Sola scriptura challenge

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I must confess, the first time I read the posts on fallible or infallible lists and documents, I asked myself, “Self, what are these guys talking about?” Having not read Scott Hahn’s book, probably contributed to that deer-in-the-headlights look! But, I think I have an answer… at least for this part of the discussion… so, here goes

you are right, I did not describe the logical inconsistency that he thought existed…I’ll use the excuse that was too foreign a concept for me to grasp on the first go around…Hahn states that the Protestant position is that “we have a fallible list of infallible documents”. I, however, have never met a Protestant that holds to that position. Every P I know thinks that God went to the bother of inspiring certain authors and then also went to the bother of ensuring their preservation and selection.

The infallible list is the complete Canon as established prior to 400AD

The imfallible documents are all of the books that are contained.

The fallible list is the abridged Canon that developed after 1520 - but, since no books were added - only taken out - the books that remained were still infallible.

Now, is this what you are talking about?

God bless

 

[Bengoshi]

Because the text says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and my local church is a Christian church.

The text of the passage convinces me of that.

Oh and I am not saying that only my church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Every church that is Christian is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.

I agree with NotTooSmart. However, I would just like to add something to what he said. All Christian churches are part of the one “Catholic,” meaning universal Church, and that does not necessarily mean the Roman Church. The term Roman Catholic Church is in itself a contradiction of terms. How can something be Roman be universal at the same time? So, it logically follows that all Christian churches, such as the various denominations of Protestantism, which belong to the invisible body of Christ that is the Holy Catholic Church, are also parts of the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[Bengoshi]

Wow, no offense but you just defined Protestantism to a tee. And you have what assurances here? Basically that you read Scripture and get the same idea and it sounds plausible to you. Who do you go to if you’re not quite sure? Your pastor?

Well, we do too. Who is anyone to tell us their pastor is better informed than our Pope? That’s what bothers me most. Even when I was Protestant I believed the Pope had intimate knowledge of Scripture.

Hi there,

He did not define Protestantism for no pastor or Protestant Christian has ever declared it’s interpretation of Scripture infallible. As believers, we have the responsibility to see and study for ourselves whether or not what our pastors are teaching are biblical. It’s just like what the Bereans did when the Apostle Paul himself preached to them (Acts 17:11). So even Paul’s teaching, who was no less an apostle, was scrutinized by the Berean church! If that is the case, then shouldn’t we as disciples of Christ, scrutinize the teachings, doctrines, dogmas, proclamations, and bulls of the Pope, the cardinals and bishops?

 

[Bengoshi]

I don’t believe you could substantiate even just the hierarchy as being totally in error. In 1517 in the final session of Lateran V, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola delivered a long address on the evils fcing the Church and the need for the pope to force reforms. Mirandola warned that if the pope did not, “God Himself will cut off the rotten limbs with fire and sword.” Even this does not translate into entire corruption.

As to the rest of your post I would offer a reply from Lateran V but your last paragraph pretty much implies you would not be impressed. It seems we are at an impasse. I would like to leave you with a thought. Christ is one person and so the mind and will of Christ are one. Yet we have today many religious bodies professing to proclaim that one mind and will. This cannot be. Therefore, either all of the bodies are wrong or one and only one is correct and the others are in error to one degree or another. I believe the former and I believe that one body is what we know today as the Catholic Church.
God bless…

Oh, come on! Please don’t be blinded by your obedience to the Roman church officials! It only takes ONE ERROR to prove that the Roman Catholic Church, it heirarchy, and its Magisterium, are not infallible! It doesn’t matter if they corrected their doctrine or they recanted, the truth of the matter is that they have erred! Period!

As to doctrinal differences within Protestantism, it is true that they exist. However, if you will notice, in spite of that, we still consider each other of various denominations to brethren in Christ, and therefore one. Unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials. Those which God explicitly and clearly revealed are essentials and therefore any deviation from them cannot be allowed and will be labelled as heresy. On the other hand, those things which God did not fully and clearly reveal are up for discussion, debate, and disagreement. See Deuteronomy 29:29 wherein it says that “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, did you think that I said “that the ** very first** ECFs immediately identifed a certain set of writings as scripture to the exclusion all else”?.

