Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[jlhargus]

Hi JL,
Well, that’s my point. How can they be truly ecumenical councils without all of the patriarchates?

JL: With that theory, if a Patriarch refuses to attend or is excommunicated, the whole Chruch is paralized. They could do NOTHING but hold to those already defind doctines unable to even develope them, even if it toke a thousand years or the end. Patriarchates are an honorary title they are bishops. A valid ecumenical council would be made up of bishops in union with the successor of Peter who holds the keys the universal pastor who is to feed and strenthen the brethern, who’s faith Christ prayed would not fail.

The problem may be the need to define these things. One can accept the importance of prayer ofr the dead - Lutheran do - and of purgation without saying that there must then be an intermediate state/place.

JL: newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm#I
The definition doesn’t say INTERMEDIATE, it simply says place or condition. Wouldn’t it have to be either a place or a condition. All that would be left is out of existance. if one isn’t in a place or a condition then where would they be? Definitions don’t cause divisions pride does. Definitions are only an excuse. I have debated an EO on purgatory and I see no real difference, just a want to seem different for whatever reason. Some don’t like the word purgatory because it’s a Catholic word. I am not saying this about all EO only the one I debated.

By the way I would be interested to learn more about the Lutheran teaching on purgation and praying for the dead. I wasn’t aware that was taught by any Lutherans. That’s really new to me.

I don’t believe He intended for any one patriarch to do it on his own. Christ also said in Luke 22:25 The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. Jon

JL: He doesn’t do it on his own as I posted before. He would consult Tradition both oral and scripture, the bishops of the world and prayer. All of these are part of the process of discernment. Notice in Lk22:25 “he that is chief”, implies one is chief who is to serve. That is the pope the chief who serves the whole Church. Do you suppose patriarchs or local bishop and pastors are not servants but lord it over those under their care. Any of them can abuse thier authority.

Mt24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[EricFilmer]

Well folks, it looks like it’s time for another marathon of posts from yours truly…

Eric said:

This is not changing the subject! You claim that the Bible is sufficient for the determination of doctrine. The challenge is, therefore, to see if the Bible alone can do the job with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, in an experiment like this one cannot argue from the presumption that what is being examined is a doctrine to begin with. This challenge includes examining the validity of your claim that the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible. Based on all this, when I posit other plausible interpretations of Scripture with are non-Trinitarian and you try to dismiss them by simply saying, “This is just dissent from doctrine,” it shows that you are presuming the doctrine to be true and then hunting for interpretations that fit the doctrine.

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.

A range of plausible and yet contradictory interpretations shows that the Bible lacks your definition of formal sufficiency. This undermines you entire definition of SS.

What you are saying is that the early Christians examined a range of different yet plausible interpretations of the Bible, somehow decided that one particular set of interpretations were “better”, “logical” or “something” (you still have not been clear on this), and then concluded that in some form or fashion the authority of Scripture rather than an interpreter led people in understanding that the Trinitarian explanation was the true doctrinal one. So exactly how did all that work, again?

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.

Apparently the one who needs to adjust his views on SS is you, seeing as it’s your definition I have been using, and it doesn’t work.

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 kindly refrain from using a strawman argument against me. I never said if SS were valid then there will be no disagreements. As I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions, various plausible and yet contradictory interpretations of the Bible concerning a doctrine demonstrate that the doctrine was not clearly taught in the Bible in the first place.

Eric said:

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.

Off-topic. If Sola Scriptura is a valid teaching then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the Magisterium.

Eric said:

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.

Off-topic. If Sola Scriptura is a valid teaching then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the Magisterium.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

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.

1. You have not shown this according to your definition of formal sufficiency. Once again, you are the one who says that the doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible, and you have not provided clear biblical teachings that capture all the essential nuances of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
2. I’ve notice that according to you, a Christian is permitted a degree of “exegesis or interpretation” in order to authenticate the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but a Christian is not granted this luxury in authenticating, say, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the doctrines concerning the Magisterium. This is a double standard which once more shows that you consider yourself and your opinion to be the arbiter of truth.

