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

[Randy_Carson]

It is a theological novelty with no support from the Scriptures. There is nothing that hints at the Bishop in Rome being infallible.

A theological novelty from the Church that existed before the Bible was formed? And this claim from someone who’s faith tradition dates back a mere 500 years? Who attends a Church based only in America? Gutsy argument to say the least…

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.

Several scriptures would be used to paint to full picture just as an artist uses more than one color to complete his masterpiece. Here’s one:

“And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” (1 Peter 1:15)

Tell us, Sola Scriptura, using the Bible Alone, what does this passage mean?

Is Peter speaking of Apostolic Succession? That fits.
Is Peter speaking of the Communion of Saints? That fits.

How do you read it?

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?

Agreed and I posted this evidence in another thread yesterday entitled, The Infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Enjoy!

 

[mikeledes]

“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.

In order for me to give an adequate response to this, I will have to read these quotes within their proper context.

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

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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.

Sorry, SolaScrip, but after rereading these posts, I’ve noticed a tendency, well really a pattern, on your part in directing answers to your assertions AWAY from your points.

He didn’t miss the point. His reply was directly to your assertion. But to address that, you would have to move away from your specific agenda.

Tsk Tsk.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Oh, I forgot to mention.

That agenda I referred to in the above post can be found in your signature block.

It’s quite a big chip on your shoulder there, SolaScrip.

A conclusion that generates a premise. Wow.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy;1862882:

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.

No, not anyone can make this argument. We all know when the Mormons arrived with their books; we all know when the Watchtower/JW’s arrived with their post Reformation version of Christianity. There is no whisper of their structure or rule of faith anywhere in history. They appeared out of nowhere and all the arguing in the world doesnt change that fact.
SS:

It is a theological novelty with no support from the Scriptures. There is nothing that hints at the Bishop in Rome being infallible.

Here, again, you drift back into doing exactly what you said you werent doing: applying Sola Scriptura to Catholicism. As I pointed out before it is a standard I dont recognize as valid.
SS:

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.

Scripture is pretty vague about the post Apostolic era when you come right down to it. In fact, if you are truly objective it is very difficult to know from Scripture that a New Testament was forthcoming, let alone that this NT was going to be the “rule of faith”, so once again this standard is a difficult one to justify.
Even the Apostles were not fully aware of all that was to come and some (Paul) believed Christ would be returning soon. The Scriptures do reveal a growing hierarchy within the Church without unambiguously describing why a hierarchy was established, what the plan for the next few generations was etc, etc. In issuing the great commission in Matt 28:19-20, Christ gave the Apostles a task which was impossible to complete in their lifetime. He did promise them to be led into “all truth” and to “bind and loose” infallibly. How was this to happen? Not one of them sat down and wrote an organized “rule book” as to what the PLAN was. The Catholic understanding is that the CHURCH was established at Pentecost as the living, visible entity guided by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church for all time.
SS:

The Scriptures are the evidence. They are said to be speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God cannot err.

I dont accept your argument that the Scriptures are evidence per se. That is simply a statement of faith. It is no more valid than my statements about the Church’s rule of faith. Scriptures are not evidence apart from the Church. The OT does not call for a NT, and no one was waiting for a NT. There is only one, vague statement in the entirety of the NT which even validates the inspiration of any written documents, and that statement fails to identify those documents specifically by name. Anybody can produce writings. Even Luke just “decides” to write a letter to a friend and then you claim knowledge that it was somehow “inspired” when he doesnt make that claim at all and, in fact, testifies that the means used to produce the text was cognitive (ie, HE decided).

 

[Philthy]

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.

It can seem to lack sense, but I think there is some sense to it. The canon existed apart from an “infallible” declaration by the Church for 1500 centuries. Then a movement known as the Reformation occurred and an attempt to alter some one of the writings occurred(romans 3:28); and several books of both the Old and New Testaments were suddenly challenged in a manner unprecedented since the early councils decided on these matters. The Church responded by formally declaring in the most unambiguous possible way what the canon of Scripture is. Yes, they “decided” to do this and it was later recognized as inspired, just like Luke “decided” to write a letter which later was recognized as inspired.
Now you may disagree on whether or not Luke’s letter is inspired or whether the Council of Trent was inspired. Im just presenting some semblance of sense from what you claimed made “no sense”.

