Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[eddie_too]

all fallible positions are not equal in believability, reliability or acceptability.

 

[Per_Crucem]

all fallible positions are not equal in believability, reliability or acceptability.

That’s very true, eddie. Of course, not all fallible arguments are equally good. However, it makes it easier to discuss the position without relying on the canard that your position is superior because it claims to include an infallible interpreter somewhere.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But that wasn’t my point in bringing it up. I don’t believe that the modern RCC or EO are “the church that Jesus founded.”

That position requires a willing suspension of logic and history.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

all fallible positions are not equal in believability, reliability or acceptability.

Exactly.
I believe, for example, that the derivitive of the sine is the cosine, and that the derivitive of the cosine is -sine.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln, while president of the US, was assassinated.

Infallible? Perhaps not in the theological sense, but still true.

Likewise, logic leads me to believe that Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church.
ONE piece of irrefutable evidence is the scriptural record, but there are others. This piece could not stand alone on its own authority, else the argument would be circular.

 

[Per_Crucem]

how did Jesus ensure His Gospel would be reliably and authetically available to all generations of His Church?

By having them written down in concrete terms for all generations to see. Yes, of course, that teaching was also passed on in the life of the church itself.

the RCC’s answer to this question is, Jesus created apostolic succession.

that is why Jesus spent three years, 24-7, living with and teaching the twelve apostles, so that they would be prepared to continue His mission of saving souls.

Yes, that is the reason that he instructed his disciples.

only the twelve were especially taught and prepared to carry on Jesus message.

Agreed.

only the twelve had the authority to pass on their Jesus ordained authority to successors.

Where do Jesus or the apostles indicate that the exact authority they possessed was to be carried on in perpetum? Do any modern apostles exist? Are we still receiving revelation? Being the apostles are the foundation of the church, is the foundation still being laid, or are we building upon the foundation?

 

[eddie_too]

it is understandable that the reformers rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession since they, luther, calvin, etc. knew they were severing any publicly dissolving ties with the successors to the apostles.

 

[Per_Crucem]

it is understandable that the reformers rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession since they, luther, calvin, etc. knew they were severing any publicly dissolving ties with the successors to the apostles.

Check Anglican theology sometime.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by eddie too
how did Jesus ensure His Gospel would be reliably and authetically available to all generations of His Church?

Please show us where Jesus commanded that these teachings be written down in concrete terms.

Where do Jesus or the apostles indicate that the exact authority they possessed was to be carried on in perpetum?

In the exact same place that Jesus commanded that these teachings be written down in concrete terms.

Not the “exact” authority, but the “office” can be seen to be carried on in scripture. And, we find this explicitely in the writings of those who were taught by the Apostles, personally.

Do any modern apostles exist? Are we still receiving revelation?

No. APOSTOLIC TRADITION tells us that general revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

How do YOU know that we’re still not receiving revelation? The Mormons don’t believe it ended, for example.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Check Anglican theology sometime.

Under Pope Leo XIII, this was checked. Extensively and exhaustively.

See Apostolicae Curae.

 

[marywarfield]

That’s very true, eddie. Of course, not all fallible arguments are equally good. However, it makes it easier to discuss the position without relying on the canard that your position is superior because it claims to include an infallible interpreter somewhere.

Your argument fails and incidentally the Orthodox
argument fails with it simply because of the Holy
Spirit. And most RCs if they choose can prove it
on Sola Scriptura alone.

For the Lord tells us:
He will send the Apostles the Paraclete
The Spirit of Truth
That wherever two or three are gathered together…
Etc etc.

These are the usual arguments by the Protestants
and Orthodox to support their own revelations.
and yet they deny Papal infallibility after
fifty men gather in one room for several days of
intense prayer and come to a conclusion also
in the Name of the Lord.

To my way if thinking those that feel a need to
schism from the Church because the College of
Cardinals, the Bishops, priests and Pope have
gathered in a room to pray for an answer and
announce that answer as infallible literally
believe in NOTHING.

For the very schism over infallibility means the
Protestants and Orthodox simply do not believe the Lord
will keep His Promise to be present with the Spirit
of all truth in the first place.

The RC is THE Church founded by Christ obviously
as it is the only one in existence today that
simply believes the Gospel. The others all run a good
campaign but the Magesterium obviously
simply believes it, believes it strongly enough
to declare a doctrine infallible after doing exactly what Christ
told them to do.

Unless, even worse, you might believe the
Paraclete is fallible Himself?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But that wasn’t my point in bringing it up. I don’t believe that the modern RCC or EO are “the church that Jesus founded.” My point in bringing them out is to show that the standard of infallible knowledge of a subject, whether it be Scriptural interpretation or that the church is infallible and is the one true church, will always have a fallible component. Namely, you. Your choice to accept the claims of a church communion or any given doctrinal position, is always based on your fallible knowledge of it. Therefore, epistemologically, the ground is even.

