Unfortunately for Mr. Mathison, the blessed John Henry Newman was not the first to posit doctrine of the development of doctrine.(source)
St. Vincent Lerins wrote on it extensively in the fifth century. ...
Lastly, it is puzzling to always see Protestants kicking the development of doctrine, as if their particular doctrines are explicitly and fully present from the very earliest Christian testimony.
Now, I don't agree with Vincent (as I explained in much greater detail when rebutting a similar argument for development that tried to utilize Vincent), but what Vincent was arguing for was virtually the exact opposite of development:
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.You can't really have innovation if you only hold things that were universally held by the ancients. Vincent's rule would rule out:
- Papal Infallibility
- Conciliar Infallibility
- Purgatory
- Indulgences
- The Bodily Assumption of Mary
- The Immaculate Conception of Mary
- ... and so forth.
"Protestants" are opposed to the "development of doctrine," in the sense of doctrines emerging without a Biblical basis. We require that all doctrines of the church be supported by Scripture, not merely by widespread acceptance among the ancients.
- TurretinFan
140 comments:
A couple of things come to mind along with some verses after reading this:
"Protestants" are opposed to the "development of doctrine," in the sense of doctrines emerging without a Biblical basis. We require that all doctrines of the church be supported by Scripture, not merely by widespread acceptance among the ancients.
one: When I read that and ponder more now the writings of Vincent of Lerins, two things I think about then. One, Vincent really was of the view of sola scriptura and two, I go to pondering once again these Words of Wisdom:
Psa 11:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. In the LORD I take refuge; how can you say to my soul, "Flee like a bird to your mountain,
Psa 11:2 for behold, the wicked bend the bow; they have fitted their arrow to the string to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart;
Psa 11:3 if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Psa 11:4 The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD's throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man.
Psa 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Psa 11:6 Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
Psa 11:7 For the LORD is righteous; he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face.
Psa 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.
Psa 97:1 The LORD reigns, let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad!
Psa 97:2 Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.
Psa 97:3 Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries all around.
two: When I consider all that the thread points to, and the verses, I end up concluding the RCC is partly who Jesus was addressing, Him being both the Alpha and the Omega, here:::>
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Mat 7:24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Since the fall of Adam then, human nature has obviously been on the "same" collision course with Truth. Undoubtedly from within the RCC, trumpets have sounded yet have not rarely been heard. It does seem to me from afar, Vincent might have been blowing a loud sound from his trumpet, yet few ever took the time to listen to it? Or not?
I believe this whole exercise is so that Faith will be heard. As some from the RCC faith read these threads the Holy Spirit will open their minds to understand, also. This blog indeed has a peculiar soundness of sound coming out of it, if you know what I mean?
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
TF, I just tried posting a comment to this thread and it didn't go onto you combox. I wonder if it ended up in the blog trash bin and you could retrieve it and post it for me?
Good post TFan.
Already shown some problems with TF's previous attempts of refuting development of doctrine. These arguments were not answered back then either.
That something can be without error = something does not have error in it.
SS says the word of God can be found in scripture alone.
The word of God is without error, which is to be inerrant.
According to SS, if scripture teaches it is without error, then scripture is referring to itself as establishing its own inerrancy, but to refer to self is to use circular reasoning and to use circular reasoning is an error. Therefore within a SS belief system, for scripture to state scripture is without error, is an error.
Another way –
SS says the word of God can be found in scripture alone.
Because scripture is the word of God, it is inerrant.
And if scripture says it is inerrant, then it says it is inerrant because it is inspired and because it is inspired it is inerrant. But this is circular reasoning, which is an error.
Therefore within a SS belief system, for scripture to state scripture is without error, is an error.
Another way –
SS says the word of God can be found in scripture alone.
Because scripture is the word of God, it is inerrant.
Scripture says it is inspired (2Tim3), and then it infers it is inerrant because it is inspired.
But to refer to itself as inspired and therefore inerrant is to say the scriptures are inspired because it says so and it says so because it is inspired, but this is circular reasoning. Therefore to believe in an inerrant scripture in a SS belief system is an error.
Also to believe in an errant scripture within in a SS belief system is also an error, because God cannot write an error.
Therefore SS is an illogical belief system regarding inerrancy of the scriptures.
JM
"Protestants" are opposed to the "development of doctrine," in the sense of doctrines emerging without a Biblical basis.
JM - comment - all the doctrines you listed have biblical basis even if you don't accept them. Therefore what you mean is the RCC can only have doctrinal development if it is founded on a biblical basis acceptable to you. This is of course spiritual solipsism, which itself is not biblical.
JM
Sean writes (as quoted in the original article):
Unfortunately for Mr. Mathison
Keith Mathison has a PhD. from Whitefield Theological Seminary.
"...to refer to self is to use circular reasoning and to use circular reasoning is an error."
Yes, and for Abraham to believe that God told him to sacrifice Isaac rather than Descartes' omnipotent demon was an error too, right?
Sheesh.
Yes, and for Abraham to believe that God told him to sacrifice Isaac rather than Descartes' omnipotent demon was an error too, right?
Sheesh.
JM- what? . . . another irrelevant argument in response to the SS problem? . . . yep another low grade statement. Fully expected and fully delivered as per usual.
JM
JM: You are going to have give us something better than just an insult, if you want to avoid deletion.
"Already shown some problems with TF's previous attempts of refuting development of doctrine. These arguments were not answered back then either."
Volume of posts doesn't necessarily equal substance ...
For example, your argument about circular arguments fails, because it misrepresents the sola scriptura position. We don't offer the testimony of Scripture as a deductive proof of Scripture's inerrancy.
- TurretinFan
"all the doctrines you listed have biblical basis even if you don't accept them"
No, they don't. That's why we don't accept them.
-TurretinFan
"what? . . . another irrelevant argument in response to the SS problem?"
How do you propose Abraham non-circularly understood God's command as actually having come from God? If he didn't, he was in error, according to you.
For example, your argument about circular arguments fails, because it misrepresents the sola scriptura position. We don't offer the testimony of Scripture as a deductive proof of Scripture's inerrancy."
2 Tim 3:16 is often quoted by Protestants as an essential plank in defense of SS. So logically it is a circular position and therefore an error.
JM
Your new argument contains the same error as your previous arguments. It's not a deductive proof.
JM:
You wrote a long comment ending "This is enough for now concerning inspiration and the canon."
That's not the topic of this post. I have no idea where you intended to leave your comment, but it is off-topic here.
-TurretinFan
How do you propose Abraham non-circularly understood God's command as actually having come from God? If he didn't, he was in error, according to you."
JM- God is the author of the natural and the super natural and when he makes a revelation to man, such as Abraham he does so perfectly so man cannot deny the revelation made. Abraham had direct knowledge of the revelation made to him and that was subsequently recorded in a text known by the OT church as scripture.
I still haven't the faintest idea how this relates to my arguments against SS, hence my comments regarding the quality and relevance of your initial statements stand.
JM
JM:
Ryan's trying to help you see that we believe the Bible, just as Abraham believed the spoken word of God.
There's no circularity in that.
The problem is your mistaken attempt to convert our belief in the Bible into a circular argument to prove the Bible by the Bible.
Your logic would equally apply to Abraham "proving God by God" or something to that effect.
That's not how it works, of course, and perhaps eventually you'll catch on.
-TurretinFan
The problem is your mistaken attempt to convert our belief in the Bible into a circular argument to prove the Bible by the Bible.
JM - So if you ont prove the bible from the bible, then you propve the bible from a source other than the bible, which means the other source is outside the bible. But this means you have contradicted the doctrine of SS, whereby the bible is the ultimate authority in faith and morals or on matters of salvation, because an outside sourse is needed to determine what is and is not to be included as the text to be considered an authority on faith and morals.
In short, if you obtain the bible from the bible, SS is circular. If you obtain the bible from another source, then that process is inconsistent with SS and is therefore illogical.
Either way SS is an error.
JM
Your logic would equally apply to Abraham "proving God by God" or something to that effect.
JM - Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he knows from the experience.
This is not relevant to what I am saying, so it is a poor argument.
JM
JM:
We've already explained to you, several times now, the problem with the argument you're using.
The problem is that you've mistakenly assumed that we are trying to prove the Bible from the Bible. We're not.
Please don't post additional comments with the same premise.
-TurretinFan
"Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he knows from the experience."
We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.
You see the analogy, I hope. If not, too bad. Unless you have something new to say, you're done in this thread.
"Your new argument contains the same error as your previous arguments. It's not a deductive proof. "
I am amazed at the arguments that John has presented. With the way he is attacking Sola Scriptura is is in reality attacking the authority of Scripture which is God's word much like an atheist or agnostic does when they attack Scripture. His line of argumentation has all the seeds for atheism or agnosticism. And and very sad he has no confidence in God's Holy Word.
Chafer, ha!
With the way he is attacking Sola Scriptura is [sic] is in reality attacking the authority of Scripture which is God's word much like an atheist or agnostic does when they attack Scripture.
I wonder if he does this thinking he is doing God a service?
That's it! He's an [g]odly atheistic agnostic!
Maybe he will eventually fall prey to this error too? You never know??
