Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Abu]

SyCarl #355
One thing that seems clear to me though is that many of those who have been named saints and doctors of the church made statements that would not be consistent with what the Catholic teaches today. While some of the doctrines were not defined until a later date, the truth remains the truth. If it is necessary to believe something today it would seem to me that belief should always have been required.

To cure that supposition you should listen to Christ Himself:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

If you do not heed the clear words of Christ you are out of touch with Him.

The reality to focus on is that doctrine DEVELOPS.
The Catholic Church teaches that doctrine develops, and this means the understanding by the Church develops, without contradiction, as Pope John XXIII so clearly enunciated at Vatican II:
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics, Msgr E Kevane p 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.

Often a dogma or doctrine is infallibly defined after the need is identified through a dispute over what should be believed (faith – the Trinity) or how we should act (morals – contraception).

In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.” This was seen in John XXIII”s opening address of Vatican II, using the words of St Vincent of Lerins, and Vatican I – “with the same meaning and the same sense.”

In his book, Sources of Renewal Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St John Paul II) wrote: “Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment." (Ibid, p 39).

A major reason for divisions in the Church today is because someone decided it was necessary to define something that had not been defined before and condemn those who don’t agree with them. Men seem to think that they have the right to know everything and so define things they think we must know.

“Someone” and “men” illustrates the real problem – Christ established His Magisterium (teaching authority) which cannot be equated with mere “men” but with His command “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven”. (Mt 16:19).

 

[Topper17]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,

I certainly wasn’t trying to suggest that SS is a proper practice — that’s way outside my area of knowledge. Merely pointing out what I think is a flaw in an argument you were presenting as a logical progression. My point is simply that it is not possible to base an argument on the suggestion that Christ provided us with certainty when in fact uncertainty abounds. No doubt had he, being True God, wanted to make our knowledge certain he could have done so (the usual argument, I think, is that his concern not to counter free will is the reason he didn’t) .

OK, so ‘uncertainty abounds’, as you put it, and that is a fact because there are SO many competing and conflicting doctrinally independent communities. But what was it like BEFORE there were so many doctrinally conflicting communities? Uncertainty did NOT abound during the first 1000 years of Christianity and certainly did not abound during the first 1500 years of Western Christendom. That being said, it is very clear that the Church of that period actually DID maintain the Unity of belief that Christ commanded.

Clearly the fault for ‘uncertainty abounding’ is NOT to be found in the early Church or in the doctrines or practices of the Church. During that period there was ONLY ONE Church, and there were NOT competing communities serving the same geography. Scripture does not support these kinds of competing communities and the Church fought to keep them at bay.

Logic seems to dictate that it actually WAS the introduction of Sola Scriptura in the 16th century destroyed the unity of Western Chrisitianity.

It seems to me that Christ actually DID provide us with a means by which to know His Absolute Truth, with certainty, and that that means worked for at least a millennium. It also followed then that if we were to actually OBEY Christ in that command to Unity, we would ALL return to that means by which it was achieved for all those centuries.

With regard to that ‘certainty’: as mentioned earlier, if Christ, the Apostles, Scripture and the Fathers all urge us to Unity of belief, then it makes no sense that Christ didn’t provide us with the means to know, with certainty, what his Absolute Truth is. To suggest otherwise is to propose Christ calls us to unity but doesn’t care whether we believe correctly. In other words, that the most important thing is not WHAT we believe but that we are all united in a probably very false belief. That’s illogical. If Christ doesn’t care what we believe, there would be no reason for us to be unified in belief.

It appears from the evidence, that ‘means’ of achieving Unity of Belief worked extremely well, UNTIL the development of Sola Scriptura, not perfectly, but extremely well. The way that it has worked for those who have stayed with that ‘means’ (the Church), it has worked extremely well for 2000 years. ** For those in the Reformation communities, following their ‘means’ of obeying Christ’s command to Unity (SS), has resulted in failure. **

God Bless You Picky, Topper

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

OK, so ‘uncertainty abounds’, as you put it, and that is a fact because there are SO many competing and conflicting doctrinally independent communities. But what was it like BEFORE there were so many doctrinally conflicting communities? Uncertainty did NOT abound during the first 1000 years of Christianity and certainly did not abound during the first 1500 years of Western Christendom. That being said, it is very clear that the Church of that period actually DID maintain the Unity of belief that Christ commanded.

