Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[EricFilmer]

It is. I claim that the Bible contains the doctrine of the Trinity (material sufficiency) and that the doctrine is clearly discerned from scripture (formal sufficiency). I do not accept the doctrine on the basis of Nicea or any other ecclesiastical decision. I accept it because it is the clear and only consistent interpretation of scripture. So yes–the doctrine of sola scriptura “works” just fine.

Then prove that it works “just fine.” Otherwise, as I have said before, what you actually use for the determination of truth is not Sola Scriptura but rather Sola Miguel’s Opinion.

That said, you’re once again misdefining sola scriptura insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys sola scriptura. That might be a good objection if we Protestants were to claim that sola scriptura implies that there will be no dissent. But we don’t make that claim.

You are taking what I have been presenting as an example of “dissent from doctrine.” In other words, in this experiment you are starting with the presumption that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is valid and working backwards. But the whole experiment is to see if the doctrine can truly be determined from the Bible alone, so this has to be done without the presumption that it is a doctrine to begin with. Let us instead see what the Bible clearly says about the nature of divinity and see if we can conclude with the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

So this is not about examining the doctrine in light of dissenting opinions, but rather an examination of what the Bible says, what sort of plausible conclusions can be derived, and whether or not the Bible clearly supports one of them.

One reason why we don’t make that claim is because we recognize that while scripture is a perfect objective source of doctrine that human beings are less than perfect interpreters of scripture.

And no one knows this better than God, which is why he set up the Magisterium.

For example, when Catholics argue that “he who hears you hears me” implies infallibility, we Protestants counter that you’re reading far too much into the verse. The same is true of the claim that the Spirit will “lead you to all truth.” None of these Catholic “go to” verses demand the Catholic interpretation of them, and arguably do not even permit the inferences that are drawn from them. So the entire claim that there is such an infallible interpreter to begin with ironically rests on very fallible interpretation itself.

Once again, you are basically asking people who don’t believe in Sola Scriptura to defend the Magisterium using Sola Scriptura. But seeing as you obviously are not able to determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity within the confines of your definition of Sola Scriptura then why expect SS to be a valid test for determining the truth of other aspects of the Christian Faith, such as the Magisterium?

So unless you can clearly demonstrate that there is an infallible interpreter, you have no basis for appealing to it to “break the tie.” In other words, let us suppose that in the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of the son being “eternally begotten” is one of those “it-could-go-either-way” sorts of verses. Let’s concede for the sake of argument that you are correct. Now to settle the issue you defer to the infallible interpreter. Such a move may give you a feeling of confidence. But does it give you any more epistemic certitude than the person without the infallible interpreter?

And yet again, I begin with examining whether or not Sola Scriptura actually works, and you dodge giving an actual defense of it by trying to steer the conversation into a defense of the Magisterium. So, one more time, I will post what I said in#609:
“The topic of this thread is whether or not Sola Scriptura is biblical, so I suggest we stick with that. Playing “devil’s advocate” let me point out that even if the Catholic Church is as messed up as you indicate that doesn’t mean that Sola Scriptura is true anymore than it means Mormon doctrines, Muslim doctrines, Hindu doctrines, etc. are true. In other words, one should be able to determine the truth of Sola Scriptura apart from the validity (or lack of validity) of the Magisterium.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

I don’t see how, unless you could first demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that there is an infallible interpreter.

Here is what you said earlier about Sola Scriptura:
”That said, you’re once again misdefining sola scriptura insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys sola scriptura. That might be a good objection if we Protestants were to claim that sola scriptura implies that there will be no dissent. But we don’t make that claim.”

And so I shall say…
“That said, you’re once again misdefining the Magisterium insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys claims of its authority. That might be a good objection if we Catholics were to claim that Magisterial authority implies that there will be no dissent. But we don’t make that claim.”

For now you’re in the same boat you say we Protestants are. We want to know if your infallible interpreter can “do the job” its proponents say it can do. Show us exactly how the eternality of the Son is more certain with the infallible interpreter’s seal of approval.

The Magisterial seal of approval is that of Christ himself, and I will speak more on that in a moment.

But first let us talk about the Sola Scriptura adherent’s seal of approval, assuming that it even exists. How do adherents of Sola Scriptura deal with dissent and break ties? It seems that they don’t because accusations of heresy and attempts to break ties require an authoritative interpretation of God’s revelation, and according to SS that authority is in Scripture, not people. So when groups of people all make plausible and yet contradicting doctrinal interpretations of Scripture, there is no way to declare which interpretation is correct and which is wrong. So this results in Protestantism being fragmented into various denominations, and the individual assumes for himself or herself the mantel of being the arbiter of truth. People seek a denomination that teaches in accordance with what they personally believes ought to be true. They are not seeking to learn truth, but seeking an affirmation for what they have already decided is true.

At the end of the day, your appeal to authority is only as good as the reasons you have for countenancing that authority. But when we ask you for such reasons, you can’t produce any that decisively prove your view over and against the view of competing rules of faith. It turns out that the infallible interpreter is formally insufficient for proving the Trinity because the entire concept of an infallible interpreter itself lacks both a material grounding in the scriptures and would itself require a formally sufficient interpreter to establish the interpretation by which you affirm the existence of a fallible interpreter in the first place.

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture with a guaranteed guidance that what they wrote would be free of error in terms of faith and morals.
2. The same Holy Spirit inspires the Magisterium with a guaranteed guidance that what it officially interprets in Scripture and Tradition is free of error in terms of faith and morals.

It’s as simple as that.

In fact you gain no epistemic advantage by positing an infallible interpreter that you can only fallibly demonstrate. You simply can’t argue from fallible premises to the existence of an infallible interpreter. No effect can be greater than its cause.