 

[mikeledes]

It can seem to lack sense, but I think there is some sense to it. The canon existed apart from an “infallible” declaration by the Church for 1500 centuries. Then a movement known as the Reformation occurred and an attempt to alter some one of the writings occurred(romans 3:28); and several books of both the Old and New Testaments were suddenly challenged in a manner unprecedented since the early councils decided on these matters. The Church responded by formally declaring in the most unambiguous possible way what the canon of Scripture is. Yes, they “decided” to do this and it was later recognized as inspired, just like Luke “decided” to write a letter which later was recognized as inspired.
Now you may disagree on whether or not Luke’s letter is inspired or whether the Council of Trent was inspired. Im just presenting some semblance of sense from what you claimed made “no sense”.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

I don’t mean this is an insult, but this shows your ignorance of the issues. The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t ruled on any or only a few passages of Scripture depending on who you asked.

No offense taken. You have once again inserted your theology into this reply. I said absolutely nothing about Scripture passages. Who cares about interpreting Scripture passages? You do; but that was not the discussion at hand. The discussion was regarding unity of faith, unity of beliefs and the fact that SS has not and cannot produce said unity. To that you attack the Catholic faith as being divided because the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on any passages of Scripture. Please note that there several problems with your response: First, an attack Catholicism does nothing to support Sola Scriptura; Secondly, you have failed to address the issues as they apply to SS; Third, the language of Scripture does not reach all cultures of all generations for all time. Speaking in a cultural, historical and linguistic sense (based upon Scripture) relevent to the hearers of the day is what is needed. And that is exactly why Catholics have a Catechism which provides clear, affirmative statements of the faith easily accessable to the masses (pun intended!) Those clear statements of the faith usually have numerous Scriptural support in addition to papal decrees, comments of Saints, etc.
ss:

So you see, one Catholic scholar says he is not aware of any, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says there are a few.

And either way it is irrelevent. If you have a question of the faith go to the Catechism. What is the question you need answered? You will find it there in plain english, in clear terms, in a contemporary, cultural context.
ss:

If the Catholic rule of faith produces unity then why so many splits throughout the history of the church?

So many compared to whom??? Compared to the Reformation churches guided by Sola Scriptura there have been few. And the splits that have occurred are not a necessary consequence of the authoritative structure which exists; that cannot be said of the SS authoratative structure.
ss:

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.

Why is the Bodily Assumption a difficult thing to believe? Is there not precedent in Scripture? How would you have ANY idea whether Mary was Assumed or not?

 

[SolaScriptura]

In order for me to give an adequate response to this, I will have to read these quotes within their proper context.

Sure.

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

That is why you should read that quote in context of the rest of the quote. Isn’t it clear Augustine is laying out the structure of authority? First, he speaks of Scripture as having a unique place, because we can be assured it contains no error. Can’t be talking about just discipline there. He then goes on to mention letters of bishops and how they may contain errors since the closing of the canon. He says Bishops of greater authority or more learned may correct lesser Bishops. Councils may also correct Bishops. Furthermore, even councils maybe corrected, by plenary( ecumenical ) councils and later councils may correct earlier ones. To try and restrict all this to non-doctrinal issues is a sign of desperation. Here is more from Augustine:

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. … As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. ( NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, Chapter 1, §3.)

Augustine is very clear on this. As he said in an earlier quote, ” God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” I don’t know how much clearer he can get than this.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Not everything that the Pope writes or says is infallible. Only when he is speaking ex cathedra.

Yeah, everybody knows that.

Regarding the Church Fathers and infallibility, here is an interesting article, which I hope you’ll read:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

Here’s the problem. You point me to these long articles that don’t even address the specific issue at hand. If you think an article makes a valid point against my argument why don’t you summarize and make the point without requiring me to read pages of rambling. This article basically makes a case for Rome having a primacy, but even the Eastern church would grant you that. He quotes J.N.D. Kelly in this regard, however he does nothing to show that Augustine considered the Bishop of Rome or the church infallible. As a matter of fact in the same book Kelly says the following:
The three letters relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggest that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture. At the same time there is no evidence that he was prepared to ascribe to the bishop of Rome, in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium. For example, when in his controversy with Julian of Eclanum he appealed to Innocent, his view was that the Pope was only the mouthpiece of truths which the Roman church had held from ancient times in harmony with other Catholic churches. Nor was he willing, in practical matters, to surrender on jot of the disciplinary independence of the African church which Cyprian had defended so stoutly in his day. The truth is that the doctrine of the Roman primacy played only a minor role in his ecclesiology, as also in his personal religious thinking.
The real framers and promoters of the theory of the Roman primacy were the popes themselves. Men like Damasus(366-384), Siricius( 384-99), Innocent(402-17) and their successors … ( “Early Christian Doctrines”, J.N.D. Kelly pg 419)

The article you linked to describes Kelly as one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century. Well, I agree and I also agree with his conclusion that there is no evidence that he believed the Bishop of Rome was infallible.

