and that’s why we accept their teaching. I would contend that Rome began changing things long before Luther. If you want to go back to the early councils, I’m right there with you.
]Enlighten me Jon.
.It is inconsistent because there is no reason to stop at 7 councils. Why 7 councils and not 8? The Bible doesn’t stay stop at the first 7 councils. So how did you come to know this profound truth to stop at 7?
Actually no. You know why? Because the early Creeds were taught by the Apostles. As I said before, the natural thing to do after finding out any of the three propositions I mentioned is to then turn to the Apostles. That is natural and logical.
As I said before, the point will not apply if you are willing to accept all the councils and the Apostolic authority. That is the only natural and logical thing to do.
As I stated clearly to you before, even if you cannot agree what else to turn to, you can’t just stay in an unreasonable position.
If you just out of nowhere say accept the Apostles Creed, then it would be folly as well. The only reason why you should accept the Apostles Creed is because it has been put forth and authoritatively verified by Apostolic successors. We believe in Apostolic successors because they were given authority by the first Apostles. We believe in the first apostles because it is the natural thing to do after realizing that God exists, Jesus rose from the dead and he is our personal savior.
Christ does several things -
I’m not sure it is irrelevant. Apostles are members of the church but are not the church. The church is more than just the apostles. Not to mention if we are talking about the whole of the Bible the Old Testament was not written by the apostles.
I do have some fondness for Platonism. But my point was regarding what constitutes the church.
I think some Protestants accept that the Bible could be assembled by post-apostolic bishops (most dont ever think about it). A problem is though some accept the book they seem to reject many other aspects of the church at that time. It would seem difficult to accept the church’s Bible but not its practices. But the Bible protestants use was not actually assembled until after the Reformation since we are missing several books. A real challenge for Protestants is in explaining who came up with our Bible since strictly speaking it was not the result of an early ecumenical council. It is hard to retroactively apply this modern Bible to the first 1500 years.
That’s OK, because the Real Author of these doctrines rose from the dead and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. Luther and the others have all turned to dust.) but rejecting the practice of the CC - this is really an excellent point if you are referring to the lose canons who were practicing simony and trying to sell indulgences. This was never the teaching of the CC and once known was condemned. Now, if you are referring to something else, you will need to specifically identify this/these practice(s)
as Jon has pointed out, your description of SS is lacking. It doesn’t say that “we should believe only Scripture”….we can believe scientific conclusions, we can believe what our spouses tell us and we can believe what our senses report to our minds. IMHO it would be better to say that SS says that we should believe that only the Bible is w/o error wrt matters of faith. What is required then for invalidation of SS is 1) scripture to be shown to contain error (I don’t expect that either you or Sungenis are interested in pursuing this assertion) or 2) showing that something else is also free from error (wrt matters of faith)….good luck with that
this is “the proof is in the pudding argument” that is very popular around here. The scriptures can’t be clear enough (w/o a Magisterium) b/c so many Protestant views exist. There is some merit to that argument. The “proof is in the pudding argument” also applies to the historical claims of the CC. If history so clearly validated the claims of the CC, then all honest historians should be Catholic and there shouldn’t be so many non-conservative Catholic views of the history of the Christian Church. Hmmm…the proof is in the pudding argument sure loses its appeal (around here) when it is applied in that fashion. Maybe we should consider that it is circumcision of the heart that is most important for salvation…and not adherence to a certain precise doctrine. Then it would be that scripture must be clear enough to encourage one to adopt a circumcised heart and not that scripture must be clear enough to reveal a doctrinal set that will be adopted by all. Just wondering.
if SS claims that only scripture is w/o error, then wouldn’t it follow that its adherents would acknowledge that their interpretation of scripture is fallible? The SS advocates that I know do…isn’t it only the CC (and some other claimants to apostolic succession) that claims infallibility for its interpretations….after all, isn’t that the central point of SS?
again, as Jon has pointed out, your description of SS is lacking. It doesn’t say that “we should believe only Scripture”….we can believe scientific conclusions, we can believe what our spouses tell us and we can believe what our senses report to our minds….and we can believe some traditions. IMHO it would be better to say that SS says that we should believe that only the Bible is w/o error wrt matters of faith. What is required then for invalidation of SS is 1) scripture to be shown to contain error (I don’t expect that either you or Sungenis are interested in pursuing this assertion) or 2) showing that something else is also free from error (wrt matters of faith)…it doesn’t do to show that part of something else (ie that part of tradition that defines the canon) is w/o error….you must show that something else, in its entirety is w/o error.