If that’s the case, then we have to humbly accept the fact that we have no infallible interpretation that safeguards the Trinity. What we have, however, is what God revealed in scripture, our God-given reason, the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore every reason to suppose that we can come to a true, albeit fallible, conclusion regarding what God has revealed about himself in scripture.

The head of the Church is Christ and he is the ultimate source of what the Church officially teaches in matters pertaining to faith and morals. I think Christ constitutes an “infallible interpreter,” don’t you?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

No, Eric. You’re really attached to this non-sequitur, aren’t you? But think it through logically. Disagreement over the meaning of scripture does not entail lack of clarity in the scriptures. You’re not considering the possibility of human error.

Non-sequitur, huh?
People have used Scripture passages to argue in favor of the notion of a Holy Trinity and other people have used the exact same passages to argue against it. After three hundred years of scriptural debate, Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicea to resolve this issue. What you call a “clear teaching” in the Bible which some people simply failed to notice due to “human error” took an entire ecumenical council to resolve! And it was not resolved according to the practice of Sola Scriptura, but by appealing to what is taught in Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture.

And the Council of Nicea only resolved this issue for some. As I have pointed out, there are Bible-using groups today who still deny the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Christian Scientists. And if you ask them why they don’t believe it, they will all say basically the same thing: “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not clearly taught in the Bible.”

So we have all of these people over a course of 2000 years saying that it is not clearly taught in the Bible, and then I also have the evidence of my own eyes in that I have personally not seen it clearly taught in the Bible (and I have studied the Bible in detail in graduate theology courses). Plus, the only ones who say that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible are certain groups of Protestants. After all, not all Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura, or at least to your definition of it (and I am speaking as a former Anglican).

And yet you say that this is all a “non-sequitur” and that I haven’t “thought it through logically.”

Moreover, you could easily resolve this whole aspect of the debate by simply presenting the Bible passages which clearly teach the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. So far you have shown Bible passages which, at best, imply the doctrine, and I have given other equally plausible interpretations of the same passages which do not imply the doctrine. This is not the method of “clear” teaching.

Going back to my English vocabulary test, if a professor says “Define the word ‘close’”, but nothing more can be gleaned from the context of the exam as a whole, can a student definitively know whether which definition the professor has in mind (i.e., “To be in near proximity of” or “To move something from an open position to a shut position”)? In this case, lack of clarity does not not arise from human error, but because the text itself was not clear enough to point the student towards one definition over the other. In this case, both definitions are correct, and one definition cannot be argued to be plausible and the other implausible.

In all fairness, the professor would have to mark either definition as being correct. But how often is this luxury awarded in debating doctrine? Can we say that Arius’ definition of the divinity of Christ and the Council of Nicea’s definition can both be correct? No, because Jesus is either eternal or he is not. One of these definitions is correct and the other is not. But saying that the Bible is clear enough to teach the correct definition without an interpreter is like saying that the vocabulary test I mentioned is clear enough to inform the student exactly which definition is to be used.

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued in my next post)

Your Scripture professor is wrong. Arius was not a good exegete. He made errors. One such error was in his interpretation of “only begotten,” by insisting that “begotten” implies a temporal relationship between the Father and Son.

When the term “begotten” is used in conjunction with the Jesus, Arius simply applied to it the same meaning that it has when used with everyone else in the Bible. Everywhere else it means giving birth to.

For example, there are lots of “begotten” people in the fifth chapter of Genesis. Here is just a portion of it:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters… (Gen 5:3-7, KJV, emphasis added).

The term however, does not require that interpretation, because it can also mean “one and only,” thereby making a statement about relationship. In other words, the term does not have to imply that there was a time when the Son was not.

How does being a “one and only son” exclude the possibility of being created? Consider the following:

Genesis 22:1-2 - After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori’ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (RSV, emphasis added)

Obviously the relationship between Abraham and Isaac was temporal, not eternal. So, from a purely textual perspective, why can’t people simply say the temporal relationship described in Gen. 22:2 is the same between the Father and Jesus? The Father is eternal, but he can create a person and specifically declare this person to be his “one and only son” and the relationship would be temporal (for the simple fact that the second person was created).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Let’s say, however, that Arius’s interpretation is a valid exegetical option. In fact it might be.

Well this at least vindicates my Scripture professor.

But if we do adopt Arius’ interpretation then we run headlong into conflict with other texts such as John 1:1 and 17:5. For in these texts the Son is described as existing from “the beginning” and “before the cosmos was”. Well, the “cosmos” is synonymous with creation itself. Time is part of the cosmos.

You are making a philosophical argument, not a biblical one! There are two creation accounts in Genesis, and none of them mention the creation of time. And to the best of my knowledge, the creation of time is never mentioned anywhere else in the Bible (and if you or anyone else knows that it is, then post the passage). In light of this, from a purely biblical standpoint, time itself could be an eternal manifestation of God’s divinity.

So if you want to reject the validity of Arius’ interpretation, I will remind you that you have to do so within the confines of Sola Scriptura. In other words, use “Scripture alone” to do the job, not “Scripture & Philosophy.” But for the record, “Scripture & Philosophy” doesn’t get the job done either, and I will explain why in a moment…

If there was a “time” when the Son was not, it must have been sometime after the cosmos was created. But John 17:5 says the Son existed prior to the cosmos and therefore prior to time itself. Therefore the Son existed in eternity, which is outside of the created order and therefore outside of time. It is therefore impossible to adopt the “temporal” understanding of “begetting” that Arius championed. But we are not required to do so on exegetical grounds since “only begotten” can also be understood relationally as “one and only.” This interpretation squares with the claim that the Son existed “before the cosmos” (John 17:5). This is the interpretation that Athanasius maintained “contra mundum.” It is the claim that eventually became orthodoxy. We believe it is orthodox because it is true. It is not true because we call it orthodox.

