Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions.......

[Augsburg1530]

Do you think, like the Muslims do with Muhammad, that God literally dictated the encyclicals to St. Peter?

No, not at all. Only that what Peter wrote down was superintended by the Holy Spirit so that God’s revelation was given through his writings. This didn’t have to do with any quality within Peter. I am sure, in many respects, it is not at all unlike how Roman Catholics view ecclesiastical and papal infallibility. The difference being that I do not acknowledge such infallibility not because God couldn’t do it, but because I don’t find the evidence of Him doing it.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not at all. Only that what Peter wrote down was superintended by the Holy Spirit so that God’s revelation was given through his writings. This didn’t have to do with any quality within Peter. I am sure, in many respects, it is not at all unlike how Roman Catholics view ecclesiastical and papal infallibility.

That is very insightful, Augsburg.

So when you say only God is infallible, but you acknowledge that God can use *men *to reveal His Truth, this is indeed compatible with Catholic teaching. It is what the CC professes when it proclaims that the office of the papacy (and, indeed, the Magisterium) has the charism of infallibility.

The difference being that I do not acknowledge such infallibility not because God couldn’t do it, but because I don’t find the evidence of Him doing it.

You do believe that some men were given this gift. It just ended with the writing of the NT, then? Is that your position?

 

[Augsburg1530]

You do believe that some men were given this gift. It just ended with the writing of the NT, then? Is that your position?

Yes. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures. I agree when Catholics say that the teaching and preaching of the apostles was also infallible and inspired (the word of “by word and letter”). However, where we differ (I think) is that what they taught by word is the same as what they taught by letter. This excludes the partim-partim view.

 

[PRmerger]

The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures.

This simply cannot be true.

For there is not a single verse of Scripture that says that Hebrews is inspired, or Revelation. Or 1 Peter.

2 Tim 3:16 only says that Scripture is inspired–not what IS Scripture and what is not.

Sacred Tradition is required for that.

I agree when Catholics say that the teaching and preaching of the apostles was also infallible and inspired (the word of “by word and letter”). However, where we differ (I think) is that what they taught by word is the same as what they taught by letter. This excludes the partim-partim view.

Isn’t saying that some men were given the gift of inerrancy (or infallibility) but this stopped (when? why? who said?) at some point quite arbitrary, AND not supported by Scripture?

 

[Augsburg1530]

This simply cannot be true.

For there is not a single verse of Scripture that says that Hebrews is inspired, or Revelation. Or 1 Peter.

2 Tim 3:16 only says that Scripture is inspired–not what IS Scripture and what is not.

Sacred Tradition is required for that.

As far as I can tell, Rome doesn’t claim that the list of canonical books is an inspired table of contents. Sure, Rome states that she was guided by the Spirit in recognizing the canon of Scripture, but doesn’t claim that this was by divine revelation. While Scripture doesn’t give us a master list of what is and isn’t Scripture (at least as regards the New Testament), they were viewed as such very shortly after their composition. The point being that apostolic tradition and Scripture are coterminus. The one is exactly the same as the other.

As the decrees of the First Vatican Council affirm: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.”

Isn’t saying that some men were given the gift of inerrancy (or infallibility) but this stopped (when? why? who said?) at some point quite arbitrary, AND not supported by Scripture?

It is supported by Scripture by the simple fact that Scripture ceased to be written. If Scripture ceased to be written, then once John went to the Lord, there was nothing left to be said, either in oral or written form. This really isn’t in dispute between Roman Catholicism and historical Protestantism. Rome also affirms that public revelation ceased in the post-apostolic age. The dispute is over the authority of Scripture and the church and what the precise content of apostolic revelation is, not its duration.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I can tell, Rome doesn’t claim that the list of canonical books is an inspired table of contents. Sure, Rome states that she was guided by the Spirit in recognizing the canon of Scripture, but doesn’t claim that this was by divine revelation.

It is part of the Deposit of Faith, Augsburg.

It is part of the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium.

And, if you don’t believe that the Church was able to discern this infallibly, what error do you think they made? Do you believe Hebrews ought be excluded and the Shepherd of Hermes be included?

 

[Augsburg1530]

It is part of the Deposit of Faith, Augsburg.

It is part of the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium.

Then why did debates about the content of the canon of the NT continue for several centuries?

And, if you don’t believe that the Church was able to discern this infallibly, what error do you think they made? Do you believe Hebrews ought be excluded and the Shepherd of Hermes be included?

Why the either/or? I don’t see why the discussion is reduced to “they either made an infallible decision or they made a mistake.” Because they did not accept the canon infallibly, doesn’t mean they did so errantly; and besides, neither Hippo or Carthage meet even the Catholic criteria for an infallible council.

 

[PRmerger]

Then why did debates about the content of the canon of the NT continue for several centuries?

I don’t understand the question.

Did not debate occur regarding the Trinity? Isn’t that an infallible teaching?

 

[PRmerger]

As the decrees of the First Vatican Council affirm: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.”

You seem to be affirming my point, Augsburg, with the above quote. It was the Catholic Church, which discerned the canon of Scripture. And Scripture was NOT used to determine this.

