Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[David]

since scripture does not specify any other such authority for today,

1 Jesus gave his authority to the Apostles;
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

2 The Apostles held the office of bishop;
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office (bishopric in the King James) let another take.’

3 The Catholic Church can trace their God given authority all the way back to the Apostles.

4 Rejecting the Apostles then, and the successors of their offices today, is rejecting Jesus and the Father.

Peace
David

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When did the Apostles decide they should have only one to lead them all? (Other than Jesus).

BTW - Your statement appears to be circular as well.

1. Rejecting the Apostles is rejecting Jesus and the Father
2. The Catholic Church claims to trace their God given authority (No one else has it in the entire planet according to this statement) from the Apostles.
3. The Apostles were Bishops (Not Popes!)
4. Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles.

One question David;

In your opinion, Is Israel still God’s chosen people?

In Him.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would like to add a link that touches on the construct of Sola Scriptura and the concept of God’s presence among us…which we as Catholics ardently affirm, in the sacraments, in the tabernacle…our concept of God most interested in our welfare and all that we are dealing with in modern living…

Check out the link I found on Catholic View of “Mormanism” here on Non-Catholic forum…it originally was addressing Mormon belief that St. John the Evangelist roamed the earth for over a hundred years although we have no documentation of his ongoing life in consideration of his great significance as an apostle of the Gospels.

Post 296…it is a long read but then goes into Protestant concept of God…and this individual’s search for truth led him into the Catholic Church…Called to Communion…

 

[Joshua_Shorter]

There is not a single Protestant who truly believes in Sola Scriptura. Not one.

Whether you rely on the Church, early church fathers, magesterium, the Holy Father, Tradition, etc. as Catholics do or you rely on your own personal experiences and your understanding of a Biblical passage as Protestants do, that is still extra-Biblical and therefore not Sola Scriptura.

Everyone relies on some outside information to determine their beliefs. It could be how your dad taught you, the school you went to or that Christian author you just read. All of those things are outside the Bible.

 

[Safia]

This is an interesting argument. I would note that we’d need to clarify who wrote the Scripture and how. I think your statement is insufficient as we all believe it to be God’s words transmitted through man. I think to say the Church wrote Scripture is giving too much credit to man. I’m sure you know that and mean that. I’m just saying when making your argument if you state it like that you are introducing a way to refute an assertion in your argument.

I think this reflection is irrelevant. We believe the apostles were divinely inspired, and they, historically, constituted the Church until the Reformation. That’s honestly not debatable. It’s historical fact.

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. (Source.)

I do think that one can and must say the Church was inspired to declare what is Scripture. In doing so the Church must have had some gift from God. I do think that if one accepts the Church had God’s guidance to determine what is the Bible then it is likely to have God’s guidance in other things. And in fact we have Christ’s words to that effect. The question then is what is the church? For many Protestants the church is not the hierarchical institution of Rome or even of the Orthodox churches. The problem of church authority must be settled to strengthen this point.

A few things. Your question is a matter of perception. Of course Rome isn’t “the Church” for Protestants. But let’s talk about the canon.

I think what you’re trying to get at is the retort that “God determined” the canon while the Church “merely discovered” the canon, but that, unfortunately, does not make its case, and no Catholic ought deny this; God is the sole author of the Bible, and it was under the Holy Spirit’s guidance that the canon was created.

“No Bible-believing Protestant has difficulty accepting the idea of God guiding fallible human authors to write infallible Scripture. But when it comes to the idea of God extending His infallible guidance to the decisions of post-apostolic bishops in deciding the final canon of Scripture, they suddenly smell Catholicism and balk.” They adopt a fall-back position, of questioning the Catholic Church’s infallible authority. “But the move is disingenous for it is immediately followed by various caveats implying that, for all practical purposes, they do believe in an infallible canon after all; and what they denied to the Church under the heading of “infallibility,” they quickly restore under the heading of “providence.””

