Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Unloading 35 Loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" 32/35

Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 32/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.

32) If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

Simple Answer(s):

The question equivocates between the Bible's role as our source and standard of truth and the church's role as defender and promoter of truth. The two are different, even if they can be expressed using the same words (in different senses).

Important Qualification(s):

1) The Bible is not the only source of truth for Christians. We accept both General Revelation (also called the "light of nature") and Special Revelation (of which Scripture is the foremost example, but which also encompasses the prophecies of all true prophets).

2) The church's purpose is to be a supporter and defender of the truth. That is its purpose and it's role. It does not always perform that role well.

3) Roman apologists get so excited by this aspirational goal of the church that they miss Paul's stated reason for writing the letter explained in the immediate context:

1 Timothy 3:14-35
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Notice that Paul says that the reason he is writing is to provide information to Timothy that Timothy would not have if Paul were to tarry (i.e. delay coming), even though Timothy is "in the house of God" even while Paul is writing to him. In other words the Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" is unable to supply Timothy with the instruction that Paul is providing, and consequently Paul has written to Timothy. In short, Scripture is needed because "the church" is not enough for Timothy. So, appeal to this verse backfires on the advocate of Romanism.

- TurretinFan

21 comments:

natamllc said...

I am glad we are now at this question.

I want to open up something basis the question and what I see is the error of the question; and why, I vigorously say, with others that the RCC is that thing, [the Anti-Christ], that the Bible points too and we will all face off as True Believers, God's Elect, in our lifetimes.

The verse is being maligned, 1 Tim 3:15.

Here's why:::>
Pro 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
Pro 12:2 A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.
Pro 12:3 A man shall not be established by wickedness: but the root of the righteous shall not be moved.
Pro 12:4 A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.

Let's work backwards.

First, the Church is the virtuous woman.

What the RCC has repeatedly done is make herself shameful and rotten.

Second, it is the "root" of the man that makes him Righteous, not he nor his works. To adhere to the RCC you are required to work out your salvation basis your merits or the peculiar merits of the mother of God. Or basis the extra writings of the Papacy trusting the Pope's word to be infallible and inadvertantly turning you away from the writings of Scripture which establish within you the Truth, Who is the foundation of the Church she is being built upon.

Third, while a man obtains favor from the Lord, one must first be born again and separated from self and the world by way of the Cross in order to receive this favor.

God pours out His rain on the just and the unjust. The wicked benefit from the summer harvests too. Everyone born into this world benefits from God being God, Holy, Righteous and as a Good Provider to the needs of His creation. That is temporary favor and by it all can benefit. That confuses things at times because there are some in the world who are just plain successful in and of themself, without Godliness.

It is not here in this life that God's Elect focus nor is it the successes of this life that is the basis of His Life within us that the Scriptures focus us on. It is and has always been the next Life through Christ's life in this Life, as Jesus said and Matthew recorded, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". Jesus Christ is the only One Who succeeded in making it out of here alive by death basis forensic perfections. Of course I can think of two examples of other men of God who made it out alive bypassing death; Enoch and Elijah.
I am open to believe others also have made it out of here alive, bypassing death, however it happens, because with God all things are possible; but that is speculative and unwarranted, so I bring it up for that reason.

And finally, fourth, the knowledge here and the reproof are that that comes from above, from God Himself. God knows His own and seals everyone of us with His Name on our forehead.

To ask the question asked above is to reveal the nature of the one asking the question, which I might add is manipulation, not living by Faith and the outcome is eternal damnation away from Eternal Life, which is the free gift of God.

There is an Eternal Purpose! And I say that because Eternal in this sense means something quite different than fixing up the problem and making it better so that it goes away.

God is Eternal. God is Holy. What happened in Eternity before this present heavens and earth are reflected throughout God's Elect Called Predestined Life through the hearts of True Believers. This gets the focus off the Church and onto the Foundation of the Church, Jesus Christ and the onto the Inspiration of the Bible, the Holy Spirit.

That question asked goes to reinforce the Anti-Christ nature of the RCC and where her roots lie.

Come out of her and do not be partakers in her sins!!!

john martin said...

32) If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

Simple Answer(s):

”The question equivocates between the Bible's role as our source and standard of truth and the church's role as defender and promoter of truth. The two are different, even if they can be expressed using the same words (in different senses).”

You make a fallacy of projecting a meaning into a statement “church” that is not in the text.


”1) The Bible is not the only source of truth for Christians. We accept both General Revelation (also called the "light of nature") and Special Revelation (of which Scripture is the foremost example, but which also encompasses the prophecies of all true prophets).”

This is a problem for SS that says the word of God is found in scripture alone.

”2) The church's purpose is to be a supporter and defender of the truth. That is its purpose and it's role. It does not always perform that role well.”

Depends on the meaning of church. This is certainly not what Paul was saying. You must be referring to a different church.

”1 Timothy 3:14-35
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Notice that Paul says that the reason he is writing is to provide information to Timothy that Timothy would not have if Paul were to tarry (i.e. delay coming), even though Timothy is "in the house of God" even while Paul is writing to him.”