Eric said:

Sorry, but this is still off-topic. I never stressed the “need” for an infallible interpreter (although I believe that to be the case). But my point in this discussion is for adherents of Sola Scripture to explain how you determine what is doctrine and what is heresy. When people with opposing and yet equally plausible Scripture interpretations enter into debate, how can you tell whose interpretation is correct and whose is not? For example, to illustrate this, I have repeatedly brought up the debate within Protestantism over whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, and neither you nor anyone else has clearly told me how adherents of Sola Scriptura can reach a consensus on this matter.

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.

It’s clearly taught in God revelation. But when certain people get to pick and choose which parts of the Deposit of Faith are authentic then they can cut out the parts they don’t want to believe.

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?

The Magisterium only acts upon that which Christ revealed through the Deposit of Faith. The Magisterium cannot give any new revelation, but only officially defines what has already been revealed.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:
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.

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

Off-topic. If Sola Scriptura is a valid teaching then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the Magisterium.

Eric said:

I think it is more accurate to say that you are incapable of breaking ties. That requires the exercise of authority which none of you claim to have.

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.

And the people you call dissenters will say the exact same thing to you. The Oneness Pentecostals, for example, will say that your Trinitarian interpretations of Scripture are in error because “you do not know the Scriptures.” So how far does all that get you?

Eric said:

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.

And the various dissenters I’ve mentioned will agree 100% with this statement. But they see the “authority of God” standing behind their interpretations of Scripture, not yours.

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.

But what gives you the right or the authority to declare that your interpretation is doctrine, a “true understanding of God’s word”, and denounce alternate (but still plausible) interpretations as “dissension from doctrine”?

Eric said:

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.

The Oneness Pentecostals have “done the exegesis” and concluded that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a false doctrine.

Moreover, the Southern Baptist Convention has “done the exegesis” and declared that women cannot be pastors.

Furthermore, the Church of Christ has “done the exegesis” and determined that a repentant sinner must be baptized in order to be saved.

And finally let me add that Martin Luther “did the exegesis” and concluded that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, and not just a symbol of Christ.

Ok, how far did all this get the various adherents of Sola Scriptura in determining what is and is not a “true understanding of God’s word”?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.”

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the ancient Christians determined Christian doctrines prior to the writing of the New Testament? Do you think they just sat around and put the determination of doctrine on hold until they had the New Testament with which to do exegesis?

Eric said:

…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?

Peter was the head of the Church and empowered by God in this capacity before the New Testament was even written. And let me ask you this, when Peter wrote First & Second Peter, did he have a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit not to err when conveying matters pertaining to faith and morals?

Eric said:

Maybe for some. But speaking for myself and many other converts I know, we were initially attempting to disprove Catholicism. In other words, the Catholic Faith was teaching a number of things that I originally did not want to believe. But in attempting to disprove Catholicism I ended up learning the truths of Catholicism, and came to embrace it.

Eric said:

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.

True, but the very nature of Protestantism fosters this to a greater degree. A person can make a text say a number of different things, including what a person is already predisposed to believing is true (either from desire or need). If the Reformers themselves claimed not to be infallible and yet proclaimed their interpretations of Scripture to be doctrine, what is to stop everyone else from doing the same? So a Protestant can “shop around” until he finds a denomination that considers his personal interpretation of Scripture to be orthodox rather than dissension, and if no such denomination exists then he can create one.

Eric said:

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.

Dei Verbum states, “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (no. 11).

New Advent posted the following from an article in This Rock:

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

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.

My proof or lack of proof is not the topic. The topic of this thread is, “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You betcha!” The topic is not, “Can Eric Prove the Infallibility of the Magisterium to the Satisfaction of those Who Believe that Sola Scriptura is Biblical? You Betcha!”

Eric said:

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.

Or maybe I got this idea from…drum roll…the living Tradition of the Church that taught that Jesus was the head of the Church before Paul ever wrote it. Or do you claim that none of the Apostles embraced that notion until Paul started cranking out epistles? Paul himself got this teaching from Christ who identified himself with the Church when he asked, “Why are you persecuting me?” So even if I personally got this statement from one of Paul’s epistles, Paul is simply passing on a teaching that was already established.

Eric said:

…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.

