Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Safia]

Clement and Ignatius hardly demonstrate “that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff”. The scholarly consensus is that Rome did not have a pontiff at that time. It was led by a group of presbyters….and the use of “extreme” is entirely overreaching (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).

I’m confused as to why you seem to be selectively reading the paragraph: “And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.”

And, later: “After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.””

Of course the hierarchy at 30 A.D. didn’t exist the way it does now, or did a few centuries later – it’s a development, but not an invention . . . That’s obvious.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8820321]Yes exactly. Christianity hinges upon the truth of Christ & the teachings of the Apostles. After one knows Christ rose from the dead, then the logical thing to do is listen to the Apostles. The Protestant claim to believe the Bible or five Sola’s or even believe Luther is therefore totally arbitrary.

So, let me see if I understand what you and Tom believe is the only rationale for being Christian: that one must, after one comes to faith, a gift of Grace, link oneself to a communion that is in Apostolic Succession. But moreso, one that is further in communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is then the only rational thing to do. Am I correct?

The good thing is that this goes on to show that the way to settle the debate between Protestantism and Catholicism is probably not in Theological debate.

This seems to be contrary to the approach the Vatican has taken since Vatican II. Am I correct?

Since every single denomination interprets the Bible their own way, it is almost impossible to engage in theological debate

So, accordingly, the Vatican cannot dialogue with individual communions? IOW, it does no good to dialogue with Lutherans because they don’t agree with Calvinists?

On the other hand, actual questioning of how one becomes Protestant does show the weakness of Protestantism. Then it is pretty easy to realize that Protestantism is just arbitrary and actually gives no reason to believe it has the truth. Since this is just doable through reason, as long as someone is honestly searching for the truth, I think its much easier to grasp which is true that way.

And the only reason Lutheranism is arbitrary is because it is not in Apostolic Succession AND not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Correct?

Jon

 

[passer_by]

So, let me see if I understand what you and Tom believe is the only rationale for being Christian: that one must, after one comes to faith, a gift of Grace, link oneself to a communion that is in Apostolic Succession. But moreso, one that is further in communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is then the only rational thing to do. Am I correct?

You are once again bringing Theology in to this by stating things such as “Gift of Grace”. Before accepting Divine Revelation, such a claim is impossible. My question is asking how you arrive at Divine Revelation from the truth of Christ.

To make matters simpler, this is why I asked if you saw the risen Christ and want to follow him, what would have been the most logical thing to do?

This seems to be contrary to the approach the Vatican has taken since Vatican II. Am I correct?

I am not discussing Ecumenism here. I am merely addressing how one picks the true faith and that there is actual reason to do so. The prevalent mentality among non-Christians, Protestants and even some Catholics is that we pick the Church arbitrarily or that we HAVE to pick it arbitrary and there is no reason behind it. This is one of the reasons non-believers find religion in general an easy target.

Another common mistake is to think that we pick the church with the doctrines that make the most sense. This is also problematic since all of the actual important doctrine of a Church point toward supernatural realities. So verification in the strictest sense is impossible and all one can evaluate is whether the doctrine are logically consistent. Putting aside the fact that some doctrine at first site can look inconsistent (Providence vs. Free-Will for an example), there is the logical problem that logical consistency does not immediately guarantee that something is true. So to pick an authority based on logical consistency is still arbitrary.

I am simply pointing out that it is not an arbitrary decision. That is not something from Vatican I or II but simply the Catholic position as it has been all along.

So, accordingly, the Vatican cannot dialogue with individual communions? IOW, it does no good to dialogue with Lutherans because they don’t agree with Calvinists?

I am saying dialogue on the Theological plane can be tedious and time consuming and more likely to end with a “I agree to disagree”.

The Lutheran who argues for his doctrines really do believe they follow from interpretations of the Bible. The Catholic Church now has to show them why their interpretation is incorrect and to do so, it has to appeal to Tradition and Authority. But since Lutheran’s and Protestant’s in general reject or hold a view of secondary importance toward Tradition and Authority, this sort of argument by the CC is irrelevant.

But if one were to take this dialogue to the core and on to the subject of the basis for arriving at 'holding Tradition as subservient and Scripture as primary" for an example, then it is much easier for even non-Theologians to understand the errors of ones position.

And the only reason Lutheranism is arbitrary is because it is not in Apostolic Succession AND not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Correct?

The reason Lutheranism is arbitrary is because it gives no valid reason for adopting it’s core principle values after coming to know Christ.

The Catholic Church is not arbitrary because it gives reasons to adopt the Catholic Church as authoritative through the argument of Apostolic Succession.

