Not the same God?

[kelman]

I believe that you are operating under the misapprehension that Catholics profess “belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

We do not.

Then you differ from your pope and from what Portrait has been defending in these many posts.

In fact, we go so far as to say that outside the Catholic Church you are not saved.

Yes, this was once your church’s teaching, however, it has since changed its position on this salvific issue.

 

[kelman]

Really? Can you tell me where Jesus said “It is better to give than to receive”? Book, chapter and verse where Jesus said this, please. We only know that he said this because it’s quoted in Acts 20:35–and the only way St. Paul knew this is from, well, sacred tradition.

No, actually Paul knew this from something called “Theopneustos” which has been declared only of Scripture.

Since that is the case, Scripture alone remains “sacred”.

Well, this is merely a question of semantics.

Nothing “semantical” about Scripture, and not tradition, being “sacred”.

Sacred Tradition, while also the word of God, is not considered to be theopneustos.

Of course, tradition isn’t God-breathed, therefore, it is not the word of God. In fact, we do not have one authoritative word from the Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles that are not found in the only thing God calls “Theopneustos” - the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps long before a 5th century canon, PR, those first century Christians could have been assisted by God thru His Holy Spirit to know.

'zactly, friend. Exactly.

That is a fine definition of Sacred Tradition.

So the only authority would have been God

'zactly. This is, of course, very Catholic of you to say.

and once they knew which writings were inspired Scripture, they became sola scriptura.

Fair enough. And do you have any evidence from, say the 6th century or the 10th century, or the 12th century that these early Christians were Sola Scriptura advocates?

And if they did “become” Sola Scriptura, they did this based on what? Tradition?

If so, was it a man-made tradition, or was it Sacred Tradition? Or was it based on Scripture?

If it was based on Scripture, could you please cite the verse that this paradigm is based on? That is, where does it say, “First you use Sacred Tradition, and the Holy Spirit will assist you in this, and then you must use only Scripture and dismiss the Holy Spirit’s assistance in guiding the Church as it did for 400+ years”?

I don’t think there’s a single verse in Scripture that says that.

Merry Christmas btw to you and your family.

Right back at 'cha, Matt. :hug1:

 

[PRmerger]

Then you differ from your pope and from what Portrait has been defending in these many posts.

Let’s be clear, kelman: you are saying that my pope and Portrait have said that “Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

Firstly, Portrait, is this an accurate presentation of your views? Are you saying that we are saved through someone or something OUTSIDE of Christ?

Secondly, can you please cite a reference to our pope saying that “Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

Yes, this was once your church’s teaching, however, it has since changed its position on this salvific issue.

Absolutely not.

Please see my blog on the Church’s unchangeable teaching on *Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus *here

 

[PRmerger]

No, actually Paul knew this from something called “Theopneustos” which has been declared only of Scripture.

Do you have the Scripture verse that says that Paul knew this from being God-breathed rather than being assisted by the Holy Spirit?

Book, chapter and verse, please. And if you can cite the original Greek, where it says “theopneustos” in reference to Paul knowing Jesus said those words. Thanks.

Of course, tradition isn’t God-breathed, therefore, it is not the word of God.

Book, chapter and verse, please that says “only God-breathed” things are to be considered the Word of God. Again, if you can cite the original Greek that uses the term "theopneustos" and “only” (Greek not required for this) and “Scripture”.

In fact, we do not have one authoritative word from the Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles that are not found in the only thing God calls “Theopneustos” - the Bible.

This is, again, begging the question, kelman.

First you have to offer some verses that say this.

Secondly, as far as having “authoritative word from the Lord Jesus Christ” that’s found only in the Bible, this is a curious paradigm. For it assumes the authority of someone else (here, read “the Catholic Church”) to tell you what Jesus said.

Since you were not there in 1st century Galilee to hear Jesus speak, you must rely on some other authority to tell you that Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me!” It is ONLY through the authority of the CC that you have the assurance that He said this.

BTW, I hope that you will address my refutations of this “Scripture is self-attesting” paradigm you’ve offered.