 

[mikeledes]

The three letters relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggest that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture. At the same time there is no evidence that he was prepared to ascribe to the bishop of Rome, in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium. For example, when in his controversy with Julian of Eclanum he appealed to Innocent, his view was that the Pope was only the mouthpiece of truths which the Roman church had held from ancient times in harmony with other Catholic churches. Nor was he willing, in practical matters, to surrender on jot of the disciplinary independence of the African church which Cyprian had defended so stoutly in his day. The truth is that the doctrine of the Roman primacy played only a minor role in his ecclesiology, as also in his personal religious thinking.
The real framers and promoters of the theory of the Roman primacy were the popes themselves. Men like Damasus(366-384), Siricius( 384-99), Innocent(402-17) and their successors … ( “Early Christian Doctrines”, J.N.D. Kelly pg 419)

First of all, Kelly admits more about the papacy then you’re willing to admit. Secondly, I don’t have the time to sit down and summarize. Unfortunately, something called “work” keeps getting in the way. Third, while Kelly is an excellent patristic scholar, he is not infallible . His interpretation of history is not the final word. Fourth, the fact that Augustine appeals to Rome on a doctrinal matter suggests two things:

1. In the words of Kelly, he “attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church.”
2. That he believed that the Church of Rome faithfully preserved the truths of Christianity without corruption for the last fourth centuries and that when it spoke, it spoke with finality “Rome has spoken.”

When I have the time, I will address this matter in more detail.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sure.

That is why you should read that quote in context of the rest of the quote. Isn’t it clear Augustine is laying out the structure of authority? First, he speaks of Scripture as having a unique place, because we can be assured it contains no error. Can’t be talking about just discipline there. He then goes on to mention letters of bishops and how they may contain errors since the closing of the canon. He says Bishops of greater authority or more learned may correct lesser Bishops. Councils may also correct Bishops. Furthermore, even councils maybe corrected, by plenary( ecumenical ) councils and later councils may correct earlier ones. To try and restrict all this to non-doctrinal issues is a sign of desperation. Here is more from Augustine:

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. … As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. ( NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, Chapter 1, §3.)

Augustine is very clear on this. As he said in an earlier quote, ” God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” I don’t know how much clearer he can get than this.

Question: When the Apostles and Prophets wrote Scripture, were they infallible while they were writing?

Secondly, God alone is by nature infallible and is always infallible. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 6:16 that God “alone is immortal.” And yet, Catholics and many Protestants do not see the immortality of the soul as contradicting that passage. So Augustine’s comment is not as clear as you think.

Third, what I said was not an “act of desperation.” It was a possible explanation. A text out of context is a pretext. I need to read the broader context of the quote to understand what he is specifically addressing.

Fourth, Augustine stated: “But for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”

Fifth, here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they “are compelled” to condemn the heresy of Nestorius “by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome.”
Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.”
More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.”

Augustine’s comment that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed,” and the sense of finality one sees in the above quotes strongly suggest infallibility.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

No, not anyone can make this argument. We all know when the Mormons arrived with their books; we all know when the Watchtower/JW’s arrived with their post Reformation version of Christianity. There is no whisper of their structure or rule of faith anywhere in history. They appeared out of nowhere and all the arguing in the world doesnt change that fact.

Of course they do. Have you ever spoken with Mormons, JW, and every other cult or sect of Christianity? They all claim their “structure” was there in the Scriptures or the Apostolic period. They may say it disappeared at some point, but they all say it was there.

Here, again, you drift back into doing exactly what you said you werent doing: applying Sola Scriptura to Catholicism. As I pointed out before it is a standard I dont recognize as valid.

I think I have mentioned to you before about cutting off a complete thought in middle and them making an argument against the isolated sentence. I did not restrict it to Scripture however, Scripture is part of your rule faith and I was pointing out this aspect of your rule of faith does not support your system. However, in the very next sentence I went on to challenge you in reference to Tradition also when I said the following: ” 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.”. So no, I’m not applying sola Scriptura to Catholicism, but I have every right to ask you to validate your doctrine from Scripture unless you don’t embrace material sufficiency. Remember because I challenge you to show from Scripture what you believe does not mean Scripture alone, because as you notice I’m challenging you on both fronts. Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture is pretty vague about the post Apostolic era when you come right down to it. In fact, if you are truly objective it is very difficult to know from Scripture that a New Testament was forthcoming, let alone that this NT was going to be the “rule of faith”, so once again this standard is a difficult one to justify.