Clearly the fault for ‘uncertainty abounding’ is NOT to be found in the early Church or in the doctrines or practices of the Church. During that period there was ONLY ONE Church, and there were NOT competing communities serving the same geography. Scripture does not support these kinds of competing communities and the Church fought to keep them at bay.

Logic seems to dictate that it actually WAS the introduction of Sola Scriptura in the 16th century destroyed the unity of Western Chrisitianity.

It seems to me that Christ actually DID provide us with a means by which to know His Absolute Truth, with certainty, and that that means worked for at least a millennium. It also followed then that if we were to actually OBEY Christ in that command to Unity, we would ALL return to that means by which it was achieved for all those centuries.

With regard to that ‘certainty’: as mentioned earlier, if Christ, the Apostles, Scripture and the Fathers all urge us to Unity of belief, then it makes no sense that Christ didn’t provide us with the means to know, with certainty, what his Absolute Truth is. To suggest otherwise is to propose Christ calls us to unity but doesn’t care whether we believe correctly. In other words, that the most important thing is not WHAT we believe but that we are all united in a probably very false belief. That’s illogical. If Christ doesn’t care what we believe, there would be no reason for us to be unified in belief.

It appears from the evidence, that ‘means’ of achieving Unity of Belief worked extremely well, UNTIL the development of Sola Scriptura, not perfectly, but extremely well. The way that it has worked for those who have stayed with that ‘means’ (the Church), it has worked extremely well for 2000 years. ** For those in the Reformation communities, following their ‘means’ of obeying Christ’s command to Unity (SS), has resulted in failure. **

God Bless You Picky, Topper

Thank you, Topper

I’m not at all sure there was certainty within the Church for the first millennium - Arianism is third century, isn’t it, and Chalcedon fifth century. But in any case you are narrowing my point. If Christ wanted to provide certainty, would he not at least have provided certainty that he was the Son of God, a belief that has never been seen as certain by mankind. Does it not appear that he was willing to allow uncertainty?

 

[ffg]

Thank you, Topper

I’m not at all sure there was certainty within the Church for the first millennium - Arianism is third century, isn’t it, and Chalcedon fifth century. But in any case you are narrowing my point. If Christ wanted to provide certainty, would he not at least have provided certainty that he was the Son of God, a belief that has never been seen as certain by mankind. Does it not appear that he was willing to allow uncertainty?

Hi Picky,

You nailed the typical response above there.

If God planted certainty in our mind / hearts, that would not work with the logic of a ‘Loving God’. (love can’t force)

Nor would the word ‘believe’ have any meaning or purpose in relation to God.

Things that happen in our nature where God might reveal something, doesn’t mean we automatically act on it.

Some folks with Jesus saw miracles and walked away the next day because the next bit of information was too much to even wait around for an explanation.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky,

You nailed the typical response above there.

If God planted certainty in our mind / hearts, that would not work with the logic of a ‘Loving God’. (love can’t force)

Nor would the word ‘believe’ have any meaning or purpose in relation to God.

Things that happen in our nature where God might reveal something, doesn’t mean we automatically act on it.

Some folks in the Bible saw miracles and walked away the next day because the next bit of information was too much to even wait around for an explanation.

Take care,

Mike

Hi Mike

Is it at all possible that you and I have agreed on something? Surely not!

Mike, it is good to hear from you. I hope you are decently recovered from the pains you have suffered recently.

Take care yourself, man.

Picky

 

[ffg]

Hi Mike

Is it at all possible that you and I have agreed on something? Surely not!