No, why would I have thought that? You said “The ECFs”, not “The early ECFs” or “The later ECFs” or any other subset of the ECFs.

If so, you would be correct in identifying that as a false claim, but it ain’t what I said. The ECFs did eventually put aside their limited differences and arrive at a canon of scripture. In contrast, as you say:
Why do you suppose that was the case? Why did the ECFs think it necessary to define a canon of scripture, but not a canon of sacred tradition?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here. The existence of a canon of Scripture, and the non-existence of a canon of Tradition, is completely in keeping with Catholic thought (properly understood of course).

 

[Radical]

Hi, Radical,

Hi

Here is something you should read to make sure we get the name correct:

…Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Oh dear, you got the quote all wrong…It is: “…just as wherever Jesus is, there is the catholic church.”

Jesus is to be found wherever two or more are gathered in his name. As such, it we apply Ignatius’s statement, the catholic church is located in the school that houses the local charismatic church every Sunday, the catholic church is located in the Moravian church just up the road from me, the catholic church is located in the house across the alley and the catholic church is located at the Roman Catholic Church next to Safeway. Ignatius is using “catholic” as “universal” or “general”…it was not until about 200 AD that the term was used in a technical fashion to designate the “Catholic Church” as opposed to heretical sects. (See The Apostolic Fathers in English by M W Holmes).

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

again the use is as “universal” and not a proper name. Later in the work it reads:

*For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world. *

I mention this passage b/c this is exactly where one would expect to see mention of Mary if she possessed any where near the significance for the catholic church of Polycarp’s time as she now possesses for the modern CC. Different doctrine wrt essentials = different church

The issue to “…side with the Orthodox…” is truly a red herring. The ECF were all members of the Catholic Church united under the Bishop of Rome.

And, that really is the way it was for the ECF.

Here is the thing, you keep repeating your opinion as if it is established fact. It ain’t. You need to provide some evidence to support your opinion.

 

[Radical]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here. The existence of a canon of Scripture, and the non-existence of a canon of Tradition, is completely in keeping with Catholic thought (properly understood of course).

Haven’t figured out what I am getting at either…It just strikes me as a very interesting distinction. What were the ECFs thinking wrt scripture and tradition such that they felt it necessary to define the canon of scripture but not necessary to define a canon of tradition. (Heck, if I had the time [and the language skills] there probably would be a Phd in the examination of that question)…I am just curious what you would think the reason would be…off the top of your head. Cheers.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

The real problem is… you are running out of smoke for your smoke screen! For a while there I thought the Fire Marshall was going to put in a post … but, I see it is starting to think out along with your thinning arguments. For example:

Buddy, you are sooooo right.

God bless

Your post is full of ad hominem attacks! Instead of answering the issues head on, you instead attack the the poster (NotTooSmart) personally! You have to do better than this dude!

Please, observe Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15.

 

[Bengoshi]

You didn’t answer the question. What does 1 Timothy 3:15 say is the pillar and foundation of faith. The correct answer is “The Church” not the Bible or Scripture.

You may also want to look at 2 Peter 1:20-21

Then there is :

(don’t take it to the Bible but “the Church”)

( the Church not the Bible is the Body and Fullness of Christ…)

(hum, no mention of a Bible)

(preaching the Word of God, still no bible)

Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church

 

[NotTooSmart]

Your post is full of ad hominem attacks! Instead of answering the issues head on, you instead attack the the poster (NotTooSmart) personally! You have to do better than this dude!

Please, observe Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15.

Oh I am used to that.

Nowt I have sort of an obsession with counting and collecting. So I am accumulating the ins…compliments that I have received in one thread nontheless. See my signature.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bengoshi,

You know, it is one thing to tag around with NotTooSmart - but, it is quite another to slide down the slope of an illogical argument. Let’s check this out…

I agree with NotTooSmart. However, I would just like to add something to what he said. All Christian churches are part of the one “Catholic,” meaning universal Church, and that does not necessarily mean the Roman Church. The term Roman Catholic Church is in itself a contradiction of terms. How can something be Roman be universal at the same time? So, it logically follows that all Christian churches, such as the various denominations of Protestantism, which belong to the invisible body of Christ that is the Holy Catholic Church, are also parts of the pillar and foundation of truth.