Ok, I have already addressed the concepts of “begetting” and “one and only.” Now let us look at these other things you brought up.

Here is your basic line of reasoning:

1. God created everything through the Word (Jesus): John 1:1
2. Jesus was with God “before the world was made” (John 17:5, RSV), and you have interpreted “the world” as meaning “the cosmos”.
3. Time is an aspect of the created cosmos and Jesus existed prior to its creation.
4. Because Jesus pre-existed time, he cannot be temporal. Because he exists “outside of time”, he must be eternal.

If for the sake of this experiment I will once again assume the role of a heretical biblical exegete. I can readily refute this with the following line of reasoning:

1. The Bible does not say that God created “the cosmos”. The word cosmos does not appear in the Bible. Rather, Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (and this distinction is important in the nature of our debate). Therefore, whereas God is eternal, the heavens are not, they are just as much an aspect of creation as the earth. To put this another way, God created a spiritual universe and a physical universe.
2. If time is, indeed, created (and I personally think that it is), then it is an aspect of the creation of the physical universe, not the spiritual one. To suggest otherwise is to say that heaven itself is temporal, which is practically a contradiction in terms.
3. In light of this, anything created in heaven exists “outside of time”. Such things are immortal (in that their existence continues forever) but not eternal (because anything that is created is, by definition, not eternal). For example, angels are created as part of the spiritual universe (the heavens) and exist outside of time. They are immortal but not eternal.
4. With all this in mind, I can follow the rules of Sola Scriptura and make the following argument without going beyond the bounds of what the Bible explicitly states:

• In the beginning, God begat (i.e., created) the Word.
• Through the Word, God created the heavens (i.e., the spiritual universe – time has not yet been created).
• Through the Word, God created the earth (i.e., the physical universe, including time).
• Conclusion: The Word pre-exists time, and is not temporal. But the Word did not exist throughout eternity and therefore is not eternal.

So whereas the Nicene Creed specifies that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, the plain text of Scripture does not. We need to resort to Sacred Tradition to justify including the word “eternally”.

Once you understand that the truth determines orthodoxy and not the other way around, then you’ll see clearly why your fallible argument for an infallible interpreter is not only unconvincing but also entirely unnecessary.

Truth is not simply “something” but “somebody” and that somebody is Christ. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” And it is Christ, the infallible interpreter, who is the head of the Church and therefore the one who guides the Magisterium in matters of the truth. Therefore, what the Catholic Church teaches about the role of the Magisterium is, indeed, an example of truth determining orthodoxy.

What is unconvincing is your claim that an infallible interpreter is unnecessary when various denominations of Sola Scriptura-using Protestants can’t even agree on many essential aspects of the faith, as I have been discussing in this thread with ibetrippin07.

 

[paul_c]

Easily done. But first a note on your hermeneutics. The Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:2 does not determine the Christian reading of it. You see, we believe in progressive revelation and therefore we read the Old in light of the New and not the other way around. Second, I would urge caution in assuming that the genre of Genesis 1:2 is pure poetry and not also history. In any case, theological truths are no less true just because they may be expressed in poetry. But here I’m not even sure “poetry” is the right genre classification. (Personally, I see Genesis as historical narrative with a polemical purpose—i.e., to subvert the prevailing “creation myths” of the Ancient Near East by setting the record straight as to which God is the real creator and Lord of history. This is the God of Israel—and not the gods of ancient Mesopatomian civilizations.

Doesn’t this concept of progressive revelation contradict Sola Scriptura and most particularly, your view that 1 cor 4:6 supports it?. (Don’t go beyond what is written). Because clearly, progressive revelation is going beyond what was previously written in scripture, does it not?

 

[ibetrippin07]

DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACT

It was “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”!!!
That brought Jesus and salvation to the world, she TAUGHT, she PREACHED “Jesus and the Good News”, to the world,** for the first sixteen hundred years!**
FACT: Not one protestant church taught “Sola Scriptura” for sixteen hundred years…No not even one!!!
so your saying protestants existed even before the reformation? thats pretty brave of you to admit.

 

[PRmerger]

fair enough, if it is purely symbolic and has no other purpose Im fine with that.

Yup–we don’t think that the crucifix is literally Christ on a Cross. :whacky:

[SIGN] It’s a statue. [/SIGN]

 

[dogknox]

ibetrippin07 you said…

so your saying protestants existed even before the reformation? thats pretty brave of you to admit.

I reply: No, I am saying there were NO protestant churches the first appeared sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus>>LOGIC says: Not one protestant church taught “Sola Scriptura” for sixteen hundred years…No not even one because it is a protestant TRADITION started by protestants!!!
There were no PROTESTERS, there was NO REVOLT against, Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church, for sixteen hundred years!
The idea that; “Man does NOT need the CHURCH to find truth” is NOT LOGICAL, it is NOT Biblical!
You said…

he formed the church which replaced the jews.

YES Jesus formed his Holy Catholic Church… Most of the Early Church Father’s were BISHOPS!!! Catholic BISHOPS with all the AUTHORITY of God to “TEACH”!!

Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there*; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”** (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

DO YOU SEE IT: ; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"
There was NO protestant churches then **Ignatius **made this statement!

You said…

i have previously posted many scriptures supporting it. They are yet to be shown how they do not support it.

I reply: Not one verse supports scriptures alone. The Bereans rejected Scriptures ALONE, they were MORE noble! The Thessalonians were LESS noble… they believed in only their scriptures!

The bible tells you… "If you do not listen to the Church you are “PAGAN”!!
DICTIONARY DOT COM
Pagan: a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
A PERSON outside OF THE BODY OF God
Your words are just that: Your Words. No scriptures!
You said…

a lot of people say it says this or that but scripture is always a nice backing

You said.

yep
Thats simply not true. If the bible is God breathed and** Jesus instructed his church**

to do these things then its all one in the same.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is** useful **for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Jesus’ Church TEACHES; Not any protestant churches, they reject a TEACHING CHURCH!
Jesus’ Church TEACHES; Not any protestant churches, there was** NO **protestant churches when Jesus gave his; Great Commission!