No, we won’t go from there. You asked me a series of questions concerning the Magisterium, and I answered those questions. It is not my intention to get side-tracked from the actual topic of the thread. So once more for the record: If Sola Scriptura is a valid teaching then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the Magisterium.

Eric said:

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.

Speak for yourself.

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).

Without the ability or authority to officially define God’s revelation, how exactly do adherents of Sola Scriptura “get it right” in order to solve doctrinal disputes? This question keeps coming up because you have not sufficiently answered it. How do you know your interpretation of Scripture is correct and a contrary but equally plausible interpretation is wrong? And don’t keep giving me that “proper exegesis” stuff - proper exegesis can, and does, produce contrary interpretations.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

I’m not dressing it up with history – history demonstrates that your explanation of people simply not seeing or understanding “clear” Trinitarian teachings in the Bible is obviously erroneous.

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.

Nicea didn’t have to resolve it. It simply officially defined Trinitarian theology as doctrine. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity became orthodoxy, and opposing interpretations became heresy. The role of Nicea was never to convince everyone of the truth of the doctrine, but to officially declare the doctrine to be the truth.

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.

I never said that truth was “unknowable,” only that Sola Scriptura fails for providing a proper determination of the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

My goodnesss—if even Rome went Arian for a while—where else would you have found that infallible interpreter given your system?

Rome never “went Arian”. There were debates among theologians and clergy, but Rome never officially recognized Arianism.

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.

You’re pulling a straw man fallacy. I never said, “no belief can be known to be true if anyone can be found who might disagree with that belief.” I challenge you to post a quote from me saying anything even remotely close to that! What I have said several times is that no single biblical teaching can be said to be a clear teaching if there are other contradictory yet equally plausible interpretations.
Let’s put it this way. Let us say that in my shed I have a hammer, a shovel, an ax, a screwdriver, and a wrench. And now let us say that I make the statement, “I used a tool from my shed today to do some work.” Can you tell me which tool I used? There are five different equally plausible interpretations, one for each tool. Obviously one of the five is the correct interpretation, so in this case, truth is knowable. But if we were to apply this concept to the arguments you have been making, you would be saying something like, “The fact that a wrench was used is clearly taught, and anyone who says one of the other tools is a dissenter.”

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.

The obvious fallacy does, indeed, rest with the first premise, seeing as I never made it. This thread is getting incredibly long so how about sticking with the material I actually said. It is a waste of your time and mine to debate positions that I never made.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

Your dodging. As I have said numerous times, the issue at hand is whether or not the Bible clearly teaches the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I said that it does not for two reasons: 1) You haven’t been able to do it, and 2) Historical debate over a course of two millennia shows that it is not clearly taught.

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.

“Knowable” is not the issue – clarity is.

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.

Oh, so you admit that it is complex, and yet you say that it is “clearly” taught. Doesn’t the whole concept of complexity go contrary to your definition of formal sufficiency? Here is your definition again:

“Sola scriptura implies formal sufficiency in that it is clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand what is in its pages. Note well. This is not the claim that everything in scripture is intelligible to everyone all the time. Nor is it the claim that scripture needs no interpretation and explanation. It is simply the straightforward claim that God speaks sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood. The main things are the plain things.

So explain how complexity = “plain things”.

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.

Another straw man fallacy. When did I ever say “A belief is known to be true only when it is authorized by a competent authority”?

What I have been saying is that in when multiple interpretations are present, and they are equally plausible, an authority is needed to declare one interpretation as doctrinal, and therefore establishing that it is the true interpretation and that the others are heretical.

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?

I am well aware that you can theorize how you think Sola Scriptura works. But the whole nature of the “Trinity Gambit” challenge is to step away from theory and take a look at it in practice. What we are examining is whether or not Sola Scriptura is able to do what you claim it can do. Remember Sola Scriptura? So give me a clear description how adherents of Sola Scriptura resolve doctrinal disputes. Or you could simply admit the obvious answer – they can’t!

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

And the Oneness Pentecostals would agree, and say that your Trinitarian theology is erroneous.

And the Church of Christ would agree and teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

And the Southern Baptist Convention would agree and submit that having a woman pastor is in violation of God’s word.