First of all, you have to get the name right - it is not the Roman Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church. You wll run into the same problem by trying to look up a name by using the wrong spelling.

Secondly, at the time: one, holy, catholic and apostolic was developed (Nicene Creed in 325AD) there were only three religions: Jews, Greek & Roman pagans, and the Catholic Church (the name change from The Way to Catholic took place in 107 with Ignatius of Antioch).

Thirdly - if ‘all’ these churches and denominations were meant for every schismatic separatist group around - how could this be since they had not yet broken away from the Church founded by Jesus Christ? You see, there is this major choronlogical error you have fallen into. Check it out for yourself. An honest and unbiased review of history should at least point you in the right direction.

Best wishes - and keep an eye on NotTooSmart … you kow…he’s right…

God bless

 

[Radical]

Actually, the term Catholic came from Ignatius of Antioch in about 107AD. There is a direct connection between the Apostle John who I believe taught Ignatius and many of the Early Church Fathers. At this time, there were the Jews, the Roman and Greek pagans - and the Catholics.

and a bunch of gnostics etc.

I had said:

yes, same name…but then as I have already pointed out, the “Mormon Jesus” has the same name as the “orthodox Jesus”. Also, I think your date is too late… the synods/councils of the late 4th century codified existing opinion.

and you replied:

Now, you know that makes no sense. Why use it? “Mormon Jesus” just does not follow.

This is a simple concept Tom. A name is merely a label…it does not determine the substance of a thing. The Mormons call their savior by the name of “Jesus” and you call your savior by the name of “Jesus”. It would seem that you can not envision any difference existing between the two (b/c they possess the same name)

.

Seriously, if you think so highly of Ignatius’ work - just put it in. No? Hmmmm why not?

b/c it is not of apostolic authority.

As I recall, the Arians said Christ was not God and they disputed the Trinity. I guess I missed it… just what is it that they ‘got right’?

where is it that you think the Arians came from. Before the issue erupted, for the most part they would have been sitting in the catholic church.

You know, my old late aunt had a cow once … … and this cow would give a gallon of milk in the morning and a gallon in the evening. Pretty good production for a cow.

Pretty good? Man, first your oil began drying up and now your cattle seem to be doing the same…

As much as my aunt wanted to brag about her cow … it did have this one bad habit… just before the bucket was filled, the cow would kick it over! So, going back to the house … there really wasn’t much milk to talk about. Your Arians got me to thinking of my aunt’s cow…

if nothing else, it explains quite a bit about your thought processes

While more study is always best - this ‘box’ you refer to is like the Ark, floating ontop of storm tossed seas of ignorance, error and heresy.

are you sure it ain’t floating on a sea of split milk from your dear aunt’s cow?

 

[Peter_J]

Haven’t figured out what I am getting at either…It just strikes me as a very interesting distinction. What were the ECFs thinking wrt scripture and tradition such that they felt it necessary to define the canon of scripture but not necessary to define a canon of tradition.

There’s something we can agree on. It is an interesting – and significant – distinction. To propose an analogy of my own, I would compare this distinction with the distinction between the statement “Mary was Immaculate Conceived” and the statement “The Immaculate Conception was infallibly declared in 1854.”

If you see what I mean.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with NotTooSmart. However, I would just like to add something to what he said. All Christian churches are part of the one “Catholic,” meaning universal Church, and that does not necessarily mean the Roman Church.

Opinion noted. My belief, if you want to know, is that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. (Note I said “is” not “is a part of”.)

But supposing, for the sake of discussion, that your understanding of “the Catholic Church” is the correct understanding, I still don’t see how your next claim follows:

… So, it logically follows that all Christian churches, such as the various denominations of Protestantism, which belong to the invisible body of Christ that is the Holy Catholic Church, are also parts of the pillar and foundation of truth.

Come now, this is just being silly. Paul said that “the church [singular] of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). He never said “Your local church is the pillar and support of the truth.”

 

[Peter_J]

Hi there,

He did not define Protestantism for no pastor or Protestant Christian has ever declared it’s interpretation of Scripture infallible. As believers, we have the responsibility to see and study for ourselves whether or not what our pastors are teaching are biblical. It’s just like what the Bereans did when the Apostle Paul himself preached to them (Acts 17:11). So even Paul’s teaching, who was no less an apostle, was scrutinized by the Berean church! If that is the case, then shouldn’t we as disciples of Christ, scrutinize the teachings, doctrines, dogmas, proclamations, and bulls of the Pope, the cardinals and bishops?