Joh 16:1 "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.
Joh 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.
Joh 16:3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
"God is the author of the natural and the super natural and when he makes a revelation to man, such as Abraham he does so perfectly so man cannot deny the revelation made."
So by implication, you believe the Bible is imperfect because people can deny that it is of divine origin? Is that right?
It's interesting to hear you describe Abraham as being unable to reject the revelation made. It sounds like "irresistible grace" to me. Why else couldn't Abraham reject the revelation?
"Abraham had direct knowledge of the revelation made to him and that was subsequently recorded in a text known by the OT church as scripture."
Why don't you cite us some to support your interpretation of Genesis 22. Can't wait! :)
TFan,
There is nothing in St. Vincent of Lerins that does violence to any doctrine of the Church.
I encourage everybody to read St. Vincent for themselves.
"There is nothing in St. Vincent of Lerins that does violence to any doctrine of the Church."
What a glowing commendation!
And, of course, that kind of glib statement is not a meaningful substitute for an argument.
Your appeal to private judgment is noted for future reference.
- TurretinFan
"God is the author of the natural and the super natural and when he makes a revelation to man, such as Abraham he does so perfectly so man cannot deny the revelation made."
R- So by implication, you believe the Bible is imperfect because people can deny that it is of divine origin? Is that right?
JM – No. The bible content is unknown through private discernment because inspiration is a super natural charism of the text, requiring a supernatural authority to authoritatively make a decision regarding its SN authorship by the HS.
R-It's interesting to hear you describe Abraham as being unable to reject the revelation made. It sounds like "irresistible grace" to me. Why else couldn't Abraham reject the revelation?
JM – He couldn’t reject knowing God had made the revelation, he could reject the revelation.
JM -"Abraham had direct knowledge of the revelation made to him and that was subsequently recorded in a text known by the OT church as scripture."
Why don't you cite us some to support your interpretation of Genesis 22. Can't wait! :)
JM – currently out of time. Maybe later.
JM
John,
so sad you ran out of time!
You wrote: JM – He couldn’t reject knowing God had made the revelation, he could reject the revelation.
Finally! Finally we have hit pay dirt!!
Herein lies the reality of Truth, John, for what it's worth?
You see, only Satan and his angels and those not Elected to Salvation according to foreknowledge would reject any of God's Revelations and gifts to them, especially the Revelation of the Bride of Christ being washed by the Water of His Word!
Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
You know there is this nagging finality of pending judgment and punishment hanging over the heads of those who are not turning to God through Jesus Christ by One Spirit!
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
"No. The bible content is unknown through private discernment because inspiration is a super natural charism of the text, requiring a supernatural authority to authoritatively make a decision regarding its SN authorship by the HS."
Where do you come up with these things? As if it takes an appeal to an infallible Magisterium to know what "David killed Goliath" means! And why can you privately discern what this alleged authority says but not what God Himself has said in Scripture?
"He couldn’t reject knowing God had made the revelation, he could reject the revelation."
In that case, in what way would this be different from the way in which reprobates suppress the truth of God's word?
john writes:
No. The bible content is unknown through private discernment because inspiration is a super natural charism of the text, requiring a supernatural authority to authoritatively make a decision regarding its SN authorship by the HS.
The Magisterium is unknown through private discernment because infallibility is a supernatural charism of its decrees, requiring a supernatural authority to authoritatively make a decision regarding its supernatural guidance by the Holy Spirit.
John,
when rereading your words, here:
- all the doctrines you listed have biblical basis even if you don't accept them. Therefore what you mean is the RCC can only have doctrinal development if it is founded on a biblical basis acceptable to you. This is of course spiritual solipsism, which itself is not biblical.
It occurred to me you would find listening to Satan acceptable based on those terms.
He did, after all, use the same Scriptures Jesus "Is" when tempting Him as he went about trying to trick and deceive Him! By so doing, his attempts failed in robbing Him, destroying His Eternal Place in both glories, His Eternal Place and His Glorious role as Lord and Savior of His Elect on earth and, interestingly enough, he gladly yet grievously did do what was written about his character, a murderer would do, he had Him killed!
Now he realizes his big mistake!
John, the devil realizes his big mistake. Why don't you?
Here might be the answer? I don't know? But, if it walks and talks and waddles like a duck, it can't be a race horse now can it?:::>
2Co 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
2Co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
Where do you come up with these things? As if it takes an appeal to an infallible Magisterium to know what "David killed Goliath" means! And why can you privately discern what this alleged authority says but not what God Himself has said in Scripture?
JM – there is no way we know the HS wrote "David killed Goliath" without an authority outside the text to tell us.
"He couldn’t reject knowing God had made the revelation, he could reject the revelation."
In that case, in what way would this be different from the way in which reprobates suppress the truth of God's word?
JM – Its similar. If Abraham rejected the message from God, then he made an act of unbelief.
JM
The Magesterium is unknown through private discernment because infallibility is a supernatural charism of its decrees, requiring a supernatural authority to authoritatively make a decision regarding its supernatural guidance by the Holy Spirit.
JM - The Magesterium is known through public revelation such as Moses chair and the institution of the Apostles by Jesus through the laying on of hands. These institutions are then used in councils such as that of Jerusalem to make decisions regarding faith and morals.
JM
Now he realizes his big mistake!
JM – Natmallc has a typical apologetic that goes like this. Make a statement that is unrelated to the opponents statement, then make another statement unrelated to his previous statement and then make an unrelated biblical quote.
This is called systematic misdirection.
JM
JM writes:
The Magesterium is known through public revelation such as Moses chair and the institution of the Apostles by Jesus through the laying on of hands. These institutions are then used in councils such as that of Jerusalem to make decisions regarding faith and morals.
Let's assume that's the case. If I can understand some parts of public revelation before coming to a knowledge of the divinely guided Magisterium, why do I then need the Magisterium to understand the rest of it?
As far as I've been able to discern, when the point is pressed in any significant detail, the Magisterium becomes superfluous to the identification of Scripture as God's Word.
"...there is no way we know the HS wrote "David killed Goliath" without an authority outside the text to tell us."
God's sheep hear His voice, the voice of His messengers, and follow it, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
"Its similar."
Then to assert that reprobates cannot know God's revelation and reject it as Abraham recognized God's revelation and could have rejected it (according to you) is arbitrary.
Natamllc said: "Vincent really was of the view of sola scriptura"
Vincent spends time lauding the sentences of Councils and Popes too. He is a witness AGAINST SS, and also FOR many things detestable to Protestants.
He shows the need for submission to the interpretive authority of the church not just scholarly exegesis of the text.
"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation." Commonitory Chapter 2.
"JM - So if you ont prove the bible from the bible, then you propve the bible from a source other than the bible, which means the other source is outside the bible. But this means you have contradicted the doctrine of SS, whereby the bible is the ultimate authority in faith and morals or on matters of salvation, because an outside sourse is needed to determine what is and is not to be included as the text to be considered an authority on faith and morals. "
Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture is the sola infallible rule of faith for the Christian Church. It does not exclude other things such as OT and NT dictionaries or Bible teachers or church councils or things like that. Those outside sources are fallible and subject to Scripture which is infallible.You are playing the role of an atheist or agnostic in your line of argumentation. Scripture is given by inspiration of God through divine revelation from those who were a prophet by office or had the prophetic gift or an Apostle. ( 2 Tim 3:16-17, Eph 2:20 ) They were moved by the Spirit of God in what they wrote and hence are without error in the original autographs. ( 2 Pet 1:20-21 ) We have no need for a claimed infallible interpreter of Scripture or claimed infallible church councils. To top it off if such things existed it failed in it's task since neither of those provided and infallible interpretation of any verses of Scripture or an interpretation for each and every verse in Scripture.
"In short, if you obtain the bible from the bible, SS is circular. If you obtain the bible from another source, then that process is inconsistent with SS and is therefore illogical. "
Scripture is given to us by God through the prophets and the apostles or those with the prophetic gift. The church merely collected what was intended by God to be Scripture. No need for a claimed infallible teaching authority for this . Nor is there any proof of a claimed infallible teaching authority for the church. Your arguments basically assumes the existence of such claimed authority instead of proving it. Clear double standards that is all too common amoung Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and other cults in their denial of Sola Scripture. If we take you at face value Roman Catholics had no idea what the OT Canon was until it was dogmatically and infalliblly defined for it's communion in 1546ad.
"He shows the need for submission to the interpretive authority of the church not just scholarly exegesis of the text."
Has the RCC provided a dogmatic infallble interpretation of each and every verse in Scripture by means of exegesis ? If not, then the Roman Catholic Church failed to teach the people of God on what Scripture teaches.
Neither councils of the Church, or Bishops of Rome are infallible when they claim to speak on doctrine or morals from the claimed " seat of Peter " . Liberious Bishop of Rome is a noted heretic who signed an Arian Creed and took part of an Arian Council. So much for infalliblity in teaching there when he is guilty of formal heresy. Let's not forget the Letters of Liberious who agreed with Arius. Or let's not forget Honorious who was condemned for formal heresy along with others by the 6th Ecumenical council.
