Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[ofthesons]

1 of 2 - Sorry, i didn’t have time to edit out a bunch of stuff so…

Is this how you define Sola Scriptura? I have heard many different people define Sola Scriptura in many different ways. It seems to be at the whim of the one defining it, much like Scripture for many that hold to Sola Scriptura!

Really? Let me see if I can explain what’s going on. I’m not a relativist who assumes one definition or another one that contradicts it, depending on who I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with nor am I equivocating. And in this particular instance, I certainly haven’t given you anything that the Reformed Sola Scripturist would be at odds with, unless of course he happen to be a novice. But I realize that I’m talking with an individual who holds to particular beliefs, and so all I seek to do is word my understanding of Sola Scriptura in such a way that I am actually engaging with you.

The Church simply is.

Now, this looks like exactly the kind of thing you need to be blasphemous. No, God simply is. Exo 3:14, John 8:58

If we did not have Scriptures written down the Church would still BE!

I’ll go ahead and trek with you on this…

Yes, the Church would still be because Scripture would still be -(in unwritten form as it was prior to when it was written; Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!!!). I suppose whether it would have a different name can be discussed/debated, but I think that’d be a secondary issue.

If Christ appointed **a Church **to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

No. I’m sorry, sir, but this line of reasoning is fallacious (unless, of course, I’m missing something). And then I hear from you that my doctrine of Sola Scriptura untenable!? This notion that the Church is infallible is just a fabrication. The Church has the power -authority, if you will- to state infallible things under the guidance of the Holy Spirit -something that is known on account of Scripture, which was already written at Carthage and Hippo and Trent anyway. What follows from this is not that the Church itself is infallible. You’re just making an unjustified philosophical leap.

This is merely a possibility, but since I am not God and do not posses God’s middle knowledge. One could posit that, If there were no N.T scriptures today, Christ would still be proclaimed and made present through The Church since, that was the reality of the situation in 1st century Christianity

Just curious. When you say “made present”, you mean in the Eucharist?

Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He chose is a visible social order. Christ intentionally chose a visible social order, rather than a text to mediate His infallible authority to the world. Ergo the Social Order He conferred is an infallible one, and has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof.

He chose Scripture, known by the Church prior to the writing of it, without which the Church couldn’t mediate anything. Scripture was known by Abraham and Pharaoh (again, Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!) prior to when it was written.

Yes, my objective reasoning for believing the Scriptures, is believing God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, and Christ established a Social order, one with a continuity tracing all the way back to Christ Himself.

I know you believe all this. Now, what is it based on? What it comes down to is that it “simply is” and I’m just supposed to mindlessly, arbitrarily believe it?

If you are trying to prove Sola Scriptura by Referencing a few passages of Scripture in regards to Predestination,OK, I posit the Church

No, I’m not talking about predestination.

You’re a making a claim, which states that Sola Scriptura is some altogether new concept , which Protestants came up with after the establishing (perhaps, the better word is ‘canonizing’) of other assumptions, affirmations, and doctrines that contradict it. You allude to the writings of the Church fathers (and perhaps there is also an allusion to theologians who have arisen after them) as if they couldn’t have possibly contradicted themselves or simply contradicted Scripture (Truth) on a fundamental level (Note, if you contradict Scripture, then you actually do contradict yourself anyway since you essentially say you believe Truth, which is what Scripture is per John 17:17, while at the same time believing or affirming what is untrue). And of course, it’s no wonder that this is what you would do since you are the one who holds that the Church is infallible.

But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written! Again, consider Rom 9:17: Scripture makes an affirmation to Pharaoh himself! When 1400 BC? Was he empirically reading Scripture? Again, consider Gal 3:8: Abraham was preached the Gospel! Neither Abraham nor Pharaoh had to consult with the Church. The Church didn’t have to include what was declared to them in the canon. It was canonical by its very nature. Scripture “simply is” (your wording) and there was no way anyone could objectively refute it.

cont…

 

[ofthesons]

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace. So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority.This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

My reasoning for belief in Christ is not circular, as I stated above my objective reasoning for believing the Scriptures are not the Scriptures, I believe God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, and Christ established a Social order, one with a continuity tracing all the way back to Christ Himself. Scripture is a proof that bears witness of the Social Order Christ established (the Church), and Church is the medium in which Christ has revealed Himself to man!

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Mine just happens to be coherent, and defendable!

