Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[Gorgias]

We understand your definition. We just think the definition has no rational basis.

Oh. So… it’s just your opinion? OK… we’re cool with that. It’s not like it’s authoritative, of course. But hey… every person has their own opinion, right?

 

[Hodos]

Oh. So… it’s just your opinion? OK… we’re cool with that. It’s not like it’s authoritative, of course. But hey… every person has their own opinion, right?

Sure. I’m good with that since the doctrine of papal infallibility has no basis in scripture and breaks all semantic meanings of the word infallible. Its basically opinion vs. opinion with no authoritative support. Glad you agree that this shouldn’t be a de fide dogma.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m good with that since the doctrine of papal infallibility has no basis in scripture

Nice try. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” I think we can locate that in Scripture, hmm?

Its basically opinion vs. opinion with no authoritative support.

Nope: it’s “opinion vs divinely granted authority”. But I get that you don’t want to address that.

 

[Hodos]

Nice try. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” I think we can locate that in Scripture, hmm?

Don’t bail out on me now. I was with you, especially given this passage in no way whatsoever has anything to do with declaring new doctrine.

divinely granted authority”

To do what? The verse you provided above is to exercise the power to forgive and retain sins, not proclaim a gospel contrary to what was proclaimed by the apostles.

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t bail out on me now.

To do what? The verse you provided above is to exercise the power to forgive and retain sins, not proclaim a gospel contrary to what was proclaimed by the apostles.

Nope – I’m looking at Mt 16, not Mt 18. I’m looking at the part where Christ grants this proxy to Peter, in the context of the “keys of the kingdom”.

Mt 18 seems to be speaking in the context of disciplinary matters (i.e., disfellowshipping members who do not repent of sins), but that’s not the context of Mt 16…!

 

[Hodos]

Nope – I’m looking at Mt 16, not Mt 18. I’m looking at the part where Christ grants this proxy to Peter, in the context of the “keys of the kingdom”.

I’m looking at all three scriptural references to the power to bind and loose, which all speak of the power to forgive and retain sins, but I guess if you want to play Matthew against Matthew you can do that. It’s an interesting hermeneutic not to consider his entire letter, and his usage of those terms, but you can do that.

 

[Gorgias]

if you want to play Matthew against Matthew you can do that. It’s an interesting hermeneutic not to consider his entire letter,

C’mon, now… I could just as easily respond “well, if you want to conflate verses that are talking about distinct and various concepts/topics, you can do that”…

You keep saying “bind and loose” shows up three times in Matthew. I’m not seeing it. Help me understand what you’re saying here. Are you referring to John 20?

I’m making the case that you have different contexts, both of which end up in a particular proxy grant of authority:

keys of the kingdom → bind and loose
excommunication → bind and loose
forgiveness of sin → forgive and retain

(They’re not even using the same words in the context that you wish to claim that governs all three passages! )

 

[Hodos]

C’mon, now… I could just as easily respond “well, if you want to conflate verses that are talking about distinct and various concepts/topics, you can do that”…

You could, but given that Matthew doesn’t use that verbiage very much together, you wouldn’t have much of a case to make in doing so. I can be dismissive when you aren’t making a substantive argument or offering a rational basis for why these things are different, particularly when another author corroborates that these are linked by paraphrasing Matthew’s use in chapter 18.

 

[catholicray]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Not sure how you are trying to lump Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, or Judaism into the mix. Are you saying that the RC Church has the same view of ecclesiology as these religions?

I’ll attempt to make sense of it for you. The logic James White offers is as follows:
If A is false then B is true.
Or rather if the Catholic Church is false then Sola Scriptura is true.

I’m saying that this statement presents a false dichotomy because of the following:
If the Catholic Church is false, Sola Scriptura may still be false because Eastern Orthodoxy (which rejects Sola Scriptura) may be true.

This same statement can be reworked several ways by changing Eastern Orthodoxy to Atheism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc. So no, I’m not lumping the ecclesiology of any of these particular faiths together. I’m saying that discrediting the Catholic Church does not generate a truth statement about Sola Scriptura because there are options other than the Catholic Church.