On the contrary, from the NT alone it is clear that a new Scriptures were coming. Peter referred to Paul’s letter as Scriptures and Paul quoted the Gospels as Scriptures. So that alone shows the Apostles were aware of Scripture being written. Also the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic father quoted extensively from them as their rule of faith, so I’m not sure what you are basing your argument on besides your own personal feeling on the matter.

Even the Apostles were not fully aware of all that was to come and some (Paul) believed Christ would be returning soon.

Even Christ as far as human nature didn’t know all things. So what if Paul didn’t know all things? I don’t see how this helps your case.
Philthy;1865440:

The Scriptures do reveal a growing hierarchy within the Church without unambiguously describing why a hierarchy was established, what the plan for the next few generations was etc, etc. In issuing the great commission in Matt 28:19-20, Christ gave the Apostles a task which was impossible to complete in their lifetime.

So?

He did promise them to be led into “all truth” and to “bind and loose” infallibly.

The binding and loosing is in the context of church discipline. Now what is interesting is that your fellow Roman Catholic Michael was just making an argument that the church could make mistakes in reference to discipline(i.e. binding and loosing ), but now you are claiming this is done infallibly. I think the history of the church shows her binding and loosing was not always carried out infallibly. Popes excommunicated Athanasius and sided with Arians. So if infallibility was given for binding and loosing it shows Rome wasn’t the recipient of this gift.

 

[SolaScriptura]

How was this to happen? Not one of them sat down and wrote an organized “rule book” as to what the PLAN was.

The Catholic understanding is that the CHURCH was established at Pentecost as the living, visible entity guided by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church for all time.

As the Apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Apostle Paul was writing this before the full NT corpus was written yet at that time he could say the Scriptures would make the man of God equipped for every good work of teching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

I dont accept your argument that the Scriptures are evidence per se. That is simply a statement of faith.

This is nonsensical. Of course the Scriptures are evidence, even if you only consider them historical documents they are still evidence and they clearly testify to their own inspiration.
Philthy;1865440:

It is no more valid than my statements about the Church’s rule of faith. Scriptures are not evidence apart from the Church.

I’m not following your argument. You are free to use your rule of faith for evidence. I’ve been challenging you on your rule of faith which is Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisteruim. We agree at some point in history your Magisterium started to make these claims. I’m trying to get you document that this claim was shared by the Apostolic church and ECFs.

The OT does not call for a NT, and no one was waiting for a NT.

So? They were waiting for the Messiah. After the Messiah left His followers were inspired by God to write additional Scriptures.

There is only one, vague statement in the entirety of the NT which even validates the inspiration of any written documents, and that statement fails to identify those documents specifically by name. Anybody can produce writings. Even Luke just “decides” to write a letter to a friend and then you claim knowledge that it was somehow “inspired” when he doesnt make that claim at all and, in fact, testifies that the means used to produce the text was cognitive (ie, HE decided).

Actually, there is more than one vague statement in the entirety of the NT. Peter calls Paul letter Scriptures( 2 Peter 3:15-16), Paul quotes Luke as Scripture( 1 Tim. 5:18), Paul calls his writings the commandments of the Lord( 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13). The Apostolic fathers quoted and used them as Scriptures without believing in an infallible church to pronouncement them as such. The Old Covenant church knew what was Scripture without an infallible church to tell them.

 

[SolaScriptura]

First of all, Kelly admits more about the papacy then you’re willing to admit. Secondly, I don’t have the time to sit down and summarize.

Yes, but you want me to read the entire thing and then interact with it?

Unfortunately, something called “work” keeps getting in the way.

Yeah, I have that something also getting in my way, in addition to responding to 10 different individuals. His interpretation of history is not the final word.

Third, while Kelly is an excellent patristic scholar, he is not infallible

Yes, you know how much I believe that However, if the article you link me too uses Kelly and boasts of his credentials then it is only fitting to use him against that same author

Fourth, the fact that Augustine appeals to Rome on a doctrinal matter suggests two things:

1. In the words of Kelly, he “attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church.”

1. That he believed that the Church of Rome faithfully preserved the truths of Christianity without corruption for the last fourth centuries and that when it spoke, it spoke with finality “Rome has spoken.”

Pastoral and teaching authority, even having the final word does not mean infallibility. For example, my church has courts where eventually the highest court speaks with finality. Does this mean they are infallible? Of course. As Augustine says they maybe corrected later. That was my point. The link doesn’t really address the central issue and that is exactly the point Kelly makes. There is no evidence in Augustine for Roman infallibility.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Question: When the Apostles and Prophets wrote Scripture, were they infallible while they were writing?