In addition to the posts above, I would like to offer you a challenge. I will give you a list of verses, and on your honor you will not google or look them up, you tell us whether you can just tell by its “self-attesting” quality whether it’s Scripture or not.

And it would be helpful if there were other non-Catholic Christians that you could gather to do this also, and see if they come up with the exact same answers as you do. For, if Scripture is truly “self-attesting”, every Christian ought to be able to look at a verse and say, “Yes, that’s Scripture because I just know it is, not because it’s found in the Bible” and “No, that’s not Scripture because I just know it isn’t, not because its not found in the Bible.”

 

[kelman]

Yes, I agree that the Gospel was first orally taught and then written down. That is certainly attested to in Scripture, however, we see apostolic letters circulating throughout the churches even while the Apostles still lived.

And yet they knew which books were inspired. The canon of both the NT and OT was enumerated by Athanasius in 367AD before any “infallible” councils and even a few years earlier by Eusebius in 340AD. Besides, it’s not as if the earliest Christians started with just a bunch of random books. They were a tight-knit community with known writers addressing an immediate audience so this accounts for the almost immediate acceptance of many books.

How is it that you know that the Odes of Solomon are not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is?

As I understand it, the Odes composition is believed to have originated in the 2nd or 3rd century so I’m not sure why you’d think anyone would even suggest the book might be inspired. We know that if a book is written by an Apostle then it automatically merits inclusion in the canon. And because Mark is a close associate of both Peter and Paul (Acts 13:5; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phle 24; 1 Pet 5:13), his book would almost automatically be included. You know it’s not as if these men were strangers to each other. They formed a network and were in a position to investigate each other’s work.

No, I wouldn’t agree to that. I believe the Scriptures are self-attesting and therefore the early Christians would have recognized the same.

I have heard this peculiar paradigm “I’ll know the Scriptures when I see it” espoused quite frequently by those who wish to deny the authority of the CC.

Perhaps you heard it before, however, I certainly never said anything comparable. Besides, I don’t know precisely what it is you’re trying to prove. Your church did not claim to infallibly define the canon of Scripture before Trent. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants had no trouble knowing their Bible for the fifteen hundred years prior to Trent. So, obviously there was no need for an infallible church to declare a canon.

It prompts this question:
-where do the Scriptures say that they are “self-attesting”? (2 Tim 3:16 only says that everything that’s in the Bible is inspired. It says NOTHING about us being able to “know Scriptures when we see it.”)

Again, I never said “Scriptures say”. I simply said they were. In any event, neither does it say anything about the RCC having the authority to determine Scripture. If Scripture is indeed the breathed-out word of the true and living God, then what greater, higher, more reliable authority can be appealed to than God Himself? Even the early church knew this:

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) ”For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself.” NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity Book I, §18.

Epiphanius (310/320-403) expressed his belief that * “œthe truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth;”* Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230.

Augustine (354-430) stated explicitly that * “…because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony."* NPNF1: Volume VII, Tractates on John 7,16

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215) ”It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves.” ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.

And when Calvin affirmed the self-attesting nature of Scripture, he is simply echoing the patristic consensus itself, which recognized and submitted to the witness of God in Holy Scripture.

Is there something in this verse that tells you whether it’s Scripture or not Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored; not (the path) of those who earn Your anger nor of those who go astray

I didn’t say that an isolated verse taken from its context was self-attesting – only that the books themselves are. Still, if a verse is found in an inspired book, that verse, therefore, must also be inspired.

I’m sure they would have studied these new books in the light of the OT. No doubt they did as the Bereans did.

Fair enough. And they were able to dismiss the Odes of Solomon based on what in the OT? And claim that the letter to Philemon is inspired based on what in the OT?

Obviously, the Odes were not written by Solomon so I guess that would be their first clue. As for Philemon, the fact that Paul immediately identifies himself as the author would be reason enough for 1st century Christians to receive this book as inspired Scripture.

 

[kelman]

The term they use is elder.