this is just a terrible misrepresentation of the SS position. The SS position would be:
what is meant by “certitude” in this sentence? It is historical data (evidence) and not scientific data that we must work from….certainty regarding anything that involves divine intervention is going to be hard to achieve….harder still to achieve when working with such ancient historical evidence and utilizing a generally accepted historical approach. The “to be steeped in history is to be Catholic” ship sailed long ago and never got very far…and that reality is evidenced by those wonderful, renowned and quite numerous Cafeteria Catholic historians and by all those wonderful, renowned and quite numerous non-Catholic Christian historians who can be found in the history departments at some of the better universities. How is it that all of these renowned Christian historians don’t share the certitude that Sungenis (?) claims to have found? Note, I am not saying that Sungenis couldn’t find any renowned historians that share his version of history…they just aren’t gonna be part of the majority.
that limitation may not be what you think. Consider how with “clarification” and “development” the position of the CC went from “killing Protestants is the will of God” to “Protestants are our separated brethren”. When further clarification can yield such a complete about face, how much of a limitation really exists?
actually, I hadn’t asked that question…there are much bigger problems involved.
I guess about the same usefulness as was enjoyed by the Israelites with respect to their scriptures….even though their leaders were quite fallible and added bad tradition….perhaps considerably more, given the improved literacy rates.
The former is not entirely part of the latter. Protestant historians will refer to the works of pagans and the non-orthodox (ie Gnostics, Arians, etc) to gain insight into what was going on. That being said, the more significant distinction is in the approach. The conservative Catholic historian is not free to conclude whatever the evidence might suggest. Instead, he must interpret the evidence in a fashion that supports the historical claims of the CC. This is not to say that the non-Catholic historian is free from any bias or influence, but there is a difference. For example, wrt the perpetual virginity of Mary (PV of M); the conservative Catholic is not free to conclude that it is a second century invention and that Mary wasn’t really a perpetual virgin. On the other hand, a good percentage of Protestant historians could conclude that the PV of M was an historical reality w/o damaging the core of their Protestantism.
Nothing? ….does the man know what “empirical” means? Or is he simply saying that it is open to testing (knowing that for most historians, it doesn’t pass the test)? …or are the claimed historical credentials something much less than it being the one true Church free from error in its official teaching? What is the methodology for this empirical testing? Where are the empirically performed studies that make that iron clad case…. That case which all/most good historians must acknowledge?
First, the Catholic Church has always been free from error in regards to matters of faith, salvation, doctrines, and dogmas, and we know this not only because it tells us this is true, but because historically, the Church has defended Truth under the guidance of the Spirit.
It’s not true at all that this argument applies to the historical claims of the CC. Why were all the apostles Catholic? Why were all the early Church Fathers so incredibly Catholic (rather than Protestant or Lutheran)? Why were none of them Protestant or Lutheran or what-have-you? You can always contest truth. By your logic, I could ask you why atheists or Jews exist, if Scripture is supposedly so self-evident. The argument made isn’t a direct line of thinking to Catholicism as we know it. Rather, it’s a direct reference to the three to four centuries of oral teaching of the apostles that were necessary for comprehension and the establishment of practices such as infant baptism – which only the Church continues to teach today.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The Church rejoices in all Christians, and all who have adopted belief in the circumcision of the heart, in baptism, but is the only Church to contain full Truth as Jesus intended it (and His intention is clear from the writings of the early Church Fathers, etc.), and thus those who strip themselves of certain doctrines and teachings lose pieces of what God intended.
Yes, that would and does follow – that’s the problem. Logic tells us that, of two opposing interpretations of a certain thing – {say, John 6 [a) Christ didn’t intend Real Presence; b) Christ did intend Real Presence]}, only one can be true. That’s where Sungenis’ argument regarding hermeneutical subjectivism comes in. I’ve noted this already: Recourse to tradition insofar as it agrees with an interpretation or denominational view of Scripture is empty, since the criterion for what is “biblical” remains an extrabiblical tradition of private interpretation, and the problem exists in the inability to mediate between multiple interpretations in the search for Truth. Yes, the Church is the only one to claim infallibility on matters of faith and doctrine, and it has good reason to do so.