And Paul is an apostle from Christ, so he has the truth to Give to Timothy.

“In other words the Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" is unable to supply Timothy with the instruction that Paul is providing,”

But Paul is an apostle of the church, so your statement is illogical. Your statement only has any real meaning if you believe Paul is not an apostle in the church with the authority to teach. If this is so, then I suggest you have a unique understanding of Paul as a pagan.

“ and consequently Paul has written to Timothy. In short, Scripture is needed because "the church" is not enough for Timothy. So, appeal to this verse backfires on the advocate of Romanism.”

Sure! Scripture alone is found in this text when Paul is sending Timothy a letter, that from the text, we don’t know is scripture. We are also to ignore Pauls’ statements to keep the traditions and also the truth that Paul was an apostle of the church, who has the authority to teach the truth to the church members and then conclude that scripture and not the church is all that is required. Is this the standard sort of logic anti Catholics use to promote their agenda? Its not what I call convincing.

JM

steve said...

I appreciate John Martin's confidence in the perspicuity of Scripture.

I'd note in passing that his interpretation of this verse is at odds with the two major Catholic commentaries on this verse (by Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson).

natamllc said...

JM

along with Steve, I too appreciate what you are saying about yourself and your church, here:::>

Citing TF, you highlight his position and then put over your own:::> [ ”2) The church's purpose is to be a supporter and defender of the truth. That is its purpose and it's role. It does not always perform that role well....”

".....Depends on the meaning of church. This is certainly not what Paul was saying. You must be referring to a different church.". ]

It does my heart good and bad to read that "we" must be referring to a different church! We are referring to a different Church than you, yours!

In fact, we are a different Church. That seems to be where the problem lay between our different churches? And the Church we are referring to isn't a fallacy of True Authority from Heaven. Our Church's Authority comes from Truth Himself. He is the one Who gives us True Authority. We in fact are firmly established in the Truth Himself and His True Authority, God Our Heavenly Father, Who, from Heaven sent Christ Himself into the world to save His people from their sins based on His Work, not ours. You see, it is the Lord Himself Who said to His Own, "you must be born again". His Sheep hear His voice and respond. It is clear that the RCC isn't established in this "being born again" Truth or His True Representative Authority on earth, the Holy Spirit, through Christ Himself. Christ was sent from Heaven and by His own death, burial and resurrection establishes His True Authority, Who is the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures in the heart of the True Church on earth He came to save. She is, right now, the same in Heaven and on earth by the Power of the Holy Spirit, which it seems to me you are devoid of.

You cannot claim that legitimately. Not only are you and your church not able to establish the Truth incarnate through your church's members, your church doesn't even represent the True Authority from Heaven in order to do that. That makes your argument a fallacy of extension, which is a fallacious argument in and of itself.

How is that and why?

Well, why have a papacy and insist on a magisterium then? These two are truly straw [wo]men in agreement with each other conspired and upheld by the membership of both, making yourself out to be one of them too, attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of the True Authority that they created, not God; and those given the charge to defend the True Grace of God by the Faith once delivered to the Saints are the Saints themselves. This is exactly where TF's comment leaves you facing like a cow looking at a new gate!

Why?

Quite candidly the true position the Church is to be in, which parenthically is where TF's comments leave us when arguing that your position is indeed false and a fallacious argument, happens to be the very position we are coming to when arguing with you in here.

Well, that should not come across as some strange thing, that some of us in here agree with his position and not yours!

Now, let's be honest. You don't believe that for one minute, now do you? :)

In this fight, you are indeed right, only one side wins, the side grounded and settled in the Faith once delivered to the Saints, that side who are rooted and ground in the Love from Heaven and who are filled with the joy and peace in believing in the Holy Spirit given to Her, the True Church, while She is living in this world among thieves and robbers; who are marked out as liars, murders and dangerous to be with, by Him.

Pro 12:5 The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
Pro 12:6 The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood, but the mouth of the upright delivers them.
Pro 12:7 The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.

john martin said...

“It is clear that the RCC isn't established in this "being born again"


“You cannot claim that legitimately. Not only are you and your church not able to establish the Truth incarnate through your church's members, your church doesn't even represent the True Authority from Heaven in order to do that.”

These statements don’t follow from anything you have said in your post. Again it shows anti catholic polemics is very unconvincing.

“Well, why have a papacy and insist on a magisterium then?”

Quite simply to teach the fullness of the gospel and to discipline those who sin against the church just like it was done the in the OT.

“and those given the charge to defend the True Grace of God by the Faith once delivered to the Saints are the Saints themselves.”