Now Protestantism is welcome to give justification for it’s position by other means than Apostolic Succession. No one has done so and I frankly to the best of my knowledge think there is good reason to believe that there is none. I would present an argument of the following form to justify such a position:-

1. Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority
2. Catholic Church’s authority is not compatible with Lutheranism
3. Therefore Lutheranism or Catholic Church must be unreasonable to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ
4. But the Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority (Premise 1)
5. Therefore Lutheranism must be an unreasonable position to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ

Also more importantly, in the meantime till an argument is developed to support the Protestant position, the Protestant’s will have to abandon their position.

 

[passer_by]

N-o-o-o-o-o-w Passer_by,

Are you trying to confuse matters further by adding such elements as ‘history’ being required to support a statement? And, then you want to require logic?!!

You are absolutely right about Sacred Tradition. I just don’t want to bring it out as a concept because it can be argued as more of a Theological concept.

So what I mean to say is that Catholics put the Authority equally on

1. Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition
3. Church

The Protestants put the Authority on

1. Scripture

and arguably

1. Sola’s and other concepts like Lutheran Confessions that state ‘Tradition is secondary to Scripture’ etc

But some might argue that (2) is a derivative from Scripture. There is a logical problem with such a defense of (2) but let us grant it for the time being since it will still get us to what we are about to ask next.

The question for Protestants now is therefore to explain how we arrive at their source of Authority, (1) Scripture. It is by no means intuitive to go from the truth of Christ’s resurrection to the Bible/Scripture. So what is the actual reasoning behind it? The usual Protestant answer is that “I had a personal experience of Christ when reading the Bible”. But this is a problematic answer unless Christ divinely revealed the entire Bible to him through that personal experience. No Protestant has claimed that yet. Plus there is no logical reason to think that the idea ‘what I was reading when I got the experience must be the right one’ is true.

The Catholics on the other hand answer the above question using reason to show that

1. After the risen Christ, the earliest non-Christians would have had to turn to the Apostles and listen to them as people of authority
2. Historical documents (including the Bible as a historical collection of books) show that Apostles had successors and their successors had the same authority given to them
3. Since the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of successors, it is the Church to turn to after discovering the truth of the risen Christ

Now through what is taught by the Authority of the Church, we learn that Scripture and Sacred Tradition also have Authority.

So there is a logical set of steps any non-believer or non-Catholic can follow right up to becoming Catholic. At that point, he will have to choose to accept what is taught by Faith and not by ‘what makes sense to me’.

Now a Protestant might say that even thought I have no reasons to give right now, I might be able to develop an argument in the future. But until such a time, the person must cease to be Protestant or cease to convert anyone else to Protestantism.

But I also think, as I said to Jon, that there is reason to think there is probably no such argument that can exist to arrive at Protestantism. I presented to him the following argument as reason to think its unlikelihood:-

1. Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority
2. Catholic Church’s authority is not compatible with Lutheranism
3. Therefore Lutheranism or Catholic Church must be unreasonable to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ (since both can’t be right)
4. But the Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority (Premise 1)
5. Therefore Lutheranism must be an unreasonable position to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ

So I think if a person (whether non-Christian or Protestant) is honestly putting his belief to the test, and thinking of seeking the right church as more important and not simply accepting where he is at, such a path of reasoning will get them to the Catholic Church.

P.S. I really liked the video you linked. He argues the point quiet concisely!

 

[couponfit]

I’d like to know how/where Protestants justify sola scriptura – the position that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it – within the “proof” I’ve outlined below (drawn from Robert A. Sungenis). I’m genuinely curious. It’s self-evident to me, especially for someone who returned to the Catholic faith only after deep agnosticism and in-depth research.
Problems of Coherence

Sola scriptura is incoherent because it it is (1) unbiblical, and (2) logically inconsistent.

(1) It is unbiblical.

– (a) The Bible nowhere teaches or assumes sola scriptura.

We can agree that Jesus, Paul, and others claim that Scripture has divine authority, and Jesus appeals to its authority. But nowhere does Jesus assume that what is written is the only source of continuing divine authority, and nowhere is it stated that “God’s will throughout history has been to commit wholly to writing all revelation and instruction that He intended as an ongoing authority for His people and their salvation.” All of the texts typically referenced (i.e., 2 Tim 3:16, Acts 17:10-12, etc.) “simply do not say this nor can they be made to imply this, without assuming in advance what is proper to one’s exegetical conclusions.”

– (b) The Bible assumes a larger context of delegated authority.

“God is never seen conferring authority on Scripture in an historical and social vacuum. Scripture is always found, rather, within a community in which God has conferred authority upon lawfully ordained human leaders. These leaders are always either (1) appointed by God Himself, and publicly confirmed in their appointment by a miraculous ministry, or (2) appointed in legitimate and lawful succession by authorities having their ultimate origin in the first category … Jesus and the apostles are seen demanding obedience not only to the written Word of God, but to the living decisions of the Church (Mt 18:12-20; cf. Acts 15, 16:4).”