Canadian:
Even Vincent acknowledges Scripture to be "sufficient and more than sufficient."
-TurretinFan
Chafer,
[Did the apostles provide a dogmatic infallible interpretation of each and every verse of scripture by means of exegesis? If not, then the apostles failed to teach the people of God on what scripture teaches.]
Was the council of Acts 15 infallible? Has God ever given the gift of infallibility to the church?
Modern scholars and contemporaries of Liberius are at complete odds about forged letters, conflicting testimony etc. It is not known if he signed anything, what he signed (if he did), what was the content signed on to (two of the possible alleged creeds did not negate Nicene orthodoxy but merely did not affirm it as fully as Nicea), and that even if he did it was likely under threat. None of this constitutes infallible proclamation. No one claims popes can't err. Liberius returned from exile to the delight of the church and much celebration. Anastasius said "for this faith (Nicene), those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is Liberius bishop of the Roman church." Denzinger
Honorious was a poor theologian and was mislead by Sergius to think of the two wills, two operations as being in necessary opposition and thus his reply was wrong but he did not bind the church to monotheletism.
By the way, you seem to admit being bound to the dogmatic dyothelite position not articulated in scripture alone. Are you sure this is infallibly correct? How do you bind anyone against pain of "formal heresy"?
TF,
St. Vincent said:
"But here SOMEONE PERHAPS WILL ASK, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason...."
The Catholic position is not that the scriptures are in some way lacking or deficient but that they do not stand alone (Sola Scriptura). Vincent makes as much clear when he proceeds to invoke the "rule...and standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" and that it is necessary to "join with it (scripture) the authority of the Church's interpretation."
You realize when you find the word sufficiency, that Vincent quickly negates the idea of formal, protestant views of sufficiency.
How can something be "more than sufficient" in terms of formal sufficiency?
TF,
The bottom line is Vincent was stating that if someone should say that scripture was sufficient, more than sufficient by itself, then he would quickly rebut and add that without the authoritative interpretation and proper sense of the catholic church, that you would end up with "as many interpretations as there are interpreters."
Well - Vincent's words mean something. Jumping to a "bottom line" that you think is helpful seems to overlook Vicent's approval of the idea that Scripture is sufficient and more than sufficient - not just "formally sufficiently" (in your terms).
-TurretinFan
"Was the council of Acts 15 infallible? Has God ever given the gift of infallibility to the church? "
Only due to the fact in Acts 15 we have the presence of the apostles whom provided the foundation for the Christian faith in which Christ entrusted to them which lines up with Eph 2:20. With regard to the Church this gift of infallibility is limited to the apostles and writers of the New Testament which became part of Scripture. These are conditions of which no longer exist since the death of all the apostles and those with the prophetic gift once the NT Scripture was completed in it's writings. Afterwards we find no Biblical or logical necessity for this claimed infallibility since we now have the Scripture as a whole consisting of the Old and New Testament. And no one meets the qualifications of apostleship or prophet. This infallibility is a useless false claim unless one is trying to say we are presently getting new divine revelation through a claimed infallible teaching authority. The foundation for the Christian faith has already been completed by the apostles and prophets of Eph 2:20. There is no foundation as still being built at all. Not unless you wish to contend for present day apostles and prophets like Adventist, Mormons and Jehovah Wittnesses do for example on this. They like Roman Catholic denies Sola Scriptura due to a claimed infallible teaching authority.
"Modern scholars and contemporaries of Liberius are at complete odds about forged letters, conflicting testimony etc. It is not known if he signed anything, what he signed (if he did), what was the content signed on to (two of the possible alleged creeds did not negate Nicene orthodoxy but merely did not affirm it as fully as Nicea), and that even if he did it was likely under threat. None of this constitutes infallible proclamation. No one claims popes can't err. Liberius returned from exile to the delight of the church and much celebration. Anastasius said "for this faith (Nicene), those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is Liberius bishop of the Roman church." Denzinger "
Your whole comments there are wrong. The Arian Creeds are heretical since it denies the oneness of nature between God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and God, the Son. It is that very point of disagreement between Arians, Semi- Arminians and the Trinitarians. Liberious had Athanaisa exiled, condemned the doctrine of the Trinity as unbiblical in his letters. He was active in his denial of the Trinity and claimed Arianism as Biblical truth since he affirmed an Arian Council which had way more Bishops than Nicea and had the nerve and will of Satan to sign it's Arian creed . Later on Liberius repented of his heresy. But fact remains he taught formal heresy. The Church fell in to heresy since most of it embraced Arianism and Nicea had to fight for many years to be accepted by the church as a whole. I believe he was a rank heretic. This is one of many examples many such as Protestants , Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic use as part of evidence that there is no such thing as Papal infallibility.
"By the way, you seem to admit being bound to the dogmatic dyothelite position not articulated in scripture alone. "
Only doctrines that are proven by Scripture are binding on me and Christians. If it can't be proven by Scripture it is not binding on me at all. I dont follow claimed teachers or claimed doctrinal tradition blindly at all. If a Bishop in the Church, a Church council or tradition contradicts what is taught in Scripture I am bound by Scripture to reject it. If what they are teaching is correct I affirm it and amen them if it is biblically correct. I test all things and hold fast to what is true.
" Are you sure this is infallibly correct? "
My position is that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Since there are no present day apostles or prophets there is no so called gift of infallibility to a person on the earth. Hence why I reject the claims of Roman Catholicism, Adventist, Mormons and Jehovah Wittnesses. Do you want to claim new divine revelation is being given today that is not already taught in Scripture. And being presently proclaimed by Councils of the Church or Popes ?
"How do you bind anyone against pain of "formal heresy"? "
I personally can't do much except expose the specific heretical teachings and refute it. I am a lay person and not a Bishop / Elder. As far as dealing with it inside the church itself that problem is to be dealt with by Bishops/ Elders in the local church and the denomination whoever they may be. And I pray deal with it properly and do the right thing. Inside the local chruch we are to be taught Scripture by the Bishops / Elders in the church. And prayerfully provide a verse by verse exegetical teaching of the Scripture from start to finish. And with regard to doctrinal teachings itself and a study of basic church history each local church should provide classes for the laity. With all that in mind we must always remember churches in the past have taught some error and may do so in the future as well. This is why we test what is being taught by Scripture.
"Honorious was a poor theologian and was mislead by Sergius to think of the two wills, two operations as being in necessary opposition and thus his reply was wrong but he did not bind the church to monotheletism. "
I do agree he was a poor theologian and should never have been Bishop in the first place. His writings were used as proof by the heretics of being an apostolic teaching passed down. The decrees of the 6th Ecumenical Council are very specific in what they say Honorious did and what they condemned him on. They did not believe in Papal infallibility point blank. They condemned him and other bishops of formal heresy. And had to refute it through Scripture. The 6th ecumenical council looks at him in a much more serious manner than what you are trying to say in order to attempt to preserve papal infallibility. I dont like anyone defending heresy such as this or of Liberious due to the nature of it relating to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Chafer,
Your arbitrary, unbiblical statements merely asserting the details (not divinely revealed) of how and when God removed infallibility from men and confined it to a book are purely subjective and unsubstantiated. Rome does not believe she receives "new" revelation but expounds the deposit of divine revelation given through the apostles to the church. Appealing to Adventists, Mormons etc only reveals your mistaken notions.
You said "they did not believe in papal infallibility point blank."
You must admit the Councils speak very highly of the papal office, Chafer. How un-protestant of them.
Letter of 6th Ecumenical Council to Agatho:
"therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect"
"...not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree"
"Thus, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and instructed by your doctrine, we have cast forth the vile doctrines of impiety"
"Thereupon, therefore, the grace of the Holy Spirit shone upon us, displaying his power, through your assiduous prayers, for the uprooting of all weeds and every tree which brought not forth good fruit, and giving command that they should be consumed by fire. And we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible"
Also,
Each Council declared the authority of all the previous Councils and the 6th was no different. So she approved of statements like this from Ephesus:
“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place….” (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3).
"Rome does not believe she receives "new" revelation but expounds the deposit of divine revelation given through the apostles to the church. Appealing to Adventists, Mormons etc only reveals your mistaken notions. "
From a logical stand point she does . No distinctive Roman Catholic teaching is traced back to Jesus and the apostles. Nor has it dogmatically defined all these claimed traditions as well. Rome claims to have this and yet fails to provide it for the people of God. RCC likes those cults I listed have a claimed infallible teaching authority. Each has a claimed apostle , prophet or spokes person. The RCC is no different than they are in that regard. I will use one example of an early doctrinal tradition traced back to the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd cent which present day Roman Catholics reject. For example , Premillennial appears to have been held by a number of church fathers and yet present day Roman Catholics rejects it in the Cathechism Of The Catholic Church which affirms an Amillennial position. From a practical stand point Roman Catholicism does not subject itself to neither Scripture or tradition. In otherwords, it claims it's authority based on something apart from Scripture. More or less like claimed prophets like Joseph Smith, Ellen G . White, Benny Hinn and other false prophets.
"You must admit the Councils speak very highly of the papal office, Chafer. How un-protestant of them."