This is clearly fallacious. Check Mat23 for Christs’ reference to Moses seat and elsewhere in the Gospels where Ciaphas, as the evil high priest, makes a prophecy about Christs death. Those who sat on Moses seat were not saints, but they had a binding authority from God. Apostolic succession is found in the pastoral letters through the laying on of hands as a fulfillment of the OT hand laying ceremony to ordain priests into sacrificial service. This continues today from the apostles right through until the end of time. We have

OT---------------------------NT
High priests (lk 3)---Jesus and Bishop
Priest--------presbuteros (priest)
Levite ----------deaconos (deacon)

Without these fulfillments, we do not have Christ completing the OT nor do we have a church that is biblical. Without a magesterium we do not have the means to define doctrine as was done at the Council of Jerusalem and later at other Councils such as Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon and on and on throughout church history.

Evidently the true church does have teaching authority, just as Timothy was charged to teach and rebuke from the authority given to him through ordination (laying on of hands).

As the reformed churches do not have apostolic succession, the sacraments and magesterium, it is evident they are not the true church from Christ, but man made inventions from the self proclaimed reformers.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"You make a fallacy of projecting a meaning into a statement “church” that is not in the text."

Calling it a fallacy and alleging that there is projection is way easier than showing from the text that the explanation that I provided from the text is wrong.

"This is a problem for SS that says the word of God is found in scripture alone."

That's really on a problem to someone who thinks that pictures are words.

"Depends on the meaning of church. This is certainly not what Paul was saying. You must be referring to a different church."

Same comment as above.
"And Paul is an apostle from Christ, so he has the truth to Give to Timothy."

More than that, he's divinely inspired to provide the Scriptures to Timothy (and us as well).

"But Paul is an apostle of the church, so your statement is illogical."

a) No, Paul is an apostle of Christ.

b) Though Paul is a part of the church (and a leader), he is writing to Timothy who is going to be "in the church" even when absent from Paul.

"Your statement only has any real meaning if you believe Paul is not an apostle in the church with the authority to teach."

See above.

"If this is so, then I suggest you have a unique understanding of Paul as a pagan."

False dichotomy, as illustrated above.

"Sure! Scripture alone is found in this text when Paul is sending Timothy a letter, that from the text, we don’t know is scripture."

Unless you deny that the text is Scripture, this objection is a red herring.

"We are also to ignore Pauls’ statements to keep the traditions and also the truth that Paul was an apostle of the church, who has the authority to teach the truth to the church members and then conclude that scripture and not the church is all that is required."

Paul's "traditions" were something given to Timothy's church, not something generated by Timothy's church. And, of course, there's no indication in Paul's epistle that the traditions delivered in other ways than writing were any different (in content) from those delivered in writing.

"Is this the standard sort of logic anti Catholics use to promote their agenda?"

Your rhetorical flourish is noted.

"Its not what I call convincing."

But you're not open to the possibility that the Scripture teaches something different from what your church teaches ... so your judgment isn't one that seriously troubles me.

natamllc said...

John,

thanks for responding.

First off, it is clear you have no understanding given to you about "being born again". Based on your response, I do not believe you have any idea what I meant.

I would venture to say though, TF and others, "truly born again" understood what I meant?

I would go further? It is up to you?

Second,

The Apostle Paul makes clear distinctions about himself. When he is dealing with us as one of the "brothers", the relationship is that of brotherhood, a catholic relationship, that is, he makes it a point that we are brethren together of the same Household of God by virtue of the same, common Faith and Salvation being enjoyed together. His epistles establish that; he does a good job of establishing that in his personal letters when writing to others personally as opposed to when he is writing an "official" communication to a particular Church under his "Charge and Care". One only has to read just how he walked among the brethren in the accounts about him in the book of Acts and in all his epistles, those general missives and those personal missives to understand those distinctions.

And, though, more importantly, he, when being "forced" to acknowledge that he was an "Apostle" who was given a Divine Commission to deal with particular situations in those Churches or more broadly, in the Catholic Church as a whole, as book of Acts develops, he sometimes referred to himself as an Apostle, a Teacher and a Preacher with Divine Authority. That Divine Authority was not disputed among the other Apostles after they themselves witnessed that Grace of God at work within him. In one of his epistles he refers to himself as "officially" all three, an Apostle, a Teacher and a Preacher!

Let me ask you, seeing you know more about your church than I do, does the Pope have a similar perspicuity in making those distinctions about himself?

It seems to me your pope, once the cardinals have voted him the successor and the votes counted and he finds out he is the next successor, [presumably he did not cast a vote for himself], he then, until death, is treated like an idol, I mean, the vicar of christ while none of the True Apostles of the New Testament, including Paul, would ever allow themselves to be treated that way by men or women.

Why are there these differences between the Reformed Churches and the RCC, if you know and understand?

Finally, I am defending the Faith in here all the while you are defending "a" faith in here. You do believe in the papacy and the magisterium, don't you?


Can you see the differences, or do you even want too?

Also, JM:

"....This is clearly fallacious. Check Mat23 for Christs’ reference to Moses seat and elsewhere in the Gospels where Ciaphas, as the evil high priest, makes a prophecy about Christs death.".

Well, I guess we will have to disagree about that one too.

For instance, let me ask, "why does Paul write this to Timothy"?

