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

[PRmerger]

No, they only preached, copied, studied, used them in liturgy, etc. I don’t see how that did not contribute to the historical development of what was accepted into the canon.

They had nothing to do with the decision. They only read what the hierarchy provided them to read.

 

[joe370]

[COLOR="Red":

Augsburg1530

;7453781]He did have the right to believe it. And the church had the right to declare him a heretic for holding to it. Ultimately, God had the authority of sending him to Hell for believing it. I’m not sure what your point is here. Did Arius ever accept the teaching of Nicea?

If the bible (sola scriptura - scripture alone) - was then, as it is today for sola scriptura advocates - the one and only infallible authority, and not the church, then the catholic church, back then, did not have the right to brand Arius as a heretic, for the simple fact that he was doing the right thing, from a sola scriptura perspective, by deferring to scripture alone as opposed to the catholic church, just as all sola scriptura advocates do today. Agreed? I don’t know how else to put it.

 

[joe370]

The point is that even in the 5th century Sola Scriptura wouldn’t have worked out. If the reformers had been around at that time and started the reformation, then we might not have the truth of the Trinity.

Exactly!

 

[Augsburg1530]

If the bible (sola scriptura - scripture alone) - was then, as it is today for sola scriptura advocates - the one and only infallible authority, and not the church, then the catholic church, back then, did not have the right to brand Arius as a heretic, for the simple fact that he was doing the right thing, from a sola scriptura perspective, by deferring to scripture alone as opposed to the catholic church, just as all sola scriptura advocates do today. Agreed? I don’t know how else to put it.

That is because you are operating under the assumption that in order for the church to have any authority, it must be infallible authority. That isn’t a logical conclusion. The church does possess the authority to brand someone a heretic if they teach against apostolic doctrine. That such pronouncements aren’t possessed of divine inspiration does not make them any less authoritative when it comes to pronouncing the clear directives of Scriptural teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

Augustine (354-430): What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but The Father and I are one (Jn. 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. See WSA, Answer to Maximinus, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.

Athanasius (297-373): Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.19 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 108. Greek text: Περιττῆς τοιγαροῦν καὶ πλέον μανίας οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιχειρήσεως, μηκέτι τοιαῦτά τις ἐρω τάτω, ἢ μόνον τὰ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς μανθανέτω. Αὐτάρκη γὰρ καὶ ἱκανὰ τὰ ἐν ταύταις κείμενα περὶ τούτου παραδείγματα. Ad Serapionem 1.19, PG 26:573.

I’m not following you. What does this have to do with our discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t have to do with their authority. You are basing your conclusion on a charism possessed by the Church which I do not claim they have. Since the canon of the NT was based largely on Athanasius’ list, presented in his festal letter, you’d have to argue that it was based on some charism of infallibility possessed by Athanasius, which I don’t think is an argument you’d make! The problem with the discussion, is the Roman Catholic argument on this is far too simplistic. I would argue that God used historical development so that the books He inspired ended up in the canon.

Actually, in my statement prior to this I am not arguing from the position of infallibility, but from the position of authority.

We are agreed, then, that were it not for the authority of the Church–not the authority of Scripture–you would not know what’s* theopneustos*?

 

[PRmerger]

It conflicts with the fact that in a positive sense, we are commanded only to pray to God/Christ.

Augsburg, you are equivocating here.

Veneration of the saints does not conflict with a single verse of Scripture. Nuh-uh. No way. Not a chance.

It is only through Him that Scripture presents any form of grace being given to mankind.

Indeed. This is very Catholic of you to say!

Now, just like we say “only God can create”, but He uses human beings to do this, we can also say that only God gives grace, but he uses human beings to do this as well.

 

[PRmerger]

The Scriptures, when taken together, are clear on the doctrine of the Trinity.

This is absolutely not true. The dogma of the Trinity is implied in Scripture, but it is absolutely not clear on this.

This is why Arius took most of the bishops with him. And it took the Holy Spirit, speaking through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to proclaim this infallible truth.

By Scripture alone you would not be able to defend the Trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

The definition you are presenting of sola Scriptura, which is not the definition I accept, is untenable.