Mike, it is good to hear from you. I hope you are decently recovered from the pains you have suffered recently.

Take care yourself, man.

Picky

Thanks Picky,

Crazy that we’re almost through a year.

It’s each one of these Holidays when the emotion really kicks in, those ‘last year at this time’ deals. (Though last year was almost all in hospitals)

The blessings keep coming though, we have another on the way, will make #20 for grandma.

Dad left a good legacy, that is a certainty.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Wannano]

Hi Picky,

You nailed the typical response above there.

If God planted certainty in our mind / hearts, that would not work with the logic of a ‘Loving God’. (love can’t force)

Nor would the word ‘believe’ have any meaning or purpose in relation to God.

Things that happen in our nature where God might reveal something, doesn’t mean we automatically act on it.

Some folks with Jesus saw miracles and walked away the next day because the next bit of information was too much to even wait around for an explanation.

Take care,

Mike

I had to think a bit on this concept because I would like to think that if I had been one of the twelve I would have been certain. Then I think of what is recorded…Peter empowered by the Holy Spirit answered Jesus’ query as to who he was by announcing he was the Messiah, no doubt with certainty. Then Peter lies, swears and denies Christ. No doubt the disciples were anything but certain right after Jesus’ death. Thomas uncertain until he touched the wounds.

After His ascension I am sure they were certain of who Jesus really was but seems like they were uncertain about when He would return. Seems like they may have lived in the expectancy of Him returning right away.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

Clearly the fault for ‘uncertainty abounding’ is NOT to be found in the early Church or in the doctrines or practices of the Church. During that period there was ONLY ONE Church, and there were NOT competing communities serving the same geography. Scripture does not support these kinds of competing communities and the Church fought to keep them at bay.

I am having trouble following you in the above paragraph. If there were no competing communities in the early church, who was the Church h fighting to keep at bay?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

A question arises as to how much truth we are required to know. For example, was Jesus left handed, right handed or ambidextrous? He surely must have been one of these but is it really necessary to know which? This is an extreme example but my reading of the early church is that it had a lot of latitude as to what could believed.

I agree that that is an extreme example. But so much else that we cannot agree on is not unimportant. As an example, the number and definition of the Sacraments. It is the issues of Faith that we are supposed to be united on. When you look at the WHOLE of the Fathers, you will find that they disagree with each other VERY LITTLE on the issues of faith and morals.

I think too many people read the early church fathers with the purpose of proof texting some point they want to make and I can probably be accused of doing this above.

Yes, I agree that you can.

What I find is that in some places the early church fathers wrote things that would be consistent with Protestantism and other places they are consistent with Catholicism. The Catholic view may well predominate but the statements consistent with Protestant teaching were not condemned at the time. This was a later development.

I very much appreciate that you admit that the Catholic view predominates. So many people do exactly what you say – they go to some supposedly ‘fair’ but in reality biased website which just “happens” to assemble and publish ALL of the quotes which COULD be viewed as supporting Protestant views, and which ‘somehow’ fail to list the ten times that number of quotes which very clearly do not. I fault those websites for fostering an extremely biased and unrepresentative selection of the available writings from that particular Father or on that particular subject.

One thing that seems clear to me though is that many of those who have been named saints and doctors of the church made statements that would not be consistent with what the Catholic teaches today. While some of the doctrines were not defined until a later date, the truth remains the truth. If it is necessary to believe something today it would seem to me that belief should always have been required. God does not change and to me that includes what He requires us to believe. It does not make sense to say you didn’t have to believe statement “A” yesterday but you do have to believe it today. If something must be believed now then it must always have been necessary to believe it. It could said that the church failed those who didn’t believe something that must now be believed by not telling them that.

First of all, what is important about the Fathers is their overwhelming consensus. Pick a subject, any subject and they are very much in agreement, not perfect agreement mind you, but very much in agreement. They are not infallible but are a record of what the Church of their day taught and believed. As you mentioned, there were some doctrinal issues that were not defined early on, but through the actions of various Councils, were settled at a later date. Once those things are settled, they are well…….settled. Once they have been proclaimed by a Council, they become dogma, and so, what might be an acceptable degree of freedom of opinion, would not be after an issue had been dogmatically proclaimed.

