K
kaycee
Guest
- SS beleives the scriptures are infallible.
- SS does not have infallible knowledge that the scriptures are infallible.
- Status
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
As Catholics we believe that there are things that are infallible and things that are not. We find this with the two or more witnesses scripture. Bible plus the supporting teachings of Holy Mother Church. TWO authorities. See the difference?see the difference?
- SS beleives the scriptures are infallible.
- SS does not have infallible knowledge that the scriptures are infallible.
Sorry but when you donāt combine Bible and teaching of Traditions I just donāt believe that you can be so āsureā you are the only one that can be right.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Who gets to be SSās RCIA sponsor at the end of this thread?
Itās only a matter of time.
Itās only a matter of time.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Thank you my lady, I couldnāt have said it better myself.see the difference?
- SS beleives the scriptures are infallible.
- SS does not have infallible knowledge that the scriptures are infallible.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Actually, I have been informed that Kaycee is a man!!! A big strong man!!
So I apologize and ask his forgiveness 
Grace and Peace Brother!
Sola
K
kaycee
Guest
Actually, I have been informed that Kaycee is a man!!! A big strong man!!
Grace and Peace Brother!
Sola
No prob! maybe I should change my nick to Manfred or Muscles. 
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Uh huhā¦a fallible personal interpretation of the written word again?Actually, I have been informed that Kaycee is a man!!! A big strong man!!
Grace and Peace Brother!
Sola
Kiddingā¦just kidding. I made the same mistake.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Some controversialists claim a need for an infallible interpreter for an infallible Bible therefore requires an infallible student. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility. The human mind is designed to be able to discern the truth and it usually does. It is not necessary for it to be infallible to do so. The method of trial and error is sufficient. Unfortunately, there are limits to the ability of the human mind to learn the truth. In particular, the mind is strongly influenced by prejudices and presuppositions that may make some conclusions unacceptable. It is also possible to draw incorrect conclusions from fallacious use of the reasoning faculty. One may also draw improper conclusions from partial data. Furthermore, the mind may have problems comprehending those matters the content of which is beyond our immediate experience. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself.
Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.
We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, āA text without a context is a pretext.ā Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible.
The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching.
Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth.
Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in Godās promises.
When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable.
Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.
We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, āA text without a context is a pretext.ā Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible.
The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching.
Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth.
Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in Godās promises.
When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable.
Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
T
Techno2000
Guest
Hi,
How does One use Sola Scriptura, if One does not know how
to read ?
How does One use Sola Scriptura, if One does not know how
to read ?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Actually, infallible is appropriate, because Scripture is not just information, but it is God speaking and His words are always alive and active. The book of Hebrews says:
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Not only that, but as I said before you sound nothing like the early church that you keep trying to tell me is infallible. As a matter of fact I sound much more like them then you on almost every count. Notice what the venerable Augustine says about Scripture:
And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously,āfor if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made"in the beginning,"āthen assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time. ( āThe City of Godā , 11.6, St. Augustine )
I can see why we will continue to go in circles. You have Scripture only because the Church revealed it to you, yet now that Scripture has been revealed the function of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth has essentially ended.
Empty assertion. One does not have to ascribe infallibility to something for it to contain authority or be a pillar and foundation. It is only fallacious reason to say so.
Iāve provided evidence for sola Scriptura from Scripture and history. You have done nothing for your rule of faith but special pleading. āStructureā is there. God intended it all along, but didnāt reveal it until later. And I will show you once again the argument and Iām still waiting on yours:
Sola Scriptura is based off the principle that Godās word has always been the sole infallible and highest rule of faith. This was true before the fall with Adam and Eve, it was true after the fall with the Old Covenant church, it was true during the time of Jesus, and it has been true since His death.
Sola Scriptura is true for the church today, because there is no other source of Godās word besides the Scripture.
Therefore, if you cannot demonstrate a source that is equal to Godās word in Scripture then sola Scriptura naturally follows.
Now, I have made this similar argument a number of times. Not only have you not refuted this argument but you have not provided anything similar of an argument for your Rule of Faith that is not guilty of the most basic logical errors.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
You are just demagoguing now.
Yeah, there are a lot of problems with your thinking, which is why Iām glad it is not mine. After setting up misrepresentations now you proceed to knock it down.
You have no clue what you are talking about. I donāt claim Scripture is a rule of faith for all topics. That is just silly. Furthermore, Scripture was never just āwords on a pageā, but again this says a lot more about you and your unbridled and uninformed thoughts than anything else.
This makes no sense. You have shown previously that you do know what a rule of faith is and by these words you demonstrate it once again. Consult your Catholic encyclopedia or a dictionary and try understand what you keep attacking.
By what process will the inerrant word of God be interacted with to produce the infallible rule of faith? That is really the essence of the discussion that we are having. Lutherās version of SS placed that function squarely on the lap of the individual being guided by the HS.
Scripture is the inerrant and infallible word of God and it is already an infallible rule of faith. If your faulty logic is true, then it equally applies to you, because you have to interpreted whatever your infallible church teaches. It does not come to you by osmosis. This is why Catholics disagree over such things as the inerrancy of Scripture and the meaning of Oral Tradition. And please donāt even try the romantic idea that you can ask the magisteruim, because you canāt. If you could you would and there would be no debates.
The Catholic believes that while revelation is possible, the Pope and the Magisterium are simply the usual means that the Holy Spirit uses to guide the Church in determining the rule of faith. And we believe that if and when it happens it is done infallibly because it is the HS doing it, and, as you said, God cannot error.