Sure, so long as you do so with the proper docility.

 

[bMAC93]

Hi, Anthony Joseph,

Thank you for a thoughtful and excellent post.

As I preceive the question: prove the position of SS it seems straightforward to me. Just as straightforward as prove that Christ is God. While we can say that His birth and mission were foretold in the OT, that His life was challenged by Herod shortly after He was born and the Holy Innocents were part of the Plan of God, that the Father and Holy Spirit announced the beginning of Christ’s mission at His baptism, the numerous miracles Christ performed and His Claim to being the Son of God, His rising from the dead and ascension into heaven. Unfortunately, I can not even begin to tell you where SS is backed up in any manner by scripture.

And, there’s the rub. If one throws out the Church of Christ (and that would be the Catholic Church) with its Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition (not the traditions of men) the only item remaining is the Bible which was established through the Grace of God acting through the Catholic Church and completed before the year 400AD. But, it is this same Bible that proclaims the words of Christ appointing Peter as the head of Christ’s Church, giving the Apostles the Great Commission, delegating the Power of God to forgive sin and to consecrate common bread and wine in the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ to these Apostles, etc.

To my way of thinking, the Bible that they hold onto so tightly - yet fail to understand its words - points directly to the Church founded by Christ on Peter. SS can not be proved by any aspect of scripture. It is all that remains from the groups who have turned their back on the Christ’s Church.

God bless

Amen 2 that. 1 other thing i think is important is look at what the Bible really says (or does not say) NO WHERE in the Bible does it say or even imply SS infact if you look at the biblical and historical evidence it seems to say the opposite. i mean if the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians than what guided the (Catholic) Church for 400 years after the death of Christ?

 

[Radical]

Bengoshi:

So, it logically follows that all Christian churches, such as the various denominations of Protestantism, which belong to the invisible body of Christ that is the Holy Catholic Church, are also parts of the pillar and foundation of truth

PeterJ:

Come now, this is just being silly. Paul said that “the church [singular] of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). He never said “Your local church is the pillar and support of the truth.”

How is what Bengoshi said in any way silly? 1 Tim 3:15 specifies that it is God’s family, his household that is the pillar and support of the truth. As such, since the Protestants have been baptized into God’s family, their local church would be part of the pillar and foundation of the truth. What 1 Tim 3:15 does not say is that a) the hieracrchy alone or b)that the magisterium alone or even c) that the apostles alone are the pillar and support of the truth. Instead, it is God’s family and not just a piece of it that is the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[Radical]

There’s something we can agree on. It is an interesting – and significant – distinction. To propose an analogy of my own, I would compare this distinction with the distinction between the statement “Mary was Immaculate Conceived” and the statement “The Immaculate Conception was infallibly declared in 1854.”

If you see what I mean.

I can see that as a possibility if you are suggesting that there was no distinction in the substance of the two. There would be no need to define a canon of sacred tradition if there was nothing contained w/i sacred tradition that was also not contained in the NT…but I doubt that such was your meaning.

I know that a popular view is that the church began defining the NT canon in order to counteract the efforts of Marcion. They wanted to assert and clarify what was and what wasn’t true apostolic teaching. It seems that in that environment there would have been a considerable incentive to detail any sacred tradition not contained in the NT. Just as it was important for the church to say that these are the writings that the apostles passed on to us, it should have been important for the church to list out the other (non-written) teachings of the apostles and separate them from the other teachings that were good but not apostolic…

 

[Peter_J]

^^ When I say “The Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined in 1854”, I’m agreeing of course with the I.C., but I’m also going further by asserting that infallibility was exercised. Likewise, when an ECF asserts that Acts, Romans, etc. are in the canon of the New Testament, he is going beyond just asserting the truth of Acts, Romans, etc. That is the comparison I was making.

 

[Peter_J]

How is what Bengoshi said in any way silly?

Well, to be fair, Bengoshi did say “parts of the pillar and foundation of truth”.

I guess my criticism applies more to NotTooSmart, since he said:

Every church that is Christian is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.