A major reason for divisions in the Church today is because someone decided it was necessary to define something that had not been defined before and condemn those who don’t agree with them. Men seem to think that they have the right to know everything and so define things they think we must know.

OK, so then what would the alternative be? Should the Church allow all of those who disagree to maintain their individual opinions and STILL remain uncorrected? For example, lets say that a certain element within the Church decides that the Holy Eucharist is NOT the True Body and Blood but is just some sort of symbolic sacramental. The Professors who believe this begin to teach Catholic Seminary Students.

Should anyone have the ‘right’ to teach anything that they believe to be true about the Eucharist? If that were to be true, then the Church would be guilty of deliberate disobedience to Christ’s call to Unity of belief. Furthermore, if the Church were to take that kind of a ‘non-judgemental’ attitude, within a couple of generations, we would have the kind of doctrinal dissension and confusion that you find in Protestantism.

On the point of sola scripura and tradition, how do you decide when your opponent also claims to have oral tradition handed down by the Apostles? Irenaeus wrote:

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

Sorry Sy, but I don’t understand your point in relation to the Irenaeus quote.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

 

[ffg]

I had to think a bit on this concept because I would like to think that if I had been one of the twelve I would have been certain. Then I think of what is recorded…Peter empowered by the Holy Spirit answered Jesus’ query as to who he was by announcing he was the Messiah, no doubt with certainty. Then Peter lies, swears and denies Christ. No doubt the disciples were anything but certain right after Jesus’ death. Thomas uncertain until he touched the wounds.

After His ascension I am sure they were certain of who Jesus really was but seems like they were uncertain about when He would return. Seems like they may have lived in the expectancy of Him returning right away.

I expected this confusion. Gives a chance to be more clear.

What we’re rejecting in the earlier posts is God creating or implanting people with a ‘certainty’ characteristic (lack of a better term). This can’t happen in light of how love works, assuming God loves.

Much different than you or I or an Apostle being certain.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ab,

Great post by you!

To cure that supposition you should listen to Christ Himself:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

If you do not heed the clear words of Christ you are out of touch with Him.

The reality to focus on is that doctrine DEVELOPS.
The Catholic Church teaches that doctrine develops, and this means the understanding by the Church develops, without contradiction, as Pope John XXIII so clearly enunciated at Vatican II:
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics

, Msgr E Kevane p 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.

Often a dogma or doctrine is infallibly defined after the need is identified through a dispute over what should be believed (faith – the Trinity) or how we should act (morals – contraception).

In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.” This was seen in John XXIII”s opening address of Vatican II, using the words of St Vincent of Lerins, and Vatican I – “with the same meaning and the same sense.”

In his book, Sources of Renewal Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St John Paul II) wrote: “Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment." (Ibid, p 39).

“Someone” and “men” illustrates the real problem – Christ established His Magisterium (teaching authority) which cannot be equated with mere “men” but with His command “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven”. (Mt 16:19).

I think you made your point very effectively.

Without a unified earthly Magisterium, there is absolutely NO possibility of Christian Unity.

God Bless You Ab, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

Thank you, Topper

I’m not at all sure there was certainty within the Church for the first millennium - Arianism is third century, isn’t it, and Chalcedon fifth century. But in any case you are narrowing my point. If Christ wanted to provide certainty, would he not at least have provided certainty that he was the Son of God, a belief that has never been seen as certain by mankind. Does it not appear that he was willing to allow uncertainty?