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

I have provided you with a logical and consistent view, I invite you to do the same

No, you haven’t.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

Well, you would have to believe that God has indeed revealed Himself to Men, for starters!

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!

 

[CopticChristian]

1 of 2 - Sorry, i didn’t have time to edit out a bunch of stuff so…

Really? Let me see if I can explain what’s going on. I’m not a relativist who assumes one definition or another one that contradicts it, depending on who I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with nor am I equivocating. And in this particular instance, I certainly haven’t given you anything that the Reformed Sola Scripturist would be at odds with, unless of course he happen to be a novice. But I realize that I’m talking with an individual who holds to particular beliefs, and so all I seek to do is word my understanding of Sola Scriptura in such a way that I am actually engaging with you.

**

The Church simply is.

The Church simply is…no God simply is.

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. Christ is the head of the Church and the body is the Church. Christ is God. Christ simply is. The Church simply is?

 

[CopticChristian]

1 of 2 - Sorry, i didn’t have time to edit out a bunch of stuff so…

Really? Let me see if I can explain what’s going on. I’m not a relativist who assumes one definition or another one that contradicts it, depending on who I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with nor am I equivocating. And in this particular instance, I certainly haven’t given you anything that the Reformed Sola Scripturist would be at odds with, unless of course he happen to be a novice. But I realize that I’m talking with an individual who holds to particular beliefs, and so all I seek to do is word my understanding of Sola Scriptura in such a way that I am actually engaging with you.

Now, this looks like exactly the kind of thing you need to be blasphemous. No, God simply is. Exo 3:14, John 8:58

I’ll go ahead and trek with you on this…

Yes, the Church would still be because Scripture would still be -(in unwritten form as it was prior to when it was written; Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!!!). I suppose whether it would have a different name can be discussed/debated, but I think that’d be a secondary issue.

If Christ appointed a Church to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

The Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known to the rulers and authorities angels and principalities. Then according to you God speaks fallibly through the Church. To speak infallibly through the Church must mean that the Church through which God speaks has the same character as the speaker because it was through the Church that God spoke and gave you a Bible.

 

[CopticChristian]

1 of 2 - Sorry, i didn’t have time to edit out a bunch of stuff so…

Really? Let me see if I can explain what’s going on. I’m not a relativist who assumes one definition or another one that contradicts it, depending on who I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with nor am I equivocating. And in this particular instance, I certainly haven’t given you anything that the Reformed Sola Scripturist would be at odds with, unless of course he happen to be a novice. But I realize that I’m talking with an individual who holds to particular beliefs, and so all I seek to do is word my understanding of Sola Scriptura in such a way that I am actually engaging with you.

Now, this looks like exactly the kind of thing you need to be blasphemous. No, God simply is. Exo 3:14, John 8:58

I’ll go ahead and trek with you on this…

Yes, the Church would still be because Scripture would still be -(in unwritten form as it was prior to when it was written; Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!!!). I suppose whether it would have a different name can be discussed/debated, but I think that’d be a secondary issue.

No. I’m sorry, sir, but this line of reasoning is fallacious (unless, of course, I’m missing something). And then I hear from you that my doctrine of Sola Scriptura untenable!? This notion that the Church is infallible is just a fabrication. The Church has the power -authority, if you will- to state infallible things under the guidance of the Holy Spirit -something that is known on account of Scripture, which was already written at Carthage and Hippo and Trent anyway. What follows from this is not that the Church itself is infallible. You’re just making an unjustified philosophical leap.

Just curious. When you say “made present”, you mean in the Eucharist?

He chose Scripture, known by the Church prior to the writing of it, without which the Church couldn’t mediate anything. Scripture was known by Abraham and Pharaoh (again, Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!) prior to when it was written.

I know you believe all this. Now, what is it based on? What it comes down to is that it “simply is” and I’m just supposed to mindlessly, arbitrarily believe it?

No, I’m not talking about predestination.

You’re a making a claim, which states that Sola Scriptura is some altogether new concept , which Protestants came up with after the establishing (perhaps, the better word is ‘canonizing’) of other assumptions, affirmations, and doctrines that contradict it. You allude to the writings of the Church fathers (and perhaps there is also an allusion to theologians who have arisen after them) as if they couldn’t have possibly contradicted themselves or simply contradicted Scripture (Truth) on a fundamental level (Note, if you contradict Scripture, then you actually do contradict yourself anyway since you essentially say you believe Truth, which is what Scripture is per John 17:17, while at the same time believing or affirming what is untrue). And of course, it’s no wonder that this is what you would do since you are the one who holds that the Church is infallible.