And Martin Luther would agree and say that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ and not just a symbol of Christ.

All of these people are adherents of Sola Scriptura, so how does Sola Scriptura arrive at whose interpretation concerning these doctrinal matters is correct?

Instead of doing your usual dance with theoretical notions (such as “p entails kp, but by a second application of that logic…”) why don’t you give me a practical demonstration by using Sola Scriptura to prove whose interpretation of the Bible is correct in these cases and whose is wrong. And don’t give me your usual routine in saying, “Sola Scriptura recognizes that people will still disagree over interpretation”. Moreover, don’t give me your usual line that your personal interpretation of Scripture is somehow an obvious example of true exegesis while opposing interpretations aren’t (for example, this is in essence what you’ve been doing in trying to prove the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity).

Eric said:

That would be the aspects of Challenge #4, none of which are clearly taught in Scripture, nor have you been able to prove otherwise.

What new information or insight did ST give us that was not already contained in SS?

That would be the aspects of Challenge #4, none of which are clearly taught in Scripture, nor have you been able to prove otherwise.

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.

I’m not dodging, I’m just sticking to the topic of Sola Scriptura. Remember Sola Scriptura? How does my certitude about Trinitarian theology have anything to do with the question as to whether or not the Bible clearly teaches the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity?

Eric said:

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.

The various early Church heretics, the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same Bible with the same context.

And “only begotten” does not equate “pre-existence.” I already pointed out that Abraham begat Isaac, and God referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son”. Isaac is not eternal. I will go into this particular aspect of the discussion further when it comes up again in a moment.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

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.

In some cases the context clearly points the reader into one direction over another. But that is not always the case, as doctrinal debates continue between adherents of Sola Scriptura. Each will claim that his interpretation is the one that best represents the context.

I’m going to link this debate concerning the necessity of baptism once again. Can you honestly tell me that one of these sides is not taking the context of Scripture into consideration? The way I see it, both sides are making arguments heavily based on context.

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.

Once again, I am examining the merits of Sola Scriptura. Remember Sola Scriptura? If what you say about Sola Scriptura is true then doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible and there is no need of an infallible interpreter because “the main things are the plain things.” And yet even though you say Sola Scriptura is used for the determination of doctrine, it fails in defending doctrine against other plausible interpretations. And therefore SS is utterly useless when its adherents disagree over such things as the Doctrine of the Trinity, women pastors, divorce and remarriage, the necessity of baptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc.,

Eric said:

First of all, Arius did not deny that Jesus was divine (he said that Jesus was divine to a lesser extent than the Father), but he denied that Jesus was eternal, and what we are specifically examining in this aspect of the debate is the statement in the Nicene Creed that Jesus is eternally begotten. Scripture does not make this distinction or else the Arian heresy would never have gotten the traction it did (and still gets among some groups today).

Secondly, contrary to what you said, it can be argued from Scripture that everyone exists prior to their mothers, assuming that the words spoken to Jeremiah apply to us all:

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5, RSV)

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

I agree that the term does not have to mean a biological begetting. My stance is that from a purely objective examination of Scripture, concluding that the begetting of Jesus means that the Father created him is a plausible interpretation. Even if Jesus is a “unique son”, this does not rule the Father simply creating a “unique son.” If Jesus is considered a Christian version of the demiurge then he would be a “unique son” if there is only one demiurge.

Also, the biblical reference to Isaac can mean a biological begetting. Even though he is not the only son fathered by Abraham, he is the only son born of both Abraham and Sarah, and therefore he is the “one and only son” of the covenant promise. This signifies a unique relationship (as you stated) but it certainly can also signify a biological relationship.

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.

Scripture does not clarify that the Son is eternally begotten. Arius would simply point out that the Father created the Son, and then created everything else through the Son. Pre-existing the world does not necessitate an eternal existence.

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.

Exactly where in Scripture does it say that Jesus is “is of the same nature” as the Father. I have already pointed out to you the enormous debate in the context of the Council of Nicea over whether or not to use “homoousios” or “homoiousios” (i.e., “same substance” or “similar substance”). No one was able to demonstrate which distinction is the correct one from Scripture alone, nor can you today.