Yes, elders must attend seminary along with meeting other qualifications.

They, along with their church, recognized inspired books.

Could you explain how this happened?
Let’s say the bishop/elder of a church read this:
He said to them, “It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a large plant and becomes shelter for birds of the sky.”
What would tell them whether this was inspired or not?

No doubt because the verse is found in an inspired book of the Bible – Luke.

Not really, because these first century Christians were able to recognize the self-attesting nature of Scripture.

Again, how? What is “self-attesting” or “self-negating” about this verse:
Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD
IOW: How would reading this “attest” to being Scripture or not?

Again, because the verse is found in an inspired book of the Bible.

The unity of Scripture figures in the canonicity of Scripture, as an interconnected set of books - the self-witness of Scripture to the canon of Scripture. Therefore, I feel safe in saying that my sola Scriptura “credentials” are still very much in tact.

This is a corollary to the “I’ll know Scripture when I see it” paradigm.
This “I know Scripture because it’s inspired” and “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” paradigm is a nonsensical paradigm. You need to have a start to this circular argument.

Perhaps you think it “nonsensical” because you were confused about what I mean by self-attesting? In addition, I’m not at all sure why you read the following ideas into my remarks: * “I’ll know Scripture when I see it”; “I know Scripture because it’s inspired”, etc. * I found no suggestion of such a “paradigm” in my posts.

And that start is the Church.

Speaking of “circular arguments” - * “The Church is infallible, because the Scriptures testify that she is so, and the Scriptures testify this because the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning.”*

 

[kelman]

Then you differ from your pope and from what Portrait has been defending in these many posts.

I absolutely agree with you – let’s be clear. I never said that Portrait used the word “optional”. Nevertheless, that is the basic argument of inclusivism versus exclusivism. Those who have faith in Jesus Christ can be saved and those who do not have faith in Jesus can be saved, therefore, faith in Jesus Christ is optional. The inclusivist’s argument has proven to be a very subjective rationalization of the Gospel.

Firstly, Portrait, is this an accurate presentation of your views? Are you saying that we are saved through someone or something OUTSIDE of Christ?

The argument is NOT whether Jesus is the “cause” of salvation - only whether belief in Him is optional.

Secondly, can you please cite a reference to our pope saying that “Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

Just read Lumen Gentium where you will find that practicing Muslims and apparently any religionist can be saved if he does good works. And since they remain in their Islamic faith, they need not have faith in Jesus Christ, need not believe that He is God, may continue believing He is simply a prophet – a lesser one than Mohammed.

 

[kelman]

No, actually Paul knew this from something called “Theopneustos” which has been declared only of Scripture.

I would think it fairly obvious. Since the words are contained in Scripture, Scripture is inspired and Paul wrote these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not sure why you would even ask such a question.

Of course, tradition isn’t God-breathed, therefore, it is not the word of God.

Book, chapter and verse, please that says “only God-breathed” things are to be considered the Word of God. Again, if you can cite the original Greek that uses the term “theopneustos” and “only” (Greek not required for this) and “Scripture”.

We have assurance that only Scripture is inspired because God says this only about His written Word. Now, you may believe something else is, however, there can never be any assurance of this since God did not so declare.

In fact, we do not have one authoritative word from the Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles that are not found in the only thing God calls “Theopneustos” - the Bible.

This is, again, begging the question, kelman.

Not at all, it is simply a fact. If you assert otherwise then present these authoritative words of the Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles that are not found in Scripture.

For it assumes the authority of someone else (here, read “the Catholic Church”) to tell you what Jesus said.

Finally, success at finding an assertion which “begs the question”.

 

[PRmerger]

And yet they knew which books were inspired.

Exactly! :extrahappy:

This is what we’ve been trying to tell you, kelman! *Tradition. * They “knew” which books were inspired. How? Via the assistance of the Holy Spirit–and that’s Sacred Tradition!

The canon of both the NT and OT was enumerated by Athanasius in 367AD before any “infallible” councils and even a few years earlier by Eusebius in 340AD.