– (c) The Bible assumes extrabiblical traditions.

"… the position of sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history) – namely, that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament (NT) was written … But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? …

"First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle and if the early churches did not have copies of all the New Testament books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim?

"Second, how can only plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis?

“The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things.”

– (d) The Bible assumes the liturgical context of the worshipping community.

“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. This privatized and bookish view is anachronistic and contrary to both the primary intended use of the Biblical texts and to the historical milieu of Scripture itself.”

(2) It is logically inconsistent.

– (a) It is self-referentially inconsistent.

"First … ‘it is self-contradictory, for it says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this! If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe sola scriptura …’

"Second, it assumes that the ‘essential’ teachings of Scripture are sufficiently clear to be understood by anyone, but is not itself sufficiently clear to be considered a scriptural teaching by all.

"Third, it claims that the Bible is the ultimate authority, but in fact subordinates the Bible to the extrabiblical (traditions of) interpretation of this or that individual, or group, about what the Bible says. This means, practically speaking, that sola scriptura leads to hermeneutical subjectivism.

“Fourth, sola scriptura is self-referentially inconsistent because the Bible contains no inspired index of its own contents and cannot even be identified as a divine revelation except on extrabiblical grounds of tradition.”

– (b) It violates the principle of sufficient reason.

“… it violates the principles of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture; and the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church, decided on the cannon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.”

.

 

[passer_by]

(1) Until a certain point.
(2) Selectively.

You’ve cited both of those as true before . . . as well as, I believe, that the existence of a schism (which isn’t the same thing as a heretical split, which Luther’s was) creates an inability for you to determine that Catholicism is true, which passer has already explained as an invalid argument.

Also, a question of passer’s that you haven’t answered – and I’m curious to hear the answer to – is the process by which someone comes to Lutheranism.

You know Christ is real.

Then what? Where do you go? We’ve explained that we turn to the apostles and the unbroken apostolic succession, tradition, and history. Everything is explained. Everything is embedded, has Scriptural foundation, etc.

So you tell us: How does someone who is coming from, for fun, let’s say, an atheistic or agnostic position go from Christ → a certain period of apostolic teaching → Lutheranism? Let’s say also that this supposed person has never heard of Luther.

Are you telling us that a person with no backdrop in Christianity, who is attempting to learn rationally and assign some kind of logic to his newfound faith in Christ, would logically label the Confessions as Truth?

That, if I understand correctly, is from where passer’s argument stems: There is absolutely no rational grounds on which to jump from the first X amount of centuries of apostolic teachings to Luther’s particular Confessions, whether or not this supposed person knows him or the confessions under that name. The same goes for every single Protestant denomination. The schism exists on a different level, as it wasn’t heretical, and though the schism’s history reflects poorly on both the Roman papacy at the time and the patriarchs’ who chose to reject the Roman papacy’s infallibility (on no grounds at all, though that’s a different topic entirely), the Orthodox churches maintain a 99.9% similar identity in terms of capital-T Traditions (Eucharist, perpetual virginity, etc., etc.). Only Catholics have a history that is identified with the apostles from the moment of the Resurrection to today. It’s the only faith by which you can rationally come to from outside the system, without assuming a particular exegetical end, whether that’s sola scriptura as most Protestants understand it or your/Luther’s interpretation.

That’s the only thing that I’d like to see from you – that explanation, as asked for above.

God bless!

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking Jon too. I have tried asking it in so many different ways but I still receive no answer. The closest I got was when in one post he said he accepted it on Faith which is obviously problematic since then it makes religion just an arbitrary acceptance of some principles or Confessions made by any random individual through blind Faith.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Safia,

Maybe this approach will be helpful in reducing this ‘confusion’ you are currently experiencing.

To the best of my knowledge, most people who have invested heavily of their time, talent and treasure when it comes to an idea - do not respond with a simple surrender when that idea is demonstrated to be illogical, contrary to established history, and in violation of common sense. This is even more true when you consider the amount of effort that has been used to ridicule the beliefs of others. Yes, ‘selective quotes’ are the all too common tool that can only serve as a ‘fig leaf’ for the nakedness of the traditions of man.

My guess is that ‘surrender’ is a long way off … and we will probably be seeing more like, “Fight to the last man!” when it comes to the response to an honest assessment of what has been presented.

God bless

I’m confused as to why you seem to be selectively reading the paragraph: “And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.”

And, later: “After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.””

