sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

Now that is a good example of circular reasoning. In fact, the entire Protestantism is based on a circular reasoning i.e.

1. Scripture is the word of God. It is the word of God because it says so in the text.
2. Scripture is the Word of God. Scripture says my Church down the road is the Church. The Church says Scripture is the word of God.

All of the above is circular unlike the Catholic claim which grounds everything back in Christ and his authority.

Now where has anyone made the above argument?

You say it’s intuitive to move onto infallibility after accepting the resurrection. So how come no one intuitively did that with the papacy for a thousand years?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

When you say “church” of which "church " are you speaking? The Baptist Church certainly didn’t determine the canon. And does it really matter how many claimants there are? You are more than welcome to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church (and EO, which were once the same) as to valid apostolic succession. Was it not a Catholic Council that met in Nicaea, made up of successors of the Apostles? Is it then unreasonable to suppose that this is probabaly the Church to which all must give assent in order to believe the Bible is the word of God?

I am not the one making the claim to exclusivity, Steve. I do not believe it was the RCC, the EO or the Baptist church, as we know them today. I can’t prove a negative

 

[SteveVH]

Which this piece of postmodern reasoning still holds true given your arguments. I’ll note that nothing you presented argument wise is church teaching. You are arguing for why your interpretation of biblical and historical evidence is true, as opposed to mine. We don’t throw up our hands and say we have no way to discern truth. We try to prove our positions. Show how each other’s interpretations are either correct or not correct. “That’s just your interpretation” proves zero.

Do you think it is really fair to just say “That’s just your interpretation”? Can you show that Eufrosnia’s line of thought is unreasonable in any way?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Do you think it is really fair to just say “That’s just your interpretation”? Can you show that Eufrosnia’s line of thought is unreasonable in any way?

I am not the one saying that’s just your interpretation! I was saying that’s what WE have to hear all the time!

 

[SteveVH]

I am not the one making the claim to exclusivity, Steve. I do not believe it was the RCC, the EO or the Baptist church, as we know them today. I can’t prove a negative

Are you saying that the Church Christ founded and promised to remain with until the end of time does not exist today?

 

[Porknpie]

We determine unsound teaching in the light of scripture.

Traverse,

Your “we” is your Pastor… or is your Pastor and your whole congregation? Your Pastor teaches differently than the Pastor down the block and differently than the one across town. Everyone is disagreeing. How do you know that your Pastor has has the Truth?

We know that truth can be found because of Christ’s own words…that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church on earth to all truth. The Catholic Church makes this claim: teaches without error on faith and morals… and is protected by Christ in doing so until the end of time.

Let’s go back to 350AD. There was no biblical canon. But the one Church…there was only one, Catholic, was reading scripture and celebrating at Mass the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (actually you can read about this in scripture, way back at the apostolic age… and the Eucharist was celebrated at the last supper). The same Church canonized the bible a few decades later. The bible and John 6 has to be understood in this light, but your Pastor thinks they know scripture better than those who wrote it and were living its words.

It’s confusing that a church started in ~1912 can hold the truth that Christ spoke of. How do you know? Open the phone book…use google if you wish. Visit all the other churches and listen to all the other pastors in your town. They will all disagree.

The Truth can be found here and can be read for free on-line: scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

 

[Eufrosnia]

I never said that his witness of Christ gave him the authority to teach. I am assessing the evidence that his claim is true. If his claim is true, then he has the authority to teach because Christ gave it to him. This has independent witness as well.

I have no idea what you are saying.

1. Man dies for the claim that X rose from the dead
2. Man has the authority to teach regarding X

How does that even follow?

I
If there is no revelation, then there’s no data to process. I never said reason was unnecessary. I said it’s secondary in logical priority. The apostles could not have reasoned that Christ rose from the dead unless he appeared to them.

What does it even mean to say reason is secondary in logical priority? What you are saying is that revelation precedes knowing revelation. That is obvious.

Christ rising from the dead did indeed show his authority. So what are you trying to say?

I
The apostles teach about Christ. They never teach that their “successors” have the same authority as them when it comes to declaring what Christ has taught. If evidence cannot demonstrate that the apostles taught what the CC claims they taught, then I have no reason to think they taught it.

The simple thing that I am going to drill you on now is the following. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Did someone tell you about that? Or did you read it in a book? How authoritative is that book?

I
Does the evidence demonstrate that what happened with Judas was ever repeated? Was it repeated when James was killed by Herod? Why was Judas replaced?

Of course. Timothy was given authority and he is told to pass down the authority by laying of hands. Which makes me wonder, does your church even do that? Can they trace their laying hands back to one of the first Apostles?

What do you think the Apostles were doing with the laying hands? Practicing the touching of heads ?