You said…

no Jesus made an authoritative body of believers that have authority to teach and preach because the holy spirit is in them.

Well la tee da… So you are rejecting “Scriptures ALONE”!!
You are admitting “CHURCH TEACHES!!!”
The Holy Spirit is NOT he CANNOT be guiding any protestant churches… No two protestant churches believe the same!!
You are forced to believe the Holy Spirit guides the thousands and thousands of protestant churches into ERROR!!
ibetrippin07 You are forced to believe God ERRS!!!
FACT: If the Holy Spirit was to err then he would not be perfect he would not be God!!
Matthew 28:20 **
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you** always, to the very end of the age.”

who are you to even judge this?

Do you understand the meaning of the word “ALWAYS!”?

There was NO protestant Churches when Jesus said..“YOU”!! The YOU… Jesus is **ALWAYS with is NOT it CANNOT be any protestant churches!!!
There was NO protestant churches when Jesus declared
Matthew 28:20 **
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

ibetrippin07 I judge no one… I post scriptures!!
Scriptures you MUST reject as a LIE to be protestant!!!

Im pretty sure anyone engaging in dialogue with me would not believe this. especially if i believe in using sola scriptura to believe every word Jesus said…

Right so is Jesus ALWAYS with his Holy Catholic Church or not!?
Is Jesus always with any protestant churches when NOT even one believes the same as the next!
ibetrippin07 You MUST believe Jesus lied when he said…** “YOU”!!
You must believe the, “YOU” Jesus is always with** is man made churches, that did not show for sixteen hundred years after, Jesus declared he will never leave his CHURCH!

ibetrippin07 You say Jesus did not lie???
Tell me that Jesus did say…
Matthew 28:20 **
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you** always, to the very end of the age.”*

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

You are taking what I have been presenting as an example of “dissent from doctrine.” In other words, in this experiment you are starting with the presumption that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is valid and working backwards.

You’re changing the subject. Your consistent position has been that the mere lack of agreement, or difference in interpretation, ipso facto, disproves sola scriptura. But sola scriptura is not the claim that there will be no disagreements, so your objection is irrelevant to the claims we make. At some point, you’re going to have to adjust your views on sola scriputra so that you’re objecting to the claims we actually make. That said, if you believe that the fact of disagreement and/or multiple interpretations is reason not to believe in sola scriptura—that’s fine. Feel free. But don’t assume that we ever said sola scriptura is the claim that there won’t be such disagreements in the first place. That’s never been the claim. So kindly refrain from arguing as if it were.

And no one knows this better than God, which is why he set up the Magisterium.

For which you have no evidence that any such entity exists. So appealing to an infallible interpreter for which you offer nothing but your own fallible interpretations as proof, hardly solves your problem.

Once again, you are basically asking people who don’t believe in Sola Scriptura to defend the Magisterium using Sola Scriptura.

Not at all. Go ahead and give us your reasons for positing and infallible interpreter that go beyond what is written. That’s fine with me. But unless you can prove both the infallibility of those other reasons, you have no legitimate grounds for appealing to an infallible interpreter in the first place.

But seeing as you obviously are not able to determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity within the confines of your definition of Sola Scriptura

But I have determined it solely on the basis of scripture. Of course, if you’re going to consider my interpretations and reasons as something in addition to scripture, then you’re once again misrepresenting sola scriptura, which never has been the claim that the teachings of scripture require no exegesis or interpretation to discover. Since this is not the claim, I don’t have to defend against that criticism. All I have to do is show you that scripture teaches that there is one God, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God and that neither of the three are the other. I’ve done that. Case closed.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

And yet again, I begin with examining whether or not Sola Scriptura actually works, and you dodge giving an actual defense of it by trying to steer the conversation into a defense of the Magisterium.

It’s not a dodge. Sola scriptura has historically been defined vis-à-vis the Roman claim to be the infallible interpreter of scripture. One cannot speak of sola scriptura in any meaningful way without reference to the position that it is protesting. If anyone is “dodging” here it is you. You simply assert, over and over again, the need for an infallible interpreter to act as “tie breaker” for those verses, which you claim to be unclear, but which in reality may not be unclear at all. But explaining the unknown (i.e., the allegedly “unclear” texts your mention) in terms of the unknown (the alleged infallible Magisterium who breaks the tie) does not advance the discussion one bit and fails utterly to clarify the passages that—in your opinion—are unclear. For unless it is “clear” that there is an infallible, tie-breaking Magisterium, your entire case falls to pieces. And guess what: It’s not clear that there is such an entity—not clear by a long shot.

And what’s the proof that this is unclear? Well, if we use your own line of reasoning, the mere fact the Orthodox and Protestants deny that Rome is infallible ought to be proof positive—for you anyway—that Rome’s infallibility is anything but clear. After all, we read the same texts you do but come to completely different conclusions. For example, when we read, “He who hears you hears me,” we do not infer from this that the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him are the “you” of this passage. Nor would it follow that the “you” is infallible only in matters of faith and morals. In fact, it would be more sound to conclude that the “you” is infallible in every matter since—if in hearing the “you” we hear Jesus—and if Jesus speaks only the truth—then it must follow that the “you” can only speak the truth. But not even Rome claims to be able to speak the truth on every issue. But why not? If Rome speaks for Jesus, why not?

That said, you’re once again misdefining the Magisterium insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys claims of its authority.