That is a very silly claim . And of one even your own quote does not do with regard to the present day position of Roma Catholicism with respect to the claimed authority of the Bishop of Rome. None of the 7 ecumenical councils affirmed any concept of Papal infallibility, nor of the Pope as being head of the entire visible Catholic Church on the earth. I dont claim the early church fathers or middle ages church fathers as being Protestant at all. On there otherhand, you are trying to turn them to modern day Roman Catholics when they were not. I reject each and every misquotes you did as you commited anachronism with regard to them. I read them before but in full context and not selective quoting that Roman Catholicism does with them. " Speaking highly of the Bishop of Rome " does not equate being head of the entire visible church on the earth nor of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. It is to be noted Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics reject those specific claims of Roman Catholicism. Your comment of " how unprotestant of them " is a statement of utter ignorance of what I am or what you intent to imply by that. I did not come from no Protestant up bringing or as part of any Protestant denomination. You assume stuff which you do not know of me at all. I never claim the church fathers held to each and every doctrine that I hold to at all. The church fathers often disagreed with one another depending on the specific doctrinal subject. The Church fathers like present day professing Christianity are divided on doctrinal issues.
It is to be noted that Nicea and all other ecumenical councils took place over 200 years or more after the death of all the apostles. And the quotes from one of them is broken up in to various parts which distorts the context of which they were written in. Best way to judge it is by going to the direct source of the quote and read in context. I am unable to post it in full context here due to space limiations in order to show how misleading Roman Catholics are with their attempt use of it on those who are not informed or familiar with the church fathers or councils of the church.
It is to be noted that with regard to Matthew 16:18 the over 44 church fathers held that the " Rock " refered to the person of Peter confession of Faith in Jesus Christ in contrast to the interpretation of it by Vatican I in 1870ad. It also is to be noted the Church fathers held that all Bishops in the Church sit on the chair of Peter and never the Bishop of Rome alone in contrast to present day Roman Catholic claims.
Honorius condemned by 6th Ecumenucal council.
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
Clear double standards that is all too common among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and other cults in their denial of Sola Scripture.
JM- there are double standards galore within SS. We’ve seen some in this thread.
If we take you at face value Roman Catholics had no idea what the OT Canon was until it was dogmatically and infallibly defined for it's communion in 1546ad.
JM – Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day. We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here God talking to them in the text. Its simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon.
JM
Let's assume that's the case. If I can understand some parts of public revelation before coming to a knowledge of the divinely guided Magisterium, why do I then need the Magisterium to understand the rest of it?
JM – the only logical reason you have that the bible is part of public revelation is because the church teaches it is so, even if you understand its content, it isn’t evidence that God wrote the bible. If you understand a maths book, does that mean the HS wrote the book? No.
As far as I've been able to discern, when the point is pressed in any significant detail, the Magisterium becomes superfluous to the identification of Scripture as God's Word.
JM – I find it’s the other way around. Whenever I push the non Catholic on the issue of the divine authorship of the text it usually comes down to some illogical, subjective answer that does not exist in the text, no accounts for the supernatural.
SS is fundamentally flawed, because it ignores the roll of the supernatural within the church and within the biblical text.
JM
"...there is no way we know the HS wrote "David killed Goliath" without an authority outside the text to tell us."
God's sheep hear His voice, the voice of His messengers, and follow it, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
JM – which means when the church teaches on the canon of scripture, you listen to it, but when it teaches on other matters, you ignore it, because you know better. Somehow your subjective argument doesn’t work in practice.
"Its similar."
Then to assert that reprobates cannot know God's revelation and reject it as Abraham recognized God's revelation and could have rejected it (according to you) is arbitrary.
JM – Abraham had free will like the rest of mankind and he could have rejected the revelation given him. There is nothing arbitrary in this at all.
JM
"there are double standards galore within SS. We’ve seen some in this thread."
Even if this were true, two wrongs would not make a right.
"Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day."
Really? What's your evidence that the "chair of Moses" was "used to determine the extent of the canon of the day"? This should be fascinating.
"We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here [sic] God talking to them in the text."
We have people believing the "Thus saith the Lord" claims of the 12 prophets (of which Amos and Hosea are two) without any formal canonization process.
"Its [sic] simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon."
If these are are authoritative traditions, why do you reject them. Worse still - why would Jesus reject authoritative tradition? If they are non-authoritative tradition - so be it.
"the only logical reason you have that the bible is part of public revelation is because the church teaches it is so, even if you understand its content, it isn’t evidence that God wrote the bible. If you understand a maths book, does that mean the HS wrote the book? No."
It's interesting that your arguments work so hard to try to set up a place for the church that they wedge out the Holy Spirit. But even when the churches are the instrument to hand on the Bible, it is the Holy Spirit that persuades his people to accept it as His word.
"I find it’s the other way around. Whenever I push the non Catholic on the issue of the divine authorship of the text it usually comes down to some illogical, subjective answer that does not exist in the text, no [sic] accounts for the supernatural."
The problem is that you're asking a subjective question. That's why you get a subjective answer.
"SS is fundamentally flawed, because it ignores the roll [sic] of the supernatural within the church and within the biblical text."
This is just special pleading. We can't ignore something that's not there. First, you have to show it is there, then you can allege that someone is ignoring it. And, of course, SS advocates do not deny the supernatural in general, and consequently have no vested interest in denying it "in the church" if it existed there.
"which means when the church teaches on the canon of scripture, you listen to it, but when it teaches on other matters, you ignore it, because you know better. Somehow your subjective argument doesn’t work in practice."
Most SS people don't ignore the church. They reject your church, but not the church in general. And, of course, they don't accept the Bible on the authority of the pope.
"Abraham had free will like the rest of mankind and he could have rejected the revelation given him. There is nothing arbitrary in this at all."
And we could have rejected the Bible.
-TurretinFan
"which means SS teaches something not found in the bible."
You've made this claim before, and it has been addressed before.
"again – not in scripture."
See above.
"I’m playing the roll [sic] of a Catholic who takes Jesus [sic] church seriously."
No - your arguments are skeptical arguments.
"neither of those two quotes will help you because you don’t know what text is written by the HS. Take a close look at 2 Tim 3:16-17 – its only a metaphor. This means SS is only a metaphor as well because it can only be as strong as its weakest link, which includes 2 Tim 3:16-17."
See, there's an example. He does know what was written by the Holy Spirit, and you simply wish to try to cast doubt on that fact, like an atheist or agnostic.
"Assuming 2 Pet 1:20-21 is scripture, therefore your argument is circular."
You have not addressed the rebuttal to your claim that appeals to Scripture with respect to Sola Scriptura are circular. If you continue to post this argument here without responding to that rebuttal in some meaingful fashion, your comments will be deleted.
"Scripture says otherwise. Peter says the wicked and unstable twist the scriptures to their own destruction."
Yes, but he does not say that the faithful and believing do that. There's the flaw in your argument.
"We also see St Philip teach the Ethiopian Eunuch who dint [sic] understand scripture."
Yes, and if you think Philip was an infallible magisterium, you're nuts.
"We also see St Paul’s letters mention oral tradition as the word of God which is binding"
Paul does not say that the oral tradition has any different content from the written tradition. And, of course, you can't trace back any of the distinctive Roman dogmas to the oral tradition of Paul.
"and Acts 15 gives us a church Council that makes a decision on the discontinuity of circumcision for the NT church and this decision was not found in any OT text."
Actually it was. In fact, James cited the authority of the Old Testament to decide the matter.
"Therefore if we were left up to scripture alone we would not have this decision binding on believers."
See above. But, of course, the decision wasn't binding on all believers according to its terms. Furthermore, your church doesn't even follow it's teachings.
"In fact because you don’t believe the decision is infallible, then for all you know it may be in error and likewise St Paul is in error in both Romans and Galatians concerning circumcision."
This argument ignores the fact that Romans and Galatians are Scripture.
"SS is simply not workable and it is not historical."
This is just an argument from ignorance.
"an infallible authority is only required to teach the truth without error. Your objection has no foundation in the definition of infallibility."
No, the objection is founded on your contention that such teaching is needed. If it were needed, it should have been used. It has not been used, therefore it was not needed.
In response to: "Scripture is given to us by God through the prophets and the apostles or those with the prophetic gift.
JM wrote: "there is nothing in the NT to validate this claim, let alone establish the limits of the text as inspired."
Peter's epistles are part of the NT and do validate this claim.
In response to: "The church merely collected what was intended by God to be Scripture."
JM responded: "No the church wrote, used and then officially proclaimed the texts to be scripture because she had the authority to do so."
This is another one of JM's assertions that lack historical merit. That's not what happened, and that argument is explicitly contrary to the NT text.
"Only the church has the authority to officially decide what is and is not scripture."
Another empty assertion.
"binding and loosing in Matt 16 and 18 and the authority of the church throughout Acts to make decisions in the daily life of the church and the settling of disputes such as the need for circumcision indicates church authority and infallibility when the priests and elders gathered together in Council."
Priests? Come on, this argument is so anachronistic, you might as well have them meeting by video conference.
"texts given above. Dave Armstrong has a long list of powers for the Church based upon scripture."