Eric said:

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.

Once again, from a purely objective examination of Scripture, Jesus can still pre-exist time and the world and still be a creation of the Father. Being outside of time does not equate eternal existence, otherwise all the angels would be eternal. There is a difference between being eternal and being immortal.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

But this is exactly what Arius was saying, that the Word is a lesser divinity (although not necessary a temporal one – but immortal rather than eternal). He would say that Jesus is God because he was imbued with divine power, but he is not the eternal living God. According to Arius, the oneness of God cannot be shared, or it would not be “one” to begin with. How does his concept “render monotheism incoherent”? We Trinitarians say that there is one God who exists as three distinct persons, and that how this is possible is a “mystery.” But people who are opposed to Trinitarian theology could easily say that we are the ones who have truly rendered monotheism incoherent. After all, what is coherent in saying that 1+1+1=1?

Eric said:

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?

Once again, it does not matter if time is part of the created order or not. Because Jesus existed before the creation of time does not necessarily mean that Jesus is eternal. Genesis states that God created the heavens and the earth. Heaven is not a temporal realm, but is still an aspect of creation. But because the heavens are created, this rules out the possibility of the heavens being eternal.

Eric said:

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…”]

You’re taking my statement much further than I intended. I didn’t say the two accounts were different, and although I studied the JEDP theory I have no real opinion on it one way or another. So let me reiterate what I was saying: creation is described in the first and second chapter of Genesis and the creation of time is not mentioned .

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.”

It still makes no difference whether or not time is an aspect of creation. Plus, your definition of cosmos is not entirely correct, but I will get to that in a moment when it comes up again.

Eric said:

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”?

I merely meant that because the Bible does not say anything about the creation of time, no one can say with certainty that the Bible teaches that time is created.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

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…

Once again, I have been consistently using your definition of Sola Scriptura and drawing perfectly rational conclusions from it.

… 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.

You’re not simply using extra-biblical terminology or philosophical terminology, you are using extra-biblical and philosophical explanations beyond what the text actually says.

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.)

I have not misrepresented Sola Scriptura. You are coming up with philosophical explanations and trying to disguise them by saying that it is simply a matter of terminology. Earlier you said this: ” 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” and yet you have provided no clear biblical support for demonstrating that Jesus must be eternal. To get to that conclusion, you have to resort to philosophical concepts.

In light of all this, as opposed to your own Pauline Sola Scriptura slogan, in trying to prove the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, you have gone “beyond what is written.”

Eric said:

Since my last set of posts I have seen what you mean in terms of the Bible’s use of “kosmos”.

Eric’s continuation of outlining Miguel’s line of reasoning…

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.

The argument that “time must have had a beginning” is a philosophical one. This concept cannot be demonstrated by use of the Bible alone. This is an example of what I said earlier that in order to demonstrate the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity you have to “go beyond what is written” and use philosophical concepts. In other words, to explain exactly how time cannot be eternal a person has to resort to such things as the problem of infinite regression, and therefore doing a lot more than simply plugging philosophical terminology into biblical teaching.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric’s continuation of outlining Miguel’s line of reasoning…

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.

As I said before, Genesis states that God created the heavens and the earth. Are the heavens created? Yes. Are the heavens temporal? No. Therefore, the heavens are not eternal. The Son can pre-exist the creation of the temporal realm (the physical universe) and not necessarily be eternal. The angels were created as part of the heavens, and therefore they pre-existed the creation of time, but they are not eternal. I see that in a bit that you are stating that I am inserting a spiritual/physical duality into the biblical concept of heaven & earth, so I will cover that in a moment.

Eric said:

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.

You are correct to say, “er”. When I made the above statement I had simply checked my English concordance of the Bible for the English rendering of “cosmos” (and saw that it does not appear in the Bible). For whatever reason, I didn’t think to check the Greek. So you are quite right in saying that the word “kosmos” is used in the Bible, and is usually translated as “world”. But let us see how far that can go…

Eric said:

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.