The fact is that the Church has always dealt with doctrinal challenges and doctrinal confusion. There has been doctrinal disagreement in the early Church, and in every century and on a wide variety of issues. However, I think that that disagreement actually proves my point. Even with that dissension, the Church now, after almost 2000 years, still holds more than half of all of Christianity. The Catholic Church and the Catholic Church ALONE (Sola Catholico) has the means by which to solve those kinds of problems, come out on the other side, and often stronger. We are structured the way that Christ intended and as a result, we have a way to settle disputes. No one else can do this. If the Church had NOT had this mechanism to maintain unity, Christianity would NOT have survived more than a few hundred years.

Remember that Arianism was extremely widespread, until the point when it was declared a heresy. It still exists today.

God allows man free will and allows disobedience to both Himself and also to His Church. When you look at the history of Arianism, once declared a heresy, it was battled by ALL of the Church that had remained orthodox, which in fact was not a majority prior to the Council determination of heresy. I think that the example of Arianism makes my point. It was declared a heresy and once that action was taken, the Church worked to eradicate it. For the most part, that effort has been extremely successful.

In the 16th century Protestantism was declared by the Church to be a heresy, and to this day, the Church maintains that position, with the goal that all should be united in Belief with the Church that Christ founded for us ALL. It was through another Council that the Church worked to ASSURE Christendom and to provide the certainty that is necessary if there is to be Unity of belief.

Most Councils have been called in order to deal with the uncertainty that is brought about by doctrinal dissension. At some point when that dissension comes to damage Christian unity, then a Council is called where the Holy Spirit is called to lead the Council and preclude it from teaching error.

I have noticed that Protestants are MUCH more inclined than are Catholics to believe that Christ didn’t care whether we knew, with certainty, what He actually taught. That is only natural given the doctrinal confusion that has resulted from SS. For a Protestant to believe otherwise would require taking a very critical at Sola Scriptura and considering the fact that they might be wrong. Catholics on the other hand tend to be much more inclined to believe that Christ cared enough and had the ‘capacity’ to actually provide us with the means by which we could know His Truth.

God Bless You Picky, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13775817]

The fact is that the Church has always dealt with doctrinal challenges and doctrinal confusion. There has been doctrinal disagreement in the early Church, and in every century and on a wide variety of issues. However, I think that that disagreement actually proves my point. Even with that dissension, the Church now, after almost 2000 years, still holds more than half of all of Christianity. **The Catholic Church and the Catholic Church ALONE (Sola Catholico) has the means by which to solve those kinds of problems, come out on the other side, and often stronger. **

Here’s praying you are right, but the great schism of the one True Church has lasted a thousand years now.

I have noticed that Protestants are MUCH more inclined than are Catholics to believe that Christ didn’t care whether we knew, with certainty, what He actually taught. That is only natural given the doctrinal confusion that has resulted from SS. For a Protestant to believe otherwise would require taking a very critical at Sola Scriptura and considering the fact that they might be wrong.

This confusion thing has always confused me. It is like saying Catholics are confused by the competing contradicting views of other communions that use both Scripture and Tradition. I’ve never had the impression that neither Catholics nor Orthodox Christians are confused by the existence of the others. Why is it, Topper, that you and others here believe that a Baptist, for example, is confused because of the existence of, say, Methodists? Living where I live, surrounded by them, neither Baptists nor Methodists seem confused by the existence of the others.

Catholics on the other hand tend to be much more inclined to believe that Christ cared enough and had the ‘capacity’ to actually provide us with the means by which we could know His Truth.

Would you say that is true of the average Catholic in the pew?
Further, I would suggest that many protestants are convinced that the Bible is precisely the tool Christ left to provide us with the means to know His truth. Now, whether or not they are right is not the question, because your statement implies that you know what they are inclined to believe.

Jon

 

[Abu]

Thank you for the compliments, Topper.

Keep up the good work.
God Bless
Abu

 

[benjohnson]

Without a unified earthly Magisterium, there is absolutely NO possibility of Christian Unity.