Excellent. Then on that definition, we are agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

That is because you are operating under the assumption that in order for the church to have any authority, it must be infallible authority.

That is not true. Your church has authority–Catholics would not deny that. Your church has the authority to marry you, to deny you marriage, to baptize, to deny baptism…

And it’s not an infallible authority–Lutherans would not deny that.

So for something to have authority does not implicitly mean that it’s an infallible authority.

It just so happens, though, that the CC has authority AND it’s infallible.

 

[ignatius777]

That is not true. Your church has authority–Catholics would not deny that. Your church has the authority to marry you, to deny you marriage, to baptize, to deny baptism…

And it’s not an infallible authority–Lutherans would not deny that.

So for something to have authority does not implicitly mean that it’s an infallible authority.

It just so happens, though, that the CC has authority AND it’s infallible.

Catholics believe Jesus kept His promise and sends the Holy Spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth. Since the Holy Spirit can not teach lies or untruths and Jesus promised to send the Spirit and Jesus cant lie then it can only logically folow that the church is infallible in matters of fath

 

[joe370]

That is because you are operating under the assumption that in order for the church to have any authority, it must be infallible authority. That isn’t a logical conclusion. The church does possess the authority to brand someone a heretic if they teach against apostolic doctrine. That such pronouncements aren’t possessed of divine inspiration does not make them any less authoritative when it comes to pronouncing the clear directives of Scriptural teaching.

So if those pronouncements, in fact, did not possess divine inspiration, (just the authority of the Catholic Church) - then how can we know, with certainty, that those pronouncements made by the CC council, were correct, and those pronouncements made by Arius and company, were incorrect?

You said: “The church does possess the authority to brand someone a heretic if they teach against apostolic doctrine.” Which church back in Arius’ day and which church today?

So, when someone today, as was the case back then, according to you, teaches against apostolic doctrine, it’s up to the authority of the church, (which does not possess divine inspiration, according to you) - to settle the matter, as opposed to the authority of scripture alone, which is inspired (all scripture is inspired) ?

 

[PRmerger]

You said: "The church does possess the authority to brand someone a heretic if they teach against apostolic doctrine." Which church back in Arius’s day and which church today?

Indeed. And what, exactly, was “apostolic doctrine”?

Sacred Tradition! At least, it was until the CC codified it into the 27 books of the New Testament and included the Septuagint.

 

[Augsburg1530]

So if those pronouncements, in fact, did not possess divine inspiration, (just the authority of the Catholic Church) - then how can we know, with certainty, that those pronouncements made by the CC council, were correct, and those pronouncements made by Arius and company, were incorrect?

You said: “The church does possess the authority to brand someone a heretic if they teach against apostolic doctrine.” Which church back in Arius’ day and which church today?

So, when someone today, as was the case back then, according to you, teaches against apostolic doctrine, it’s up to the authority of the church, (which does not possess divine inspiration, according to you) - to settle the matter, as opposed to the authority of scripture alone, which is inspired (all scripture is inspired) ?

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t. The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

1. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, "The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true”

This means that we are all floating in the same river, just different boats. Catholics have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people. In the end, what is the difference? Advocates of sola Scriptura just cut out the infallible middle man.

 

[ignatius777]

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t. The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

1. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, "The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true”

This means that we are all floating in the same river, just different boats. Catholics have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people. In the end, what is the difference? Advocates of sola Scriptura just cut out the infallible middle man.

There is no “need” for absolute certainty but Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth. The Holy Spirit cant teach error so the question is which church is it that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide?

 

[Augsburg1530]

There is no “need” for absolute certainty but Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth. The Holy Spirit cant teach error so the question is which church is it that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide?

Actually, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, not an institutional hierarchy. Where do we find that truth today? In the Scriptures, which were written by those whom the Holy Spirit guided into the truth. One could, of course, argue that this truth was handed on via tradition and on face value, I do not disagree with that. What I disagree with is that that tradition, in content, is different than what we have in the apostolic writings. If something is being taught as coming from the apostles, which cannot find any support in the Scriptures, then how do I know it came from the Apostles, and hence, from the Holy Spirit?