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Or this to the Romans:::>

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Or this to Titus:::>

Tit 3:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
Tit 3:2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.


Are you a universalist and believe the word all means all people in each cited passages?

john martin said...

"You make a fallacy of projecting a meaning into a statement “church” that is not in the text."

Calling it a fallacy and alleging that there is projection is way easier than showing from the text that the explanation that I provided from the text is wrong. “

Yet your wording and meaning is very different to the wording and meaning if the text. You must do this to maintain SS at odds with the text itself. Therefore you are projecting.

"This is a problem for SS that says the word of God is found in scripture alone."

That's really on a problem to someone who thinks that pictures are words.”

Really bro, you change the meaning of words like to change a TV channel. Very often. If Gods word is found in nature then Gods word is not found in scripture alone so SS is invalidated. If you want to make some subtle distinctions then go ahead and do so in the context of SS.

"Depends on the meaning of church. This is certainly not what Paul was saying. You must be referring to a different church."

Same comment as above.”

Which is a meaningless comment. The point is the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, meaning the church is a priestly church that brings about the new creation, consisting of regenerate men who participate in the divine nature and divine truth. Following upon this only some of the church wrote down only some of the Gospel which is then only one source of revelation from God. This is undeniable historical/chronological fact. And it is this fact that destroys SS simply because when the texts were written, oral tradition and the apostolic magesterium were binding and normative. The scriptures themselves do not stand alone and cannot be properly understood without an authoritative apostolic tradition and magesterium.

"And Paul is an apostle from Christ, so he has the truth to Give to Timothy."

More than that, he's divinely inspired to provide the Scriptures to Timothy (and us as well).

Prove Paul was divinely inspired and try to do it without a circular argument by quoting Peter. I’ve already answered the Peter quote before.

"But Paul is an apostle of the church, so your statement is illogical."

a) No, Paul is an apostle of Christ.”

So Paul is not an apostle of the church, yet Ephesians 2 says the apostles the are the foundations stones of the church, therefore Paul is both and apostle of Christ and the church. After all Paul was sent after being ordained in Acts.

b) Though Paul is a part of the church (and a leader), he is writing to Timothy who is going to be "in the church" even when absent from Paul.

Timothy was already in the church and he learnt from Paul through scripture and apostolic tradition which is not SS.

"Sure! Scripture alone is found in this text when Paul is sending Timothy a letter, that from the text, we don’t know is scripture."

Unless you deny that the text is Scripture, this objection is a red herring.”

You cannot establish the text is scripture, nor what it means to be inspired from the text itself. This is the incoherence of SS, so within the framework of SS, it is impossible to establish what inspiration means and how to find an inspired text.

"We are also to ignore Pauls’ statements to keep the traditions and also the truth that Paul was an apostle of the church, who has the authority to teach the truth to the church members and then conclude that scripture and not the church is all that is required."

Paul's "traditions" were something given to Timothy's church, not something generated by Timothy's church. And, of course, there's no indication in Paul's epistle that the traditions delivered in other ways than writing were any different (in content) from those delivered in writing.

An argument from silence is very weak. There are traditions in the early church that confirm and go beyond scripture. This is undeniable as found in the early church councils.

JM

john martin said...

Well, I guess we will have to disagree about that one too.

Sorry bro, this is too much. You ignore clear biblical examples at your own discretion and therefore you have failed to interect with my argument. I now follow your lead and will ignore you until such time as you decide to admit you have been answered or you directly engage my argument.

JM

natamllc said...

John,

you are not interested in dialogue. You are interested in concession because you defend your faith and we oppose it.

You wrote: "....The point is the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, meaning the church is a priestly church that brings about the new creation, consisting of regenerate men who participate in the divine nature and divine truth....".

Clearly it is understandable why you take that position. In your form of government, you have priests and bishops and cardinals and popes. And with that comes a papacy all guided by a down to earth magisterium.

I will tell you plainly, you not only are confused about that verse, you have been confused by your own present pope, the papacy he has ascended by a vote of his peers no less and the magisterium; all three you squarely defend herein as the true nature and function of the Priesthood of all True Believers.

What doesn't make any sense to me is how, in the RCC, a fallible human being can ascend to the highest office of the papacy by the vote of fallible human beings and then they recognize him to magically become infallible?

In our form of governance, we were first predestined by Our Infallible Creator, then born into this world destined to becoming infallible by an act of God, being born again by the hand of Our Infallible God, as the Apostle Paul teaches us at Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13.

In any event, I graciously accept your wisdom now:::>

"....and therefore you have failed to interect with my argument. I now follow your lead and will ignore you....".

The question is, having shaken off the guilt trip you just laid forth upon me, why should I argue against your ad homs and fallacious nature? It doesn't engender a quiet or peaceable outcome of godliness. It is not edifying.

If you are interested in the Truth, [which would be because of "inspiration" from outside of you that has come upon you] and what He can do for you and more importantly, "Who" He is, it will become clear enough by your demeanor and your words and then I would be willing gladly to communicate with you again?