I
Unless I first accept that Christ’s rising from the dead demonstrates that a church should even exist, then I can’t accept the church.

Christ rising from the dead says he has authority. THAT IS IT! To go to the next step, you need to appeal to something natural to practical human experience. Which part of this is difficult to understand?

I
I didn’t say anything aout practical reason. I said the practical reason you point to above isn’t referenced vis a vie apostolic succession apostolic Scripture. It is ironic that you expect me to accept the scenario you provide above, even though it’s just your fallible reason. Yet when Protestants do the same with interpreting Scripture, you scoff that it’s fallible.

Protestants just appeal to Scripture. Please if you have a good alternative, please state it next Post, ok? So far as I can see, I am telling you something that is very natural for people to do i.e. accept the student from the teacher. Your protestants want to accept a book from no where based on radical ideas like Charism which have no understanding within the realm of natural practical reasoning.

I
Do you believe reason is fallen?

The better question here is, given that you haven’t provided any reason to think the Bible is the word of God, what basis do you even have have to claim that “Reason is fallen” let alone that there is such a thing called a “Fall”?

I
I never said you didn’t have to. I said without the presence of the former, the latter is, at best, speculation. At worst, idolatry.

Huh?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Are you saying that the Church Christ founded and promised to remain with until the end of time does not exist today?

Yes, of course it does. It doesn’t subsist in a hierarchy.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Now where has anyone made the above argument?

You say it’s intuitive to move onto infallibility after accepting the resurrection. So how come no one intuitively did that with the papacy for a thousand years?

Sigh, please lets just finish this point first before I reply to anything else.

You do not accept Infallibility INTUITIVELY. Is it intuitive to you that such a concept exists? Not to me. So Infallibility, just like “Scripture is the word of God” is not something we accept because it fits with practical reason.

So what exactly am I saying that you should accept?

I am saying you should accept the fact that the ones you have to turn to after realizing Christ has authority are the Apostles and their Apostolic Successors using the idea that Christ was a rabbi, his students are passed down the authority.

Note at this point, we don’t know anything about the transcendent than Christ knows about it and has authority. We just accept the students of the pioneer of the great field of knowledge regarding the Transcendent. Then we accept his students and then the next set of students and so forth. Not because we believe they are infallible but because we see them as the only authority we can turn to regarding Christ.

At this point, we are just prepared to listen to them.

Its like searching for someone to get medical advise. You don’t listen to a doctor because you know he can speak infallibly regarding the medical field. You listen to him because he is the best option you have. Then you accept what they say based on “faith”.

Similarly, after finding the Successors, you accept what they say regarding the field of the transcendent on “faith”. So infallibility just happens to be something they claim regarding their scope of authority. You accept it by FAITH. Not practical reason.

In this sense, infallibility might not have been defined strictly back in the day. The church just happened to define it when it did. So understandably, people might not have held such a rigorous concept of what it means at any given time. But it would have existed nevertheless. Its like you taking medical advise from a doctor without knowing he actually was a surgeon as well. Does it mean he was not a surgeon when you didn’t know? NO! You might have even seen some indications of such ability but even if you didn’t it doesn’t change the fact that he is.

Anyway, please, lets clarify this one issue first. I have read multiple replies from you that seem to not understand what I am saying. I am ready to explain it again if its needed so lets first get this clarified, ok?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I have no idea what you are saying.

1. Man dies for the claim that X rose from the dead
2. Man has the authority to teach regarding X

How does that even follow?

!! I did not make this argument!

What does it even mean to say reason is secondary in logical priority? What you are saying is that revelation precedes knowing revelation. That is obvious.

Not so obvious to those making an argument for apostolic succession in absence of any revelation teaching it (as Rome teaches it) and only on reason. Eh?

The simple thing that I am going to drill you on now is the following. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

How do I know the apostles didnt teach apostolic succession? Uhm, can’t prove a negative. Prove they taught it. Saying “how do you know” to every argument made by a Protestant is rather pointless you know. Postmodern conversation killer.

Of course. Timothy was given authority and he is told to pass down the authority by laying of hands. Which makes me wonder, does your church even do that? Can they trace their laying hands back to one of the first Apostles?

What do you think the Apostles were doing with the laying hands? Practicing the touching of heads ?

Authority yes. Now please explain where Paul calls Timothy an apostle? Says he’s transferring his authority? Repeats the events of Acts 1? Tells Timothy to trace every ordination back to him?

Oh and while you’re at it, show me where he describes a papal office.

Christ rising from the dead says he has authority. THAT IS IT! To go to the next step, you need to appeal to something natural to practical human experience. Which part of this is difficult to understand?

The part about the apostolic office continuing in perpetuity and one particular bishop being the infallible head of the church on earth with the spiritual and temporal keys who is the vicar of Christ. Yeah, that part.