But I don’t claim this. I do not claim that there is no magisterium simply because people have disagreed with Rome. I only claim that you have not demonstrated that there is any such infallible interpreter to begin with. Thus making your certitude ride on such an infallible authority only makes sense if you’re already certain that there is such an infallible authority. Feel free to call this your principle if you like. (For that is what it is. You don’t reason to it—you reason from it). That would at least allow you to escape pitfall of infinite regress that your position logically leads to. But if you are going to make this move, then at least be honest about it and state up front that you have no proof that Rome is infallible, but that you’ve decided to presuppose it anyway.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

The Magisterial seal of approval is that of Christ himself, and I will speak more on that in a moment.

And how will you determine what Christ has said? (Prediction: You’re going to quote the Bible….I can just feel it.)

But first let us talk about the Sola Scriptura adherent’s seal of approval, assuming that it even exists. How do adherents of Sola Scriptura deal with dissent and break ties?

We don’t break ties. We simply remind all people that scripture is the norm to which they must conform or else Jesus’ words, “You err because you do not know the scriptures,” make no sense.

It seems that they don’t because accusations of heresy and attempts to break ties require an authoritative interpretation of God’s revelation, and according to SS that authority is in Scripture, not people.

So it may seem to you, but not to me. The authority I countenance is the Word of God itself. If I’m right about that—that it is God’s word—then God is the authority that stands behind his own word. No infallible interpreter is needed to do what the Holy Spirit does in and through fallible human beings. We, in our fallibility, can still come to a true understanding of God’s word.

So when groups of people all make plausible and yet contradicting doctrinal interpretations of Scripture, there is no way to declare which interpretation is correct and which is wrong.

Just because you may be a doctrinal relativist doesn’t mean everyone else is. The way to figure out which interpretation is right or wrong is by doing the exegesis. If you think Rome can do an end run on this process, then I submit to you that you may be ascribing to Rome an ability that even Rome does not claim for itself. For—and correct me if I’m wrong—infallibility is only a negative protection from error. In order to teach a truth infallibly, Rome still has to discover what the truth is just like everyone else. In principle, if not in practice, then, Rome would have to do its exegetical homework before it could weigh in and say, “only begotten” means “one and only” and not “generated in time.”

and the individual assumes for himself or herself the mantel of being the arbiter of truth.

Which is exactly what you’re doing when you posit the existence of an infallible interpreter and then attempt to use the Bible to prove this. You read a passage such as “and upon this rock” and conclude, “ergo the Catholic Church is infallible.” But were you infallible when you came to this conclusion? Was your initial exegesis of the text immune from error?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

People seek a denomination that teaches in accordance with what they personally believes ought to be true.

And you’re saying that this describes only Protestants? In my experience this describes Catholics (especially converts from Evangelicalism) to a tee.

They are not seeking to learn truth, but seeking an affirmation for what they have already decided is true.

Alas, I fear you’re correct. But I think this goes for a lot of people, including Catholics.

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture with a guaranteed guidance that what they wrote would be free of error in terms of faith and morals.

Does this mean you subscribe to limited inerrancy—i.e., inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but not, say, history and science? I know that’s a big intra-Catholic debate. Be that as it may, let’s agree that the inspired scriptures are also inerrant, without going into detail as to what that means.

1. The same Holy Spirit inspires the Magisterium with a guaranteed guidance that what it officially interprets in Scripture and Tradition is free of error in terms of faith and morals. It’s as simple as that.

This is your presupposition. But it is not something for which you have any proof, much less infallible proof. Again, Eric, you can’t reason from fallible interpretations of scripture to an infallible conclusion.

The head of the Church is Christ

And you got this idea from Paul which you read about in……drum roll…the Bible using your own fallible interpretation. But I think this is true conclusion, despite its fallibility.

and he is the ultimate source of what the Church officially teaches in matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Define “Church” here for us. Then define “officially teaches” and then list for us the content of that “official teaching” and then we’ll go from there.

I think Christ constitutes an “infallible interpreter,” don’t you?

Yes. But you see—apart from scripture, I have no access to any of Christ’s infallible interpretations of scripture, and neither does anyone else. Be that as it may, even with access to Christ’s fallible interpretations, we can only fallibly interpret those ourselves. That doesn’t mean we can’t get it right. It just means we’re not immune from error when we do read the infallible interpreter—not unlike the way Catholics have to discern whether “for the sake of salvation” in Dei Verbum 11 should be read restrictively (i.e., limited inerrancy) or categorically (i.e., plenary inerrancy).

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

Non-sequitur, huh?.. What you call a “clear teaching” in the Bible which some people simply failed to notice due to “human error” took an entire ecumenical council to resolve!

Yes, a non-sequitur. And now you’re making the same non-sequitur, only you’re dressing it up in history. First, Nicea didn’t resolve the Arian controversy. In many ways, it was the start of a controversy that would continue for some time. Before it would be over something like 70% of the bishops around the world would be Arians including some of the bishops of Rome. If the truth were determined by a show of hands and/or by an authorized authority, then we should have all been Arians by that criteria. But there mere fact of disagreement—even when this disagreement constituted the majority position—does not imply that the truth is unknowable or that it is otherwise determined by a competent authority. My goodnesss—if even Rome went Arian for a while—where else would you have found that infallible interpreter given your system?

Now simply look at the logic of your view you deny and affirm.

1. No belief can be known to be true if anyone can be found who might disagree with that belief.
2. Arianism disagrees with Trinitariansim.
3. Therefore Trinitarianism is unknowable.

The obvious fallacy rests with the first premise. To see why, let’s just change the equation a bit.

1. No belief can be known to be true if anyone can be found who might disagree with that belief.
2. Atheism disagrees with Theism.
3. Therefore Theism is unknowable.

But in fact we can know that theism is true even though there are atheists who say it is not. The mere fact that atheists exist and profess a contrary faith does not, in and of itself, preclude our coming to know that theism is true.