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

The fact is that the Church has always dealt with doctrinal challenges and doctrinal confusion. There has been doctrinal disagreement in the early Church, and in every century and on a wide variety of issues. However, I think that that disagreement actually proves my point. Even with that dissension, the Church now, after almost 2000 years, still holds more than half of all of Christianity. The Catholic Church and the Catholic Church ALONE (Sola Catholico) has the means by which to solve those kinds of problems, come out on the other side, and often stronger. We are structured the way that Christ intended and as a result, we have a way to settle disputes. No one else can do this. If the Church had NOT had this mechanism to maintain unity, Christianity would NOT have survived more than a few hundred years.

Remember that Arianism was extremely widespread, until the point when it was declared a heresy. It still exists today.

God allows man free will and allows disobedience to both Himself and also to His Church. When you look at the history of Arianism, once declared a heresy, it was battled by ALL of the Church that had remained orthodox, which in fact was not a majority prior to the Council determination of heresy. I think that the example of Arianism makes my point. It was declared a heresy and once that action was taken, the Church worked to eradicate it. For the most part, that effort has been extremely successful.

In the 16th century Protestantism was declared by the Church to be a heresy, and to this day, the Church maintains that position, with the goal that all should be united in Belief with the Church that Christ founded for us ALL. It was through another Council that the Church worked to ASSURE Christendom and to provide the certainty that is necessary if there is to be Unity of belief.

Most Councils have been called in order to deal with the uncertainty that is brought about by doctrinal dissension. At some point when that dissension comes to damage Christian unity, then a Council is called where the Holy Spirit is called to lead the Council and preclude it from teaching error.

I have noticed that Protestants are MUCH more inclined than are Catholics to believe that Christ didn’t care whether we knew, with certainty, what He actually taught. That is only natural given the doctrinal confusion that has resulted from SS. For a Protestant to believe otherwise would require taking a very critical at Sola Scriptura and considering the fact that they might be wrong. Catholics on the other hand tend to be much more inclined to believe that Christ cared enough and had the ‘capacity’ to actually provide us with the means by which we could know His Truth.

God Bless You Picky, Topper

Thank you, Topper.

My two cents worth was just to question your building of a logical sequence on the assumption that Christ wanted to provide certainty. Since you seem to have evacuated that ground I’ll shut up!

As to your argument here — that your Church has lasted a long time and has lots of members — it’s unchallengeable.

 

[Abu]

Picky Picky #358
If Christ wanted to provide certainty, would he not at least have provided certainty that he was the Son of God, a belief that has never been seen as certain by mankind. Does it not appear that he was willing to allow uncertainty?

“Mankind” is a fallen race, through disobeying God through Adam and Eve, precisely because of free-will.

Having been redeemed by God the Son, mankind was given Christ’s own Catholic Church about which you have been given the facts:
“The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

There is no uncertainty in Christ’s establishment of His own Catholic Church with the fullness of Truth.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post.

Here’s praying you are right, but the great schism of the one True Church has lasted a thousand years now.

I think that there must be some sort of misunderstanding here. I said:

The fact is that the Church has always dealt with doctrinal challenges and doctrinal confusion. There has been doctrinal disagreement in the early Church, and in every century and on a wide variety of issues. However, I think that that disagreement actually proves my point. Even with that dissension, the Church now, after almost 2000 years, still holds more than half of all of Christianity. The Catholic Church and the Catholic Church ALONE (Sola Catholico) has the means by which to solve those kinds of problems, come out on the other side, and often stronger. We are structured the way that Christ intended and as a result, we have a way to settle disputes. No one else can do this. If the Church had NOT had this mechanism to maintain unity, Christianity would NOT have survived more than a few hundred years.

As you know, when I use the term ‘Church’ or the term ‘Catholic Church’, I am referring to the Roman Catholic Church. There are NO Reformation Sola Scriptura ecclesiastical communities that are part of the “Church”. As such, I am a little confused as to why you would be praying that I am right.

My point is that NO Sola Scriptura community has an inherent ability, or structure, that allows them to deal with the problem of doctrinal dissension. Rather just the opposite – Sola Scriptura by its very nature makes doctrinal dissension a certainty. Granted there are Reformation era Sola Scriptura communities in which the community determines doctrine, but those only took that position AFTER they had split from the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that there are more than one of these types of communities which disagree with each other doctrinally is all the proof needed.