Therefore apologists for reformed theology can not simply discredit the Catholic Church in order to prove the principle of Sola Scriptura. As far as Christendom is concerned (providing you’re speaking with someone who believes in Christ) James White would need to discredit the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy simultaneously to prove that Sola Scriptura is true. Yet even then one could abandon Christendom as false altogether rather than accept reformed theology. So technically he would be no closer to proving Sola Scriptura this way than he was initially.

Thus the strongest defense of Sola Scriptura must actually defend it logically, historically, and biblically. All three of these points are contested by multiple faiths.

 

[catholicray]

If Jesus is warning the Church to faithfully execute its office, and will punish those who don’t, where do you get the idea that simply being appointed to the office makes you infallible?

Thank you for your question. Please read the following article as I think it articulates the teaching authority of the Church quite well. The Teaching Authority of the Church | Catholic Answers

The following is an excerpt from the link I shared with you:

Doctrine Is Guided, Not Inspired​

“In all this, the Church as such has no divine guarantee of inspiration. Doubtless, in virtue of Christ’s promises to us, the Holy Spirit will quicken the intelligence of the council or of its members. But this might be true also of any local or provincial synod. The special guarantee that attaches to the decisions of a general council, or of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra , is negative rather than positive. The charisma of infallibility means that providence will not allow an erroneous decision to be made in such circumstances.”

So then it is not that I have placed my faith in the infallibility of the Church rather it is that I have placed my faith in the providence of God to not allow the Church to error. I do not have some extra faith in the Pope or the Magisterium only a consent to the office because of my faith in the providence of God. The authority is God in the Catholic Church the offices are stewards of His authority. I do hope you will read that article in full for a better understanding of my own position.

 

[Hodos]

I’ll attempt to make sense of it for you. The logic James White offers is as follows:
If A is false then B is true.
Or rather if the Catholic Church is false then Sola Scriptura is true.

That’s not the logic he is offering at all. Have you even watched any of his debates on Sola Scriptura? He makes a positive case for Sola Scriptura while forcing the Roman Catholic opposition to provide a plausible alternative, and demonstrating how the alternative is not plausible, and provides a form of circular argumentation as a substitute.

 

[Hodos]

So then it is not that I have placed my faith in the infallibility of the Church rather it is that I have placed my faith in the providence of God to not allow the Church to error.

And as demonstrated above in Christ’s own parable, there is no guarantee that the Church will not err. Christ himself says the Church will be judged based upon her faithfulness to execute the task given to her. Again, there is no guarantee of infallibility on the part of the Church, but there is an objective standard by which we can measure the Church’s faithfulness to Christ’s command, and repent as necessary. And that is…wait for it…Christ’s command.

 

[Gorgias]

I can be dismissive when you aren’t making a substantive argument or offering a rational basis for why these things are different

Right. Except that I just did so. So, yeah… you can be dismissive if you wish, but that’s on you.

another author corroborates that these are linked by paraphrasing Matthew’s use in chapter 18

I don’t think I’ve seen you make that case. Care to elaborate – not only by citing the passage you’re talking about, but by making the case that it’s actually an intended ‘paraphrase’. Thanks!

 

[Hodos]

Well given that he makes the same grammatical constructions as is provided in Matthew 16 and 18, and is discussing the same topic as in Matthew 18, that should be clear. But again, you are trying to be dismissive of any argument which doesn’t presume your conclusion. You have already tried to state that Matthew 18 has nothing to do with Matthew 16 even though Matthew only uses the combination of binding and loosing in those two passages using an identical grammatical construction. So again, I stand by my comment that you offered no substantive argument other than to dismiss what I said without offering any support other than it can’t mean that because I say it doesn’t mean that.

 

[Gorgias]

Well given that he makes the same grammatical constructions as is provided in Matthew 16 and 18, and is discussing the same topic as in Matthew 18, that should be clear.

You mentioned “three Scriptural references to the power to bind and loose”. What’s the third?

You also mentioned that all three have to do with “the power to forgive and retain sins”. Please substantiate that claim. In your argument, I’d appreciate a discussion of how the scribes and Pharisees had the power to “forgive and retain sins”, given that Jesus talks about them “having taken their seat on the chair of Moses”, which gives them the authority to “bind” heavy burdens on people. (Mt 23). In addition, you might want to demonstrate why you think Mt 16 and Mt 18 are talking about “the power to forgive and retain sins”, since this authority is given in John 20, in which the context isn’t “binding and loosing”, but rather “forgiving and retaining” (ἀφίημι and κρατέω, as opposed to Mt 16 and 18, with its δέω and λύω).