Essentially, that is all sola Scriptura is as a practice; making sure that the doctrine we proclaim is consistent with Scripture.

 

[ignatius777]

Actually, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, not an institutional hierarchy. Where do we find that truth today? In the Scriptures, which were written by those whom the Holy Spirit guided into the truth. One could, of course, argue that this truth was handed on via tradition and on face value, I do not disagree with that. What I disagree with is that that tradition, in content, is different than what we have in the apostolic writings. If something is being taught as coming from the apostles, which cannot find any support in the Scriptures, then how do I know it came from the Apostles, and hence, from the Holy Spirit?

Essentially, that is all sola Scriptura is as a practice; making sure that the doctrine we proclaim is consistent with Scripture.

Yes you are correct that the apostles would be guided in the truth and the truth is they were guided to what we now know as the catholic church. Now we really need to be careful about the term “finding support” in scripture since that leaves us with interpretations. I think I can clearly finf no support in scritpure for sola scriptura but I bet there are many who might disagree.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Yes you are correct that the apostles would be guided in the truth and the truth is they were guided to what we now know as the catholic church. Now we really need to be careful about the term “finding support” in scripture since that leaves us with interpretations. I think I can clearly finf no support in scritpure for sola scriptura but I bet there are many who might disagree.

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a practice. We are commanded to obey the teachings of Christ and the revelation given to His apostles for salvation. That much IS in Scripture. Those commands and revelations are found within the apostolic writings. Where we can affirm that tradition affirms the apostolic writings, then that tradition is authoritative. Where it differs or is non-existent, we cannot.

Is your interpretation that the truth is contained within the body of teachings of the Roman communion infallible?

 

[ignatius777]

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a practice. We are commanded to obey the teachings of Christ and the revelation given to His apostles for salvation. That much IS in Scripture. Those commands and revelations are found within the apostolic writings. Where we can affirm that tradition affirms the apostolic writings, then that tradition is authoritative. Where it differs or is non-existent, we cannot.

Is your interpretation that the truth is contained within the body of teachings of the Roman communion infallible?

I couldnt agree more but its left for interpretation by some about what differs or is non-existent in scritpure. As a catholic I could point to scripture as evidence that we are called to reconcile our sins through a priest. I suspect there are many who would say no such evidence exist. Thats purely a process of interpretation. I cant begin to tell you how many conversations I have had with protestants who are certain theres is the superior interpretation of scripture.

It is my interpretation that the truth is contained in the teachings of the church ehich Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide. Given that the Holy Spirit can not teach error then yes the teachings of the church are infallible.

 

[Augsburg1530]

I couldnt agree more but its left for interpretation by some about what differs or is non-existent in scritpure. As a catholic I could point to scripture as evidence that we are called to reconcile our sins through a priest. I suspect there are many who would say no such evidence exist. Thats purely a process of interpretation. I cant begin to tell you how many conversations I have had with protestants who are certain theres is the superior interpretation of scripture.

I agree, but the issue in such a situation is whose evidence within Scripture is more consistent with the overall text of the writings, as well as what has been the consistent teaching of the church on the matter. Taking your example of confession and absolution, you could point to John 20:23 and say that Christ gives his earthly representatives the authority to forgive and retain sin. If you’re opposing say, a Baptist, it would be incumbent upon that person to provide evidence within Scripture that would argue against the clear words of John 20:23. I’m sure they will provide arguments against your view, that doesn’t make them good ones. Scripture is difficult in places, but in most places, it isn’t rocket science. I don’t know why individuals present Scripture as if it’s more difficult to understand than Plato, but it isn’t.

It is my interpretation that the truth is contained in the teachings of the church ehich Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide. Given that the Holy Spirit can not teach error then yes the teachings of the church are infallible.

Yes, but is that interpretation infallible? If the argument is given that in order to have certainty about something, it must be infallible, then your interpretation that the teachings of the church are infallible is no less fallible than my interpretation that the church isn’t infallible. In short, we both fallible interpretations about things we believe are infallible.