I am approaching this on a new thread because this will depart from the OP here.

That position requires a willing suspension of logic and history.

Yes it does.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where do Jesus or the apostles indicate that the exact authority they possessed was to be carried on in perpetum? Do any modern apostles exist? Are we still receiving revelation? Being the apostles are the foundation of the church, is the foundation still being laid, or are we building upon the foundation?

Where does it say it ended with the Apostles?

Further:

Matthew 28 completely supports the succession, along with Paul’s numerous exhortations to keep the traditions and doctrine delivered by them. Also supported by the Pastoral Epistles, and also supported by Church planting and delegation clearly in Scriptures and in Church history.

But that is for the new thread I’m preparing , hopefully today…

 

[dronald]

These are the usual arguments by the Protestants
and Orthodox to support their own revelations.
and yet they deny Papal infallibility after
fifty men gather in one room for several days of
intense prayer and come to a conclusion also
in the Name of the Lord.

For the very schism over infallibility means the
Protestants and Orthodox simply do not believe the Lord
will keep His Promise to be present with the Spirit
of all truth in the first place. ?

Whoa.

I mean, I’m used to this sort of rhetoric against Protestants here but this new, haha.

Don’t you know how it goes yet? “The RC is correct, Protestants are way off; and let’s not argue with the Orthodox.” But you’ve managed to include them in your disdain for non-Catholic Religions. I’m surprised.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Where does it say it ended with the Apostles?

How does one disprove a negative?

Further:

Matthew 28 completely supports the succession, along with Paul’s numerous exhortations to keep the traditions and doctrine delivered by them. Also supported by the Pastoral Epistles, and also supported by Church planting and delegation clearly in Scriptures and in Church history.

But that is for the new thread I’m preparing , hopefully today…

To keep the doctrine and continue to pass it down does not require that specific successors be appointed that share in apostolic authority. It’s a possibility, of course, but it is not required. None of the successors to the apostles would have met the requirements to be an apostle. So while the ministry was established and the apostles ordained ministers, it is nowhere said that the foundation of the church (the apostles and prophets) would continue past the apostles themselves.

 

[eddie_too]

history demonstrates convincingly that from the beginning the apostles appointed successors and that those successors appointed successors.

Jesus started it and those He trained continued it.

 

[JonNC]

It seems like you don’t quite understand the word “infallibly.”

We CAN demonstrate with the assurance of history and full human knowledge that the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church) is that institution that Jesus started.
If you’d like to argue for the Orthodox Church, I can show you why this wouldn’t be the case, but that would be a different subject.

So, knowing that the Church that Jesus started is either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church(es), why in the world would you choose one that is clearly NOT the one that Jesus endowed with His Authority?

How do we know which is which? Why would one switch and perhaps be wrong anyway?

Our view is that both are the OHCAC, and are we, and others. The Church is the congregation of saints (believers) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Whoa.

I mean, I’m used to this sort of rhetoric against Protestants here but this new, haha.

Don’t you know how it goes yet? “The RC is correct, Protestants are way off; and let’s not argue with the Orthodox.” But you’ve managed to include them in your disdain for non-Catholic Religions. I’m surprised.

I’m sorry you see “disdain”. Visual planks are
painful. It is not disdain I feel.

 

[joe371]

The point is not how easy or difficult it is to prove. The point is, if you have to demonstrate something infallibly in order to really know, then you’re always going to fall short of the same standard you apply to us when it comes to interpreting Scripture. If you’re going to require us to have an infallible understanding of Scripture interpretation, don’t shift the goal posts when it comes to your own standard of truth.

Why do you believe in sola scriptura when in fact it does not work? For example: One guy says - once saved always saved - and another person will tell me that that once-saved-always-saved guy is wrong, and they are both deferring to your final authority scripture alone. What did God leave us to settle these types of disputes?

How many churches in the world today existed in the beginning of the 2nd century?

 

[joe371]

how did Jesus ensure His Gospel would be reliably and authetically available to all generations of His Church?

the RCC’s answer to this question is, Jesus created apostolic succession.

that is why Jesus spent three years, 24-7, living with and teaching the twelve apostles, so that they would be prepared to continue His mission of saving souls.

only the twelve were especially taught and prepared to carry on Jesus message.

only the twelve had the authority to pass on their Jesus ordained authority to successors.

without apostolic succession, the christian community has only the most tenuous of links to Jesus because the links that exist outside of apostolic succession are human created links, unlike apostolic succession which is a divinely created link.

:yup:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How does one disprove a negative?

The job is a lot harder with a positive present.

Which is what you have to go against if trying to disprove the intention and necessity of succession. You’d have no Church and no Bible without succession and an unbroken line of Christians.