Okay. Can you cite your source, please?

And if this is true, was St. Athanasius going on his own gnostic knowledge, or do you believe he was assisted by the Holy Spirit in discerning this?

Besides, it’s not as if the earliest Christians started with just a bunch of random books. They were a tight-knit community with known writers addressing an immediate audience so this accounts for the almost immediate acceptance of many books.

Indeed.

So you are going by the teachings of the “earliest Christians”–that, again, is a testament to your belief in Sacred Tradition.

As I understand it, the Odes composition is believed to have originated in the 2nd or 3rd century so I’m not sure why you’d think anyone would even suggest the book might be inspired.

As the Bible was not compiled until the 4th century, why does that discount anything written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
**
Who decides what’s the latest date that a Christian text can be considered?**

We know that if a book is written by an Apostle then it automatically merits inclusion in the canon. And because Mark is a close associate of both Peter and Paul (Acts 13:5; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phle 24; 1 Pet 5:13), his book would almost automatically be included. You know it’s not as if these men were strangers to each other. They formed a network and were in a position to investigate each other’s work

Fair enough.

[SIGN1]And then, kelman, how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired? Who wrote it?[/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you heard it before, however, I certainly never said anything comparable.

Fair enough. Could you expound then on what you mean by the Scriptures are “self-attesting”?

 

[PRmerger]

Your church did not claim to infallibly define the canon of Scripture before Trent.

This is a different argument, kelman.

First we must affirm that you only know what’s Scripture because some other entity discerned this for you. Here, you can say “the early Christians” if you do not wish to say “the Catholic Church”.

At any rate, that makes you not Sola Scriptura.

From there we affirm that this entity (the early Christians or the CC) was infallible…unless you wish to disclose where this entity erred in discerning the canon. Did they err in including Philemon and excluding the Odes? If they didn’t err, then they were, by definition, infallible, yes?

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants had no trouble knowing their Bible for the fifteen hundred years prior to Trent.

Actually, as there was no Bible for 400 years, you ought to say “1100 years”.

So, obviously there was no need for an infallible church to declare a canon.

Again, if the emphasis is on “infallible”, we can talk about that.

But right now we’re commenting on the fact that you did indeed need someone else to declare a canon. Again, if you want to say “the early Christians”, that’s fine with me.

Whatever group you want to give credit to, it still makes you *not *Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, I never said “Scriptures say”. I simply said they were.

Not sure what this means.

In any event, neither does it say anything about the RCC having the authority to determine Scripture. If Scripture is indeed the breathed-out word of the true and living God, then what greater, higher, more reliable authority can be appealed to than God Himself?

Of course God is the authority. No Catholic here is arguing against that. It’s like saying “God made me!”. Of course. But your parents made you, too. Without their cooperation, you would not exist. And without the cooperation of the Church, the Bible would not exist.

And how was it that God let you know that Hebrews is inspired and that the Odes is not? He used people. Not Scripture to tell you this.

That’s all I’m saying at this point–that each and every time you quote Hebrews you are giving testament to the fact that you are NOT Sola Scriptura, but that you have submitted to another entity (the “early Christians”) to reveal to you something about God’s revelation.

Even the early church knew this:

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) ”For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself.” NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity Book I, §18.

Amen!

Epiphanius (310/320-403) expressed his belief that * “œthe truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth;”* Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230.

Yes!

Augustine (354-430) stated explicitly that * “…because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony."* NPNF1: Volume VII, Tractates on John 7,16

Absolutely!

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215) ”It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves.” ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.

Indeed!

And when Calvin affirmed the self-attesting nature of Scripture, he is simply echoing the patristic consensus itself, which recognized and submitted to the witness of God in Holy Scripture.

If by “self-attesting” you mean “the Scriptures are the inspired words of God” then, yes, Calvin is echoing the patristic consensus, for that is what all of the above quotes of the ECFs are proclaiming.

But, if by “self-attesting” you mean that we just know Scripture because it is Scripture, then, this is a nonsensical paradigm.