Now you are just preaching, no argument here.
Philthy:
You act as if you are saying something deep here. The authority of the Church is its power to interpret the rule of faith, to discipline, and to maintain the peace and purity of the church. Is infallibility needed to do this? Of course not. You parents and the government are authorities and they are not infallible. The Pharisees and Sadducees were authorities and teachers for Godās Old Covenant people. Tell me, were they infallible? If not, donāt you see how simple your question is?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Who gets to be SSās RCIA sponsor at the end of this thread?
Itās only a matter of time.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
No, the words do not mean the same thing. If I take a test and make a 100 on it( which I often doSolaScriptura:
So your answer is really yes. You changed āinfalliblyā to āinnerantlyā, but the two words mean the same thing. On what do you base this assueance of faith that the Church inerrently discerned which books belonged in the Canon?
), I was inerrant on that test. However, I was not infallible, because I could have made a number of mistakes it just happened that I didnāt on that occasion. Infallibility rules out the possibility of making an error. I noticed you didnāt answer my question, but instead asked more of your own. As a matter of fact I have answered this question a number of times already. So why donāt you answer my question? Do you have infallible knowledge that the books in your canon is correct?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
By faith we acknowledge that the Catholic Church is infallible and that she has infallibly declared the canon.No, the words do not mean the same thing. If I take a test and make a 100 on it( which I often do
āNow faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.ā (Hebrews 11:1)
āWith proper guidance*, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself.ā
*The Holy Spirit and an infallible Church can guide us, obviously.
Therefore, we can come to true knowledge that the books in the canon are correct. We cannot know this, however, infallibly.
Luther obviously did not have an infallible knowledge of the canon, for example.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Exactly my point. One can come to a true knowledge without being infallible.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is not completely true.
While no one from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is monitoring this board, I can assure you that Bishops will intervene and the Vatican will call a theologian or priest to Rome for a chat if something becomes serious enough.
Some debate is healthy and tolerated. Some is not.
Our disputes here call for better catechesis; they do not warrant excommunication.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cool.
NOW can we talk about Apostolic Succession in the other thread?
Puhleeeeeze!
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
You know, Iām tempted. Actually, I believe in Apostolic Succession, but Iām sure not as you do. However, I must drastically cut back on my time here. Iāve invested too much in the past few weeks. And the worst part is that most of my time is spent correcting the same old mistakes. It is really not a good use of my time. So, feel free to start the thread and I will join in when I get the time, but it will be nothing like the time I have put in over the past few weeks. Plus Iām really the Sola Man!!
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Scriptura!!
P
Philthy
Guest
You have paraphrased in an attempt to make your point. But the Church is not merely āusefulā (like Scripture describes itself in 2Tim) in upholding the truth, nor is it merely āAā pillar of the truth (among other pillars), it is THE pillar of the truth. And if it is to be THE pillar and foundation of TRUTH, then it must not be upholding FALSEHOOD as well.
ss:
Yup - you call it strong, others call it weak. Been there.
And your āproofā is a bit illogical. Part of what you do is you recognize that people throughout the history of the Church use Scripture to teach truth and you conclude that such activity is consistent with your version of SS but not the Catholic rule of faith. But from my perspective, when you demonstrate Christ and the Apostles using Scripture to uphold the Truth, how is that not an example of those with the authority to do so (ie, office of Apostle) using that authority along with Scripture? They seem inseparable to me.
And when I pointed out to you that some of what they taught was not from Scripture(OT) per se, you basically argued that it became Scripture and that is how we know about it! That, of course, only returns us to the question of how teachings which were not part of Scripture became Scripture. I simply dont know how you can place a higher authority on writings which God did not directly give to us than you can on the institution that you rely upon to provide you with those writings - it simply doesnt make sense to me.
ss:
I think this may be an aside, but is it ābased offā of that principle or is that it? If that is not SS per se then give me what the essence of SS is that is not contained in the above statement, because we still have arrived at a funcioning version of SS without it, simply a theoretical version.
ss:
This was true before the fall with Adam and Eve,
This is special pleading and has nothing to do with SS. You are talking about God speaking directly to us?
ss:
it was true after the fall with the Old Covenant church,
Yup - but Godās word ādoubledā in a sense. He now spoke directly to the established authority (Moses) to guide the people; established the seat of Moses and he later spoke through prophets, etc. as what was to become Scripture. So two forms of the word of God existed.
Scripture was still forthcoming and there was an entity to propogate itā¦
ss:
Sorry, but this is special pleading again. And you run smack into the problem of the Word of God existing as Scripture and Christ simultaneously.
ss:
Says whom? Isnt this the debate we are having? Who says the holy Spirit is not speaking through the Church?
ss:
Therefore, if you cannot demonstrate a source that is equal to Godās word in Scripture then sola Scriptura naturally follows.
Actually, only a theoretical SS naturally follows - not the one you are proposing. Of course, again, this only holds if what you consider Scripture is actually Gods word. How do you propose to do that other than with āspecial pleadingā to the āevidenceā of Scripture itself?
ss:
Now, I have made this similar argument a number of times.
Yes you have and I pointed out valid objections to it as many times and I, for one, am tired of hearing it. Your ability to repeat it does not defend it. I have responded to you each time and you simply disagree with me.
On this we completely agree; Godās word is the highest authority. On this we only partially agree; what constitutes Godās word.
- Status