Attaching Dave Armstrong's name to something has the effect here of completely discrediting that thing.
-TurretinFan
"JM – which means when the church teaches on the canon of scripture, you listen to it, but when it teaches on other matters, you ignore it, because you know better."
Who said I depend on the church for recognition of the canon? Reread my comment.
"JM – Abraham had free will like the rest of mankind and he could have rejected the revelation given him. There is nothing arbitrary in this at all."
You completely missed the point, which is that in the same way Abraham could recognize God's voice and reject it (according to you), reprobates could be able to analogously recognize God's word and reject it, not to say anything of God's actual sheep. Any protestation is arbitrary until you address the distinction.
"JM- there are double standards galore within SS. We’ve seen some in this thread."
In your mind. Then we must factor in that you do not understand or know what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches.This was seen in your misrepresentation of it in this thread. Then building up a strawman to knock down. You attacked the authority of Scripture by your specific claims of the authority of the church and attacked Scripture must like an atheist or agnostic does. Let's not forget that you are trying to place conditions which existed in the early church while the apostles were alive and while the NT Scripture was being written and tranfer this as if it continues on in the present time through the RCC and the papacy.
"JM – Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day. We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here God talking to them in the text. Its simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon "
Several errors are noted which shall be refuted. 1 ) Jesus condemned the claimed " oral traditions " which contradicted the Old Testament of the Jews. 2 ) The claimed Chair of Moses never determined the OT Canon. And the very fact it had no gift of infallibility. You appeared to have missed Matthew 23 where Jesus condemned them for not only teaching error but also for moral evils they did. 3 ) Jesus called the Old Testament canon of Jews The Law and the Prophets in Luke 24:27;32; and The law, the Prophets and the Psalms in Luke 24:44 which contained Amos and Hosea as they were prophets of God. Jesus likewise referred to the entire Old Testament in Matt. 23:35. And Amos and Hosea are specificially referred to as Scripture by the apostle Paul in Romans 9:25-26 and James in Acts 15:15-21. 6 ) You fail to see that God Himself alone determined what would the Canon be and that Israel in the OT merely discovered it likewise with respect to the Church it merely discovered what the NT was. The individuals books were collected due to the fact they were Scripture and not " made Scripture " by the so called Church.
Chafer,
You can't keep always dodging. I show you where an Ecumenical Council claims that they have delivered an infallible definition of the faith in conjunction with the bishop of Rome and you say things like you can't take quotes except in context from original sources. For the sake of brevity, I give pertinent sections, you are welcome to read them on your own. You can't just ignore all the Council's claims of divine authority by running off and looking for erring popes. Forgetting papal claims for a minute, you fail to deal honestly with the church's Conciliar claims to infallible authority. Why does none of this show you that Sola Scriptura was not believed during these centuries?
In fact, I came into this thread after reading natamllc say St. Vincent was of the view of sola scriptura. It is astonishing to see the dishonesty about the historical texts.
That 44 father's disagreed with others does not negate the papacy. Just like centuries of disagreement about books of scripture does not negate the canon finally propounded by the church. Just like Acts 15 where there was great disagreement about circumcision and the law until the teaching authority of the church explores scripture, the testimony of the missionaries, the miracles among the gentiles and then pronounces what seems good to the Holy Spirit and them.
It all comes down to this. Trying to find the definitive, infallible, Spirit authorized truth cannot be one of scholar against scholar, verse against verse, smart guy against smart guy, exegete against exegete, opinion against opinion. Someone has to be above opinion and declare the truth of God so it is not just conjecture but binding and normative for the people of God.
"Chafer, You can't keep always dodging. I show you where an Ecumenical Council claims that they have delivered an infallible definition of the faith in conjunction with the bishop of Rome and you say things like you can't take quotes except in context from original sources."
I did not do what you claimed. You says it claims that and whereas I reject your claim. Let those who read it decide that one. I merely contend that it is misrepresented by Roman Catholic apologist who most often never read the church father writings for themselves and partially quote them and distort what they taught. One of the main problems is there is no proof of councils of the church as being infallible That would include ecumenical councils of the church as well. You see you must use anachronism to come up with that anyway since the concept of ecumenical councils was a much later developed concept. You see there were councils of the church which went againist one another. You had the Arian councils verses Nicea. No one at that time believed in the infallibility of councils of that much less aware of it at the time those took place. Likewise we have the council of Orange which affirmed Augustinian or semi Augustinian doctrines of grace in contrast to the council of Trent many years later which affirmed a modified form of semi pelagianism. Infallibility of councils of the church is a position that really can't be defended.
"For the sake of brevity, I give pertinent sections, you are welcome to read them on your own. You can't just ignore all the Council's claims of divine authority by running off and looking for erring popes. Forgetting papal claims for a minute, you fail to deal honestly with the church's Conciliar claims to infallible authority. "
Councils of the church made doctrinal errors of the past and may do so in the future as well. I dont go to look for heretical Popes for that. I have heretical councils of the church to show how fallible they really are. The best example is the Arian councils which had many more bishops in them than that of Nicea and yet it is correctly view as invalid and heretical because it goes againist what Scripture teaches. Even if a council dared to claim " infallibility " that is very easy to refute. To make such a claim they would have to prove the existance of present day apostles, prophets or those with the prophetic gift as what took place in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times whil the apostles were alive and the NT was still being written.
"Chafer, You can't keep always dodging. I show you where an Ecumenical Council claims that they have delivered an infallible definition of the faith in conjunction with the bishop of Rome and you say things like you can't take quotes except in context from original sources."
I did not do what you claimed. You says it claims that and whereas I reject your claim. Let those who read it decide that one. I merely contend that it is misrepresented by Roman Catholic apologist who most often never read the church father writings for themselves and partially quote them and distort what they taught. One of the main problems is there is no proof of councils of the church as being infallible That would include ecumenical councils of the church as well. You see you must use anachronism to come up with that anyway since the concept of ecumenical councils was a much later developed concept. You see there were councils of the church which went againist one another. You had the Arian councils verses Nicea. No one at that time believed in the infallibility of councils of that much less aware of it at the time those took place. Likewise we have the council of Orange which affirmed Augustinian or semi Augustinian doctrines of grace in contrast to the council of Trent many years later which affirmed a modified form of semi pelagianism. Infallibility of councils of the church is a position that really can't be defended.
"For the sake of brevity, I give pertinent sections, you are welcome to read them on your own. You can't just ignore all the Council's claims of divine authority by running off and looking for erring popes. Forgetting papal claims for a minute, you fail to deal honestly with the church's Conciliar claims to infallible authority. "
Councils of the church made doctrinal errors of the past and may do so in the future as well. I dont go to look for heretical Popes for that. I have heretical councils of the church to show how fallible they really are. The best example is the Arian councils which had many more bishops in them than that of Nicea and yet it is correctly view as invalid and heretical because it goes againist what Scripture teaches. Even if a council dared to claim " infallibility " that is very easy to refute. To make such a claim they would have to prove the existance of present day apostles, prophets or those with the prophetic gift as what took place in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times whil the apostles were alive and the NT was still being written.
"Why does none of this show you that Sola Scriptura was not believed during these centuries?"
A near unianimous consent of the church fathers in their writings shows it was believed. The church father writings when read in full context would objectively show a belief in Sola Scriptura. One of the many problems here is you dont know what it teaches or understand it. So it is hard for you to see it when show it. Roman Catholic false claims that Sola Scriptura was never taught or believed is refuted in the work called Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume III by Webster & King. Your accusation there have long ago been answered and evidently ignored . Maybe you are unaware of that work and never read it yourself with an open mind.
"That 44 father's disagreed with others does not negate the papacy. "
It does since Vatican I in 1870ad claimed it was the unanimous consent of the church fathers in their use of Matthew 16:18. That is the primary text Roman Catholicism uses for proof of the concept of the Papacy. This is an unusual position for the Roman Catholic here since it's view of Matthew 16 is specifically only with regard to itself on that and is rejected by others such as Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics who happen to agree with Protestants on that point of issue. It is well known Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics reject the concept of the Bishop of Rome as being head of the entire visible church on the earth. What is more evident is the fact it was never accepted uniformly throughout the entire visible church at all but rather on the claims of the RCC alone.
"Just like centuries of disagreement about books of scripture does not negate the canon finally propounded by the church. "
I reject your presuposition there regarding the formulation of the Canon. And you cant compare that with the claims of the papacy by any means. It is intresting when Eastern Orthodox which predates Roman Catholicism rejects the claims of the Bishop of Rome. Likewise the church fathers as well. You see the Popes claims are exclusively that of those in communion with the RCC itself and not those outside of it.
"Just like Acts 15 where there was great disagreement about circumcision and the law until the teaching authority of the church explores scripture, the testimony of the missionaries, the miracles among the gentiles and then pronounces what seems good to the Holy Spirit and them."