Turretinfan said...

"Well, I guess we will have to disagree about that one too."

OK

"Sorry bro, this is too much."

Indeed it is, though not the way you mean.

"You ignore clear biblical examples at your own discretion and therefore you have failed to interect with my argument."

That's not true, JM.

"I now follow your lead and will ignore you until such time as you decide to admit you have been answered or you directly engage my argument."

I can't stop you from ignoring the truth. I can only encourage you to try to consider that what I've been telling you is the truth.

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Yet your wording and meaning is very different to the wording and meaning if the text. You must do this to maintain SS at odds with the text itself. Therefore you are projecting."

That is the same claim you made before. You still haven't backed up your claim with demonstration.

"Really bro, you change the meaning of words like to change a TV channel. Very often."

I'm currently tuning away from the ad hominem.

"If Gods word is found in nature then Gods word is not found in scripture alone so SS is invalidated. If you want to make some subtle distinctions then go ahead and do so in the context of SS."

a) Books have words, pictures sometimes have words, but nature doesn't have words.

b) God's self-revelation in nature is part of any serious explanation of sola scriptura. See, for example, chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

So, no ... it's not a problem excep to those who know nothing of sola scriptura beyond the tag itself.

"Which is a meaningless comment."

See above.

"The point is the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, meaning the church is a priestly church that brings about the new creation, consisting of regenerate men who participate in the divine nature and divine truth."

a) If that were the meaning of "church" here, there is still nothing there about the church being infallible or defining dogma, or anything like that.

b) It would seem to take a lot of effort to get that kind of definition of "church" from the text (which may be why you haven't bothered to try).

"Following upon this only some of the church wrote down only some of the Gospel which is then only one source of revelation from God."

No, the whole Gospel has been enscripturated.

"This is undeniable historical/chronological fact."

It is not only denied by us, but also by the early church and by a significant segment of your own communion. It would be particularly challenging to understand how the Scriptures could make someone wise unto salvation if they had only a part of the gospel.

"And it is this fact that destroys SS simply because when the texts were written, oral tradition and the apostolic magesterium were binding and normative."

The Old Testament Scriptures were binding and normative. Even the true prophets of God were tested for orthodoxy against them.

"The scriptures themselves do not stand alone and cannot be properly understood without an authoritative apostolic tradition and magesterium."

The apostles and the early church seemed to think they could be.

"Prove Paul was divinely inspired and try to do it without a circular argument by quoting Peter. I’ve already answered the Peter quote before."

a) It's pointless for me to prove to you what you already know is true.

b) It's absurd for you to pretend not to believe that Peter was inspired.

c) We don't claim to "prove" in a purely rationalistic sense those things (like inspiration) that have to be received by faith.

[cont'd in Part 2]

Turretinfan said...

[cont'd from part 1]

"So Paul is not an apostle of the church, yet Ephesians 2 says the apostles the are the foundations stones of the church, therefore Paul is both and apostle of Christ and the church."

The apostles of Christ can also be the foundation stones of the church without become "apostles of the church."

"After all Paul was sent after being ordained in Acts."

He was ordained (best wishes in trying to trace that ordination back to an apostle, by the way).

More significantly, Paul himself directly addresses this issue:

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

"Timothy was already in the church and he learnt from Paul through scripture and apostolic tradition which is not SS."

Let's see what Paul says about Timothy's education and compare it to your comment:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

"You cannot establish the text is scripture, nor what it means to be inspired from the text itself. This is the incoherence of SS, so within the framework of SS, it is impossible to establish what inspiration means and how to find an inspired text."

a) It is still a red herring, as noted previously.

b) Sola Scriptura presumes we have a "Scriptura" from which it is to function. Your argument here is just a variation on the bait-and-switch I dismantled previously (link).

"An argument from silence is very weak."

Indeed it is, though not the way you think. After all, silence is all you can give me when I ask you to identify what extra-scriptural traditions Paul gave the Ephesians.

"There are traditions in the early church that confirm and go beyond scripture."

There are all sorts of traditions in the early church period. Some directly contradict Scripture - other traditions contradict one another. Just like the Jews, the Christians also have traditions. Christians ought to be wiser than Jews and avoid making the word of God void through their traditions.

"This is undeniable as found in the early church councils."

I wonder what council you think relied on oral tradition of some part of the gospel that is not found in Scripture? Even the council of Jerusalem (the earliest Christian "council" that we can point to) based its decision on the Scriptures as applied to post-ascension facts.

-TurretinFan

gerry said...

Your quote below gives me great pause and not a little concern. Are you saying God is continuing new revelation through "true prophets"?

"Important Qualification(s):

1) The Bible is not the only source of truth for Christians. We accept both General Revelation (also called the "light of nature") and Special Revelation (of which Scripture is the foremost example, but which also encompasses the prophecies of all true prophets)."

Turretinfan said...