Christ guaranteed that his Church would never fail and sent the Holy Spirit to insure that. If the Holy Spirit is going to preclude the possibility of false teaching on faith or morals, then ONLY ONE Church can be protected. The Holy Spirit does NOT preclude ALL ecclesiastical communities from teaching error (obviously). So then, which particular one would it make sense that the Holy Spirit protects?

As for the Schism, which seems to be a common theme here, the EO are in Schism. Their doctrines are almost identical to that of the Church. They have the same number of sacraments and the same understanding of Salvation. They are NOT Sola Scriptura. The now 1000 year old Schism does NOT justify in any way shape or form, a 500 year old heresy that has spawned an uncountable number of doctrinally independent communities. Even given the Schism, the Reformation communities were a HUGE doctrinal dislocation from either the Catholics or the Orthodox. Both consider them to be a heresy.

This confusion thing has always confused me. It is like saying Catholics are confused by the competing contradicting views of other communions that use both Scripture and Tradition. I’ve never had the impression that neither Catholics nor Orthodox Christians are confused by the existence of the others. Why is it, Topper, that you and others here believe that a Baptist, for example, is confused because of the existence of, say, Methodists? Living where I live, surrounded by them, neither Baptists nor Methodists seem confused by the existence of the others.

We Catholics are not confused. Protestantism overall is extremely confused in its doctrines. Of course there are individual Reformation communions which are VERY certain that they have the correct doctrines, but then the fact that they disagree with others who have the same certainty indicates that none of them should have any certainty at all. After all, all SS groups use the exact same justification for the ‘fact’ that THEY are the ones who are ‘right’. “Our teachings are Scriptural’. One of them, at best, could be right, and none of them can have any assurance that it is actually THEM. Just because a certain community BELIEVES that they have certainty that they are the ones who ‘get it right’ doesn’t mean that they actually do.

Further, I would suggest that many protestants are convinced that the Bible is precisely the tool Christ left to provide us with the means to know His truth. Now, whether or not they are right is not the question, because your statement implies that you know what they are inclined to believe.

Then I am happy that you provided me with the opportunity to clarify. The point is that, at least in my opinion, given the wide variety of doctrines which have come out of Sola Scriptura communities, Protestants are not justified in believing that “the Bible is precisely the tool Christ left to provide us with the means to know His truth”, as you put it. In all honesty, the Scriptures were NOT written so as to provide us with a proper understanding of doctrinal matters. It COULD have provided that function, but obviously it was not written that way.

They inspired writers could have easily written another couple of books detailing the EXACT definition of the dozens of doctrinal issues that separate us. As an example, the Christ Approved Truth about the Holy Eucharist could have been written into a Chapter of a 28th NT book. But it wasn’t. It wasn’t because Christ had already provided us with a way in which we can know, for certain, his Truth on the matter of the Eucharist. He established His Church on Earth and provided for it to be led into all Truth on issues of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. THAT is a system that COULD work(and actually does). Sola Scriptura DOES NOT work and simply cannot.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Picky,

Thanks for your response.

Thank you, Topper.

My two cents worth was just to question your building of a logical sequence on the assumption that Christ wanted to provide certainty. Since you seem to have evacuated that ground I’ll shut up!������

As to your argument here — that your Church has lasted a long time and has lots of members — it’s unchallengeable.

I think if you read through my posts again, you will realize that I have not evacuated anything but have provided additional reasons as to why I believe that Christ provided us with a way to know His Truth with certainty.

God Bless You Picky, Topper

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Sy,

I agree that that is an extreme example. But so much else that we cannot agree on is not unimportant. As an example, the number and definition of the Sacraments. It is the issues of Faith that we are supposed to be united on. When you look at the WHOLE of the Fathers, you will find that they disagree with each other VERY LITTLE on the issues of faith and morals.