The aposles and elders there agreed with one another and James himself who was the leader of that councils said in verse 15 " And with this the words of the prophets agree " and he goes on to quote Amos for proof of their conclusion. And verse 19 show it was James that made the judgement in that council. The apostles were in authority there along with the elders and used Scripture for their teaching on the matter. Only 2 distinct groups disagreed there in context from verse 1 to 5. You overstated the numbers there. No one denies the teaching authority of the church. That is a major hang up with you and a gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. And you confuse the special circumstances of the times between the days of the apostles while the NT was being written and that which existed afterwards.
"It all comes down to this. Trying to find the definitive, infallible, Spirit authorized truth cannot be one of scholar against scholar, verse against verse, smart guy against smart guy, exegete against exegete, opinion against opinion."
Sola Scriptura teaches that this infallible rule of faith for the Church is Scripture. We have no present day apostles, prophets or those with the prophetic gift. We are to use private judgement which we are encouraged to do in Scripture. But you wont allow this for Protestants yet allow this for Roman Catholics. Even you must use private judgement in your conclusions with what you think is proof for the claims of the RCC and the papacy. Basically your case holds no water unless you contend we have present day apostles, prophets or one with the prophetic gift like Mormons, Adventist and Jehovah Wittnesses do for their claims.
" Someone has to be above opinion and declare the truth of God so it is not just conjecture but binding and normative for the people of God."
Well since there are no present day apostles, prophets or one with the prophetic gift you wont find such person. We were left with Scripture as our sole infallible rule of faith by God for the church. This was what God's purpose was for the writers of the Old and New Testament for it's completion. We are to test all teachings by Bishops/ Elders by what is in Scripture and hold fast to what is true. We must use private judgement for these matters and held accountable by God for it. And not follow claimed people blindly like Roman Catholicism, Mormons, Adventist and Jehovah Wittnesses.
"In fact, I came into this thread after reading natamllc say St. Vincent was of the view of sola scriptura. It is astonishing to see the dishonesty about the historical texts."
You mean the dishonesty of alleging that "sufficient" in Vincent means only "formally sufficient"? That kind of dishonesty? Yes, it is astonishing.
"That 44 father's disagreed with others does not negate the papacy."
What it negates is the idea that the doctrines related to the papacy are an oral tradition handed down from the apostles. If it were such a tradition, it would be hard to explain how so many well-known, well-connected fathers could be unaware of it.
- TurretinFan
In your mind. Then we must factor in that you do not understand or know what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches.”
JM – there are many versions of SS, so whenever one version is attacked the opponent always says see, you don’t understand SS. This is a common approach and shows just how fluid the doctrine really is. The fact is I do understand the doctrine as an indefensible contortion of the mind, not found in scripture.
This was seen in your misrepresentation of it in this thread.
JM – of course I haven’t said very mush about what SS is in this thread, but If have shown that deriving it from the bible or outside the bible are both logically inconsistent, therefore it is a failure according to whatever nuance you want to spin on SS.
Then building up a strawman to knock down.
JM – there is no straw mane about my approach and that’s what you find so offensive.
You attacked the authority of Scripture by your specific claims of the authority of the church
JM – a non sequitur.
and attacked Scripture must like an atheist or agnostic does.
JM – I attacked SS like a Catholic should do/
Let's not forget that you are trying to place conditions which existed in the early church while the apostles were alive and while the NT Scripture was being written and transfer this as if it continues on in the present time through the RCC and the papacy.
JM – lets not forget that Jerusalem council and the authority of tradition which continues after the apostles. Also you should know that the canon was not finalized until after the apostolic age so if you want to continue the same authority during the apostolic age, then the canon would never have been finalized. Lets face it, SS is doomed, no matter how you spin it. We also have the testimony of the early church Councils such as Nicea, Chalcedon and Constantinople and several others that are recognized by both Catholic and Orthodox as binding on the church, yet SS brazenly ignores these Councils as not being binding and assumes SS is the only infallible authority for the church. Therefore SS is also a-historical, which means SS assumes either ignorance or arrogance on behalf of those who hold to it.
"JM – Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day. We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here God talking to them in the text. Its simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon "
Several errors are noted which shall be refuted. 1 ) Jesus condemned the claimed " oral traditions " which contradicted the Old Testament of the Jews.
JM
Later you say - We must use private judgement for these matters and held accountable by God for it. And not follow claimed people blindly like Roman Catholicism, Mormons, Adventist and Jehovah Wittnesses.
JM – Demonstrate Catholics blindly follow the Pope. In other words demonstrate Catholics don’t use their reason when following the decisions of the Pope.
Do you realize your previous claims that equate infallibility with the need for new divine revelation is a false position. Infallibility only means unable to err and doesn’t require extra divine revelation.
You have said - No distinctive Roman Catholic teaching is traced back to Jesus and the apostles.
JM – Catholic doctrine is always based on scripture, tradition and the church. The scriptural foundations for many catholic doctrines are found here - http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
JM
"JM – there are many versions of SS, so whenever one version is attacked the opponent always says see, you don’t understand SS. This is a common approach and shows just how fluid the doctrine really is. The fact is I do understand the doctrine as an indefensible contortion of the mind, not found in scripture.This was seen in your misrepresentation of it in this thread. "
Your claim there is a historical lie.And exposes yourself as having never studied Sola Scriptura as reflective and held by confessional Protestants. The Westminster Confession of Faith, London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine articles teach the very same doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You are caught in your own web of falsehood there. The position of that is representative of those confessions are in the work DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by Willam Whitaker ( 1547-1595 ) . Then to top it off all the systematic theology sets I own and use from Presbyterians, Baptist , Anglicans and Lutherns teach the very same doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Care for me to list each and every one ?
john writes:
the only logical reason you have that the bible is part of public revelation is because the church teaches it is so, even if you understand its content, it isn’t evidence that God wrote the bible. If you understand a maths book, does that mean the HS wrote the book? No.
You're not addressing the objection I raised. You want to say that we can't discern the infallible writings of Scripture as inspired and written by the Holy Spirit because of their supernatural origin. So we need the Magisterium to identify it for us. Yet the infallible guidance of the Magisterium is supernaturally given. If we can understand that God gave the Magisterium guidance without an additional, supernaturally guided body to indicate as such, why do you then posit that we still need the Magisterium to identify Scripture?
john writes:
there are many versions of SS,
I'd be interested in you documenting these "many" versions. I'm aware of, at best, two distinct forms.
so whenever one version is attacked the opponent always says see, you don’t understand SS. This is a common approach
Unless you can document multiple versions, and that these multiple versions are invoked in order to be evasive, avoid the current argument, etc., it's hard to entertain this notion as more than rhetorical bluff.
and shows just how fluid the doctrine really is.
You like to invoke logic. Yet how does this logically follow from your observation?
"JM – of course I haven’t said very mush about what SS is in this thread, but If have shown that deriving it from the bible or outside the bible are both logically inconsistent, therefore it is a failure according to whatever nuance you want to spin on SS."
Baseless claim and nothing more. Your accusations are really meaningless unless you can prove we have present day apostles, prophets or one with the prophetic gift. Since there are none around we are not being given new divine revelation. Hence we have no so called gift of infallibility around today.
"JM – there is no straw mane about my approach and that’s what you find so offensive."
There were and was pointed out to you. You clamed Sola Scriptura denies the authority of the church in teaching when it does not and other examples exist throughout your post. Then you attack Scripture in the same exact manner as atheist and agnostics do. That is the real killer here. It would make some Roman Catholics I am friends with very surprised at your comments.
"You attacked the authority of Scripture by your specific claims of the authority of the church"
See you misrepresented me there in plain view. Just because I deny the church is infallible in teaching does not mean I deny it's authority. That is very dishonest of you. You fail to note that even in the days of the apostles they had to correct doctrinal error from within the church. And much later we have the heretical Arian councils of the church which had many more bishops there than Nicea. And proves that councils of the church are fallible. This concept of ecumenical councils did not exist at the time of that at all. Hence gross anchronism by you.
"JM – a non sequitur."
Incorrect.You attacked the authority of Scripture to replace it with that of the papacy. Then tried to cast doubt on everything from Scripture which was used to refute you. You have much more in common in that regard than with historical Christianity.
"JM – I attacked SS like a Catholic should do/"
You attacked it in a manner which Roman Catholics do and not " catholic " as if that refers only to the Roman See. Your attacks were from a atheist or agnostic stand point in reality. It had much in common with cult groups that have claimed apostles and prophets like Mormons , Adventist and Jehovah Wittnesses and some forms of Gnostics which existed in the early church which claimed new / unknown divine revelation being given to them. You should be ashamed of yourself the way you trashed Scripture in trying to replace it with the papacy and the RCC.
"JM – lets not forget that Jerusalem council and the authority of tradition which continues after the apostles. Also you should know that the canon was not finalized until after the apostolic age so if you want to continue the same authority during the apostolic age, then the canon would never have been finalized. Lets face it, SS is doomed, no matter how you spin it. We also have the testimony of the early church Councils such as Nicea, Chalcedon and Constantinople and several others that are recognized by both Catholic and Orthodox as binding on the church, yet SS brazenly ignores these Councils as not being binding and assumes SS is the only infallible authority for the church. Therefore SS is also a-historical, which means SS assumes either ignorance or arrogance on behalf of those who hold to it."