This isn’t what The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament says. It gives seven different definitions for kosmos:

1. the “earth”, e.g. Mt 13:35; Jn 21:25; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20 (probably here the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to the order observable in it); 1 Ti 6:7; Heb 4:3; 9:26
2. the “earth” in contrast with Heaven, 1 Jn 3:17 (perhaps also Rom 4:13)
3. by metonymy, the “human race, mankind,” e.g. Mt. 5:14; Jn 1:9, 10, 3:16, 17 (thrice), 19; 4:42, and frequently in Rom, 1 Cor, 1 Jn

• The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament, pg. 144 of the designated section for the same within: James Strong The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, 2001).

According to Strong’s, the rest of the uses of kosmos refer to the Gentiles, the present condition of human affairs (as alienation and opposition to God), the sum of temporal possessions and a metaphorical expression “of the ‘tongue’ as a ‘world (of iniquity),’ Jas 3:6, expressive of magnitude and variety” (ibid).

None of these uses of kosmos is inclusive of the heavens. As a matter-of-fact, the primary uses (examples 1 & 2) make a distinction between kosmos and the heavens (example 2 clearly states it, and example 1 refers to kosmos at the most encompassing observable reality).

Nice try though. Since this premise has been refuted, the rest of your argument no longer applies.

You have not refuted my premise. Quite the contrary, I have refuted your refutation.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said (assuming the role of a heretic for the sake of the experiment)…

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.

Arius would respond:
The Word is imbued with divine power, enough so to make him a lesser type of divinity, so in this sense he can be called “god.”

The Oneness Pentecostals would respond:
Yes, the Word is God, and moreover the Word is the Father.

The Modalists Would Respond
The Word, Father and Holy Spirit are simply manifested personas of the One God. Any distinction expressed between them in the Bible is to help us understand the different roles God plays in salvation history.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses would respond:
If Trinitarian theology is true, then John 1:1 should have stated, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father” But instead, John writes that “the Word was with God.” So according to Trinitarian theology, what John is saying is that “the Son was with the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, so how does that make sense? If I describe being in a room with my father and brother, do I say, “I was with myself, my father and my brother”?

(Of course, the JVs go even further in trying to argue that the correct Greek translation of John 1:1 is that it says “the Word was a god”, but I have not looked into whether or not this particular argument has any objective linguistic merit (and I am not a Greek scholar). Here is a link showing such an argument made by the JVs. But whereas I am no Greek scholar, I find it hard to see any merit in this particular position because if it is true then that means that the Greek Orthodox Church does not know how to properly interpret its own language.)

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.

But the Bible also teaches that the angels exist in lesser and greater degrees to one another. For example, an archangel is greater than an angel because that is what the “arch” means. And there are other choirs of angels even greater still, until one reaches the seraphim. So the Word could simply be a being that is greater than all the angels, yet created nonetheless.

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.

And to this Arius would point out that Hebrews also has the Father saying to the Son, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (1:5, emphasis added) which does not convey an eternal existence. Moreover, because the Son is a created manifestation of the divinity of the Father, the Son can rightly share in the titles of divinity of the Father, such as “Lord.”

For a non-Trinitarian Scriptural examination of Hebrews 1:10-12 (provided by the JWs), see this article.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

Arius would point out that the Bible says that the Word is not the creator (as you claim) but the one through whom the Father created the universe. This is, after all, what the first chapter of John actually states.

Also consider that the Book of Proverbs says…

1. Wisdom is a person (a woman) who speaks, has hands, and laughs (first chapter of Prv).
2. Wisdom is distinguished from simply the virtue of wisdom. “I (Wisdom) have counsel and sound wisdom…” (Prv 8:14)
3. Wisdom pre-existed creation of the universe. “Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth” (Prv 8:23). “When he established the heavens, I was there” (Prv 8:27).
4. Wisdom took part in the work of creation. “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman” (Prv 8:29-30).

Once more, here is what you said of the Son: “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.”

But whatever is said in the Bible concerning the Son’s role in creation is also said of Wisdom, as I just demonstrated. So if you say that the Son has to be eternal because he pre-existed creation, then you must also concede that Wisdom has to be eternal for the exact same reason. And yet in Proverbs 8:22 we are specifically told that Wisdom itself was created: “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.” So if Wisdom has all the biblical attributes of the Son and Wisdom is created, then the Son can be created as well.