Of course the hierarchy at 30 A.D. didn’t exist the way it does now, or did a few centuries later – it’s a development, but not an invention . . . That’s obvious.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Couponfit,

For starters, check out this YouTube link: youtube.com/watch?v=KpogtkWabTk

God bless

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Isaiah45_9,

I’ve been waiting … why not just try a response and let’s see how it goes?

God bless

Sure, but before I answer. What is simple to you?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Let me commend you. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first I have seen of a reference to something you are claiming.

Clement and Ignatius hardly demonstrate “that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff”. The scholarly consensus is that Rome did not have a pontiff at that time. It was led by a group of presbyters….and the use of “extreme” is entirely overreaching (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).

Unfortunately, I do not have access to this source. In the past, you have demonstrated a skill for only using ‘selective quotes’ that simply omit items that do not support the position you have. Having the reference as a link would be a good way to address this concern.

There are not really many authors I am familiar with that simply trash the work of Clement and Ignatius in such a dismissive manner. Do you have a reference link for this?

Looking forward to hearing from you. Oh, and by the way, I would appreciate a response to post #213. Thanks

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8821855]You are once again bringing Theology in to this by stating things such as “Gift of Grace”. Before accepting Divine Revelation, such a claim is impossible. My question is asking how you arrive at Divine Revelation from the truth of Christ.

To make matters simpler, this is why I asked if you saw the risen Christ and want to follow him, what would have been the most logical thing to do?

I Would have followed Him.

I am not discussing Ecumenism here.

Of course you are. You said: * The good thing is that this goes on to show that the way to settle the debate between Protestantism and Catholicism is probably not in Theological debate.*
That is a statement regarding ecumenism.

I am merely addressing how one picks the true faith and that there is actual reason to do so. The prevalent mentality among non-Christians, Protestants and even some Catholics is that we pick the Church arbitrarily or that we HAVE to pick it arbitrary and there is no reason behind it. This is one of the reasons non-believers find religion in general an easy target.

Yet you want to exclude theology. When you speak of “following the Apostles”, you are speaking of it as "following the Apostles the way Catholics define it. That’s a theological argument, because there are others that use the same model as Catholicism - PNCC, Orthodoxy, etc - that come to a different conclusion, example, Orginal Sin. That makes it theological, whether or not you want to frame it that way.

Another common mistake is to think that we pick the church with the doctrines that make the most sense. This is also problematic since all of the actual important doctrine of a Church point toward supernatural realities. So verification in the strictest sense is impossible and all one can evaluate is whether the doctrine are logically consistent. Putting aside the fact that some doctrine at first site can look inconsistent (Providence vs. Free-Will for an example), there is the logical problem that logical consistency does not immediately guarantee that something is true. So to pick an authority based on logical consistency is still arbitrary.

No argument.

I am simply pointing out that it is not an arbitrary decision. That is not something from Vatican I or II but simply the Catholic position as it has been all along.

How is it less arbitrary for Catholicicism than anyone else?

I am saying dialogue on the Theological plane can be tedious and time consuming and more likely to end with a “I agree to disagree”.

I agree it is tedious. That is why Pope Benedict stated in his homily at the Lutheran Church in Rome that unity will come from God.

The Lutheran who argues for his doctrines really do believe they follow from interpretations of the Bible.

That is true, but not the Bible in a vacuum. We believe every bit as you do that our beliefs are apostolic, and frankly catholic.

continued

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Church now has to show them why their interpretation is incorrect and to do so, it has to appeal to Tradition and Authority. But since Lutheran’s and Protestant’s in general reject or hold a view of secondary importance toward Tradition and Authority, this sort of argument by the CC is irrelevant.

That’s why the dialogue has to have a theological ingredient. For example, it is through dialogue, irrespective of the method of hermeunetics, that Lutherans and Catholics have come to significant agreements in the last 60 years or so. Most noticably on Justification.
My point is you are not going to convince even a Lutheran like myself, who has an open ear to Catholicism, with the approach of “you are irrational”.

But if one were to take this dialogue to the core and on to the subject of the basis for arriving at 'holding Tradition as subservient and Scripture as primary" for an example, then it is much easier for even non-Theologians to understand the errors of ones position.

But even this misses the point, because you are speaking simply of hermeunetics.

The reason Lutheranism is arbitrary is because it gives no valid reason for adopting it’s core principle values after coming to know Christ.

You know, I have given reasons, even from the early Church, but here is one more. The esentials dispute I have with the Catholic Church is ecclesiological. That is, what I see as the innovation of the nature of the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Now, I’m not arguing from a biblical perspective, but one of Tradition. Nicea canon 6 is quite clear that the Bishop of rome’s jurisdiction is of the West, and no greater than that of, say, Alexandria, or any of the others.

The Catholic Church is not arbitrary because it gives reasons to adopt the Catholic Church as authoritative through the argument of Apostolic Succession.