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

Remember, that “to accept the stamp of divine authority in the effect (the Bible) and reject it in the causes that led to its formation (not only the primary cause, God, but the secondary causes – including not only the human writers but the human bishops who finally agreed, long after the death of the last apostle, on which books belonged in the canon), is to hold the fallacious view that an effect can be greater than its cause. At the very least it requires admission that God temporarily allowed his human instruments (including early bishops and popes) to participate in the infallible proces by which he guaranteed the creation and canonization of Scripture. If Scripture itself participates in divine infallibility, so did they.”

I’m going to talk briefly of James White here, and the three arguments he makes regarding the Catholic claim of an infallible Church.

White’s Arguments

1. “…the Roman claim of infallibility is illusory because “you have to make a fallible decision to buy into the plan, and any certainty offered thereafter rests solely on the first – fallible – choice that was made.” This links the Church’s infallibility to our fallible choices, trading on the lack of subjective certainty that often attaches to the latter.”
2. “Once Rome speaks, the fallible person must still interpret the supposed infallible interpretation,” so “the element of error remains.” This move is a variation of the first, but deals specifically with interpretation.
3. “…defenders of the Roman Catholic Papacy cannot merely demonstrate that the Roman position is probably true, or that it is likely to be true, but must demonstrate that it is true beyond question” – clearly an impossible demand.

So what do we say?

RE: 1. "One could reply that a person’s decision to follow Christ is also a decision of a fallible human being. Does this mean one should feel uncertain about following Christ? Certitude is a relative thing, as Newman observes: “I may be certain two and two makes four, even though I often make mistakes in long addition sums . . . I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible, unless I am infallible myself.” The fact that I am fallible does not mean that the object of my belief (God, the Bible, or the Church) cannot be infallible; or even that I cannot have a well-grounded certitude in the object of my belief.

RE: 2. “…the fallibility of the evangelical’s interpretation of Scripture does not undermine his confidence in the Bible’s infallibility. Demonstrating the infallibility of the Church may be no easier than demonstrating that of the Bible, but neither the difficulty of demonstrating one nor the other necessarily undermines the certitude of infallibility … The infallibility of the Church’s interpretations does not depend on a comparable infallibility in her members, or even on their certitude of her infallibility.”

RE: 3. “…what leads him to draw this conclusion? Presumably the premise that “Rome claims absolute authority” or “infallible teaching authority.” But this is not only fallacious but conspicuously misleading. It simply does not follow that defenders of Rome must provide indubitable, apodictic proof of their position just because Rome claims infallible authority. One could reply by pointing out that there is nobody whose claims are more absolute than God’s. Does this mean that Christian evangelists and missionaries must be able to offer philosophical demonstrations that prove the existence of God “beyond question” before they should be taken seriously? Of course not. The logic simply does not follow.”

I remind you, also, of the undeniable historical fact, that the Church is responsible for the canon foundation, as Protestants have chosen to apply it. But the Protestant Bible removes the so-called Apocrypha, which creates problems.

The OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT “Bible” of the early Church.

In the 4th century, some Church fathers, especially those who debated with the Jews, like Jerome, favored the shorter Hebrew Canon. Some Church fathers like Ambrose and Augustine favored the larger canon of the Septuagint. Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522]. Jerome while favoring the shorter canon, several times in his writings cited Books from the larger canon as Scripture. [S&W, p. OT 434] The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon. [S&W, pp. OT 434-435; JBC, p. 517]

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

Now the Catholic Church is not alone in accepting the Books which Protestants label as “Apocrypha.” The Coptic, Greek and Russian Orthodox churches also recognize these Books as inspired by God. In 1950 an edition of the OT containing all these Books was officially approved by the Holy Synod of the Greek church. Also the Russian Orthodox church in 1956 published a Russian Bible in Moscow which contained these Books. [JBC, p. 524] More details from a scholarly Protestant viewpoint can be found in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford, 1977).

Some Christians attempt to discredit these Books by pointing out apparent historical errors contained in them. [A&W, p. 33] It is common knowledge among scholars that Tobit and Judith contain obvious historical inaccuracies; however, these Books are recognized as didactic parables, like Jonah. It is also common knowledge among scholars that Daniel suffers from similar glaring historical inaccuracies, e.g. Daniel 1:1. [S&W, p. OT 419] Some scholars have suggested that both Daniel and Judith may actually be a disguised historical account of Antiochus Epiphanes [S&W, p. OT 462].