There are no present day unwritten traditions which can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles which the RCC can prove at all. The NT canon was fully written in 95ad. And as individual books collected one at a time in each local church until they had what we presently do. You claims there holds no water. It incorrectly assumes the church determines the Canon instead of God. Scripture is given by inspiration of God and not made inspired by the Church. They were collected because they were Scripture. The Creeds of the church are generally held by Protestants with regard to the Trinity and issues relating to the person of Jesus Christ. Hence Protestants dont depart from any of the Creeds of the Church. Councils of the church once again are fallible and shown to be due to the heretical Arian councils of the church and other councils which false doctrines can be found taught or defended by them. Councils of the church are bound by Scripture which is infallible. The church cant teach doctrines that can't be proved by Scripture and make binding on all Christians. Show me any at any councils of the church that was an apostle , prophet or had the prophetic gift since you want to claim councils as infallible.That is the only way to prove or present your case. Your claim of lack of history of Sola Scripture is a joke since all it's essential aspects are found throughout the writings of the church fathers. Which leads me to believe you never read the church fathers for yourself and being told what they mean by the RCC or you use private judgement on them through anachronism.
"JM – Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day. We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here God talking to them in the text. Its simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon "
Amos and Hosea were prophets of God and had the prophetic gift. Their preaching confirmed it during their life times. Jesus condemned the teaching authority of Israel for false doctrines which came from their claimed oral traditions which they claimed was passed down from the time of Moses. Sounds very familiar here to what the RCC says of her claimed traditions too. Matthew 23 soundly refutes your claims since Jesus condemned them doctrinally incorrect and their moral evils in history. And nothing there of them being infallible either in teaching.
"JM – Demonstrate Catholics blindly follow the Pope. In other words demonstrate Catholics don’t use their reason when following the decisions of the Pope."
That's an easy one. Try when the assumption of Mary was proclaimed by a Pope. Though it is to be noted Catholic scholars disagree with one another on claimed infallible teachings proclaimed by Popes in history from the chair of Peter. The assumption of Mary is no where found in early church father writings in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Cent . It is a doctrine first found within Gnostics writings. Yet the Pope made this a doctrine binding on all Roman Catholics. Meanwhile it lacks historical evidence of being traced back to Jesus and the apostles and the early church fathers. You find them in heretical writings at first. The shows Roman Catholics follow the Pope blindly since they are bound to believe that false doctrine. It lacks biblical proof and lack of historical proof in the church fathers for a claimed unanimous consent of the church fathers.
"Or we look at the institutions of the day and see Judaism was run on tradition and the chair of Moses, which were used to determine the extent of the canon of the day."
Really? What's your evidence that the "chair of Moses" was "used to determine the extent of the canon of the day"? This should be fascinating.
JM – since the texts themselves cannot determine the canon, therefore the tradition and church authority must have determined the Canon. Church authority was found in the Chair of Moses, therefore it was used to determine the canon up until the time of Moses. Otherwise we don’t have an authority to determine the canon in the OT until the apostolic age and after that age in the church.
"We simply don’t have the Jews saying Amos or Hosea is scripture because they here [sic] God talking to them in the text."
We have people believing the "Thus saith the Lord" claims of the 12 prophets (of which Amos and Hosea are two) without any formal canonization process.
JM – are you sure there is no formal canonization process? Demonstrate there was no formal canonization process. For people believing the prophet said “thus saith the lord” does not mean a canonization process was not required. People can believe in anything or anyone without a text having been authored by the HS.
"Its [sic] simply isn’t stated, however the authority established from Moses down to the time of Christ within oral tradition and the liturgical priestly institutions would have been used to determine the extent of the canon."
If these are are authoritative traditions, why do you reject them.
JM – why do you ask a question without establishing what these traditions are that I reject. Jesus only rejected traditions invented by the Pharisees but not the teaching from the chair of Moses.
Worse still - why would Jesus reject authoritative tradition? If they are non-authoritative tradition - so be it.
JM- Jesus would not reject authoritative tradition . . . so be it.
"the only logical reason you have that the bible is part of public revelation is because the church teaches it is so, even if you understand its content, it isn’t evidence that God wrote the bible. If you understand a maths book, does that mean the HS wrote the book? No."
It's interesting that your arguments work so hard to try to set up a place for the church that they wedge out the Holy Spirit.
JM – the authority of the church assumes the action of the HS. To deny the authority of the church denies the corporate action of the HS within the church.
But even when the churches are the instrument to hand on the Bible, it is the Holy Spirit that persuades his people to accept it as His word.
JM – and how does the HS do this? Is there no formal way of knowing this within the church or do all believers arbitrarily refer the authority of the bible back to a subjective, individual experience, just as Calvin said he did? By the way, if you make the claims concerning the HS persuading the people of the doctrine of SS or the Canon, why is this not found within the text itself? The answer is, because SS is an error and the means to determine the canon has been left up to the church.
"I find it’s the other way around. Whenever I push the non Catholic on the issue of the divine authorship of the text it usually comes down to some illogical, subjective answer that does not exist in the text, no [sic] accounts for the supernatural."
JM
"Do you realize your previous claims that equate infallibility with the need for new divine revelation is a false position. Infallibility only means unable to err and doesn’t require extra divine revelation."
Those were the exact conditions which existed in the Old Testament with the prophets and in the early church with the apostles while the OT and NT were being written. My statements are right on point logically. You just fail to see what is being said or blind of it. You want people to believe doctrines never taught by Jesus or the apostles or Scripture by claimed infallible councils of the church and Bishops of Rome such as papal infalliblity, immaculate conception, assumption of Mary and so forth. Meanwhile those heretical doctrines were first found in Gnostic writings and not Christian writings.
"JM – Catholic doctrine is always based on scripture, tradition and the church. The scriptural foundations for many catholic doctrines are found here "
Would that be in support for the position it is partly from Scripture and partly from traditon or from the " Material succifiency " position ? Roman Catholics are divided on those two issues and the Pope never dogmatically settled that issue. My main point is the RCC claims to determine what is Scripture & tradition and what is their meaning. Hence they place themselves as supreme over Scripture and tradition since they get to decide it all on that.
"Do you realize your previous claims that equate infallibility with the need for new divine revelation is a false position. Infallibility only means unable to err and doesn’t require extra divine revelation."
Those were the exact conditions which existed in the Old Testament with the prophets and in the early church with the apostles while the OT and NT were being written. My statements are right on point logically. You just fail to see what is being said or blind of it. You want people to believe doctrines never taught by Jesus or the apostles or Scripture by claimed infallible councils of the church and Bishops of Rome such as papal infalliblity, immaculate conception, assumption of Mary and so forth. Meanwhile those heretical doctrines were first found in Gnostic writings and not Christian writings.
JM – You want to push myths around concerning where these doctrines came from, then fine, you do that and show us just how gullible you really are. The truth is that Christ instituted a church and it is the church that defines what the flock must believe to be saved. There are many reasons given for the church to define such doctrines and their existence in Gnostic documents alone is pure invention.
"JM – Catholic doctrine is always based on scripture, tradition and the church. The scriptural foundations for many catholic doctrines are found here "
Would that be in support for the position it is partly from Scripture and partly from tradition [sic] or from the " Material succifiency " position ?
JM – if there is nothing in this question against church doctrine then it doesn’t matter where the doctrine is contained, either fully from tradition, or fully from scripture, a combination of scripture and tradition or only from the church, as we see in the decision made by the church in Acts 15 concerning circumcision.
Roman Catholics are divided on those two issues and the Pope never dogmatically settled that issue.
JM – So logically Catholics are not bound to either system. No problem.
My main point is the RCC claims to determine what is Scripture & tradition and what is their meaning.
JM – tradition is the body of knowledge and practice handed down from the apostles. Scripture is the body of text authored by God. Both have been defined by the church, although the content and meaning of scripture and tradition has new depths as the church comes to understand the sacred deposit better and better through the action of the HS within the church over time.
Hence they place themselves as supreme over Scripture and tradition since they get to decide it all on that.
JM – So the church decides what is and is not scripture and tells us the doctrines from the sacred deposit. This shows us Christ has not left his children as orphans, but ahs provided for them in the area of faith and morals. This is what we see in the OT in the chair of Moses and in the NT church in the chair of Peter and the bishops acting in union with the Pope.
Your position is very weak and ultimately does not reflect the nature of God as a Father who fathers his children through the church which has the powers to teach, govern and sanctify the church. The protestant understanding of the church is fundamentally flawed, because it denies the church to be an organic continuity from the Apostles with a geneology, just like we have a geneology for the OT church. The church is the family of God and every family has a geneology. The true church can and does trace its geneology back to the apostles and it is this way we know the church teaching is genuine. Without the geneology we cannot have an ordination in successive generations and then we cannot be sure when the HS is acting in an objective way within the church.
In fact this is yet another bane of Protestantism – there is no objective measure of when the HS has formally bound the church on faith and morals. If Protestantism is the true religion from God, then we only have a subjective measure of when the HS acts in the church to have the church bound to any particular doctrine of practice.
Evidently both SS and Protestantism are fatally flawed in relation to its understanding of Gods fathering action throughout church history.