And so does Orthodoxy, but I’m told that is not a reasonable position and irrelevent. It isn’t irrelevent. Show me from the early Church that they are wrong, and they will show me where you are wrong. Again, not from a biblical perspective, but a Tradition perspective.
so, from a “rational” POV, and leaving scripture out of it; you are fairly new here, but I have said on countless occasions, that if the sees of Orthodoxy and Rome were to come to agreement on this one issue, I would give Father Larry at the local Catholic Parish a call tomorrow to sign up for RCIA. But until then, based even on your rational approach, I can’t rationally know which communion reflects Tradition correctly. And therefore, UI cannot rationally know f the choice I would make would still leave me in schism. And arguing that this is what the Catholic Church says, so it is right on this issue, is an irrational argument.

Now Protestantism is welcome to give justification for it’s position by other means than Apostolic Succession. No one has done so and I frankly to the best of my knowledge think there is good reason to believe that there is none. I would present an argument of the following form to justify such a position:-

1. Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority
2. Catholic Church’s authority is not compatible with Lutheranism
3. Therefore Lutheranism or Catholic Church must be unreasonable to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ
4. But the Catholic Church has reasonable arguments for it’s authority (Premise 1)
5. Therefore Lutheranism must be an unreasonable position to arrive at from the truth of the risen Christ

On 1, it is no more rational than any other communion who professes Tradition and Scripture, and a Catholic saying it does without objective proof is irrational.
On 2, it might be, if the theological differences are reconciled. It always come back to theology.
On 3, again this comes down to theology.
On 4, I have showed above that premise 1 is not beyond rational dispute.
On 5, no moreso or less so than Catholicism. We both appeal to the early Church and its teachings, the Apostles and their followers. As I have shown, simply appealing to Apostolic Succession doesn’t work, because those in Apostolic Succession do not agree.

Also more importantly, in the meantime till an argument is developed to support the Protestant position, the Protestant’s will have to abandon their position.

The apostolic succession appeal is rationally disputed. The question of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position on universal jurisdiction is disputed. And both are disputed, not from a biblical standard, but a Tradition standard, and from those who profess it. Fix that 1000 year old division, and clearly you have the rational upperhand.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

I Would have followed Him.

Followed who? Christ? Because I am actually asking HOW YOU KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO FOLLOW HIM or IF YOU NEED TO FOLLOW HIM AT ALL.

Of course you are. You said: * The good thing is that this goes on to show that the way to settle the debate between Protestantism and Catholicism is probably not in Theological debate.*
That is a statement regarding ecumenism.

Listen Jon, Ecumenism can be defined broadly or narrowly. If you just want to label what we are doing here as Ecumenism, then sure.

Yet you want to exclude theology. When you speak of “following the Apostles”, you are speaking of it as "following the Apostles the way Catholics define it. That’s a theological argument, because there are others that use the same model as Catholicism - PNCC, Orthodoxy, etc - that come to a different conclusion, example, Orginal Sin. That makes it theological, whether or not you want to frame it that way.

Following the Apostles is not a Theological argument. If you wanted to become a Theoretical Physicist, to learn the stuff, you follow the teachings of Authority. That is a logical decision.

You are confusing Theology with simply day-to-day logic here.

No argument

GOOD!

How is it less arbitrary for Catholicicism than anyone else?

As I said before, Catholicism follows logical reason. Protestantism just wants me to believe in the Bible as authority out of the blue after the risen Christ.

I agree it is tedious. That is why Pope Benedict stated in his homily at the Lutheran Church in Rome that unity will come from God.

God gave REASON. So yes, in the end, unity will come from God. But sadly people like in the day of Christ want to behave unreasonably.

That is true, but not the Bible in a vacuum. We believe every bit as you do that our beliefs are apostolic, and frankly catholic.

If it matters so much to you that your belief is Apostolic, what on earth are you doing in a non-Apostolic church? Who in the Lutheran church is a successor of an Apostle?

You make no sense here with this claim.

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s why the dialogue has to have a theological ingredient. For example, it is through dialogue, irrespective of the method of hermeunetics, that Lutherans and Catholics have come to significant agreements in the last 60 years or so. Most noticably on Justification.
My point is you are not going to convince even a Lutheran like myself, who has an open ear to Catholicism, with the approach of “you are irrational”.

But even this misses the point, because you are speaking simply of hermeunetics.