But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said,** even when Scripture was not yet written!** Again, consider Rom 9:17: Scripture makes an affirmation to Pharaoh himself! When 1400 BC? Was he empirically reading Scripture? Again, consider Gal 3:8: Abraham was preached the Gospel! Neither Abraham nor Pharaoh had to consult with the Church. The Church didn’t have to include what was declared to them in the canon. It was canonical by its very nature. Scripture “simply is” (your wording) and there was no way anyone could objectively refute it.

cont…

I would like to know how you believe that Scripture is Scripture when it has not been written?

 

[CopticChristian]

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace. So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority.This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

No, you haven’t.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!

**
Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly.**

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. Christ is the head of the Church and the body is the Church. Christ is God. Christ simply is something that can function soundly and not function soundly negating that the Body of Christ is the Church because the Body of Christ functions soundly or it is not Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace.** So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. **I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority.This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

No, you haven’t.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!

Well it probably is because when I read the Bible I read that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Truth is good. Lying is evil. Good Rabbi…why do you call me good? God alone is good. God tells the truth. The Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known to rulers and principalities. If the Church is the pillar and the manifold wisdom of God is know through the Church and there is truth to be had where do you find anything comparable to compare to what the Bible teaches about the Church to engage your distorted notions about a Bible that did not exist when these sentences were written?:hypno:

 

[CopticChristian]

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace. So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority.This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

No, you haven’t.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!

Stop reasoning. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is truth because through the Church the manifold wisdom of God is known and what is known as the Bible has been decared to be true by the pillar and foundation of truth through which God gives His manifold wisdom in Scripture and other teachings through the Church.:

 

[CopticChristian]

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace. So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority.This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

No, you haven’t.

**You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. **You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!

Grasping your view would be inconsistent with maintaing the ability to speak cogently and have restful sleep.

 

[ofthesons]

I would like to know how you believe that Scripture is Scripture when it has not been written?

I would like to know how you can avoid believing that without twisting or downright ignoring Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8.

 

[ofthesons]

Grasping your view would be inconsistent with maintaing the ability to speak cogently and have restful sleep.

Then by your own admission, you’re not qualified to contend against it.

 

[ofthesons]

Stop reasoning.

Um, no. But you can go ahead and stop reasoning if you insist that’s the path to take. Go for it!

 

[ofthesons]

Then according to you God speaks fallibly through the Church.

No, God speaks infalliblly the Church. As I’ve stated, it does not necessarily follow from this that the Church is infallible. You’re making an unjustified leap.

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, but she is not the truth.

To speak infallibly through the Church must mean that the Church through which God speaks has the same character as the speaker because it was through the Church that God spoke and gave you a Bible.

What is the standard by which you make this claim and how do you know this standard is true and that it justifies your claim?

 

[CopticChristian]

I would like to know how you can avoid believing that without twisting or downright ignoring Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8.

Of,

You cite two verses. I did not ignore them. Explain to me your understanding of Romans 9:17 and Gal 3:8.

 

[CopticChristian]

Then by your own admission, you’re not qualified to contend against it.

J,

There was once a show called Marcus Wellby, M.D. In a scene Marcus was discussing something with a disgruntled man. Marcus stepped back, looked him in the eye and said…“I am not going to trade insults with you…because that would be like me dueling with a one armed man”

By my own admission my qualifications are satisfactory and I choose not to contend with your view. I do not find myself satisfied when it takes someone paragraphs to explain a simple thing in particular when those paragraphs display inconsistencies in logical thinking and do not equate to rational thought.

 

[CopticChristian]

Um, no. But you can go ahead and stop reasoning if you insist that’s the path to take. Go for it!

Of,

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

Scripture constitutes a premise. According to who is that premise stated and what is that premise? You unfortunately write incoherently, beg the question, lack the ability to express your thoughts and write run on sentences.

You make a statement of belief not of fact. You then use this belief to argue that someone concludes the Scripture is true, whatever that means and then equate it to what you believe Catholics believe. This is all based on your presumption.

The Bible is a book. You express what I see in many unlearned Protestants that the first order of business is to prove that the Bible is true. The reason for this is that you have no teaching Church and must lean on some authority for evangelization and this is your starting point. In my opinion it is a weak position for evangelization. The Bible is True. My response to that would be, where did this book come from and how do I know what you call a Bible is Scripture and inspired as you say?