Gerry:

You wrote: "Your quote below gives me great pause and not a little concern. Are you saying God is continuing new revelation through "true prophets"?"

No. I don't believe that. I was just recognizing God's past dealings:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

john martin said...

"If Gods word is found in nature then Gods word is not found in scripture alone so SS is invalidated. If you want to make some subtle distinctions then go ahead and do so in the context of SS."

a) Books have words, pictures sometimes have words, but nature doesn't have words.

b) God's self-revelation in nature is part of any serious explanation of sola scriptura. See, for example, chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith.”

It’s a false confession that doesn’t teach sola scriptora.

”So, no ... it's not a problem except to those who know nothing of sola scriptura beyond the tag itself.”

Oh really? God reveals himself only in scripture. This is SS. Yet you say he reveals himself in nature and scripture. This is not SS. Again simple logic dictates reformed theology is at odds with reason. If this is denied then we note that Sola doesn’t really mean sola after all. This is yet another fallacy of reformed theology.

"The point is the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, meaning the church is a priestly church that brings about the new creation, consisting of regenerate men who participate in the divine nature and divine truth."

a) If that were the meaning of "church" here, there is still nothing there about the church being infallible or defining dogma, or anything like that.”

The priests of the OT were commissioned to teach the law in the OT and it follows that because Christ fulfills the OT, there is a NT priesthood that also teaches the NT law. Both the OT and NT priest require infallibility collectively when teaching the church on faith and morals. Otherwise they don’t have an authority from God to teach.

”b) It would seem to take a lot of effort to get that kind of definition of "church" from the text (which may be why you haven't bothered to try).”


Pillar is taken from the OT pillar used as part of a priestly sacrifice and anointing in covenant oath binding ceremonies that involves a relationship with God. Foundation is taken from temple imagery in the OT that is associated with the priesthood and sacrifice.

We have an altar in the NT which we are to eat, so this assumes there is a sacrifice and a priesthood to confect the sacrifice.

"Following upon this only some of the church wrote down only some of the Gospel which is then only one source of revelation from God."

No, the whole Gospel has been enscripturated.”

Prove it.

"This is undeniable historical/chronological fact."

It is not only denied by us, but also by the early church and by a significant segment of your own communion. It would be particularly challenging to understand how the Scriptures could make someone wise unto salvation if they had only a part of the gospel.”

And without the printing press and literacy there is no knowledge of salvation. The Roman Church denies the entire Gospel has been placed into scripture. The scriptures point towards the authority of the church in Matt 16 and 18, the Jerusalem Council in acts and later post apostolic councils such as Nicea and Chalcedon in conformity with apostolic practice.

"And it is this fact that destroys SS simply because when the texts were written, oral tradition and the apostolic magesterium were binding and normative."

The Old Testament Scriptures were binding and normative. Even the true prophets of God were tested for orthodoxy against them.”

And the chair of Moses and OT prophets in an environment of ongoing revelation. This also defeats SS.

"The scriptures themselves do not stand alone and cannot be properly understood without an authoritative apostolic tradition and magesterium."

The apostles and the early church seemed to think they could be.”

The apostles were the magesterium which was later transferred to others through election to the office of bishop and laying on of hands such as Timothy.

TBC
JM

john martin said...

a) It's pointless for me to prove to you what you already know is true.”

I know its true because tradition and the Catholic church and the Catholic liturgy tell me its true. But you deny these sources so my reasons for believing Paul was inspoired are very different to yours. You have not proven Paul was inspired.

”b) It's absurd for you to pretend not to believe that Peter was inspired.”

I don’t. I do believe Paul and Peter were inspired, but you cannot make a valid argument that concludes to Paul or Peter were inspired.

”c) We don't claim to "prove" in a purely rationalistic sense those things (like inspiration) that have to be received by faith.”

Ok, I downgrade the request to this – provide some solid reasons why we should believe Paul wrote inspired texts.

"So Paul is not an apostle of the church, yet Ephesians 2 says the apostles the are the foundations stones of the church, therefore Paul is both and apostle of Christ and the church."

The apostles of Christ can also be the foundation stones of the church without become "apostles of the church."

"After all Paul was sent after being ordained in Acts."

He was ordained (best wishes in trying to trace that ordination back to an apostle, by the way).”

Very simple – 2 Tim 1:6 says For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

My hands refers to the apostle Paul doing the act of laying on of hands. This is a priestly act derived from the OT levitical priesthood that was ordered towards sacrifice for the remission of sins.

”More significantly, Paul himself directly addresses this issue:

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”

Paul also went to visit Peter for some time to verifiy that he was teaching the true Gospel. Paul was seeking Peter authoritative decision about his mission. Paul was not a lone ranger concerning the Gospel. He was an apostle just like the other apostles, who lived within the same church.

"Timothy was already in the church and he learnt from Paul through scripture and apostolic tradition which is not SS."

Let's see what Paul says about Timothy's education and compare it to your comment:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

And you point is what?