You know, I have given reasons, even from the early Church, but here is one more. The esentials dispute I have with the Catholic Church is ecclesiological. That is, what I see as the innovation of the nature of the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Now, I’m not arguing from a biblical perspective, but one of Tradition. ** Nicea canon 6 is quite clear that the Bishop of rome’s jurisdiction is of the West, and no greater than that of, say, Alexandria, or any of the others. **
And so does Orthodoxy, but I’m told that is not a reasonable position and irrelevent. It isn’t irrelevent. Show me from the early Church that they are wrong, and they will show me where you are wrong. Again, not from a biblical perspective, but a Tradition perspective.
so, from a “rational” POV, and leaving scripture out of it; you are fairly new here, but I have said on countless occasions, that if the sees of Orthodoxy and Rome were to come to agreement on this one issue, I would give Father Larry at the local Catholic Parish a call tomorrow to sign up for RCIA. But until then, based even on your rational approach, I can’t rationally know which communion reflects Tradition correctly. And therefore, UI cannot rationally know f the choice I would make would still leave me in schism. And arguing that this is what the Catholic Church says, so it is right on this issue, is an irrational argument.

On 1, it is no more rational than any other communion who professes Tradition and Scripture, and a Catholic saying it does without objective proof is irrational.
On 2, it might be, if the theological differences are reconciled. It always come back to theology.
On 3, again this comes down to theology.
On 4, I have showed above that premise 1 is not beyond rational dispute.
On 5, no moreso or less so than Catholicism. We both appeal to the early Church and its teachings, the Apostles and their followers. As I have shown, simply appealing to Apostolic Succession doesn’t work, because those in Apostolic Succession do not agree.

The apostolic succession appeal is rationally disputed. The question of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position on universal jurisdiction is disputed. And both are disputed, not from a biblical standard, but a Tradition standard, and from those who profess it. Fix that 1000 year old division, and clearly you have the rational upperhand.

Jon

Concerning Rome, would you concede that as it regards the see of Rome that Rome is the first among equals as it is understood in the Orthodox perspective…is this OK?

 

[JonNC]

Concerning Rome, would you concede that as it regards the see of Rome that Rome is the first among equals as it is understood in the Orthodox perspective…is this OK?

Absolutely, at the very least. But I’m not in any way claiming they are right, either. Rome could be right on the matter, but I don’t think so based on the early council. My point isn’t to take sides on the matter. My point is I can’t take sides because I can’t know which side is right, unless they come to agreement.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Absolutely, at the very least. But I’m not in any way claiming they are right, either. Rome could be right on the matter, but I don’t think so based on the early council. My point isn’t to take sides on the matter. My point is I can’t take sides because I can’t know which side is right, unless they come to agreement.

Jon

So as I see it based on our last dialogue as it regards the real presence, your following your beliefs and understanding the division that to at least to know that you are open to a further understanding of how the Oriental, Orthodox, and Rome can agree is something you are looking at.

 

[passer_by]

That’s why the dialogue has to have a theological ingredient. For example, it is through dialogue, irrespective of the method of hermeunetics, that Lutherans and Catholics have come to significant agreements in the last 60 years or so. Most noticably on Justification.

Which part of my argument did not make it clear to you? Let me try to explain to you without referring to anything religious.

There is a group called Protestants who adopt a certain sent of axioms different from the Catholic Church. Arguing about the derivations of these axioms now is pointless.

The key is to argue about how you arrive at the Axioms. Right now as you are probably feeling it, it is pretty hard to justify any of the axioms of Protestantism.

My point is you are not going to convince even a Lutheran like myself, who has an open ear to Catholicism, with the approach of “you are irrational”.

If you are actually open, you should be dissecting the way you explain anyone else to become a Lutheran after accepting the risen Christ. So far you have not met this burden.

But even this misses the point, because you are speaking simply of hermeunetics.

You know, I have given reasons, even from the early Church, but here is one more. The …isdiction is of the West, and no greater than that of, say, Alexandria, or any of the others.

Jon, if you accept Apostolic Succession, you don’t have the luxury of disagreeing with some doctrine and accepting others. You accept the church and stick with it.

Right now, you want to argue the merit of doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is as retarded as trying to argue the merit of doctrine of the Protestant Church. What needs to be questioned is the basis for accepting who comes up with these doctrines.

And so does Orthodoxy, but I’m told that is not a reasonable position and irrelevent. It isn’t irrelevent. …e me in schism. And arguing that this is what the Catholic Church says, so it is right on this issue, is an irrational argument.

Jon, you are driving me mad here.

IF the Catholic Church is unacceptable for you and IF the Orthodox are unacceptable for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABANDON PROTESTANTISM. Why? Because it is just an arbitrary collection of rules put together by some mad man called Luther who claims to know what Christ taught.

At the least, your church has to stop converting people to your faith because you are leading people astray.

On 1, it is no more rational than any other communion who professes Tradition and Scripture, and a Catholic saying it does without objective proof is irrational.

As I said before, it is the most rational thing for anyone to do to go and listen to the Apostles. It is just like listening to a person with Authority in the field of Physics.