Of course, how could they write infallibly if they were not?

Secondly, God alone is by nature infallible and is always infallible. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 6:16 that God “alone is immortal.” And yet, Catholics and many Protestants do not see the immortality of the soul as contradicting that passage. So Augustine’s comment is not as clear as you think.

Of course it is, because he says God alone swears securely because he alone is infallible. Furthermore, our souls are not immortal, but they are granted immortality. In other words, God could destroy our souls, but he has decided not to. On the other hand God cannot be destroyed, it is impossible.

Third, what I said was not an “act of desperation.” It was a possible explanation. A text out of context is a pretext. I need to read the broader context of the quote to understand what he is specifically addressing.

OK, I will grant you that. However, it was not that one quote alone but the others also. I don’t know if there is any patristic scholar who would argue that Augustine considered Rome infallible.

Fourth, Augustine stated: “But for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel.”

Repeat after me. Authority does not equal infallibility … Authority does not equal infallibility … Authority does not equal infallibility.

Fifth, here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Augustine’s comment that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed,” and the sense of finality one sees in the above quotes strongly suggest infallibility.

Of course Catholicism has to make some appeals for their doctrine, but reading all of Augustine demonstrates this was not what he meant by that statement.

 

[mikeledes]

Of course it is, because he says God alone swears securely because he alone is infallible. Furthermore, our souls are not immortal, but they are granted immortality. In other words, God could destroy our souls, but he has decided not to. On the other hand God cannot be destroyed, it is impossible.

You just said that the sacred author were infallible while writing Scripture. Do you have infallible knowledge of that? Oh… wait… that’s another thread. But you do not see that as contradicting the fact that “God alone is infallible?” Secondly, you explained my point perfectly here. The popes are not infallible by nature, nor are they alway infallible. It is a gift of God granted to them in certain situations. God is alone infallible by nature.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

You just said that the sacred author were infallible while writing Scripture. Do you have infallible knowledge of that? Oh… wait… that’s another thread.

Of course not, it is a statement of faith based on the evidence.

But you do not see that as contradicting the fact that “God alone is infallible?”

No, because the Apostles writing is God speaking. I have said all along that God’s word is infallible. God’s word come to us through inspiration.

Secondly, you explained my point perfectly here. The popes are not infallible by nature, nor are they alway infallible. It is a gift of God granted to them in certain situations. God is alone infallible by nature.

Yes, but here is the huge difference. The precedent we have for God granting infallibility to men is through inspiration. Your church denies it has this. There is no sound Scriptural argument for the Bishops of Rome being given this. There is no sound argument from Tradition of the Apostolic period or the first 3 centuries for this. So I’m not saying it is impossible for God to do this or any number of other things he want to do. My point is we have no evidence for it, but your church self declaration.

 

[mikeledes]

SolaScriptura Of course not, it is a statement of faith based on the evidence.

So you have assurance through faith that the Church infallibly discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which ones did not?

No, because the Apostles writing is God speaking. I have said all along that God’s word is infallible. God’s word come to us through inspiration.

Yes, but here is the huge difference. The precedent we have for God granting infallibility to men is through inspiration. Your church denies it has this. There is no sound Scriptural argument for the Bishops of Rome being given this. There is no sound argument from Tradition of the Apostolic period or the first 3 centuries for this. So I’m not saying it is impossible for God to do this or any number of other things he want to do. My point is we have no evidence for it, but your church self declaration.

At least you admit that it is possible for God to give this gift, and object because there is no “evidence” of it being given. Hence, Saint Augustine’s comment does not necessarily mean that this gift did not exist, just as the immortality of the soul, when properly undertood, does not contradict God’s unique immortality.

I have to go. To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

So you have assurance through faith that the Church infallibly discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which ones did not?

No, I have assurance through faith that Church inerrantly discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which does not? Do you have have infallible knowledge of this?

At least you admit that it is possible for God to give this gift, and object because there is no “evidence” of it being given.

Of course. God could do anything. God could have given me the gift of infallibility.

Hence, Saint Augustine’s comment does not necessarily mean that this gift did not exist, just as the immortality of the soul, when properly undertood, does not contradict God’s unique immortality.

Of course it does. He says only God swears securely, because alone is infallible. Unless the church and Pope are God speaking it doesn’t work. Furthermore, it elsewhere says all Bishops no matter the reputation may err. If you can take this and say he still believe the Pope was infallible then there is nothing that can convince you. Even a Patristic scholar such as Kelly says there is no evidence he believed in such a thing you keep hoping.