“Now in my understanding” is the key to your thought process. What you understand and what you believe is not universal. You then go on to say what I call “think speak”…presupposing Scripture wouldn’t make one’s reasoning circular…this is a proposition. I would have to say what in the world are you talking about? You will see for yourself that you are a victim of your own reason. You state depending on how you define Scripture…Huh? Presupposing then depending is a long way from any reasoned argument. Realize that when you speak and when you write when you use the word “but” and “however” it negates everything you just said…so to go on to say “But”…the problem is…this is where you unkowingly tell me that everything you just said is a bunch of nothing and your real issue is that you have a problem with the Catholic Church declaring the cannon of Scripture. I understand you have a problem with this. This is your real issue and you do not see how you laid it out for me to see.

I cannot spend time with someone with such disordered thoughts. Your dictum to go for it is part of your belief that you are better able to see what I don’t see and for that I have no time. I suggest you ask a question and get an answer. This is Catholic Answers where you will find some pretty bright folks that know much more than I do. I am just a guy who goes to Church, reads the Bible now and again and a student of thought. I like my thoughts to be conveyed in an intelligent manner and expect the same from others.

Try it you will like it.

I suppose you have had great success in speaking to others with this sort of mind set without challenge. You may want to consider that since this isn’t going over so well and you are being challenged that your prior audience is different and less easily led by your brilliance than this audience.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, God speaks infalliblly the Church. As I’ve stated, it does not necessarily follow from this that the Church is infallible. You’re making an unjustified leap.

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, but she is not the truth.

What is the standard by which you make this claim and how do you know this standard is true and that it justifies your claim?

Of,

You make claims to be able to reason and the reality is that the filters of your beliefs prevent you from reasoning rightlly. You make no sense here.

In many and various ways God has spoken through his prophets. When God spoke through his prophets then God spoke infallibly and since it was through those prophets the prophets spoke infallibly since they spoke and not God, yet it was the Wisdom of God that we received…

In these last days he has spoken through his Son…The Son, Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ, The bride of Christ, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God might be made known “through” the Church. In the Greek the word through means the following…reason that.

dia: through, on account of, because of
Original Word: διά
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: dia
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ah’)
Short Definition: through, on account of
Definition: (a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.

The Church is infallible just like the Prophets when the manifold wisdom of God is known about issues like Abortion, Contraception, Homosexuality, Sacraments and more. Infallible when it comes to issues of Faith and Morals.

The Church is pillar and ground of truth…???

Paul says the Church of God…not any Church…the Church of God is what? The living pillar and foundation of truth. It is alive.

stulos: a pillar
Original Word: στῦλος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: stulos
Phonetic Spelling: (stoo’-los)
Short Definition: a pillar
Definition: a pillar, support, column.

hedraióma: a support, fig. a basis
Original Word: ἑδραίωμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: hedraióma
Phonetic Spelling: (hed-rah’-yo-mah)
Short Definition: a foundation, stay, support
Definition: a foundation, stay, support.

The Truth Paul says does not stand alone it is supported by the support and columns of the Church…

So you argue with Paul who says “the Church of God”, the house of God…

interlinearbible.org/1_timothy/3-15.htm
1577 [e]
ekklēsia ἐκκλησία [the] churchN-NFS 2316 [e]

theou θεοῦ of GodN-GMS
2198 [e] zōntos ζῶντος ,[the] living

So by your reasoning The House of God, The Church of God is not true and therefore God resides in a lie or someplace not true?

 

[onemangang]

1 of 2 - Sorry, i didn’t have time to edit out a bunch of stuff so…
Really? Let me see if I can explain what’s going on. I’m not a relativist who assumes one definition or another one that contradicts it, depending on who I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with nor am I equivocating. And in this particular instance, I certainly haven’t given you anything that the Reformed Sola Scripturist would be at odds with, unless of course he happen to be a novice. But I realize that I’m talking with an individual who holds to particular beliefs, and so all I seek to do is word my understanding of Sola Scriptura in such a way that I am actually engaging with you.

OK, fair enough.

I understand what you mean when you say

I regard Scripture as the ultimate authority on the revelation of Christ, and that which the Church possessed, “grounded”, and conveyed.

I just don’t accept it!