Other Christians may point to the immoral deceit of Judith in Judith 9:10-13 in an attempt to discredit this Book. [A&W, p. 33] Unfortunately the OT contains other less than edifying practices, for example: the deceit of Jacob in Genesis 27, incest in Genesis 19:32 and inhumanity in Psalm 137:9. Also in Hosea 1:2, God commands the prophet Hosea to marry a woman who would commit adultery. These OT events simply show the need for Jesus Christ. Finally we cannot use human reason alone to judge the Word of God.

In conclusion the Catholic Church did not add to the OT. The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books. The main problem is that the Bible does not define itself. No where in the Sacred Writings are the divinely inspired Books listed completely. (The Table of Contents is the publishing editor’s words, like the footnotes.) The Bible needs a visible, external authority guided by the Holy Spirit to define both the OT and NT Canons. This authority is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine writes, “I would not have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Church moved me.” [Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 15th ed., 129:8] (Source.)

Either the Church is right about all or none. There you see the historical and Scriptural evidence for the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books – the same history which applies to the Church’s establishment of the entire OT + NT canon.

 

[Radical]

1 Jesus gave his authority to the Apostles;
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

that was the 72…not the 12 or the apostles. In any event, you won’t find the express statement that you need and so it will become this circle:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that passage X means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Further, even if you found an express scriptural statement, how would the CC’s identification of that statement as part of scripture not fall inot that same self-serving fallacy?

2 The Apostles held the office of bishop;

not really…

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office (bishopric in the King James) let another take.’

that is just a bad translation.

3 The Catholic Church can trace their God given authority all the way back to the Apostles.

so first, the CC assumes the accuracy of its preferred historical record and then it assumes that the authority is transmitted by succession of an office and then it claims that it holds that authority today? …and that isn’t circular?

4 Rejecting the Apostles then, and the successors of their offices today, is rejecting Jesus and the Father.

such is the claim of those who want to hold themselves as the successors and who require obedience…can you really not see how that is circular and self-serving? You need to either admit that it can’t be proven and is a matter of faith, or you need to come up with something (establishing that the CC’s magisterium is a divinely inspired authority free from error) that doesn’t rely on an interpretation from the CC itself.

 

[Safia]

…and that isn’t circular?

"Sometimes the claim is made that the Catholic Church uses circular reasoning in appealing to Scripture to support her authority while also claiming the final say in how to interpret Scripture. But there is no circularity here, first, because she does not claim sola scriptura; and, second, because if she has the authority she claims, the case is no different logically from that of the NT writers appealing to the OT for support while claiming divine warrant for their NT interpretations.

"Others mistakenly claim the Church’s position is circular because it boils down to saying: “we must believe Rome because Rome says so.” The concern here for avoiding self-serving abuses by those in authority is legitimate, but misplaced. The Catholic is not asked to submit to the Church because the Church says so, arbitrarily, but because God demands this in His public revelation and because Christ has appointed the Church and her lawfully ordained leaders, with many checks and balances, as administrations of His commission. The Church is subject to the Word of God (including the message of the Bible), even while she is guardian and master (as Magisterium) of the Bible’s text and interpretation. Her authority is not an “enabling” one but a “restraining” one, which prevents any reigning Pope from arbitrarily inventing heretical new doctrines…

“Still others mistakenly claim that Catholicism is circular because it bases our conviction on the Bible’s inspiration on the Church’s infallibility, and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. But it does not. While it may appeal to the Church’s infallible teaching in support of the conviction that Scripture is inspired, it does not have to argue for the Church’s infallibility from the Bible alone. It can argue this from other sources of early Church tradition as well. Hence there is no logical circularity.”

Cheers.