"You cannot establish the text is scripture, nor what it means to be inspired from the text itself. This is the incoherence of SS, so within the framework of SS, it is impossible to establish what inspiration means and how to find an inspired text."

a) It is still a red herring, as noted previously.

b) Sola Scriptura presumes we have a "Scriptura" from which it is to function. Your argument here is just a variation on the bait-and-switch I dismantled previously (link).”

Lets see, I’ve made a statement concerning your inability to know what inspiration means from a text and which texts are inspired and you avoid the statement by claiming it’s a red herring and then providing a link. You have not answered the issue of inspiration or the criteria required for an inspired text.

"An argument from silence is very weak."


TBC
JM

john martin said...

"An argument from silence is very weak."

Indeed it is, though not the way you think. After all, silence is all you can give me when I ask you to identify what extra-scriptural traditions Paul gave the Ephesians.”

Ok here are some of those traditions – baptismal regeneration, The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic liturgy, Mariology such as Mary as the new Eve, ordination to the priesthood, the new exodus and the sacramental economy of salvation. There’s a start.

"There are traditions in the early church that confirm and go beyond scripture."

There are all sorts of traditions in the early church period. Some directly contradict Scripture - other traditions contradict one another. Just like the Jews, the Christians also have traditions. Christians ought to be wiser than Jews and avoid making the word of God void through their traditions.”

So we need an authoritative magesterium to determine which traditions are apostolic and which are not. The problem of tradition also involves the problem of the canon as well that also had conflicting notions of the canon. This also required a magesterium to determine the canon.

"This is undeniable as found in the early church councils."

I wonder what council you think relied on oral tradition of some part of the gospel that is not found in Scripture? Even the council of Jerusalem (the earliest Christian "council" that we can point to) based its decision on the Scriptures as applied to post-ascension facts.”

Where in scripture does it say Christ had two wills? It might be inferred by some texts, but it is never explicitly stated. This problem became a heresy that had to be condemned in an early church Council, based upon scripture, tradition and the authority of the church to teach in the name of God. There were several heresies that had to be condemned such as monothelitism and its variations, Aryanism and several errors concerning the trinity as well. All of these real issues were not resolved by scripture alone, but the three legged approach of scripture, tradition and the magesterium.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"Ok here are some of those traditions – baptismal regeneration, The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic liturgy, Mariology such as Mary as the new Eve, ordination to the priesthood, the new exodus and the sacramental economy of salvation. There’s a start."

And your evidence for these amazing assertions is?

"So we need an authoritative magesterium to determine which traditions are apostolic and which are not."

a) No, it's sufficient that we have Scripture for that purpose.

b) Your church's "magisterium" isn't in a better position to judge among the competing traditions than anyone else is.

"The problem of tradition also involves the problem of the canon as well that also had conflicting notions of the canon."

And the problem of textual criticism too ... if those are really "problems" worth mentioning.

"This also required a magesterium to determine the canon."

Somehow the churches managed to get by for over 1500 years without any allegedly infallible definition of the canon. So "required" seems like much too strong a word.

"Where in scripture does it say Christ had two wills? It might be inferred by some texts, but it is never explicitly stated."

Were you under the impression that we only accept the explicit statements of Scripture and not the logical implications of it? The doctrine of the two wills is the logical consequence of the plain Scriptural teaching that Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

"This problem became a heresy that had to be condemned in an early church Council, based upon scripture, tradition and the authority of the church to teach in the name of God."

Whether or not it "had" to be condemned via a council is an open question. It was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. That council largely adopted the views of Leo I.

And how did Leo I describe the situation: "But into this folly do they fall who, when hindered by some obscurity from apprehending the truth, have recourse, not to the words of the Prophets, not to the letters of the Apostles, nor to the authority of the Gospels, but to themselves; and become teachers of error, just because they have not been disciples of the truth. For what learning has he received from the sacred pages of the New and the Old Testament, who does not so much as understand the very beginning of the Creed? And that which, all the world over, is uttered by the voices of all applicants for regeneration, is still not grasped by the mind of this aged man. If, then, he knew not what he ought to think about the Incarnation of the Word of God, and was not willing, for the sake of obtaining the light of intelligence, to make laborious search through the whole extent of the Holy Scriptures, he should at least have received with heedful attention that general Confession common to all, whereby the whole body of the faithful profess that they “believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.”" (Tome of St. Leo)

As you can see, Leo blamed the Eutychian/Monophysite error as a result of failure to study Scripture.

"There were several heresies that had to be condemned such as monothelitism and its variations, Aryanism and several errors concerning the trinity as well."

Several different councils ... but ...

"All of these real issues were not resolved by scripture alone, but the three legged approach of scripture, tradition and the magesterium."

That's not historically accurate. See one example above.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"I know its true because tradition and the Catholic church and the Catholic liturgy tell me its true. But you deny these sources so my reasons for believing Paul was inspoired are very different to yours. You have not proven Paul was inspired."

I think you've exposed your error yourself. You equate "reasons [that are] different" with an absence of proof. That's not a legitimate standard.