The joke here is that Protestants want to do something like randomly pick a physics book and come up with their own interpretations even when the Authorities over disagree.

On 2, it might be, if the theological differences are reconciled. It always come back to theology.

It is history. There is a difference between HISTORY and THEOLOGY. If I say Christ had Apostles, that is not Theology. That is a historical fact. Do you get the difference?

Just because I say something that is in the Bible, doesn’t make it Theology. One can use the Bible simply as a Historical book.

On 3, again this comes down to theology.

Trying pretty hard aren’t we Jon

On 4, I have showed above that premise 1 is not beyond rational dispute.

You have done no such thing. You keep saying it is irrational but it is the most rational thing to do.

Even you would do that if it was Theoretical Physics or something. But here, somehow all this is irrational to you.

On 5, no moreso or less so than Catholicism. We both appeal to the early Church and its teachings, the Apostles and their followers. As I have shown, simply appealing to Apostolic Succession doesn’t work, because those in Apostolic Succession do not agree.

Those in Apostolic Succession do agree. Even if we took the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, they agree on almost 90% of stuff which the Lutheran’s who have no Apostolic Succession don’t even accept. Whats the deal and logic with that?

The apostolic succession appeal is rationally disputed.

You have done no such thing. To say that Apostles don’t agree is not an objection to Apostolic Succession at all.

Even in the early Church Apostles disagreed on Circumcision. But when Peter made the call, everyone listened to him. This all goes back to History pal. Right now, you are just in denial.

The question of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position on universal jurisdiction is disputed. And both are disputed, not from a biblical standard, but a Tradition standard, and from those who profess it. Fix that 1000 year old division, and clearly you have the rational upperhand.

We can dispute everything. I can dispute gravity if I wanted to. But to then go and say Gravity probably doesn’t exist because it is disputed is retarded.

So I suggest you present rational argument other than “It is disputed”.

Even if I grant you that, you would do well in remembering that it is not a defense of Protestantism. You would just be believing in an arbitrary religion so do everyone you meet a favor and don’t try to convert them to your particular religion. No point converting people to something you believe by blind faith.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822411]Followed who? Christ? Because I am actually asking HOW YOU KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO FOLLOW HIM or IF YOU NEED TO FOLLOW HIM AT ALL.

Passer, He tells us.

Listen Jon, Ecumenism can be defined broadly or narrowly. If you just want to label what we are doing here as Ecumenism, then sure.

Ok. I’m just saying you brought it up.

Following the Apostles is not a Theological argument. If you wanted to become a Theoretical Physicist, to learn the stuff, you follow the teachings of Authority. That is a logical decision.

Of course it is, because you can’t tell me, beyond your on POV and that of your communion, who has authority.

You are confusing Theology with simply day-to-day logic here.

I don’t think so.

GOOD!

Whew. That was work, wasn’t it.

As I said before, Catholicism follows logical reason. Protestantism just wants me to believe in the Bible as authority out of the blue after the risen Christ.

You saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. Well, it makes it so for you, and that’s great - for you. That said, it isn’t out of the blue. I can imply it as easily a you can imply Purgatory. But when we talk about scripture as the final norm, we are not ecluding the authority of the Church. In fact, SS is a practice of the Church, not mine. As a Lutheran, I don’t practice personal interpretation when it comes to doctrine. I am bound to my communion’s teachings.

God gave REASON. So yes, in the end, unity will come from God. But sadly people like in the day of Christ want to behave unreasonably.

I agree, there are people who behave unreasonable. And frankly, I don’t believe you or I have fit that bill, except to say that we’ve probably spent a good portion of the conversation talking past each other.

If it matters so much to you that your belief is Apostolic, what on earth are you doing in a non-Apostolic church? Who in the Lutheran church is a successor of an Apostle?

See, here is the difference. You speak of being apostolic as narrowly being in succession.
That can’t even be said of all Catholic priests in history. But beyond that, there are Lutheran synods who are in succession, and can trace the lines. Even here in the US, there are ELCA pastors in succession, from Anglican lines, which come from the “Dutch touch”.
It is important to me because it is the historic practice of the Church. It is important, and desirable, but not necessary in terms of being within the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which we are.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822450]Which part of my argument did not make it clear to you? Let me try to explain to you without referring to anything religious.

There is a group called Protestants who adopt a certain sent of axioms different from the Catholic Church. Arguing about the derivations of these axioms now is pointless.

First mistake is there is not a group called protestants. Never has been.

The key is to argue about how you arrive at the Axioms. Right now as you are probably feeling it, it is pretty hard to justify any of the axioms of Protestantism.

Not at all.

If you are actually open, you should be dissecting the way you explain anyone else to become a Lutheran after accepting the risen Christ. So far you have not met this burden.