 

[Joshua_Shorter]

that was the 72…not the 12 or the apostles. In any event, you won’t find the express statement that you need and so it will become this circle:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that passage X means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Further, even if you found an express scriptural statement, how would the CC’s identification of that statement as part of scripture not fall inot that same self-serving fallacy?

not really…
that is just a bad translation.

so first, the CC assumes the accuracy of its preferred historical record and then it assumes that the authority is transmitted by succession of an office and then it claims that it holds that authority today? …and that isn’t circular?

such is the claim of those who want to hold themselves as the successors and who require obedience…can you really not see how that is circular and self-serving? You need to either admit that it can’t be proven and is a matter of faith, or you need to come up with something (establishing that the CC’s magisterium is a divinely inspired authority free from error) that doesn’t rely on an interpretation from the CC itself.

I would like to know how you 1) form your Biblical beliefs and 2) handle Paul telling the Thessalonians to distances themselves from “every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

 

[Safia]

I should note, also, that “the argument that the Bible is divinely inspired can gain cogency only by enlarging its circle to include also the attestation of the Church and data of sacred and secular history. By contrast, “The Bible means what the Church says it means” is not circular in this way, since the Church’s interpretation is not closed off from history, but empirically testable for fidelity and coherence both against Scripture and the other traditions of the Church.”

 

[Radical]

"Sometimes the claim is made that the Catholic Church uses circular reasoning in appealing to Scripture to support her authority while also claiming the final say in how to interpret Scripture. But there is no circularity here, first, because she does not claim sola scriptura;…

actually there would be no circularity if the CC utilized a different route, but the practice of appealing to one’s own interpretation of scripture to establish one’s authority to infallibly interpret scripture is patently circular…again, give me something that doesn’t rest on an interpretation from the CC. Just b/c the CC doesn’t advocate SS doesn’t mean a circle isn’t involved…it is just an expanded circle that relies on the CC’s interpretation of something in addition to scripture to establish its authority.

…and, second, because if she has the authority she claims, the case is no different logically from that of the NT writers appealing to the OT for support while claiming divine warrant for their NT interpretations.

yes, we accept the interpretation of the OT by the NT writers on the basis of faith…we make an assumption to avoid the fallacy and that is a position of faith.

"Others mistakenly claim the Church’s position is circular because it boils down to saying: “we must believe Rome because Rome says so.” The concern here for avoiding self-serving abuses by those in authority is legitimate, but misplaced. The Catholic is not asked to submit to the Church because the Church says so, arbitrarily,** but because God demands this in His public revelation and because Christ has appointed the Church and her lawfully ordained leaders, with many checks and balances, as administrations of His commission.**

the bold bit is entirely the CC’s interpretation of what is the situation. It interprets God’s revelation to say that 1) the CC is the Church and 2) that its clergy are the Church’s lawfully ordained leaders. So again we are left with with relying on an interpretation from the CC to establish the claimed authority of the CC. BTW I note that the checks and balances (the scripturally mandated quailifications of an overseer) have been often disregarded and eliminated as checks and balances.

The Church is subject to the Word of God (including the message of the Bible), even while she is guardian and master (as Magisterium) of the Bible’s text and interpretation. Her authority is not an “enabling” one but a “restraining” one, which prevents any reigning Pope from arbitrarily inventing heretical new doctrines…

this again is an interpretation of the situation and status of the CC by the CC…could you get something that is more obviously circular? I doubt it.

“Still others mistakenly claim that Catholicism is circular because it bases our conviction on the Bible’s inspiration on the Church’s infallibility, and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. But it does not. While it may appeal to the Church’s infallible teaching in support of the conviction that Scripture is inspired, it does not have to argue for the Church’s infallibility from the Bible alone. It can argue this from other sources of early Church tradition as well. Hence there is no logical circularity.”

so it really becomes:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that passages X, Y and Z together with Sacred Traditions 1, 2 and 3 means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Even though I have expanded #3 from what appeared in post 28 (of this thread)…it is still very much a circle.