"I don’t. I do believe Paul and Peter were inspired, but you cannot make a valid argument that concludes to Paul or Peter were inspired."

See above. Whenever I use reasons that differ from yours, you simply reject them out of hand.

"Ok, I downgrade the request to this – provide some solid reasons why we should believe Paul wrote inspired texts."

1) Paul survived being stoned.

2) Paul survived being bitten by a poisonous snake.

3) Paul raised Eutychus to life from the dead.

"Very simple – 2 Tim 1:6 says For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands."

This has to do with Paul ordaining others (Timothy, specifically).

"My hands refers to the apostle Paul doing the act of laying on of hands."

Yes.

"This is a priestly act derived from the OT levitical priesthood that was ordered towards sacrifice for the remission of sins."

No, Paul wasn't placing his sins on Timothy's head, like the priests placed the sins on the heads of sacrificial victims.

"Paul also went to visit Peter for some time to verifiy that he was teaching the true Gospel."

Really? Do you seriously think that Paul heard Jesus speak to him personally from heaven, but wasn't sure if he was preaching the true Gospel? I think you might want to re-read Acts.

"Paul was seeking Peter authoritative decision about his mission."

Again, you won't find that in the text.

"Paul was not a lone ranger concerning the Gospel."

No, he took Barnabas and later Silas with him on his missionary journeys. He wasn't a lone ranger (that wasn't even an option) but he was an apostle of Jesus, not of men.

"He was an apostle just like the other apostles, who lived within the same church."

He was equal in authority to any of the other apostles, but he wasn't "just like" them - as he himself teaches.

JM had written: "Timothy was already in the church and he learnt from Paul through scripture and apostolic tradition which is not SS."

I pointed out: Let's see what Paul says about Timothy's education and compare it to your comment:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”


JM now writes: "And you point is what?"

Oh, I'm sorry you can't see the point. Paul describes Timothy's education as being from the Scriptures.

"Lets see, I’ve made a statement concerning your inability to know what inspiration means from a text and which texts are inspired and you avoid the statement by claiming it’s a red herring and then providing a link. You have not answered the issue of inspiration or the criteria required for an inspired text."

See above (and see the link as well).

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"It’s a false confession that doesn’t teach sola scriptora."

I guess that shows how much you know about the subject. You really should read a book on the subject. I would recommend David King and William Webster's triology: "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of the Faith"

"Oh really? God reveals himself only in scripture. This is SS. Yet you say he reveals himself in nature and scripture. This is not SS."

As noted above, you don't know what sola scriptura is. This is just a further demonstration of your ignorance.

"Again simple logic dictates reformed theology is at odds with reason."

No. Your misrepresentation may be ... but you don't know reformed theology.

"If this is denied then we note that Sola doesn’t really mean sola after all. This is yet another fallacy of reformed theology."

See above.

"The priests of the OT were commissioned to teach the law in the OT and it follows that because Christ fulfills the OT, there is a NT priesthood that also teaches the NT law. Both the OT and NT priest require infallibility collectively when teaching the church on faith and morals. Otherwise they don’t have an authority from God to teach."

If you think that the OT priests were infallible, why don't you follow their teachings?

"Pillar is taken from the OT pillar used as part of a priestly sacrifice and anointing in covenant oath binding ceremonies that involves a relationship with God."

No, it isn't. There's nothing in the text to suggest that Paul means that, and there isn't an OT analog.

"Foundation is taken from temple imagery in the OT that is associated with the priesthood and sacrifice."

No, it isn't. There's nothing in the text to suggest that and there's no OT analog.

"We have an altar in the NT which we are to eat, so this assumes there is a sacrifice and a priesthood to confect the sacrifice."

The sacrifice is Christ and the priest is Christ. It says so in the same book that calls it an altar (which isn't this book).

"No, the whole Gospel has been enscripturated.”

"Prove it."

Matthew 26:13

Mark 14:9

John 20:31

or simply:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

"And without the printing press and literacy there is no knowledge of salvation."

Looks like another point where you don't know what you're talking about.

"The Roman Church denies the entire Gospel has been placed into scripture."

Where is that dogmatically defined, exactly?

"The scriptures point towards the authority of the church in Matt 16 and 18, the Jerusalem Council in acts and later post apostolic councils such as Nicea and Chalcedon in conformity with apostolic practice."

All those councils relied on the authority of Scripture to decide the matters they faced - and nothing in Matthew 16 or 18 suggests that the authority of the church is superior or even equal to that of Scripture.

"And the chair of Moses and OT prophets in an environment of ongoing revelation. This also defeats SS."

No ... it doesn't. See above.

"The apostles were the magesterium which was later transferred to others through election to the office of bishop and laying on of hands such as Timothy."

Just so you know, the preferred spelling is "magisterium" not "magesterium."

And while God has ordained teachers in the church, and while they have authority to teach, they do not need infallibility in order to do their jobs, and there is no good reason to think they have infallibility.

- TurretinFan