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

[PRmerger]

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

 

[PRmerger]

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.

That is more than fair. :yup:

But does it seem to give a bit more….credibility (for lack of a better word) if there were a church that could trace its existence from its current leaders, all the way back for 2000 years to Christ and the apostles? Does that not seem to up the ante (again, words are not coming to me that truly hit the spot) a bit for you?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Ok. Only in that teachings includes both the oral Sacred Tradition as well as the written Sacred Scripture.

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

Ok. Then we are agreed on:

• public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
• there were some individuals, at some point in history, who were given the charism of infallibility, as the Church understands it.

What we are now discussing is whether this charism of infallibility ended.

Oh, and we are agreed that the canon of Scripture is without error.

That this canon was discerned, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by Catholic bishops–on this are we agreed?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Augsburg, the CC was proclaiming the Gospel, even those truths which are proclaimed in the book of Revelation, before Revelation was ever committed to paper (or papyrus as the case may be).

That is why those who are unreconstructed proponents of Sola Scriptura cannot logically argue against Sacred Tradition. If it were not for Sacred Tradition, the book of Revelation would not have been written, preserved and considered theopneustos.

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.

My comment was in response to your tangential, “Thus, how could additional revelation add anything essential to the Christian message?”

There is no additional revelation.

I simply want to make that clear.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written. There is no additional revelation outside the kerygma.

Now as to the concept of the infallibility of others besides the apostles, what evidence do you have for this? Why does this charism end? And how do you know?

 

[Augsburg1530]

That this canon was discerned, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by Catholic bishops–on this are we agreed?

If by inspiration, you mean that the church (the entire church) was led to recognize the inspired writings as canonical, then yes.

 

[PRmerger]

If by inspiration, you mean that the church (the entire church) was led to recognize the inspired writings as canonical, then yes.

And this was done without the guidance of “Scripture”, for that, again, would be begging the question. “Let’s use Scripture to discern what is Scripture”.

What was used, was the oral teaching of the apostles, yes? The* kerygma.* That which converged with the oral tradition was then discerned to be *theopneustos. * That which diverged was then rejected. Yes?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Augsburg, the CC was proclaiming the Gospel, even those truths which are proclaimed in the book of Revelation, before Revelation was ever committed to paper (or papyrus as the case may be).

Yes, they were preaching the Gospel; but what do you mean by the truths of Revelation being proclaimed before Revelation was written?

Now as to the concept of the infallibility of others besides the apostles, what evidence do you have for this? Why does this charism end? And how do you know?

An infallible conference being passed on through the Apostles to some successors, while this might be nice and I have nothing against it, I simply have no reason, outside of a pragmatic desire for unity, to believe such occurred. The Scriptures presented concerning the authority of the apostles concerns them alone. There is nothing, from what I can see, said either explicitly or implicitly concerning the passing on of some infallible authority through apostolic succession.

From my perspective (and I think I speak with some common sense here), if God wanted believers to see the Church as an institutional authority that houses infallibility, either through the unity of the bishops or the ex cathedra statements of the Pope, then it goes without saying that this would be a primary doctrine that the Bible should address.

While the Scriptures contain many opportunities to teach this type of apostolic succession, either through example in the book of Acts or through explicit instruction in the Pastoral epistles, there is no such teaching. The Scriptures just don’t teach that the Apostles conferred their authority on anyone else. All attempts to find the doctrine of infallible apostolic succession in Scripture, in my opinion, must be labeled as eisegetical theology (reading your theology into the text, rather than deriving one’s theology from the text).

 

[Augsburg1530]

And this was done without the guidance of “Scripture”, for that, again, would be begging the question. “Let’s use Scripture to discern what is Scripture”.

What was used, was the oral teaching of the apostles, yes? The* kerygma.* That which converged with the oral tradition was then discerned to be *theopneustos. * That which diverged was then rejected. Yes?

I am not sure if I would say the oral teaching of the apostles was used. I would have no problem saying that “tradition” was used. Of course, that doesn’t mean the tradition was separate from the teachings delivered in Holy Writ, per se. There were many historical factors that were used to determine which writings were authentic and which were not.

If it were part of “sacred tradition” which books composed the canon, why did so many bishops who had access to this tradition differ on which books were inspired? Why does the Eastern canon differ from the Western, etc?

 

[PRmerger]

If by inspiration, you mean that the church (the entire church) was led to recognize the inspired writings as canonical, then yes.

Not sure what you mean by “the entire church”. Do you mean to include the average Christian peasant in, say, Carthage? He was inspired to discern the canon of Scripture?

At these councils, in which bishops and a pope sat, they discerned the over 400 Christian texts and, under the inspiration of the HS, came to a decision.

This was ratified at the Council of Rome, then at Hippo, Carthage, Nicea, Florence, and Trent.

So on multiple occasions the Church–Catholic Church which had bishops and popes presiding–used the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inerrantly proclaim that which was *theopneustos. *.

We are agreed on this, Augsburg? There is no error in the decisions made, on numerous occasions, by Catholic bishops regarding the canon of Scripture?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Not sure what you mean by “the entire church”. Do you mean to include the average Christian peasant in, say, Carthage? He was inspired to discern the canon of Scripture?

At these councils, in which bishops and a pope sat, they discerned the over 400 Christian texts and, under the inspiration of the HS, came to a decision.

This was ratified Rome, at Hippo, Carthage, Nicea, Florence, and Trent.

So on multiple occasions the Church–Catholic Church which had bishops and popes presiding–used the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inerrantly proclaim that which was *theopneustos. *.

We are agreed on this, Augsburg? There is no error in the decisions made, on numerous occasions, by Catholic bishops regarding the canon of Scripture?