I should note, also, that “the argument that the Bible is divinely inspired can gain cogency only by enlarging its circle to include also the attestation of the Church and data of sacred and secular history. By contrast, “The Bible means what the Church says it means” is not circular in this way, since the Church’s interpretation is not closed off from history, but empirically testable for fidelity and coherence both against Scripture and the other traditions of the Church.”

empirically? So then there is a set of criteria that can be utilized with an empirical approach to determine what was and wasn’t the official teaching of the Catholic magisterium?..and to establish freedom from error the CC doesn’t select what statement of Pope or Council will be treated as an offiicial teaching? …and reasonable Protestants, Catholics and non-Christian historians would all agree using this empirical approach that the fidelity of the CC is established? Is that why we won’t find any Cafeteria Catholics in the history departments of the Catholic universities?..and why the history departments of non-Catholic universities have no chair for early church history with all those specialists having left for the CC?

Cheers…I’ll have to pick it up on Tuesday…have a good weekend.

 

[David]

When did the Apostles decide they should have only one to lead them all? (Other than Jesus).

BTW - Your statement appears to be circular as well.

1. Rejecting the Apostles is rejecting Jesus and the Father
2. The Catholic Church claims to trace their God given authority (No one else has it in the entire planet according to this statement) from the Apostles.
3. The Apostles were Bishops (Not Popes!)
4. Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles.

One question David;

In your opinion, Is Israel still God’s chosen people?

In Him.

Hello Isaiah45,
It’s my understanding is that Jesus decided for them.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

To understand the meaning of the keys start at Isaiah 22:20 The king is giving his key to the prime minister as a symbol of kingly authority.

Jesus is the King of kings giving his authority to Peter who is like a prime minister, until the King of kings returns.

Is Israel still God’s chosen people? I am not sure, My understanding is the the New Covenant includes Jews and Gentiles as God’s chosen people. I’m a little fuzzy on that one. What do you think?

Peace
David

 

[Safia]

empirically? So then there is a set of criteria that can be utilized with an empirical approach to determine what was and wasn’t the official teaching of the Catholic magisterium?..and to establish freedom from error the CC doesn’t select what statement of Pope or Council will be treated as an offiicial teaching? …and reasonable Protestants, Catholics and non-Christian historians would all agree using this empirical approach that the fidelity of the CC is established? Is that why we won’t find any Cafeteria Catholics in the history departments of the Catholic universities?..and why the history departments of non-Catholic universities have no chair for early church history with all those specialists having left for the CC?

I’ll have to respond to the stuff earlier later.

Remember that "extrabiblical historical data, of course, are preambles to faith, which is a gift by which we can attain certitude regarding the Bible and the Church. While it is true that the Church’s interpretations are themselves open to a degree of interpretation, this openness is limited by the progressive refinement and definition of dogma by the Church in the history of the development of Christian doctrines. Even Protestants admit the progressive clarification of revelation through history … Hence, it misses the point to ask “how is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation?” … What use is God’s “objective disclosure” (revelation) without an accurate “subjective discovery” (understanding) of it on the part of the Church?

“Nor is it warranted to distinguish the “historical evidence used by Protestants” from the “religious tradition used by Roman Catholics” by saying: “The former is objective and verifiable; the latter is not” … This is a distinction without a difference, for the former is a part of the latter. Nothing is more open to empirical testing than the historical credentials of the Catholic Church.”

 

[passer_by]

First let me state that I believe Sola Scriptura as proclaimed by many who use it as a standard is very problematic.

This is an interesting argument. I would note that we’d need to clarify who wrote the Scripture and how. I think your statement is insufficient as we all believe it to be God’s words transmitted through man. I think to say the Church wrote Scripture is giving too much credit to man. I’m sure you know that and mean that. I’m just saying when making your argument if you state it like that you are introducing a way to refute an assertion in your argument.

I do think that one can and must say the Church was inspired to declare what is Scripture. In doing so the Church must have had some gift from God. I do think that if one accepts the Church had God’s guidance to determine what is the Bible then it is likely to have God’s guidance in other things. And in fact we have Christ’s words to that effect. The question then is what is the church? For many Protestants the church is not the hierarchical institution of Rome or even of the Orthodox churches. The problem of church authority must be settled to strengthen this point.

But I think you are missing what we know from Tradition. Its almost crystal clear that Jesus Christ didn’t ask everyone to preach. He picked 12 Apostles. He didn’t ask everyone to become Apostles. In the Protestant system, you have everyone acting like Apostles or there are no Apostles.