The reason why this argument is a non-sequitur is because there mere existence of disagreement (premise 2 in both arguments) does not disprove the contrary position. In other words, it is possible that Theism is knowable and Atheism is simply wrong. It is likewise possible that Trinitarianism is knowable and Arianism is simply wrong.

And it’s possible that this took a long time for the church to notice and work out precisely because there are so many “moving parts” to the doctrine. But it’s complexity is not proof against it certainty.

Now let’s look at the argument you keep affirming.

1. A belief is known to be true only when it is authorized by a competent authority.
2. The Roman Catholic Church is that competent authority, which authorizes the Trinity.
3. Therefore the Trinity is true.

Historically Protestants have denied premise 2 by arguing that scripture is the competent authority. But the real problematic premise is 1. This is simply an assumption on your part that commits you to an absolute logical absurdity. Let me explain.

Essentially you are arguing that in order to have knowledge (k) that any given proposition (p) is true, we must first know that we know. That is, p entails kp. But by a second application of that logic, we would first need to know that we know, such that p entails kkp. But if that’s the case, then kkp implies kkkp and so on ad infinitum. In other words, if you define a “competent authority” as being synonymous with an “infallible interpreter” then in order to know that, say, the doctrine of the Trinity is true (p), the infallible interpreter must first say that it is true (k), then by that logic, we must first know (k) that (k) determines (p). Logically this commits you to positing an infallible interpreter for your infallible interpreter and so on ad infinitum. This means you can never affirm the truth of p without an infinite series of competent authorities (k) to affirm one another. Is there a way out of this dilemma?

Yes. How about this? Our knowledge of p is knowable apart from an infallible authority. Thus kp does not require kkp, kkkp, kkkkp and so on. In other words, if p is true, then k—we can know it to be the case even though we ourselves may be fallible.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

And it was not resolved according to the practice of Sola Scriptura, but by appealing to what is taught in Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture.

And what exactly was the content of this “Sacred Tradition” to which you and allegedly they referred? What new information or insight did ST give us that was not already contained in SS? And how do you know that the information provided by ST is true or that the certitude it provides is in fact certain? How do you know? These too are questions that you’ve been dodging or simply asserting gratuitously.

Going back to my English vocabulary test, if a professor says “Define the word ‘close’”, but nothing more can be gleaned from the context of the exam as a whole, can a student definitively know whether which definition the professor has in mind (i.e., “To be in near proximity of” or “To move something from an open position to a shut position”)? In this case, lack of clarity does not not arise from human error, but because the text itself was not clear enough to point the student towards one definition over the other.

Yes. But this is not the case with scripture where we do have a context to guide our interpretation and an entire canon within which to do biblical theology so that we can see how well the individual propositions of scripture—read in their immediate contexts—cohere with all the other propositions of scripture in the Bible read as a unity. When we do this, we see, for example, that while it is possible that the Son came into existence through generation, it is not a probable understanding of the term (“only begotten”) when read in light of other passages that speak to the preexistence of the Son before the world (Greek, cosmos) was.

But saying that the Bible is clear enough to teach the correct definition without an interpreter is like saying that the vocabulary test I mentioned is clear enough to inform the student exactly which definition is to be used.

That would be true if and only if the Bible could be compared to a vocabulary test without a context, which is a dubious analogy to say the least. But even if such a comparison could be made, positing an interpreter here is no solution to your problem unless you could first demonstrate that there is such an interpreter with the competence to settle the issue one way or the other—something you’ve been both unwilling and unable to do.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

When the term “begotten” is used in conjunction with the Jesus, Arius simply applied to it the same meaning that it has when used with everyone else in the Bible. Everywhere else it means giving birth to.

And he and you are mistaken for having done so because there is not a single instance in which any begotten “son” has ever preexisted creation itself. If, as you argue, “begotten” means “giving birth to,” then—by Arius’ logic—we would run headlong into the following problem. First, keep in mind that Arius thought of the Son as pre-existing the incarnation. Arius simply believed that the Son came into being at some point—not that he was eternal. Thus Arius is arguing as follows:

1. All sons are begotten.
2. The pre-incarnate Jesus was a son.
3. Therefore the pre-incarnate Jesus was begotten.
4. But all begotten sons come into existence.
5. Therefore Jesus came into existence.

But now consider this counter argument:

1. All sons have mothers (biologically speaking).
2. The pre-incarnate Jesus was a son.
3. Therefore the pre-incarnate Jesus had a mother.

But this is absurd. There is no evidence that Jesus had a mother prior to the incarnation. In other words, Jesus is unique among sons in that he existed prior to his own mother. But if Jesus is unique in this regard, is it not at least possible that as a divine son (which Arius did not deny) he also had a unique relationship to his divine Father quite unlike any other father-son relationship?

This suggests the possibility that the term “monogenes” is likewise being used in a different sense—one that does not have the biological connotations of normal begetting. To test this hypothesis consider Hebrews 11:17 which mentions Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten” son. Does this state a biological relationship? If so, then it is patently false because Abraham begot other sons besides Isaac. The only interpretation that does not result in error is that Isaac is being affirmed as a “unique” son, hence the oft-seen translation, “one and only.” Spiritually speaking this is true—for the descendents of Abraham are counted through Isaac (cf Romans 9:7). Biologically speaking, however, this cannot be true, for Ishmael was equally Abraham’s begotten.

Therefore, on exegetical grounds, the term “only begotten” does not have to imply a biological kind of begetting. Nor are we required to assume that the begetting of Jesus took place in time. And we know this even before we have taken other texts into account, which speak to the preexistence of the Son. If the Trinity is truly a conclusion drawn from the Bible as a whole, then all of its propositions must be taken into place. How do the ideas of “only begotten” (John 1:18) fit in with the ideas of “before the world was” (John 17:5)? Only the Trinitarian synthesis makes sense. The Son is eternally begotten, meaning that he did not come into existence, but that he always existed as the Son of the Father. This is a unique relationship without parallel in scripture and therefore all the other “begetting” texts cannot be used to determine the nature of the betting in John 1:18 because, understood this way, we would not be able to explain all the other texts that speak to Jesus’ preexistence and his being of the same nature as the Father who most certainly did not have a beginning in time.