I’ve met it just fine. You just don’t like my explanation. And that’s ok.

Jon, if you accept Apostolic Succession, you don’t have the luxury of disagreeing with some doctrine and accepting others. You accept the church and stick with it.

Which one, passer? You haven’t answered that yet from a rational position. You are saying its the CC, but how do you know it isn’t the Orthodox Church in America?

Right now, you want to argue the merit of doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is as retarded as trying to argue the merit of doctrine of the Protestant Church. What needs to be questioned is the basis for accepting who comes up with these doctrines.

I want you to know I take umbrage with your use of the word “retarded”. I am a teacher and I see kids with all kinds of mental disabilities.
To your point, the doctrines are there. The division between Lutherans and Catholics is doctrine and theology. They are what must be resolved.

Jon, you are driving me mad here.

IF the Catholic Church is unacceptable for you and IF the Orthodox are unacceptable for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABANDON PROTESTANTISM. Why? Because it is just an arbitrary collection of rules put together by some mad man called Luther who claims to know what Christ taught.

Now you’re getting into name calling. What good will that do? Is that going to convince me of your position. *“Passer_by thinks Luther is a madman. Therefore, I must be wrong to be Lutheran.” * Really?

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Passer, He tells us.

So Christ came to you and said ‘Jon, accept the Bible, that’s my word. Hold Tradition as a secondary to the Scripture. Believe fast in the Lutheran Confessions’ etc etc?

Ok. I’m just saying you brought it up.

You stated it first. I have no clue why you did. Perhaps you wanted me to pick VI or VII so that then you can say you are picking the other?

Of course it is, because you can’t tell me, beyond your on POV and that of your communion, who has authority.

No Jon. The way it works in every field is first one has to determine the authority using reason. I can see a clear path to determining the Catholic Church as Authoritative. Hence it is not an arbitrary decision.

But you have not shown any reason to go from Christ to the Protestant belief system.

I don’t think so.

I think you do. Because to you, when I say the most rational thing to do after the finding the risen Christ is to turn to his Apostles seems to be Theology. It is not.

Whew. That was work, wasn’t it.

Work yes. Useful, no!

You saying it over and over doesn’t make it so.

I am stating something any rational person understands. You want to deny it. If you want me to stop convincing you of your irrational position, I will happily do so.

Well, it makes it so for you, and that’s great - for you.

That is not how reason works.

That said, it isn’t out of the blue. I can imply it as easily a you can imply Purgatory.

Purgatory? That is a doctrine. I accept it based on the fact that I accepted the Apostles. Not because it makes sense to me.

But when we talk about scripture as the final norm, we are not ecluding the authority of the Church. In fact, SS is a practice of the Church, not mine.

All Apostles, including that of the Orthodox deny this. What is your basis for saying SS is the practice of the Church?

And it is an issue of authority. You are holding Scripture as Authority. I am merely asking what is your rational basis for it.

As a Lutheran, I don’t practice personal interpretation when it comes to doctrine. I am bound to my communion’s teachings.

Your abide to teachings by random people who have no Authority. Which I think might be worse than private interpretation at times.

I agree, there are people who behave unreasonable. And frankly, I don’t believe you or I have fit that bill, except to say that we’ve probably spent a good portion of the conversation talking past each other.

Yes, because you are under the impression that everything is probably fine because the Roman Catholics probably have blind faith too. But in actual fact, even if we did, the implications of it on both churches is that we would just be arbitrary.

See, here is the difference. You speak of being apostolic as narrowly being in succession.
That can’t even be said of all Catholic priests in history.

Priests are not Apostles. Bishops are. Every Bishops can be traced back to the first Apostles. Do you have proof otherwise?

But beyond that, there are Lutheran synods who are in succession, and can trace the lines. Even here in the US, there are ELCA pastors in succession, from Anglican lines, which come from the “Dutch touch”.

Trace the lines back to what? Luther?

It is important to me because it is the historic practice of the Church. It is important, and desirable, but not necessary in terms of being within the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which we are.

Please understand this Jon. Your Church, is a group that split off from the successors of the Apostles. And then your cherry picked what it liked and invented other things it wanted.

It went unnoticed (sort of) back in the day but there is no rational basis for doing that. So either Luther took it up to himself that he was the Authority to decide what to accept and what to reject (at which point the question becomes, who on earth is this man? how do we know from the risen Christ that the next person to believe is dear old Luther?).

So I cannot for a second understand, other than that you have probably been Lutheran all your life, why anyone would stick to your church. There is no reason for it. It like a mass group of people believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Thankfully, some of the stuff you believe happens to be true. But there are also lot of errors like SS. Since you believe them by blind faith, it becomes pretty hard to convince your group of error.