Secondly, from Tradition it is clear that the authority of the first Apostles were passed down. St. Paul is a very good example of that. He was not an original Apostles. But he was acknowledged by the Apostles as being called to be an Apostle and given the authority to do so.

So all you need to do then is trace it forward right up to the Catholic Church.

Now even if you cannot, it should be app-arrant why the Protestant position is invalid to hold. Just because the alternative doesn’t look favorable, you cannot simply hold on to a logically inconsistent position. In either case it seems that the a person can never continue to be or convert to be a Protestant through rational discourse.

 

[passer_by]

this again is an interpretation of the situation and status of the CC by the CC…could you get something that is more obviously circular? I doubt it.
so it really becomes:

1. because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error,
2. the Catholic Church must be right when it claims
3. that passages X, Y and Z together with Sacred Traditions 1, 2 and 3 means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error; and
4. therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Even though I have expanded #3 from what appeared in post 28 (of this thread)…it is still very much a circle.

The Catholic position is not circular. Its simply what you would logically do.

If you knew that

1. God exists
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Jesus Christ is your personal savior

THEN the most intuitive next step is to ask the Apostles what Jesus taught. In the present age, the Apostles are found in the Catholic Church. You know this by observing history and figuring out that the early Apostles had successors.

That is how you become a Christian.

The Protestant position is unreasonable because after accepting the above three propositions, it goes to believing in the Bible out of nowhere. At best you could say I got my personal experience from reading the Bible. But that says nothing about whether the Bible is true or if only the little bit you read before you got the experience is true. In fact, unless the entire gospel was handed down to a person in that personal experience, there would be no reason to believe in the Bible. When it comes to accepting the Solas and other Protestant concepts, the problem is even more pronounced. There is no way to go from the three propositions above to believing in the Protestant position through rational means.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8783247]I think the point made Jon is how did anyone come up with the Lutheran Confessions? Is it Biblical? As far as I know it isn’t. Nowhere does it say in the Bible to believe or obey what is in the Lutheran Confessions because it is preserved from error.

Of course it is biblical. We believe that, like the early councils, it rightly reflects scripture. Are they equal to scripture? No. They are normed by scripture. The fallacy is the idea that sola scriptura teaches that everything but scripture is excluded. That’s not the intention at all.

In which case your answer would probably be its from outside the Bible. Then there is no reason to believe it true either. What makes you think that some group of people got it right in putting together the “Lutheran Confessions” and this is the rule of thumb one must follow?

Do you see the logical inconsistency?

Not inconsistent at all, no moreso than councils. When we say that the first 7 councils rightly reflect the truth of the faith, or that the creeds do, is that inconsistent? Of course not.

The larger problem here is that there is no reason for anyone to go from belief in the Propositions God exists, Christ died and rose from the dead, or Christ is my personal Savior to believing in the Lutheran Confessions. It just comes out of nowhere.

Then so do the early councils and creeds. And neither of us believe that to be true.

When an average person converts to Protestantism, usually they never stop to think about that little bit. The ones who are already Protestant never feel the need to think about it either until they really start thinking about how to convince an Atheist or a non-Christian through reason to become a Protestant. At that point they realize there is a gap between the reasonably provable propositions like God exists, Jesus rose from the dead or even the personal experience of Christ as a personal savior and going to believe in the Lutheran Confessions, five Solas etc. This is the inherent flaw in Protestantism.

Well, Lutherans generally talk about 4 solas, but sola scriptura is certainlyin a different category since it is a practice, not a doctrine. But your general point can also be made of the early councils and creeds.

Catholicism escapes this error (or does not contain this error), simply because it asks the most logically intuitive question after finding out that Christ is the personal savior or the rationally provable propositions i.e. Who can tell me about the teachings of Christ? In the old days, it was the Apostles. The Apostles taught that their office continues and after them it was their successors that taught. So for someone today, it will be the Apostolic successors in the Catholic Church that instruct them on faith and morals as taught by Jesus Christ.

Which successors? Yours or Orthodoxy’s? See? There’s the point. Successors don’t even agree on which are authoritative councls? Whom should we believe? I really do believe that this is the seed of sola scriptura.

