It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Grace_Seeker]

The paragraph in red shows that the determination that there is a Church which was established by God and speaks with His authority comes later and NOT at the beginning of the argument…how is this circular?

You began with an apriori assumption that there even is a God who might inspire a book. Then you used that book to substantiate it’s own validity in that the authority for the church being able to say it is inspired comes from Christ, who you recognize as God because of his reported resurrection, an event recorded only in the book that you claim is inspired because as God, proved by his resurrection he as the authority to declare the church infallible in making its prouncement, thus we know that the event of the resurrection is true because the inspired text says so, and because it says so, he has authority to establish his church which has authority to declare the book inspirted and thus we know its accounts of his resurrection and giving authority to the church are true.

I’m not saying I disagree with the argument. I am saying that even this way the argument is still dependent on an element of faith, and as such is still circular. The non-canonical literature is not sufficient to make Jesus resurrection an historical certainty. If it were there would have been no ground for gnosticism to infect the church in the 2nd century and Islam would have been repudiated as a false teaching in its infancy.

 

[Tietjen]

First of all, even Wikipedia states “most protestants look at scripture alone and no other authority”. And No, we should use the most widely held variant, ‘Bible Alone’ Sola Scriptura.

What you guys should really do is get together and come up with an Authoritative definition so that you can have unity in this Essential n-C doctrine.

I am certainly enjoying this thread though, until now, I am (and will be again) remaining silent. I wanted to add one thing and that is that Wikipedia really shouldn’t be used as a serious source in this discussion. Anyone (myself included) can edit the definition of Sola Scriptura on it’s web page. So, if I can go in and change the definition, how reliable of a source can it really be? Please use REAL reference material in defining the definition of what this thread is all about. Not some changeable untrustworthy website.

 

[antunesaa]

You began with an apriori assumption that there even is a God who might inspire a book. Then you used that book to substantiate it’s own validity in that the authority for the church being able to say it is inspired comes from Christ, who you recognize as God because of his reported resurrection, an event recorded only in the book that you claim is inspired because as God, proved by his resurrection he as the authority to declare the church infallible in making its prouncement, thus we know that the event of the resurrection is true because the inspired text says so, and because it says so, he has authority to establish his church which has authority to declare the book inspirted and thus we know its accounts of his resurrection and giving authority to the church are true.

I’m not saying I disagree with the argument. I am saying that even this way the argument is still dependent on an element of faith, and as such is still circular. The non-canonical literature is not sufficient to make Jesus resurrection an historical certainty. If it were there would have been no ground for gnosticism to infect the church in the 2nd century and Islam would have been repudiated as a false teaching in its infancy.

Do not agree. The initial premise is: is the Bible (especially the New Testament) to be trusted historically? Based on analogies with other ancient works and the abundance of biblical sources the author concludes yes. Then the following question: what can we conclude from the content of the book? We can conclude that Jesus is God because He resurrected from the dead and there is no plausible alternative. Then the book to be trusted historically says: Jesus founded a Church, the body of His followers, and entrusts it with authoritative power. Later, that Church says: this book (the Bible) is divinely inspired.

This argument is not circular: historical validity of the source (the Bible) necessarily leads to its being divinely inspired.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This argument is not circular: historical validity of the source (the Bible) necessarily leads to its being divinely inspired.

While Jesus life and death are historically attested to, the items that lead us to believe him to be God are not. Moreover, the statements that give the Church authority such as you claim have no independent confirmation. We take it on faith that the record is true because we trust the integrity of the human authors. We do that, because we accept their story. We do that because we trust the integrity of the human authors. How is that not circular? The part of the scriptures which can be historically validated don’t prove inspiration.

And, of course, I most seriously dispute the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus’ meaning in which the Church claims it was given authority to speak infallibly on anything. But, since the Church says that Jesus gave it authority, I should accept that Jesus did, because, after all the Catholic Church has authority, given to it by Jesus, to lay claim to being able to speak infallibly in its teaching role on matters of faith. And that is attested to by none other than the infallible Church itself. And it would never arrive at an erroneous interpretation of scripture, because it is infallible based on Jesus’ giving it that authority power to teach on matters of faith. Nope, no circular argument there.

 

[Kirk_O]

And, of course, I most seriously dispute the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus’ meaning in which the Church claims it was given authority to speak infallibly on anything.

