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

[Augsburg1530]

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.”

No it’s not, because it’s not a belief, it’s a historical event. The statement is no more circular than saying “It is true that Custer was killed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, because at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Custer was killed.”

 

[Augsburg1530]

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

You will notice that I did not say that the apostles were infallible, I stated that what they preached was infallible. It was said in the context of the content of their preaching.

 

[joe370]

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.

No mere human is infallible, nor were the apostles; we all agree with you on that fact. Upon the close of the apostolic age, did the Infallible Holy Spirit stop guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, in your opinion???

 

[PRmerger]

You will notice that I did not say that the apostles were infallible, I stated that what they preached was infallible. It was said in the context of the content of their preaching.

Well, Augsburg, I don’t think we’d be making any concessions in Catholic teaching if Catholics said, yes, apostles and the Church are only infallible in the content of what they preach.

What are you thinking we mean by infallibility other than the above?

 

[PRmerger]

No it’s not, because it’s not a belief, it’s a historical event.

No, Augsburg, it is not a historical fact that public revelation ended with the death of the apostles. The Mormons, the Bahais, the pagans and New Agers all proclaim that revelation occurs post apostolic age.

And even if we discount them, it’s still not a historical fact. You only believe that it ended because someone proclaimed this to you.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Well, Augsburg, I don’t think we’d be making any concessions in Catholic teaching if Catholics said, yes, apostles and the Church are only infallible in the content of what they preach.

What are you thinking we mean by infallibility other than the above?

I never said the Catholic Church meant something other than that. In fact, in an earlier post, I said it was roughly equivalent to what the Roman communion teaches regarding papal infallibility.

 

[Augsburg1530]

did the Infallible Holy Spirit stop guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, in your opinion???

No. The way in which the Spirit guides the church into truth changed, however. He no longer does so by immediate revelation.

 

[Augsburg1530]

No, Augsburg, it is not a historical fact that public revelation ended with the death of the apostles. The Mormons, the Bahais, the pagans and New Agers all proclaim that revelation occurs post apostolic age.

And I would consider their claims if they were able to produce a form of revelation in the post-apostolic age that is even 1/10th as credible as Scripture.

And even if we discount them, it’s still not a historical fact. You only believe that it ended because someone proclaimed this to you.

I believe the Gospel because someone proclaimed it to me, that much is true. However, the faith we possess is also based on historical facts. While these alone do not create faith, they do serve to verify the claims of Christianity. The importance, historically, of the claims that revelation from God occurred during the apostolic era, and the fact that that revelation ceased with their departure cannot be discounted. The church is an important factor historically because it was a witness to God’s acts of revelation. However, that the church proclaims this does not make it so. Either revelation ceased or it didn’t, regardless of any emphatic decrees of a church council.

 

[PRmerger]

I never said the Catholic Church meant something other than that. In fact, in an earlier post, I said it was roughly equivalent to what the Roman communion teaches regarding papal infallibility.

Fair enough. We are agreed, then, that there were some men who were infallible, as the Catholic Church understands and proclaims infallibility.

And now the dialogue continues as to why you believe that this ended, for Scripture makes no pronouncements whatsoever that this occurred. In fact, it proclaims the opposite.

 

[PRmerger]

No. The way in which the Spirit guides the church into truth changed, however. He no longer does so by immediate revelation.

We are agreed on this, too!

 

[PRmerger]

And I would consider their claims if they were able to produce a form of revelation in the post-apostolic age that is even 1/10th as credible as Scripture.

Again, we are not really talking about divine revelation, Augsburg, but about the concept of infallibility.

Incidentally, do you not consider the canon of Scripture “credible”?

For you would not know that Hebrews is a piece of divine revelation, were it not prepared for you by the Church.

I believe the Gospel because someone proclaimed it to me, that much is true. However, the faith we possess is also based on historical facts.

Indeed.

While these alone do not create faith, they do serve to verify the claims of Christianity. The importance, historically, of the claims that revelation from God occurred during the apostolic era, and the fact that that revelation ceased with their departure cannot be discounted.

Again, we are agreed.

But, Scripture does not proclaim that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Thus, this is another extra-biblical concept that you affirm.

IOW, not all you believe can be found in Scripture.

The church is an important factor historically because it was a witness to God’s acts of revelation. However, that the church proclaims this does not make it so. Either revelation ceased or it didn’t, regardless of any emphatic decrees of a church council.

Indeed.

But you know this not from the Scriptures, but from the Church.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Fair enough. We are agreed, then, that there were some men who were infallible, as the Catholic Church understands and proclaims infallibility.

And now the dialogue continues as to why you believe that this ended, for Scripture makes no pronouncements whatsoever that this occurred. In fact, it proclaims the opposite.