But the Protestants, without thinking rationally (Luther was very anti-reason), adopted an unreasonable position and if people actually questioned the whole process of going from believing “Christ as ones personal savior” to the five Solas or Lutheran Confessions, no rational person should really be Protestant. Unfortunately, even every rational person acts irrationally sometimes.

You will have to show me where accepting the confessions is any more “irrational” than accepting the Apostle’s Creed. Written by men.

Jon

 

[Safia]

…

I covered pretty much every response you’ve listed above here (bottom) and here.

Also, I think you’ve answered your own question, in terms of the “early councils and apostles.” They were early. They lived in the times. They understood the mission Jesus had given them. That line of succession is still unbroken – until Luther, entirely human, and entirely subjective, without the history of dogma and doctrine, and under the supposed guidance of the Holy Spirit, came about and decided to change things.

 

[JonNC]

=Safia;8783605]It comes from Robert A. Sungenis, in the book I linked above.

And Sungenis is a Catholic. And doesn’t believe in sola scriptura. So, just thinking here, he probably has a bias against it, and may not portray it properly (not saying here that he is dishonest).

I’m confused, now: The Catholic Church is the only church with unbroken succession from this teaching.

There are some Orthodox and others who mot challenge you on this.

For certain Protestant denominations, it certainly is.

Granted.

Sola scriptura, as I originally defined it, is irrational and unfeasible, for the reasons listed.

And I’m simply pointing out that your original definition is lacking.

Sola scriptura denies it.

"The Bible is by design a text intended to be publicly read and heard. We lose something when all we do is read it on our own.

Show me where, please. Lutheran children are not given a Bible and told to go read this and come up with your own interpretation. Martin Chemnitz:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

The problem is that conflicting and even contradictory interpretations of Scripture are held by those asserting this claim. Recourse to what the Church (or “historic Christianity”) has traditionally taught would be a Catholic option, but not consistent with sola scriptura. The proposition that advocates of sola scriptura respect tradition insofar as it agrees with Scripture is empty, since their criterion for what is “biblical” remains their extrabiblical (tradition of) private interpretation.

And there are conflicting interpretations between communions thathold to Tradition and scripture.

Not really, especially not with Luther – either the Catholic Church was right or wasn’t. He argued it wasn’t, and it can be demonstrated that he was incorrect.

Oh, it is no where near this black and white.

Some problems with/comments about Luther:

1. Odd, isn’t it, that he was barely in the grave by the time Calvinists were busy “reforming” Luther’s reformation…

Why is Luther responisble for Calvin? Say what you or I will about his theology, he wasn’t a lemming.

1. Rome acknowledged the need for reform which Luther sought. Unfortunately, recourse to sola scriptura spelled tragedy by effectively cutting off Protestantism from that living and normative community of memory in which alone her positive reforms could be sustained.

No doubt that the Reformation is ot complete without complete reconciliation, but Rome had a funny way of showing its acknowledgement, wouldn’t you say? Fortunately, the Rome of today is doing a much better job, since Vat II.

1. In terms of identifying the canon extrabiblically (while rejecting the Catholic answer of an infallibly guided Church), Luther proposed tests such as “what preaches Christ” (was Christus triebet), but then faced the dilemma of books in the canon that, in his opinion, seemed to fail the test.

This doesn’t exactly speak to the questioning of the canon, a practice far older than Luther.

The difficulty of establishing the canon raises questions: “How do you establish it? Do you leave it to each individual to weigh the merits of the contested books for himself, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, or Shepherd of Hermas? Do you trust the Holy Spirit to witness in the heart of each individual to the inspiration of each book – say, Jude, Philemon, or 2 John? Or do you return to tradition? The quandary is nowhere more compellingly illustrated than in Luther’s refusal to number Hebrews, James, Jude, or Revelation among the canonical NT books in his pranslation of the Bible, because in his opnion they failed to “preach Christ” in the manner of the Pauline epistles, and contradicted his understanding of the relationship between “justification by faith” and “works of the law.” Where did Luther get his criteria? Clearly not from the principle of sola scriptura, for his criteria resulted in “taking away” from Scripture. Luther’s arbitrary “canon reduction” constitutes a prima facie case against the distinctive Reformation doctrines it was designed to support, and dramatically illustrates the perilous implications, inherent flaws, and inadequacy of sola scriptura in defining the canon of Scripture.”