I didn’t say that an isolated verse taken from its context was self-attesting – only that the books themselves are.

Fair enough.

And how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired?

Obviously, the Odes were not written by Solomon so I guess that would be their first clue. As for Philemon, the fact that Paul immediately identifies himself as the author would be reason enough for 1st century Christians to receive this book as inspired Scripture.

Is it enough for an author to say that he’s writing Scripture to make it so?

What, then, of Mohammed? Does his claim to be inspired make the Koran inspired?

 

[CMatt25]

Whatever group you want to give credit to, it still makes you *not *Sola Scriptura.

PR, you continue to say this. But I’m not quite following your conclusion. One obviously could not have been NT sola scriptura until said Scripture became known. But once the early Christian inspired writings became known to those 1st century Christians, why could they not have been?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you continue to say this. But I’m not quite following your conclusion. One obviously could not have been NT sola scriptura until said Scripture became known. But once the early Christian inspired writings became known to those 1st century Christians, why could they not have been?

Can you provide any evidence that the 5th century Christians were Sola Scriptura? What about 10th century Christians?

At any rate, even if they were (and I don’t think they were, but if you can provide evidence, then we can discuss!), if kelman is submitting to the authority of these 'early Christians" then he is not Sola Scriptura, but is giving tacit acknowledgement that God’s revelation has been made known through something OTHER than Scripture. Namely, the testimony of these “early Christians” (read: Tradition.)

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that you are operating under the misapprehension that Catholics profess “belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

Then you differ from your pope and from what Portrait has been defending in these many posts.

kelman, could you please provide a quote from my pope that says that “belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional”?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s say the bishop/elder of a church read this:

He said to them, “It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a large plant and becomes shelter for birds of the sky.”

No doubt because the verse is found in an inspired book of the Bible – Luke.

Actually, it is taken verbatim from the Gospel of Thomas. (cut and pasted from that book).

So if an elder of the church read that book, the Gospel of Thomas, in the first century what would be non-self-attesting about it?

Incidentally, as that verse is also quoted in Luke, wouldn’t that be an example of this Protestant paradigm I also often hear, “Scripture must be confirmed by another verse” (or something like that)–and thus one would believe that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired because it is affirmed by the Gospel of Luke, which is* theopneustos?*

 

[PRmerger]

Again, because the verse is found in an inspired book of the Bible.

So here you are again affirming the nonsensical, “I know it’s inspired because it’s found in the Bible” and “I know it belongs in the Bible because it’s inspired.”

You must first have a starting point to determine whether something is inspired or not.

How does one know? What is self-attesting about Hebrews that makes it inspired?

Perhaps you think it “nonsensical” because you were confused about what I mean by self-attesting?

Yes, perhaps. Could you please explain in different words what you mean by “I believe the Scriptures are self-attesting and therefore the early Christians would have recognized the same.”

Speaking of “circular arguments” - * “The Church is infallible, because the Scriptures testify that she is so, and the Scriptures testify this because the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning.”*

Actually, it is a spiral argument, kelman. Not a circular one.

"We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument.

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source

 

[PRmerger]

Just read Lumen Gentium where you will find that practicing Muslims and apparently any religionist can be saved if he does good works. And since they remain in their Islamic faith, they need not have faith in Jesus Christ, need not believe that He is God, may continue believing He is simply a prophet – a lesser one than Mohammed.

Please cite the exact quote, so it can be read in context.

And a Muslim can be saved by his good works? LOL! I’d like to see that in Lumen Gentium!

 

[PRmerger]

I would think it fairly obvious. Since the words are contained in Scripture, Scripture is inspired

And who determined that these words are Scripture? And that other words are not?

It is only because you have submitted to an outside authority–that of the “early Christians”–that you know that these words ought to be contained in Scripture.

We have assurance that only Scripture is inspired because God says this only about His written Word.

Indeed. But you only have the Catholic Church’s assurance as to what constitutes Scripture.

You would not know that Hebrews is inspired, except that the CC told you so.