Scripture does not make an explicit claim that that the unique charism of the apostles ends with them. However, it makes many implicit claims regarding this. I made reference to them in an earlier post.

To what are you referring about proclaiming the opposite?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Again, we are not really talking about divine revelation, Augsburg, but about the concept of infallibility.

Incidentally, do you not consider the canon of Scripture “credible”?

For you would not know that Hebrews is a piece of divine revelation, were it not prepared for you by the Church.

But, Scripture does not proclaim that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Thus, this is another extra-biblical concept that you affirm.

IOW, not all you believe can be found in Scripture.

It is not extra biblical at all.

The New Testament portrays the office of apostle as limited to the first generation of Christians, and makes no provision for the succession of others to this one-time office. For the most part, the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry and resurrection (Acts 1:21,22; 1 Cor. 15:5-8), and their writings are the church’s foundation and final authority (Eph. 2:20).

The Bible presents Christ’s incarnation, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as the once-for-all culmination of God’s plan of salvation foretold and foreshadowed in the Old Testament (Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26-28; 10:10; Jude 3). Thus, how could additional revelation add anything essential to the Christian message?

I agree with you that it is important that the Church has affirmed this, but to say that it is extra biblical is false.

 

[joe370]

No. The way in which the Spirit guides the church into truth changed, however. He no longer does so by immediate revelation.

So the holy spirit still guides the catholic church into all truth, but no longer by immediate revelation? Or, the holy spirit still guides all churches, regardless of denomination, into all truth, but no longer by immediate revelation?

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture does not make an explicit claim that that the unique charism of the apostles ends with them.

Right.

So we are also agreed that we do not require explicit claims in Scripture to support our doctrine.

To what are you referring about proclaiming the opposite?

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 16: 12-13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

It is not extra biblical at all.

The New Testament portrays the office of apostle as limited to the first generation of Christians, and makes no provision for the succession of others to this one-time office.

If this is true, Augsburg, and there is no apostolic succession, then how can you proclaim that your church is the one founded by Jesus Christ? How can you trace the line of authority of your church all the way back to the authority of Jesus?

 

[PRmerger]

For the most part, the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry and resurrection (Acts 1:21,22; 1 Cor. 15:5-8), and their -]writings/-] teaching are the church’s foundation and final authority (Eph. 2:20)

With the above correction, we are agreed.

(Clearly, Eph 2:20 could not have meant the apostles’ writings, for not everything had been written yet, yes?)

The Bible presents Christ’s incarnation, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as the once-for-all culmination of God’s plan of salvation foretold and foreshadowed in the Old Testament (Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26-28; 10:10; Jude 3).

Indeed.

Thus, how could additional revelation add anything essential to the Christian message?

There is no “additional revelation”, Augsburg. You are confusing the arguments between infallibility and revelation. We are agreed (although it is not explicitly stated in Scripture) that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

We are discussing infallibility, not additional revelation. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written. And we have received this faith from the apostles who deposited it once, for all to the saints.

I agree with you that it is important that the Church has affirmed this, but to say that it is extra biblical is false.

Well, we’ve already established that we agree that it’s not explicitly in Scripture, but that this is not a requirement for your or for my belief, that something be “explicitly” found in Scripture.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Right.

So we are also agreed that we do not require explicit claims in Scripture to support our doctrine.

There are many doctrines that I accept which have implicit claims in Scripture. Infant baptism is one example.

 

[Augsburg1530]

If this is true, Augsburg, and there is no apostolic succession, then how can you proclaim that your church is the one founded by Jesus Christ? How can you trace the line of authority of your church all the way back to the authority of Jesus?

By tracing our teachings to the teachings of Christ and His apostles. I do not need to name individual bishops, but rather, what they believed, taught, and confessed.

 

[Augsburg1530]

With the above correction, we are agreed.

(Clearly, Eph 2:20 could not have meant the apostles’ writings, for not everything had been written yet, yes?)

Teachings - writings. Six of one, half dozen of the other

There is no “additional revelation”, Augsburg. You are confusing the arguments between infallibility and revelation. We are agreed (although it is not explicitly stated in Scripture) that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

I was responding here to a comment you made about revelation.

We are discussing infallibility, not additional revelation. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written. And we have received this faith from the apostles who deposited it once, for all to the saints.

I don’t see how this could be the case, seeing as how revelation was only partly completed. I agree that the vast majority of Christian teaching was made known before the NT was written, but parts of it weren’t. An example would be the book of Revelation, which wasn’t written until the 90s, yet it contains very important aspects of Christian dogma. Even if the catholic faith was whole and entire before the NT was written, I don’t see how that is an argument for the infallibility of the Magisterium.