To the best of my knowledge, the Council of Nicea did not address the canon. Of the early councils that you mentioned, none of them were under the supposed doctrine of ecumenical infallibility. So none of them, even by Roman Catholic standards, produced an infallible list of Scripture. The first, as far as I know, that would have qualified would have been the Council of Trent. Was Christendom unsure of the canon up until the 1500s?

 

[PRmerger]

To the best of my knowledge, the Council of Nicea did not address the canon. Of the early councils that you mentioned, none of them were under the supposed doctrine of ecumenical infallibility. So none of them, even by Roman Catholic standards, produced an infallible list of Scripture. The first, as far as I know, that would have qualified would have been the Council of Trent.** Was Christendom unsure of the canon up until the 1500s?**

You are creating a false dichotomy between infallible pronouncements and uncertainty.

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

 

[Augsburg1530]

You are creating a false dichotomy between infallible pronouncements and uncertainty.

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

That is true; but it isn’t I who makes the claim that in order for us to know which books are Scripture, an infallible decision must be made by a church council.

 

[PRmerger]

To the best of my knowledge, the Council of Nicea did not address the canon. Of the early councils that you mentioned, none of them were under the supposed doctrine of ecumenical infallibility. So none of them, even by Roman Catholic standards, produced an infallible list of Scripture. The first, as far as I know, that would have qualified would have been the Council of Trent. Was Christendom unsure of the canon up until the 1500s?

A teaching need not be proclaimed *ex cathedra *for it to be considered an infallible teaching. Pronouncements by the ordinary and universal magisterium can be infallible–the canon of Scripture was such, until, of course, the Council of Trent.

 

[PRmerger]

While the Scriptures contain many opportunities to teach this type of apostolic succession, either through example in the book of Acts or through explicit instruction in the Pastoral epistles, there is no such teaching. The Scriptures just don’t teach that the Apostles conferred their authority on anyone else. All attempts to find the doctrine of infallible apostolic succession in Scripture, in my opinion, must be labeled as eisegetical theology (reading your theology into the text, rather than deriving one’s theology from the text).

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[PRmerger]

From my perspective (and I think I speak with some common sense here),

Fair enough. But you have no Scripture to back you up.

And I will speak from common sense (and I have no Scripture to back me up either–just a common sense thought): why would Jesus establish a church and then leave it to flounder with no central authority? No one to say, “This is what God said.” That simply makes no sense!

In fact, we see the fruits of this lack of central authority in the tens of thousands of Christian denominations that have arisen from those recusant to a central authority.

Thus, because of this lack of apostolic succession/central authority, now there exists a multitude of interpretations just on baptism.

-Is it a sacrament? An ordinance? Or does it just get you wet?
-Should it be done by sprinkling? Immersion? Or in a river?
-Should infants be baptized? Or only adults? Or when you reach the age of reason?
-Should it be done in Jesus’ name or using the trinitarian formula?

This is the definition of chaos and confusion, by the Author of Chaos and Confusion, IMHO!

 

[joe370]

That is true; but it isn’t I who makes the claim that in order for us to know which books are Scripture, an infallible decision must be made by a church council.

So, was it a fallible decision, regarding the correct inclusion of books in the sacred canon, and the correct exclusion of books from sacred canon, made by the Catholic church:

NT books which are now included/accepted by Christians, but which were, for a time rejected: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

NT books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

 

[PRmerger]

That is true; but it isn’t I who makes the claim that in order for us to know which books are Scripture, an infallible decision must be made by a church council.

That is not what I have been professing, Augsburg.

What I have said is
-you do not believe in Scripture Alone if you accept the canon of Scripture, for that cannot be found in Scripture. You needed the Church to discern this. Something *besides *Scripture.
-this Church used Sacred Tradition to discern those books which were theopneustos.

Thus, anyone who quotes from Scripture believes in Sacred Tradition and rejects Sola Scriptura.

And if they believe that the Church did not err in this proclamation, then they believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not sure if I would say the oral teaching of the apostles was used. I would have no problem saying that “tradition” was used. Of course, that doesn’t mean the tradition was separate from the teachings delivered in Holy Writ, per se.

Then this is very Catholic of you to say, Augsburg!

There were many historical factors that were used to determine which writings were authentic and which were not.

Ok. But that which diverged from the kerygma was rejected.

[qutoe]If it were part of “sacred tradition” which books composed the canon, why did so many bishops who had access to this tradition differ on which books were inspired?

As you believe in the dogma of the Trinity, I find it curious that you would ask this. The bishop Arius had many bishops siding with him–the majority, actually, on this heresy.

That bishops may have disagreed is not a testament that Sacred Tradition is inefficacious.

Why does the Eastern canon differ from the Western, etc?

I don’t know. One of us is wrong, eh?

 

[joe370]

That is not what I have been professing, Augsburg.

What I have said is
-you do not believe in Scripture Alone if you accept the canon of Scripture, for that cannot be found in Scripture. You needed the Church to discern this. Something *besides *Scripture.
-this Church used Sacred Tradition to discern those books which were theopneustos.

Thus, anyone who quotes from Scripture believes in Sacred Tradition and rejects Sola Scriptura. And if they believe that the Church did not err in this proclamation, then they believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.

Not only that, it was tradition that assigned the gospels and most of the epistles, to certain authors of the bible. To embrace scripture is to unwittingly embrace tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Not only that, it was tradition that assigned the gospels and most of the epistles, to certain authors of the bible. To embrace scripture is to unwittingly embrace tradition.

Indeed.

In fact, there is no author assigned to Hebrews, which ought to be quite troubling indeed to those who reject the authority of the Church… For if one does not know who wrote an ancient text, how can one judge its veracity? Was this person a witness to Christ? Did he know the apostles? One can’t know these things if one doesn’t know the author?

One simply has to trust the Church’s authority.