On anything? I have never heard the church claim this. Where have you read this?

 

[Lampo]

However, as I stipulate that point, I would also argue that if a teaching runs contrary to the revelation of God’s truth as found in the Bible,…

You are leaving out something essential here. You left out private interpretation of God’s truth found in the Bible. The problem with private interpretation of God’s revealed truth in the Bible is that a teaching that runs contrary to it for *one *person may not run contrary to Scripture for someone else.

 

[Lampo]

That’s easy. We all go with our favorite authority. For most of us, that is our own reason, for who believes anything contrary to their own understanding?

With this method, are we all being led by the Holy Spirit into the truth? With this method, everyone is their own pope.

Even those who claim to follow the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church do so only to the extent or in the manner that they themselves understand that teaching to be meant.

I totally disagree. You just described sola scriptura and Protestantism. A Catholic that knows their faith understands that interpretation of Scripture must be done in the light of the teaching authority of the Church even if it conflicts with their private interpretation and they are to yield to the pillar and bullwark of truth - the Church.

 

[Lampo]

And, of course, I most seriously dispute the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus’ meaning in which the Church claims it was given authority to speak infallibly on anything.

Do you believe the Catholic Church has *ever *spoken infallibly?

 

[Church_Militant]

And what do you understand my position to be?

If you do not share this belief, or are unable, or unwilling to discuss it and show me why you hold it then why are you posting on it?

I doubt any of us have much clue what you believe about this, so why don’t you tell us and show us where it can be found in the Word of God?

BTW, Please remain on the topic of proving that the Bible says that everything we believe and practice must be found in the Bible.

This thread is not about infallibility or anything else but seeking the scriptural texts that teach the belief in question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You began with an apriori assumption that there even is a God who might inspire a book.

Uh…no. I wrote:

"The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. "

I’ll revisit the rest of your post if need be after you adjust in light of the above.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh it is most definitely is circular reasoning. I just found it funny that your own post against it employed the very sort of reasoning you were rejecting.

Agreed, there is more teaching that is true than that which is found in the Bible. However, as I stipulate that point, I would also [SIGN]argue that if a teaching runs contrary to the revelation of God’s truth as found in the Bible, then regardless how well presented by logic or other arguments and regardless how well supported by history and the traditions of the church[/SIGN], and regardless how much affirmed in the non-canonical writings of the Church that it nonetheless should not be accepted as a true teaching of the Church whatever its origins.

Let us use reason, tradition, experience along with scripture, but never shall they trump scripture.

BUt that is the wonderful power that the RCC has. It is impossible for that to happen. Let me say this in simple terms. If it is revealed to the Pope and Bishops through the Power of the Holy Spirit it cannot contradict scripture. Oral teachings, Divine teachings, and written teachings all come from one source. God. ITs as simple as that!

I think the biggest problem in the world is this with faith. People think, God is done teaching us or something. They say on one hand yes, we believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit. ANd then its like they refuse to accept what he reveals to his church. I mean you must ask yourself this. Did Jesus or did he not promise to guide the Church until the end of time through the Power of the HS. You either believe him or not. If you do you accept the teachings the Pope and Bishops receive from the HS. I mean its so simple to me.

But Hey I am no teacher, (and I can’t be joe the plummer, so I have to be josie the plummer I guess)

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ll revisit the rest of your post if need be after you adjust in light of the above.

Thanks Randy!

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh it is most definitely is circular reasoning. I just found it funny that your own post against it employed the very sort of reasoning you were rejecting.

:yawn:

Agreed, there is more teaching that is true than that which is found in the Bible. ** However, as I stipulate that point, I would also argue that if a teaching runs contrary to the revelation of God’s truth as found in the Bible, then regardless how well presented by logic or other arguments and regardless how well supported by history and the traditions of the church, and regardless how much affirmed in the non-canonical writings of the Church that it nonetheless should not be accepted as a true teaching of the Church** whatever its origins.

Let us use reason, tradition, experience along with scripture, but never shall they trump scripture.

Which is precisely my point on this thread.

Since there is apparently no substantive scriptural basis for the teaching that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible, and since that in fact, contradicts what the Bible actually says, then “it nonetheless should not be accepted as a true teaching of the Church”.

You said it…I didn’t have to.

 

[rinnie]

Grace Seeker here is how I see it. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. On Pentecost he poured out the Power of the HS to his Apostles to to preserve it and guide it.