If you’re particularly ambitious, you might consider addressing Josephus’ take on the “binding and loosing” authority of Pharisees:

Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, § 2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person.

(See the article on “binding and loosing” at JewishEncyclopedia.com.)

I’m perfectly willing to enter into a reasonable conversation on the topic. So far, you’ve merely engaged in contradiction and unsubstantiated assertion. So please… let’s see your cards.

 

[Gorgias]

Hodos:

Well given that he makes the same grammatical constructions as is provided in Matthew 16 and 18, and is discussing the same topic as in Matthew 18, that should be clear.

You also mentioned that all three have to do with “the power to forgive and retain sins”. Please substantiate that claim

Bueller…?

Bueller…?

Hmm… I’m guessing, since four days have passed, and you’ve decided not to respond to my invitation – although, in that same time period, you’ve responded in other threads – that this means that you’re not willing or able to defend your claims.

Fair enough. We can discard them as invalid and indefensible, then, right?

 

[Hodos]

Bueller…?

Bueller…?

Uh, he’s sick. My best friend’s boyfriend’s cousin saw a guy who says he passed out at 31 Flavors last night. God I love that movie.

This was already demonstrated above in showing the three usages, how they use the same grammatical construction and how in two of those usages they explicitly speak of forgiveness of sins. In Matthew the subject matter involves an offense between believers and how they are to be reconciled to one another, immediately followed by Peter’s question about the number of times one should forgive (so Peter himself seems to indicate that is his understanding of Christ’s use of the power to bind and loose). Since you offered no substantive response other than the “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense, I felt no need to reply. The group can clearly see you have no serious refutation. And again, your reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia actually serves to undercut your argument. The issue there is the reconciliation of a repentant or unrepentant person to the community. Not the declaration of doctrine which is in contrast with Christ’s teaching (or in the case of Josephus usage in contrast with Mosaic teaching) which was the usage you were trying to make for Matthew 16 in contrast to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So again, note how your original precept is refuted by your own example.

 

[whatistrue]

The group can clearly see you have no serious refutation.

This particular member of “the group” doesn’t see it that way at all. What I see is a failure on your part to offer a real defense of your repeated unsupported assertions conflating “bind and loose” with “forgive and retain”, other than “well, they look the same to me…” aka “grammatical construction” dodge. Just because two phrases use the same grammar in no way indicates that they mean the same thing.

 

[Hodos]

I would agree that this is not necessarily the meaning on its own. But when Matthew first introduces it in Chapter 16, then uses the same construction and verbiage within his own letter using it a context where it is applied in light of a situation in the Church, that does seem to define the meaning of the phrase, particularly when those are the only two usages of that pairing in his gospel. Then when John paraphrases Matthew’s verbiage (again using the same grammatical construction and linking it with Matthew’s usage for forgiveness and retaining sin in chapter 18) this seems to indicate the apostolic use of the terms binding and loosing in their context. You can try to say they don’t necessarily mean the same thing, but given this is the author’s own usage, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a meaning that is different from what he himself has laid out. And thus far, that hasn’t been demonstrated, particularly in light of the fact that the other particular member of the group was attempting to define the passage regarding binding and loosing as the authority to declare doctrine that is different than what was handed down by Christ. Feel free to demonstrate where Matthew or John use the terms of binding and loosing in that manner.

 

[goout]

catholicray:

I read above that you moved the goal post

No one moved the goal post. You just keep redefining the meaning of Sola Scriptura away from its historical use to something more manageable for you to attack. The position of Sola Scriptura has always been that the Church is subject to God’s Word, not above it.

Makes a false idol of scripture, putting it ahead of Jesus Christ, who is a person, not a book. The Church, from the beginning (which is Christ himself), is one with Christ in it’s personalism. Christ gives The Word (himself) to people, he doesn’t walk around with pen and paper or with a stenographer. The obvious false scenarios are silly.
Scripture is inseparable from human authority, in partnership with divine.