How does being a “one and only son” exclude the possibility of being created?

By itself the term does not exclude that possibility. It is only when the term is read in relation to the whole that we conclude that it does in John 1:18. The first step, however, is to establish that it can mean “one and only” in the sense of a unique relationship rather than a biological one. Hebrews 11:17 gives us our precedent, where the biological meaning would be clearly false. But more work needs to be done to show why “one and only” is the only meaning that makes sense in both its immediate context (where the one and only is also called “God”) and within its broader NT context in which we learn that the Son has existed with the Father even before the world was (John 17:5). Such cannot be said of any other “only begotten” son.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

Obviously the relationship between Abraham and Isaac was temporal, not eternal. So, from a purely textual perspective, why can’t people simply say the temporal relationship described in Gen. 22:2 is the same between the Father and Jesus?

Because Abraham wasn’t God and neither was Isaac. To compare Jesus to the Father in the exact same way as you would compare Isaac to Abraham is to see only the correspondence in the analogy, but not also the great differences. Isaac wasn’t the son “by whom” and “for whom” creation came into being. But Jesus was this Son. Isaac wasn’t the son who shared Abraham’s glory before the world was. But Jesus was this son who shared the Father’s glory even before the universe existed. Isaac wasn’t the logos who existed “in the beginning” as God, but Jesus was. If Jesus is God, and if God is eternal, then Jesus is eternal. So if this Jesus is in any sense “begotten” of the Father, then it must be an eternal begetting, otherwise one is left with a temporal, lesser divinity and monotheism is thereby rendered incoherent.

I had said:

But if we do adopt Arius’ interpretation then we run headlong into conflict with other texts such as John 1:1 and 17:5. For in these texts the Son is described as existing from “the beginning” and “before the cosmos was”. Well, the “cosmos” is synonymous with creation itself. Time is part of the cosmos.

You are making a philosophical argument, not a biblical one!

No, Eric. I’m arguing exegetically from the meaning of the word “world” (Greek, kosmos), especially as it is used in John. To wit, “kosmos” refers to the entire created order. Question: does time belong to the created order or not? What say you?

There are two creation accounts in Genesis, and none of them mention the creation of time.

Uh, no. There are not “two creation accounts” in Genesis. I’m starting to think your understanding of Genesis has been formed by “JEDP’ers”. But even the Catholic New Jerusalem Study Bible—the notes of which were written by many-a-JEDPer-- contests the facile assumption that two distinct creation accounts are being given in Genesis [see note c on Genesis, chapter 2: “It is not, a has often been said, a second creation narrative…”] Be that as it may, Genesis does indirectly imply the creation time when it speaks of the creation of “the Heavens and the earth.” This is a Hebraism for the entire created order, in the same way “kosmos” is in Greek. Unless you wish to argue that “time” is distinct from the created order, you’re going to have to accept that it is included under the rubric, “the heavens and the earth.”

In light of this, from a purely biblical standpoint, time itself could be an eternal manifestation of God’s divinity.

Now you’re the one being philosophical. But on what basis would you argue biblically that time itself is a “manifestation of God’s divinity”?

So if you want to reject the validity of Arius’ interpretation, I will remind you that you have to do so within the confines of Sola Scriptura.

Which is what I’ve been doing. But speaking of “confines,” it is clear here that you are confining sola scriptura to your own preconceived definition that excludes not only interpretation, but now also the use of extra-biblical terminology to speak about what the Bible teaches etc. But once again, that is not the historical understanding of sola scriptura, which is not adverse to the use of even philosophical terminology for explaining biblical truth.

In other words, use “Scripture alone” to do the job, not “Scripture & Philosophy.” But for the record, “Scripture & Philosophy” doesn’t get the job done either, and I will explain why in a moment…

See what I mean? Your consistent penchant for misrepresenting sola scriptura simply astounds. But see if you can find even one Reformer who categorically rejected the use of terminology drawn from philosophy in order to explain scripture. (I’m sure you’ll find someone. But in the main, the Reformers and the Protestant schoolmen had no problem with Aristotelian terminology per se, even if they believed that some on the Catholic side had gone too far in this regard.)

 

[Philthy]

Hi Miguel -

You’re changing the subject. Your consistent position has been that the mere lack of agreement, or difference in interpretation, ipso facto, disproves sola scriptura. But sola scriptura is not the claim that there will be no disagreements, so your objection is irrelevant to the claims we make. At some point, you’re going to have to adjust your views on sola scriputra so that you’re objecting to the claims we actually make.

The objection is not that disagreements “ipso facto” disprove SS. That is your dream to argue against. The objection is that the existence of disagreements requires you - the adherent - to prove that SS can allow someone to recognize those Scriptural truths which are objectively, exegetically, interpretively and historically UNCLEAR. Part of this argument will be you demonstrating that a particular established doctrine was established according to and consistent with the definition of SS you put forward.
Now, you repeatedly claim that SS can do this in the hypothetical, but you fail to demonstrate it in the case of the Trinity. Oh sure, you can make some strong arguments from Scripture, and that is especially easy why presenting arguments to folks who accept the doctrine and are predisposed to them, but are they irrefutable arguments Miguel? Really? I havent seen them. Eric has clearly presented Scriptural issues with each of your attempts and shown how you quickly slip from SS to “SS and philosophy”. So we are still left not quite understanding how SS according to your standard has accomplished the goal of establishing the doctrine of the HT for the faithful. In short, how - exactly - , by whom - exactly - , when - exactly - has the doctrine of the Trinity in all it’s nuances been established as the infallible truth of Scripture binding upon all Christians??? You continue to dwell in the land of the theoretical, Miguel, pretending that the doctrine of the Trinity has, in fact, been established. The truth of the matter is that not only can you not establish it, you cannot identify when, exactly, it was established.
At the very least we have arrived at the following: even according to your version of SS, AN AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE needs to exist in order to reveal to the less learned of the faithful when a particular doctrine has been decided for all time and is binding on the faithful. Your definition of SS fails to identify exactly who this authority is, exactly how it is recognized as such and how, exactly, it is recognized that it has exercised it’s authority in revealing a doctrine as true for the faithful. Without all of those features clearly spelled out your doctrine of SS is simply wishful thinking and useless in the practical sense. History has borne this out, and so has this debate.