Great. How do you choose which traditions to believe? Where does the line begin or end? And how is this not choice inherently personal, and thus subjective? You’re also not telling me in which way you can choose to buy into the Church’s doctrine regarding inspired books of the Bible and not buy into everything it teaches.
You have not explained how such an extraordinary event as the intrusion of the Holy Spirit to provide infallibility took place, and what vehicle He used to accomplish this. Did the Holy Spirit implant this infallibile certitude directly into the minds of “those” men? Unless you define the nature of this divine intrusion, you simply have no precedent or right to define its limitations and its recipients. Also, many of those who collected the Canon in the first four centuries of the Church included the Deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament, and it was some of these very Fathers who were presiding at the early Councils who decided that these books were indeed canonical. What you end up having to say is that “of those who collected the Canon” the Holy Spirit infallibly guided only the ones who agreed with the Protestant version of the canon. One can readily see that this kind of “cut and paste” recounting of ecclesiastical history is a total distortion of truth, not to mention being illogical.
Not a matter of faith or dogma. It reflects humanity – but not the (in)fallibility of the Church.
The originating Truth is infallible. I’m not sure what your argument is here. The Catholic is free to argue it, but the CC will have recourse to its history and widespread understanding and research, primarily the original Scripture, which reflects very clearly M’s PV, in that particular example, and the mythology of the 2nd century would likely not reflect the full truth. You cannot show me one CC dogma that is false.
Hi passer,
See, this is the misunderstanding of sola scriptura - the notion that one** can’t** accept something not appearing in scrpture. That isn’t the intent of ss. SS is a practice of hermeunetics, holding dogma, doctrine, etc. accountable to scripture, not excluding them.
Of course there’s an appeal to Tradition, the historic Church, the ECF’s. Take for instance the statement in the Apology of the Augsburg confession about the real presence. Melanchthon appeals to scripture first, then supports it using the early Church, east and west, and the Fathers.So I fail to see how Biblical the Lutheran Confessions are unless you appeal to some authority that can state it as Biblical or TRADITIONAL
That’s where the whole of the Church, east and west, stops in its agreement on them.
In response to the failure of Tradition to hold the Church unified, we turn to the Bible as the final norm. It isn’t arbitrary, and the reasons are clear.
There’s no cherry picking. Ask our siblings for Orthodoxy which councils they accept. As they cherry picking too?
There are Lutherans and Anglicans, Old Catholics and PNCC that have succession (the fact that the CC doesn’t recognize it is irrelevent). History of the kind of primacy the Bishop of Rome has - Niceam canon 6 - shows a local jurisdiction and no mention infallibility. But that said, if Orthodoxy were to “give in to it”, and there was unity again, I would accept that.
Only so long as there remains schism, IMO, and only so long as Lutherans are working hard, along with the CC and Orthodoxy, to seek reconciliation.
Agreed with these caveats, that the creeds rightly reflect scripture. Also, authoritative, not infallibile.
Well, that authority was given to the whole Church.
Read the quote I provided earlier, their rational.
I accept your position on this as making sense from your POV.
Hi Tom,
Sure there’s documentation. Look at the some of western councils since the schism.
Well, first they would say you splintered from them, but that’s another thread. Actually, there was an effort on the Lutheran’s part, not long after the Reformation began. And there is significant energy today in ecumenism with the East.
See, Tom, this argument assumes that the Holy Spirit only protects the see in Rome. We don’t see it that way.
Lutherans agree with all of these. I’ll let Calvinists and others speak for themselves.
In terms of the Church, qualitatively agree.
Agreed that we must have a Galatians 5:6 faith - a faith that works through love
We disagree with the notion of a “place”, but instead would argue that “purgation” happens at the moment of death. Even some Catholics speak of it this way.
Perhaps so, and the orders of the Church are very important. Its the innovations regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his infallibility ex cathedra that Lutherans and many others, even those in apostolic succession, idsagree with.
Certainly it isn’t explicit in scripture, since it is a post-apostolic era practic. And yes, I know the CC rejects it.
Been to both places, thanks, and the CCC.
Please inform me where Christ authored papal infallibillity.
Actually Jon, my point applies to which ever definition you give of Sola Scriptura. My whole point is how you come to know Sola Scriptura or any other principle that you want to hold as true.