Would you then say the same about Eusebius, or perhaps Cajetan? Luther’s numbering of the scripture has precedent in the early Church. To speak of his concerns about the in a vacuum forgets history.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Safia;8783607]4. It’s fair to say that everyone is rooted in some tradition – Baptist, Lutheran, American or Continental, etc. The question is whether or not the tradition in question is the one that Christ instituted and committed to his apostles to be passed down as a living, developing reality under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through His Church.

Agreed. So, which one is? Is the IC part of that Tradition (and btw, I have nothing against it)? How about the Filioque? Or infallibility ex cathedra?

1. Instead of asking whether their commitment to the doctrine has cut them off from history and tradition and led them to improperly read the Bible, evangelicals seem intent on maintaining sola scriptura “even if they think it requires interpretations that fly in the face of the obvious facts of Church history.”

I would contend that they of the solo scriptura mindset.

Example: Godfrey writes: “The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices,” and concludes that tradition mut be wrong. “But from the perspective of Catholic tradition, the answer is simple: a “bishop” is also a “presbyter” – one whose office came, in time, to be distinctively identified with overseeing a number of presbyters and their parishes … Evangelicals are not helped by their commitment to a principle that leads them to ignore or reject the principle of development, which applies to institutions as well as doctrine, or to fear Catholic teaching and tradition as though they were the enemy of biblical exegis.”

Nothing wrong with bishop is also a presbyter. We see it the same way, except it is a human tradition.

1. "One of the most serious abuses to which unhistorical understandings and distortions can lead is the mistranslation of Scripture itself. This happened already with Luther, who added the “sola” of his fateful “sola fide” in his translation of Romans (3:28) … He thought he was offering the “dynamic equivalent, but little did he see how he was reading back into Paul’s opposition to Pharisaical legalism in the 16th-century bias of his own quarrel with Rome over “works righteousness” – which was not the same thing – and would lead him to exclude the Epistle of James from the NT canon; and little did he foresee the implications that this seemingly minor alteration would have centuries later in the recrudescence of antinomian tendencies among evangelicals…”

I’m sorry. James is in the canon. As for his use of “allein”, it doesn’t appear in any English translation, supporting his point about translation.

1. Luther exhibits hermeneutical anarchy. He wrote, in the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” I’d say we’d all agree he’s right about conscience. “The problem is with how one’s theological conscience is formed. But note the emphasis: unless I am convinced. It is as if there were suddenly no Church, no tradition, no corporate guidance by the Holy Spirit, no father confessor Staupiz pointing him to the Epistle of Romans or to St. Augustine, but only the individual Luther thrown back upon his resources – himself, his conscience, and his private interpretation of Scripture … The problem is not with the emphasis on personal experience as such … He must have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. This, itself, is a very Catholic doctrine. Yet when that personal experience becomes a matter of doctrine – essentially a claim to inspiration – apart from the teaching of the church, this entirely biblical and Catholic idea becomes heretical.”

Or maybe, just maybe, it was his reaction to being asked to recant things the Church eventually agreed with him on, or the corruption of certain men within the Church.

1. “Who, though, is to decide what the Gospel is? Luther’s reasoning is circular. He claims that his understanding of the Gospel is correct because those Scriptures which support his understanding are those which are truly Gospel-oriented, and those Scriptures which do not support his understanding are not sufficiently Gospel-oriented.”

Ths is simplistic, at best.

1. How do we know if a person is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Good question. How do we know if Pope Leo X was?

1. Interesting that he castigated the Catholic Church for being the “official” word on who’d be cast to hell when his own doctrine reflected the same thing.

evidence that today, we need to do a better job of seeing the Holy Spirit in each other, look beyond the polemics of the past, and seek His guidance in furthering reconciliation.

Jon