Blessings!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

Here is your basic line of reasoning:

1. God created everything through the Word (Jesus): John 1:1
2. Jesus was with God “before the world was made” (John 17:5, RSV), and you have interpreted “the world” as meaning “the cosmos”.

No, Eric. The word is “kosmos” in Greek. Kosmos has a range of meanings, including the entire created order or the universe.

1. Time is an aspect of the created cosmos and Jesus existed prior to its creation.

Yes. If time is not a part of the “kosmos,” then it must exist outside the “kosmos.” But that would attribute to “time,” a capacity that only God has—namely to exist prior to creation itself. God, therefore would have to exist in “time” prior to creation. Logically this makes “time” eternal, which is a contradiction in terms. Therefore “time” must have had a beginning. If so, then time is a creation. If so, then God created time. And I figured all this out just using my Bible and my head. Sola scriptura got me to the conclusion that time is itself a creation of God. I didn’t need Aristotle to figure that out. But I’m glad Aristotle did figure that out and am not ashamed to use his terminology to help better explain the truths we find in scripture.

1. Because Jesus pre-existed time, he cannot be temporal. Because he exists “outside of time”, he must be eternal.

Not exactly. Because the Son pre-existed time, he is eternal. Since prior to time there is only eternity. Therefore the Son is eternally existing, and only at the Incarnation did he enter into time.

If for the sake of this experiment I will once again assume the role of a heretical biblical exegete. I can readily refute this with the following line of reasoning: 1) The Bible does not say that God created “the cosmos”. The word cosmos does not appear in the Bible.

Er, yes, Eric, it does. Our word “cosmos” derives directly from the Greek word “kosmos.” This is the normal word for “world” in the New Testament, along with oikomene, which usually refers to the inhabited world, whereas kosmos can refer to both the inhabited world and the created order or universe.

Rather, Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (and this distinction is important in the nature of our debate). Therefore, whereas God is eternal, the heavens are not, they are just as much an aspect of creation as the earth. To put this another way, God created a spiritual universe and a physical universe.

“Heavens and earth” are simply a Semitism for “the universe.” There aren’t two distinct universes implied here because there is no distinction being made between spiritual and earthly reality in the statement. You’re reading in Gnostic-like dualism into a text where such ideas are completely foreign. Nice try though. Since this premise has been refuted, the rest of your argument no longer applies.

Conclusion: The Word pre-exists time, and is not temporal. But the Word did not exist throughout eternity and therefore is not eternal.

But the Word was “God.” And so unless you want to argue that God is not eternal, it is far safer to conclude that the Word—being God—is also eternal. As for God creating beings outside of time, such as the angels, I quite agree that he did this. Does it follow, however, that the Son was also created outside of time? No. Just read Hebrews 1 and all of the “to which of the angels” statements. Consider, for example, Hebrews 1:10: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;” In context these words are being addressed to the Son. He is called “Lord,” which everywhere in the OT refers to God. The Son here is being described as the creator of both the heavens and the earth. If those terms—heavens and earth—refer to the entire created order (which they do), then in this one passage we have an affirmation that the Son is the creator and therefore we can affirm that he was not himself created and that therefore he did not have a beginning, even before time began. And I got to this using just my Bible and my head, just as sola scriptura postulates.

We need to resort to Sacred Tradition to justify including the word “eternally”.

But what is this “Sacred Tradition” to which you refer? Is it the Nicene Council itself? If so, then are you saying that Nicea gave us inspired, infallible information that wasn’t already in scripture? What ever do you mean when you say “Sacred Tradition?”

Truth is not simply “something” but “somebody” and that somebody is Christ. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Red herring. Who ever said otherwise? Now returning to the point at hand, do we believe something because it is true? Or is something true because we’ve been told to believe it?

And it is Christ, the infallible interpreter, who is the head of the Church and therefore the one who guides the Magisterium….

If and only if there is such an entity as the “Magisterium” that possesses all the charisms that it claims for itself. But to date no good reason has been produced for even positing such an entity in the first place, much less deducing from infallible premises the existence of such an entity. Like I said before. You can’t appeal to an infallible interpreter unless you can prove that there is such a thing.

 

[Philthy]

It’s not a dodge.

Yes it is!

Sola scriptura has historically been defined vis-à-vis the Roman claim to be the infallible interpreter of scripture.

So?

One cannot speak of sola scriptura in any meaningful way without reference to the position that it is protesting.

Oh really? You mean SS REQUIRES the Magisterium to exist or discuss? That makes no sense to me, Miguel. Of course it can add an historical and practical CONTEXT to the discussion, but there is NO requirement to include the Magisterium in a practical DEMONSTRATION or JUSTIFICATION of SS. Certainly the Magisterium has nothing to do with the disagreement of doctrine within the SS community, so your dragging the Magisterium into the discussion is a farce. There is NO requirement to include the Magisterium in a practical DEMONSTRATION or JUSTIFICATION of SS. You appear either confused or in denial or to be dodging this point.