I very much appreciate that you admit that the Catholic view predominates. So many people do exactly what you say – they go to some supposedly ‘fair’ but in reality biased website which just “happens” to assemble and publish ALL of the quotes which COULD be viewed as supporting Protestant views, and which ‘somehow’ fail to list the ten times that number of quotes which very clearly do not. I fault those websites for fostering an extremely biased and unrepresentative selection of the available writings from that particular Father or on that particular subject.

First of all, what is important about the Fathers is their overwhelming consensus. Pick a subject, any subject and they are very much in agreement, not perfect agreement mind you, but very much in agreement. They are not infallible but are a record of what the Church of their day taught and believed. As you mentioned, there were some doctrinal issues that were not defined early on, but through the actions of various Councils, were settled at a later date. Once those things are settled, they are well…….settled. Once they have been proclaimed by a Council, they become dogma, and so, what might be an acceptable degree of freedom of opinion, would not be after an issue had been dogmatically proclaimed.

OK, so then what would the alternative be? Should the Church allow all of those who disagree to maintain their individual opinions and STILL remain uncorrected? For example, lets say that a certain element within the Church decides that the Holy Eucharist is NOT the True Body and Blood but is just some sort of symbolic sacramental. The Professors who believe this begin to teach Catholic Seminary Students.

From my reading, most of what the church fathers wrote deals with matters over which that neither Catholic or Protestant would disagree with. However my point is that most Protestant beliefs can find support in the writings of the early church. These writings do not appear to have been criticized or condemned by others in the early church. So a church father could state that everything we need to know is clearly set out in Scripture. Note, not everything that can be known, but all we need to know. I believe that a Protestant would find acceptance in the early church where mention could be made of justification by faith alone with works flowing from that faith. The fact that this belief would later be condemned does not change the fact that it was once acceptable. I think that some Catholic positions, such as the legitimacy of withholding the cup from the laity in the Eucharist, would be abhorrent to most in the early church.

Many of the reformers were well acquainted with the church fathers and did not view themselves as proposing something new. Calvin, for instance, cited the fathers more than a thousand times in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Most of the ideas brought out by the reformers were not condemned until the Council of Trent.

The primary doctrinal statement of required beliefs in the early church appears to be the Apostle’s Creed, sometimes referred to simply as the Creed or the Rule of Faith. Later additions to what must believed do not change this. As may be obvious, I am no fan of the development of doctrine. It is not necessary for us to believe anything more than the early church did. Jude wrote of the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. Nowhere is it suggested that it would take more than thousand years for this to happen
.
Either the early Christians knew everything they had to believe or they didn’t. God does not change and so His requirements don’t change either. That men later decided that it was necessary to believe more things or not believe some things does not change that. If a first century Christian did not have to believe something, why is it necessary for us to believe it. If Augustine could say that belief in purgatory was optional, why must we believe in it today? If Chrysostom could cite an example of Mary sinning and can still be a saint and doctor of the church, why do we have to believe that she was sinless? If Gregory the Great could say that 1 Maccabees was not canonical, why must we believe it is? The examples could go on.

Unity of belief is important but the extent of the details required for that unity is also important. You give the number of sacraments and their nature as examples of disunity. Is not doing what Jesus commanded what is important? Does it matter whether one person calls something a sacrament and someone else calls it an ordinance? Is it necessary to know exactly what happens in a sacrament if we do the thing because Jesus said to and believe that whatever He intends as a result occurs? There is a reason that those in the early church referred to these things as the Mysteries. My church recognizes two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However it still celebrates marriages, ordains its ministers, confirms it communicants, confesses sins corporately and as individuals silently during services and attends to the sick and dying. Does it really matter that we don’t call these things sacraments?

The early fathers did not always agree. Cyprian would not accept Pope Stephen’s position on baptism by heretics and called a number of North African councils to support his position. What do you think would have happened if this dispute had taken place in the 16th century? Would Cyprian have been treated any different from Luther?