Protestants just appeal to Scripture. Please if you have a good alternative, please state it next Post, ok? So far as I can see, I am telling you something that is very natural for people to do i.e. accept the student from the teacher.

So natural it only took 1800 years to be defined.

The better question here is, given that you haven’t provided any reason to think the Bible is the word of God, what basis do you even have have to claim that “Reason is fallen” let alone that there is such a thing called a “Fall”?

Uhm yeah I have. And the record of a fall came long before a church. How come it wasnt intuitive to the Jews that they needed an infallible line of succession in order to know the OT was the word of God?

Huh?

Reason without revelation is either speculation or idolatry.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, of course it does. It doesn’t subsist in a hierarchy.

In what, then does it subsist, in the mind of any person who happens to pick up a copy of the Bible?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

In what, then does it subsist, in the mind of any person who happens to pick up a copy of the Bible?

It subsists in everyone who is born of God and confesses with their lips that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[SteveVH]

It subsists in everyone who is born of God and confesses with their lips that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And so each one of these is being lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit? Why all the disagreement?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Do you think it is really fair to just say “That’s just your interpretation”? Can you show that Eufrosnia’s line of thought is unreasonable in any way?

Though it did strike me, Steve, that this is how this conversation would have gone if it took place on CAF:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to.put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to*inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “HOW DO YOU KNOW!?”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And so each one of these is being lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit? Why all the disagreement?

They’re being led into the truth of Christ. Clearly, there is disagreement. But again, have the churches which claim apostolic succession been led into all truth? Why the disagreement? It applies as much to your position as mine.

 

[SteveVH]

They’re being led into the truth of Christ. Clearly, there is disagreement. But again, have the churches which claim apostolic succession been led into all truth? Why the disagreement? It applies as much to your position as mine.

Not quite. The differences, inspite of your opinion, are relativley minor, especially when compared to widespread beliefs of Protestant denominations. The only thing the Protestant denominations have in common is their rejection of the Catholic Church. The heart of the Church, the sacraments, have been held in common by both the CC and the EO for 2000 years.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Not quite. The differences, inspite of your opinion, are relativley minor, especially when compared to widespread beliefs of Protestant denominations. The only thing the Protestant denominations have in common is their rejection of the Catholic Church.

That’s just not factual, Steve. You can think the differences are minor, but the Orthodox beg to differ. The relative nature of the disagreements are not pertinent. Either the Holy Spirit is teaching the papal dogmas or he’s not. If you want to say he cant be guiding Baptists and Presbytetrians in different directions, that’s fine. I agree. Neither can he be doing so with the RCC and EO on the papacy. Yet you claim He’s guiding both of them regardless of the didagreements. You just won’t afford that to Baptists and Presbyterians. It’s a double standard.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Not so obvious to those making an argument for apostolic succession in absence of any revelation teaching it (as Rome teaches it) and only on reason. Eh?

Reason without revelation is either speculation or idolatry.

Please read my second post to you addressing the above. You are confusing apostolic succession as some doctrine. Perhaps its because I used the word but you must understand that the claim I am making is not from doctrine. It is purely based on the practical intuition of accepting student from teacher.

Now about your last line above. That makes no sense. Reason is not from revelation. I hold to the principle of contradiction not because it is from revelation (though it was certainly God that instilled it in all humans) but it is intuitive to the experience of any human being.

Reason must precede Revelation in the matter of coming to KNOW revelation. Reason is what tells you that the Koran for an example is not Revelation though it claims to be. Reason is what tells you that Christ rising from the dead is good enough REASON to think he is authoritative.

Please understand that. It is very important.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Please read my second post to you addressing the above. You are confusing apostolic succession as some doctrine. Perhaps its because I used the word but you must understand that the claim I am making is not from doctrine. It is purely based on the practical intuition of accepting student from teacher.

Now about your last line above. That makes no sense. Reason is not from revelation. I hold to the principle of contradiction not because it is from revelation (though it was certainly God that instilled it in all humans) but it is intuitive to the experience of any human being.

Reason must precede Revelation in the matter of coming to KNOW revelation. Reason is what tells you that the Koran for an example is not Revelation though it claims to be. Reason is what tells you that Christ rising from the dead is good enough REASON to think he is authoritative.

Please understand that. It is very important.

You missed my point on this. My point is that we cannot arrive at things by reason apart from revelation. My point is not that reason is not required in revelation, but that reason cannot alone suffice to come to conclusions on spiritual matters. To do so will result in speculation or at worst idolatry.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ah to be six again!

The elders have the authority to teach the word, to discipline and to administer Christ’s sacraments.

Thanks Gaelic,

And how were the elders chosen by the Apostles?