I do not separate scripture from The Church, or Sacred Tradition. I believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ comes to man through the the deposit of faith handed down in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, two forms, one teaching!

Now, this looks like exactly the kind of thing you need to be blasphemous. No, God simply is. Exo 3:14, John 8:58

God, simply is, and He has revealed Himself to man, through the person of Jesus Christ. The Church is an active participant in the unfolding of divine wisdom, the Logos, that has condescended, manifested in flesh and dwelt among us. So yes, God simply is Actus Purus, but the Church, His Bride is an inseparable reality, that operates through Him, With Him, In Him, therefore She simply is, although Her existence is contingent on His being.

I’ll go ahead and trek with you on this…

Yes, the Church would still be because Scripture would still be -(in unwritten form as it was prior to when it was written; Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!!!). I suppose whether it would have a different name can be discussed/debated, but I think that’d be a secondary issue.

No need for a separate name. I don’t follow what you are trying to say I guess.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing, that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: In thee shall all nations be blessed.

So Paul recognized Exodus as Scripture and Genesis as well? OK I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here

No. I’m sorry, sir, but this line of reasoning is fallacious (unless, of course, I’m missing something). And then I hear from you that my doctrine of Sola Scriptura untenable!? This notion that the Church is infallible is just a fabrication. The Church has the power -authority, if you will- to state infallible things under the guidance of the Holy Spirit -something that is known on account of Scripture, which was already written at Carthage and Hippo and Trent anyway. What follows from this is not that the Church itself is infallible. You’re just making an unjustified philosophical leap.

Not at all. I just don’t remove the Sacred Scriptures from Sacred Tradition. They are two forms, of one deposit of faith!

You presuppose the Scriptures are God’s infallible Words. So Do I, how you get to that point is what my contention is.

God has revealed Himself to man! We both Presuppose that, How is where we disagree I take it.

This is How I see it " Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He** infallibly **chose is an infallible, visible social order. Christ intentionally and infallibly chose an infallible visible social order, to mediate His infallible authority to the world. Ergo the Social Order He conferred is an infallible one, and has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof."

Do you posit anything different?

Just curious. When you say “made present”, you mean in the Eucharist?

Yes, but not exclusively!

He chose Scripture, known by the Church prior to the writing of it, without which the Church couldn’t mediate anything. Scripture was known by Abraham and Pharaoh (again, Rom 9:17, Gal 3:8!) prior to when it was written.

I don’t get what you are saying. Scripture was known as Scripture before it was written, OK, by whom? How was it delivered?

Natural Theology is that a word used in the “Reformed Sola Scripturist” vocabulary?

I guess I would posit that the Logos was known, but not in HIS fullness by Abraham though

I know you believe all this. Now, what is it based on? What it comes down to is that it “simply is” and I’m just supposed to mindlessly, arbitrarily believe it?

It’s based on the Deposit of Faith?

Simply Is I think I clarified above!

Do you believe the Scriptures Mindlessly?

No, I’m not talking about predestination.

You’re a making a claim, which states that Sola Scriptura is some altogether new concept , which Protestants came up with after the establishing (perhaps, the better word is ‘canonizing’) of other assumptions, affirmations, and doctrines that contradict it.

Yes, infact I am, If it removes Sacred Tradition from the deposit of faith, then it is merely a meme, that has risen out of the so called “Reformation”

You allude to the writings of the Church fathers (and perhaps there is also an allusion to theologians who have arisen after them) as if they couldn’t have possibly contradicted themselves or simply contradicted Scripture (Truth) on a fundamental level

I didn’t quote any of the Church Fathers

 

[onemangang]

1 of 2

(Note, if you contradict Scripture, then you actually do contradict yourself anyway since you essentially say you believe Truth, which is what Scripture is per John 17:17, while at the same time believing or affirming what is untrue). And of course, it’s no wonder that this is what you would do since you are the one who holds that the Church is infallible.

Yes, I get your attempt to convey the “reformed” presuppositional apologetics position, the only problem is that, when removing Sacred Tradition from Sacred Scripture, you end up missing the mark! The problem with your presuppositional apologetics approach, is that you have to fallibly interpret the infallible text, and mediate to the world, what that text means infallibly. You, nor I posses that authority, but the Pillar and Bulwork of Truth, the Church does!

But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written!

No, God is the ultimate Authority and, He is not limited to Scripture. The Scriptures Speak of the Logos, the Christ, they don’t equal Christ.