If one only uses the Bible for the determination of doctrine, all this poses many problems in interpretation.

• First of all, whatever Wisdom is, the Bible clearly speaks of her being created before the rest of creation, so that in and of itself refutes your stance that pre-existing the creation of the heavens and the earth necessitates an eternal existence.
• Wisdom seems as qualified as the Son for being a person of the Holy Trinity.
  After all, the Son is “begotten” (Heb 1:5) and the “firstborn of creation” (Col 1:15).
  Wisdom is “created” (Prv 8:22), which can simply mean begotten, and was “set up first, before the beginning of the earth” (Prv 8:23) and was there when the Father created the heavens (Prv 8:27).
  So all this sounds an awful lot like being the “firstborn of creation.”
  Moreover, the Father sends the Son (John 3:16) and the Father sends Wisdom (Prv 2:6).

So if we can call Jesus a divine person within the Godhead, why not Wisdom? Maybe there are four divine persons rather than three: Father, Son, Holy Spirit & Wisdom.

• Can we simply say that Wisdom is another name for either the Son or the Holy Spirit? From the aspect of Trinitarian theology, that would be problematic because the Bible states that Wisdom was created by God (Prv 8:22), and Trinitarian theology requires that a divine person be uncreated.

My point to all this is that if we use the Bible alone to determine the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Bible’s description of Wisdom poses a number of challenges that are not easy to resolve.

Eric said:

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?”

Nicea examined what had been passed down from the Deposit of Faith, which included Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and in terms of the nature of the Godhead, Nicea clarified what is doctrinal. The inspired, infallible information was this clarification.

In terms of what wasn’t already in Scripture, as I have been saying over and over, this included the teachings that…

1. That the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
2. The divinity the Son possesses is the same as that of the Father, not similar.
3. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are perfectly united as one God. (And therefore the distinction between them is not simply a distinction in role).
4. The persons of the Godhead are three and only three.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Eric said:

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?

It’s not a red herring; I’m simply explaining to you what the Magisterium is. And your question is pretty vague, especially coming from an adherent of Sola Scriptura. After all, don’t you believe that something is true because you’ve been told (by the Bible) to believe it? It’s all a question as to what we believe is God’s revelation, and the methods God uses to convey that revelation.

Eric said:

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.

Off-topic. If Sola Scriptura is a valid teaching then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the Magisterium.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You are on a very slippery slope, my friend. You could argue that very little is explicit in scripture since so much is misunderstood. And where do you draw the line?. After all, Baptism is explicitly called out in Acts 2 as needed to enter the church and in 1Peter 3, we are told it saves you, (using exactly those words). Yet there are many that deny its efficacy. Does that mean it shouldn’t be doctrine? You see, you absolutely need a trusted infallible authority to define doctrine. In the Catholic Church we have that. Others, not so much.

Remember, The scripture references above DOCUMENT what the Church taught. Scripture documents Tradition , it doesn’t define it.

JL hit on this above. He says He believes the Holy Spirit brought about these definitions.
And I ask, how did He do this? Why would He make this available to one patriarch, and not the others, when the practice of the early Church was truly ecumenical councils?

Jon
Jon

Jon,
The Popes were inspired, Nothing is ratified in ecumenical councils without the Pope’s assent. He is not just another Patriarch. Since you are most confortable with scripture and since the only council described in scripture is the Council fo Jerusalem in 49AD, lets review that as a pertinent example. The issue at hand is whether Christians were required to be circumcised. The revelation that they did not was given to Peter (Acts 10) first through a vision that he did not understand and then more concretely when Cornelius and household recieved the Holy Spirit. This same revelation was not given to James, as bishop of Jerusalem, he would have clearly been considered a patriarch. It was his followers’ demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised that drove the need for the council to begin with. In the end, Peter pronounced his rulling and James fell into line.

 

[JonNC]

This thread needs to end, if only so Eric can get some sleep and his fingers heal.

Eric, your strong faith, and strident defense of it, is a blessing to witness, even when we disagree. Blessings to you, my brother.
Jon

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread exceeds the thousand post limit.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/threadclosed.png