This is exactly the sort of definition or decisions that baffle me. I see no rationale behind accepting 7 councils as opposed to 10 or none. I see no rationale behind accepting Scripture after realizing Christ as your personal savior, unless the whole gospel was communicated to you in that experience (which hardly anyone claims).
Sure, but what is the rational basis? Even prior to 8 councils, there were other heresies implying groups that disagreed with the Church and still called themselves Christian. So from your line of reasoning, since division implies loss of infallibility or truth from that point onward, one should discard almost everything.
It does not follow through reason that since Tradition has different views, Scripture is true. The problem here is that you are assuming implicitly that you already know Scripture is true.
Lets not broaden our scope here. You are Lutheran as I understand. I am Catholic. So it would do us no good to talk about if Orthodoxy has erred. But if they do cherry pick, then they are certainly lacking. But the the cherry picking that Orthodox might have done pales in comparison to what the Protestants have done.
Here again the rationale is not clear. It appears that you are saying if there is dispute, then the teaching is invalid. This puts you in a rather uncomfortable position. First, there is no reason to believe such a thing as true. Second, every single time the church had heretics, you would have to say the teaching is unclear.
Actually its just irrational. Its equivalent to saying I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God. That would be an irrational conclusion. The correct one would be to say I am going to remain agnostic.
Now one has to question how you know these truths above. These truths are in no way shape or form apparent or intuitive from a personal experience of Christ. What you have still not provided is any rational basis to go from such an experience to these profound non-intuitive truths.
The teaching of the Church.
Why?
Before going on, I’m curious. In more than one instance, you use the bolded phrase, which in my experience is unusual for Catholics. What’s your reasoning for this usage?
again, the quote I gave from the confessions speaks to the rationale.
Again, I’m confused by your use of the phrase.
No, you have it backwards. Of course I know scripture is true, just like you do. The conflicts within tradition are not the cause of it being true.
No, it doesn’t, on a number of fronts. There has always been different traditons on which books are considered canon.
That question can be asked of any faith. regarding their teachings. Still not seeing the point.
Not in terms of the councils, and I’m only speaking of Lutherans here. Prtestants can speak for themselves.
Then the question back to you; how can you consider your teaching true through As when it is different from others whose teachings come through AS?
Again, confused by the phrasing.
Not invalid, just not certain.
i think it should be very uncomfortable for all of us.
The difference is Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) claims infallibility in its teachings. Who is right? Who are the heretics?
Not sure how this response relates to my comment.
That phrase again. Since we come to faith by Baptism and hearing the word, your usage sound to me like cart before the horse.
It is what scripture says, passer. Faith comes from hearing the word.
Just in observing the way you have phrased things, at least from a Lutheran perspective, your objection comes from a misunderstanding. then again, maybe I’m misunderstanding you because of your phrasing.
No need to make one up, David.I think if there was a Catechism of the Protestant Churches, it would look something like this:
they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
they believe in a physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
they believe in the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith.
they believe in symbolic believers immersion baptism only - Baptists
they also believe in baptism for infants either by pouring or immersion - Episcapal
they also believe in penticostal baptism and speaking in tonges - Fire Baptized Holiness Church
they believe bapsism is only an ordinance.
they believe baptism is a sacrament.
they believe church government to be congregational- Methodist
they believe church government to be episcapal- Church of Christ
they also believe church goverment is to be a mixture of presbterian and congregational- Assemblies of God
they believe in Saturday as the sabbath. - Seventh Day Baptists
Peace
David
What? The Church doesn’t hold SS to be true.
Because it “cuts and pastes” without looking at the entirety of Scripture and history, amongst other reasons.
I’ll leave passer to answer the question, but you didn’t answer the original question posed…
Except the Confessions really give no rationale whatsoever.
Problem is, Scripture doesn’t teach that the “sole rule and standard” is Scripture. What is the reasoning? Again you’re engaging in the fallacies that I posted at the very beginning of this thread without being able to step outside of them. Scripture relies on the Tradition of the Catholic Church; Scripture came to exist because of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
The CC would agree with that first part – that Holy Scripture is superior to any other writing. And if the second part is true, you’d be a Catholic. For there was a certain preservation that lasted for 1500 years. Lutheranism is simply historically improbable.
Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to those creeds. The Athanasian is Catholic. At what point does Luther get to decide what is heresy? He can cherry-pick historical events, per his convenience?
Your argument – and the one in Confessions – is that because controversies/heresies exist, Scripture is the only Truth. That’s irrational/illogical.