Again, consider Rom 9:17: Scripture makes an affirmation to Pharaoh himself! When 1400 BC? Was he empirically reading Scripture? Again, consider Gal 3:8: Abraham was preached the Gospel! Neither Abraham nor Pharaoh had to consult with the Church. The Church didn’t have to include what was declared to them in the canon. It was canonical by its very nature. Scripture “simply is” (your wording) and there was no way anyone could objectively refute it.

cont…

I wouldn’t try to objectively refute Scripture, I probably won’t accept your interpretation of it!

Why don’t you spell out what you THINK Romans 9:17 and Galatians 3:8 is saying!

2 of 2

Scripture is the Church’s authority and only to that extent, the Church will function soundly. This is why I can respect, learn from, or -dare I say- look up to the Church Fathers just as I do those Protestants that have contributed to the education of the Church. I give them grace as I know that they aren’t infallible and I honor them for the work they have been able to perform according to God’s sovereign grace.

I agree with this statement!

So it just perplexes me when a Sola Scripturist gets the kinds of reactions they do from Roman Catholics when they come along and say the Church is not the ultimate authority and that she isn’t infallible. I mean, we are actually accused of rejecting the Church or of rejecting the notion that the Church can possess authority…

God is the ultimate authority, and has given us an infallible guide to be an active participant in His Authority, the Pope and Magesterium, with an infallible book that is profitable for correction, instruction and rebuking!

This is similar to the kind of reaction we get from those Christians who are called Dispensationalists or Christian Zionists. I don’t know if you are familiar with these camps, but just as the Roman Catholics hold the Church with inordinate esteem, these group of Christians hold the nation of Israel or the Jews with inordinate esteem. When Someone like myself who doesn’t teach Dispensationalism or advocate Christian Zionism comes along and says, even if only implicitly, that we should preach the Gospel to the Jews instead of spending all our energy and resources trying to get them into Palestine, I’m called an Anti-Semite. Really!?

Yeah, Christian Zionist are :hypno: I met a few that pray for Nuclear War

Scripture constitutes a premise by which you conclude that Scripture is true (or as Catholic’s have seemed to prefer to articulate it, “inspired”). Now in my understanding, presupposing Scripture wouldn’t necessarily make one’s reasoning circular (depending on how you define ‘circular’), particularly when he trusts that the Church would affirm Scripture to be true. But the problem is that in addition to this, Roman Catholicism says Scripture is true because Roman Catholicism says it’s true (or “inspired”). You’re position is circular, alright.

I don’t accept your premise. I do infact believe Scripture to be true, but to say because Scripture says its God breathed is circular. I understand where you are attempting to go with this, and would ask that you look a bit deeper into Presuppositional Apologetics. You are not conveying that argument so well!

Like I said before God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, So yes, I have to presuppose God. How is knowledge of God conceived in our finite minds? I posit that the fullness of God’s revelation to man subsist in the Church, and I do not remove Scripture from the Church! There are many approaches that we can take that will point us toward God, but many in deductive reasoning will only paint a mosaic, and be incomplete, including Scripture. I posit God is much bigger than what has been revealed to our small minds! We all look through a glass darkly, but one day we shall know, as we are known.

Nope. Your epistemology is made up of what Colossians 2:8 warns against and not on Scripture since you are not a Sola Scripturist.

I think you are mistaken and should look more deeply into presuppositional apologetics, if you are to convey that message clearly!

 

[onemangang]

2 of 2

No, you haven’t.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture. You’re in no position to call mine inconsistent. It seems the best offense to my view as exerted by everyone from Calvinists who still hold to a largely Roman Catholic epistemology to Atheists, is to misunderstand it and address me as if I hold to beliefs I don’t hold -some of which is actually merely yours (Examples of beliefs that I reject include the notion that Scripture is a mere physical book and the notion that the supposed fact that the Church didn’t historically teach Sola Scriptura or that the Church Fathers contradicted themselves isn’t the kind of thing that has possibly happened, being that I believe the Church isn’t infallible).

I don’t grasp your view because you don’t convey it logically and consistent! Your attempt to use (what it sounds like to me anyways ) presuppositional Apologetics, is falling woefully short. You are no Greg Bahnsen, sorry!

You still have not adequately pointed out where I have been logically inconsistent

Maybe you could get a few witnesses to bring me to the?

Yep, and on account of Scripture, I believe this.

P.S. I appreciate your patience and impatience!