamental difference is that the Catholic rule of faith produces unity and accountability and sola scriptura does not and has not because it cannot. What it does do is slowly relegate more and more of the faith into the "disputable issues’ category so that everyone can gather under the giant umbrella of “Protestantism” and pretend that all the real, hard differences which exist are not significant at all - there are only a few, central beliefs and all the rest is “disputable”.

Philthy makes an excellent poin here, a point you seem not to get. Numbers, numbers, numbers. How many Catholics are activley engaged in debates on predestination? How many of them actually form separate groups called the “Molinist Club” or the “Thomist Club.” This theological discussion is largely limited to scholars and theologians.

Now let’s compare that to Protestantism. What divides a Pentecostal from an eternal security Baptist? It’s not just a different worship style, nor is it just one difference in doctrine. Or a Lutheran from a Presbyterian? If the differences are so “non-essential” and surmountable, then why do Protestants insist on maintaining denominational divisions. Ask any of the Catholic “groups” you mentioned what church they belong to and most will say “Catholic.” Ask a Protestant and you’ll get “Pentecostal,” “Methodist”, “Nazarene”, “Church of Christ”, “Reformed,” “Episcopalian,” “Presbyterian,” “Non-Denominational”, “Quaker”, “Mennonite,” “Lutheran”, etc. If there is no real division on fudamental issues, then this division is sinful, flying in the face of Paul’s condemnation of factionalism and violating Jesus’s call to be one.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

No it is not - its not even close; I cant help you if you’re not able to see that or not prepared to admit it. Have you ever read Grudem’s Systematic Theology?

Nope, I haven’t read Grudem’s Systematic Theology, but I have a couple of others that I have read.

Every topic has a variety of “possible” interpretations none of which will ever be declared as the “truth” once and for all time. But the truth being declared once and for all happens in the Catholic Church, and once it happens the debate is largely over.

It was Augustine who said, In essential unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things love. It is your overbearing institution that has setup barriers to unity by stating every unique beliefs such as the Bodily Assumption is necessary to be believed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The quote you provided on Saint Augustine, Sola, does not prove your argument. The Magisterium is subject to Divine Revelation and must faithfully interpret and serve it. He never mentions the Bishop of Rome by name.

“God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4.

If Augustine says God alone is infallible please explain logically how that does not exclude the Bishop of Rome? Are you really arguing that he must explicitly mention every single person for them to be excluded? But wait there is more

“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity” (Augustine “On Baptism, Against the Donatists”, II.III.IV).

All the letters of Bishop which have been writter or is being written can be refuted. Is the Pope a Bishop? Does he write letters with infallible statements in them? If so, then how do you exclude him from these words? Notice also that he mentions all councils can err.

I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 148, §15.

For the reasoning of any men whatsoever, regardless of their high reputation can be rejected. Is the Bishop of Rome a man of high reputation? Then by what means do you exclude the Pope. One thing is definitely clear, Augustine had no concept of an infallibility belonging to a Bishop or councils.*