And because of that gift of the HS we can be assured its the truth.

The CC is the only church that has that authority to teach. If there was another church that received the Power of the HS at Pentecost, then … Then you got my attention.

The Church was who composed the bible. You either believe them or you don"t. And the way I see it is real simple. They either told us the truth and are led by the HS. OR the whole Bible is a lie and we are in real trouble because there is no faith. Because the same HS who led the CHurch to write the scriptures is the same HS still leading it today.

So the bottom line, is the HS still leading the Church like Jesus promised us it would. OR the HS never came. ITs really as simple as that. You believe it all or nothing at all.

You cannot be lukewarm. My Dad always say you are hot or cold. No lukewarm. You either believe in the HS from day one, and trust it to guide the CC until God comes back or you don’t!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

:yawn: Which is precisely my point on this thread.

Since there is apparently no substantive scriptural basis for the teaching that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible, and since that in fact, contradicts what the Bible actually says, then “it nonetheless should not be accepted as a true teaching of the Church”.

You said it…I didn’t have to.

Yeah. No big deal. Do you think that because I happen to be a protestant that I am therefore a follower of sola scriptura? Here’s some news for you if you did: sola scriptura is NOT the majority position of protestantism. You will find that most of us are much more like to be prima scriptura adherents.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker here is how I see it. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. On Pentecost he poured out the Power of the HS to his Apostles to to preserve it and guide it.

Check.

And because of that gift of the HS we can be assured its the truth.

Check.

The CC is the only church that has that authority to teach.

Whoa. Not checked!!!

If there was another church that received the Power of the HS at Pentecost, then … Then you got my attention.

You made a mighty big jump there from talking about the totality of the Church to talking exclusively about the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit is indeed present in every Christian, and where those Christians assemble in the name of Christ, there too is the Church (yes, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church) also present. The Catholic Church does not have exclusive claim to these terms. I’ve heard the arguments on plenty of other threads. If you haven’t heard mine before, I’m sure you’ve heard others that parrallel them. So, it would be a waste of time for either of us to reiterate them here again. We simply have different understandings of what Christ meant and who he was referring to when he said that he was going to establish his Church. And since we are both confident and comfortable in what we believe, and we both recognize each other’s position in Christ as secure through baptism and faith, then I suggest we just leave it at that.

Do you think that the Holy Spirit just speaks to the Church, or does he speak to individuals on a personal level as well?

When he speaks to the Church, is it through speaking to the whole of it, or speaking through one individual within it?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If you do not share this belief, or are unable, or unwilling to discuss it and show me why you hold it then why are you posting on it?

As I said in my first post, because I loved the irony of your logic. Since then it has been totally in response to question put to me. If you don’t want me to answer them, why do you put questions to me?

 

[loyalservant]

I’d like to post my 2 cents in this discussion.
I believe (Operative word - believe) that the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus and given complete authority by Him in His absence put the Bible together. It was the Catholic Church with inspiration from the Holy Spirit that decided which books and records would comprise the “Word of God” that could be counted on to be without error.

There were many other documents which didn’t make the cut. Probably because it would have made the Bible too heavy to carry and not because the writers were unbelievable. There were traditions which were started by the Apostles and the direct disciples who were given the authority of succession.

Therefore, it would stand to reason (using logic as my guide) that there are many traditions which are valid and authentic even though they may not be mentioned in the Bible. If something is from the Church Magistrate and is not in the Bible, but does NOT contradict the New Testament and the words of Jesus, then it would behoove one to let the Catholic Church be its guide. Christ initiated The Catholic Church as the true Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. I’d say the guy with the keys is the one to look to in order to get into the place that with the door!

Loyal Servant T.O.Carm.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Then does the discussion so far make you rethink your own position on this belief?

No, it hasn’t. It hasn’t even touched on my position.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

There were many other documents which didn’t make the cut. Probably because it would have made the Bible too heavy to carry and not because the writers were unbelievable.

Really? You think the weight of the Bible (which, btw, was not generally found as a bound book when the canon was declared) was the determining factor in what was and was not to be accepted as the standard of faith and practice of the Church?

I can see it now.

Frank: Hey, Ernest, do you think we ought to include the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement or John?

Ernest: I think we better just go with the letters of John, don’t want too thick of a book, you know.