Thus, your statement: *The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures * is not true. The Church was needed to provide a piece of God’s revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

It is supported by Scripture by the simple fact that Scripture ceased to be written.

This is begging the question, Augsburg. You are supposed to be providing an argument why only the authors of Sacred Scripture were given the gift of infallibility. Your above statement is circular.

If Scripture ceased to be written, then once John went to the Lord, there was nothing left to be said, either in oral or written form. This really isn’t in dispute between Roman Catholicism and historical Protestantism.

Firstly, Augsburg, the Church is not Roman. It is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Roman, or Latin, rite, is only one of 23 rites in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Rome also affirms that public revelation ceased in the post-apostolic age. The dispute is over the authority of Scripture and the church and what the precise content of apostolic revelation is, not its duration.

Ok.

 

[Augsburg1530]

You seem to be affirming my point, Augsburg, with the above quote. It was the Catholic Church, which discerned the canon of Scripture. And Scripture was NOT used to determine this.

I don’t disagree with this. I never stated that the Western church did not discern the canon of Scripture. Since it was God’s purpose to give Scripture to the church, He would, of course, ensure that it receives it.

Thus, your statement: *The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures * is not true. The Church was needed to provide a piece of God’s revelation.

I don’t see how discerning the canon of Scripture is revelation. If Rome doesn’t say that it was, why would anyone who is in communion with Rome say that it was? The church was needed to receive what the apostles had written and put it into practice.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t disagree with this. I never stated that the Western church did not discern the canon of Scripture. Since it was God’s purpose to give Scripture to the church, He would, of course, ensure that it receives it.

That is fair, Augsburg.

But then it also contradicts your original premise:

The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures.

Clearly, there was more that was given to you through the Church.

 

[Augsburg1530]

This is begging the question, Augsburg. You are supposed to be providing an argument why only the authors of Sacred Scripture were given the gift of infallibility. Your above statement is circular.

You stated that Scripture does not support the idea that revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. My point in the above is that if it is historical fact, which it is, that no new revelation was given after John, then it becomes clear that revelation ceased.

 

[Augsburg1530]

That is fair, Augsburg.

But then it also contradicts your original premise:

The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures.

Clearly, there was more that was given to you through the Church.

It doesn’t contradict it because the reception of the canon was not an act of divine revelation that is complimentary to apostolic revelation. The sum total of what the apostles received from Christ was written down in the Scriptures. The Scriptures also contain the content of their oral preaching.

 

[PRmerger]

You stated that Scripture does not support the idea that revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. My point in the above is that if it is historical fact, which it is, that no new revelation was given after John, then it becomes clear that revelation ceased.

Indeed. This is another interesting point. Another area in which Sacred Tradition influences your theology.

As Scripture does not state that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle–yet that is clearly something you believe–we must conclude that you believe this because the Magisterium of the Church has proclaimed it.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t contradict it because the reception of the canon was not an act of divine revelation that is complimentary to apostolic revelation. The sum total of what the apostles received from Christ was written down in the Scriptures. The Scriptures also contain the content of their oral preaching.

Right. But we weren’t talking about divine revelation. But the concept of infallibility.

Initially you said that only God was infallible. Then you proferred that the apostles, in that they received the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their writings, were infallible.

I simply questioned why you believe that some men only in the apostolic age would be given this charism. Scripture does not state this.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Indeed. This is another interesting point. Another area in which Sacred Tradition influences your theology.

As Scripture does not state that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle–yet that is clearly something you believe–we must conclude that you believe this because the Magisterium of the Church has proclaimed it.

No, I believe this because it’s historically true. If the Magisterium had said that revelation continued, it would still be historically true that revelation ceased. As to what Scripture says on the subject, Christ promises the disciples and the disciples alone that they will receive all truth from the Spirit. Passages such as Jude 3, 2 Thess. 2:15, and Gal. 1:6-9 also indicate that what the apostles were preaching was the fullness of divine truth regarding the Gospel.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Right. But we weren’t talking about divine revelation. But the concept of infallibility.

Initially you said that only God was infallible. Then you proferred that the apostles, in that they received the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their writings, were infallible.

I simply questioned why you believe that some men only in the apostolic age would be given this charism. Scripture does not state this.

I said that they were inerrant in writing down that which is infallible, because the Spirit assured that they would not write down error. But yes, no being is infallible aside from God. It is an incommunicable attribute.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I believe this because it’s historically true.

Again, this is begging the question. “I believe public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, because the last apostle died and public revelation ended.”

You must provide an argument, outside the fact that you believe this only because the CC proclaimed it, as to why you believe it.

 

[PRmerger]

I said that they were inerrant in writing down that which is infallible, because the Spirit assured that they would not write down error. But yes, no being is infallible aside from God. It is an incommunicable attribute.

Did I misunderstand you here? It certainly sounded like you were saying that the apostles were infallible below (bold, BB codes mine).

Yes. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The sum total of the revelation that was given to them is contained within the Scriptures.** I agree when Catholics say that the teaching and preaching of the apostles was also infallible** and inspired (the word of “by word and letter”). However, where we differ (I think) is that what they taught by word is the same as what they taught by letter. This excludes the partim-partim view.