JM
I asked: "Really? What's your evidence that the "chair of Moses" was "used to determine the extent of the canon of the day"? This should be fascinating."
JM replied: "since the texts themselves cannot determine the canon, therefore the tradition and church authority must have determined the Canon. Church authority was found in the Chair of Moses, therefore it was used to determine the canon up until the time of Moses. Otherwise we don’t have an authority to determine the canon in the OT until the apostolic age and after that age in the church."
That's a long-winded way of saying that you assume that's what happened, because in your way of thinking that's the only way it could have happened.
"are you sure there is no formal canonization process? Demonstrate there was no formal canonization process. For people believing the prophet said “thus saith the lord” does not mean a canonization process was not required. People can believe in anything or anyone without a text having been authored by the HS."
Why on earth would the duty be on me to prove something didn't happen. If you say it happened, you show evidence for it.
I asked (about the Jewish traditions): "If these are are authoritative traditions, why do you reject them."
JM responded: "why do you ask a question without establishing what these traditions are that I reject. Jesus only rejected traditions invented by the Pharisees but not the teaching from the chair of Moses."
That's an interesting distinction - it's not a Biblical distinction, but it is interesting. So, are you trying to say that you do accept Jewish oral tradition?
"the authority of the church assumes the action of the HS. To deny the authority of the church denies the corporate action of the HS within the church."
That's not the issue. The issue is whether you are willing to admit that the Holy Spirit is like the wind, blowing where it pleases him.
I wrote: "But even when the churches are the instrument to hand on the Bible, it is the Holy Spirit that persuades his people to accept it as His word."
JM replied: "and how does the HS do this?"
Various ways. I don't place limits on Him.
- TurretinFan
"Your position is very weak and ultimately does not reflect the nature of God as a Father who fathers his children through the church which has the powers to teach, govern and sanctify the church."
That sounds great. The problem with that claim is that it is hollow. It doesn't mean anything.
"The protestant understanding of the church is fundamentally flawed, because it denies the church to be an organic continuity from the Apostles with a geneology, just like we have a geneology for the OT church."
That analogy undercuts your position. The OT church was fallible. So is the NT church.
"The church is the family of God and every family has a geneology. The true church can and does trace its geneology back to the apostles and it is this way we know the church teaching is genuine."
The apostles warned about that kind of thinking:
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
"In fact this is yet another bane of Protestantism – there is no objective measure of when the HS has formally bound the church on faith and morals."
It borders on insane to say that, when Protestants have a big, objective book in their hand called "The Bible."
-TurretinFan
"The truth is that Christ instituted a church and it is the church that defines what the flock must believe to be saved."
No. The church declares. God defines. The church gets its teachings from God. The church, however, is fallible.
"There are many reasons given for the church to define such doctrines and their existence in Gnostic documents alone is pure invention."
Who said it was Gnostic documents alone? It's sufficient that it was Gnostic documents that first testified to doctrines that were later dogmatized by Rome.
"if there is nothing in this question against church doctrine then it doesn’t matter ... Roman Catholics are divided on those two issues and the Pope never dogmatically settled that issue."
Another example of the failure of Romanism, but you haven't answered the question. Where do you stand?
"tradition is the body of knowledge and practice handed down from the apostles. Scripture is the body of text authored by God. Both have been defined by the church, although the content and meaning of scripture and tradition has new depths as the church comes to understand the sacred deposit better and better through the action of the HS within the church over time."
There's no authoritative canon of "tradition."
"So the church decides what is and is not scripture and tells us the doctrines from the sacred deposit. This shows us Christ has not left his children as orphans, but ahs provided for them in the area of faith and morals. This is what we see in the OT in the chair of Moses and in the NT church in the chair of Peter and the bishops acting in union with the Pope."
a) Again, the analogy undercuts your position.
b) God did provide for the church in terms of faith and morals, by providing the Scriptures. Your denial of its sufficiency is simply your raging against God, not any actual insufficiency in God's word.
-TurretinFan
"Peter doesn’t cite any OT text and the citation James did not mention anything about circumcision. The citation is - 16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'[b] 18that have been known for ages.[c]"
Gentiles = uncircumcised
TU&D: LOL
"SS says the sole infallible rule of faith is scripture alone."
ok
"You have responded to my argument by merely asserting SS does not refer to scripture as a deductive proof of Scripture's inerrancy”,"
Yes, I have pointed that out.
"... yet you have quoted 2 Peter 3:16 on other threads to establish Paul’s letter as scripture."
Yes, I have. That's not a deductive proof. That's reliance on authority.
"Therefore SS requires a circular reasoning to establish Paul’s writings as inspired from other writings assumed to be inspired."
Sola Scriptura requires one to begin from Scriptura. Scriptura is the starting point, not something reached by Sola Scriptura. This ought to be
close to self-evident.
Your new form of the critique does not address the issue of deductive proof, but simply restates your original objection.
JM had written: "Scripture says otherwise. Peter says the wicked and unstable twist the scriptures to their own destruction."
I responded: "Yes, but he does not say that the faithful and believing do that. There's the flaw in your argument."
JM replied: "If they didn’t believe the texts to be inspired why would they bother twisting the scriptures? Peters [sic] statement assumes the people doing the twisting are people who have faith. After all it is one thing to twist the scriptures and it’s another thing altogether to completely ignore them as the unbelievers do. There is the flaw in your arugment [sic]." (final misspelling and "sic" in original)
Your assumption that unbelievers don't twist Scripture is rebutted by our experience of nearly 2000 years of heretics doing just that.
JM had written: "We also see St Philip teach the Ethiopian Eunuch who dint [sic] understand scripture."
I replied: "Yes, and if you think Philip was an infallible magesterium [sic], you're nuts."
JM now replies: "Ok so according to you, Philip was an apostle ..."
No. This Philip was not an apostle. This is Philip the evangelist, one of the seven original deacons.
JM continued: " ... and he was teaching the Eunuch about salvation through Christ and therefore he was possibly teaching error, even though his teaching was backed up by the HS who whisked him away to another place – an event that doesn’t happen very often in church history."
Yes, preachers are fallible. That's our position.
JM continued: "Apparently according to you, when an apostle teaches the gospel he is not infallible and he is not the magesterium [sic], even though the church is founded on the apostles."
Paul himself recognized the fallibility of the apostles. Your failure to recognize it is based on your ecclesiastical idolatry.
JM continued: "This is the logical absurdity of SS which denigrates the authority of the apostles."
See above.
"Demonstrate Rome “can't trace back any of the distinctive Roman dogmas to the oral tradition of Paul”. Start with the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist and baptism."
Again, you've got things backward. Feel free to try to trace back transubstantiation to Paul. You'll fail.
It's not our duty to prove the non-apostolicity of your church's innovations - it's your duty to show them to be apostolic.
Apply Vincent's canon to transubstantiation: which of the fathers of the first three centuries make the accidents/substance distinction and do so in a way that favor's Rome's position?
-TurretinFan
FT- Your new form of the critique does not address the issue of deductive proof, but simply restates your original objection.
JM – Evidently your initial statement “For example, your argument about circular arguments fails, because it misrepresents the sola scriptura position. We don't offer the testimony of Scripture as a deductive proof of Scripture's inerrancy.” fails because your position that SS requires one to begin from Scriptura. Scriptura is the starting point” has been shown to be fallacious, as shown above.
FT- JM had written: "Scripture says otherwise. Peter says the wicked and unstable twist the scriptures to their own destruction."
I responded: "Yes, but he does not say that the faithful and believing do that. There's the flaw in your argument."
JM replied: "If they didn’t believe the texts to be inspired why would they bother twisting the scriptures? Peters [sic] statement assumes the people doing the twisting are people who have faith. After all it is one thing to twist the scriptures and it’s another thing altogether to completely ignore them as the unbelievers do. There is the flaw in your arugment [sic]." (final misspelling and "sic" in original)
Your assumption that unbelievers don't twist Scripture is rebutted by our experience of nearly 2000 years of heretics doing just that.
JM – The assumption that believers don’t twist the scripture is “rebutted by our experience of nearly 2000 years of heretics doing just that.” By the way, I never said unbelievers do not twist the scriptures, I said “If they didn’t believe the texts to be inspired why would they bother twisting the scriptures?” which means there is a group of people, who believe the texts to be inspired (that’s why Peter calls the texts scripture), therefore those who are ding the twisting have faith and they are the ones who end in perdition.
JM had written: "We also see St Philip teach the Ethiopian Eunuch who dint [sic] understand scripture."
I replied: "Yes, and if you think Philip was an infallible magesterium [sic], you're nuts."
JM now replies: "Ok so according to you, Philip was an apostle ..."
No. This Philip was not an apostle. This is Philip the evangelist, one of the seven original deacons.
JM – Ok thanks for the correction.
JM continued: " ... and he was teaching the Eunuch about salvation through Christ and therefore he was possibly teaching error, even though his teaching was backed up by the HS who whisked him away to another place – an event that doesn’t happen very often in church history."
Yes, preachers are fallible. That's our position.
JM- is it reasonable to believe Philip was fallible in light of the miracle that occurred? Something to think about.
John: therefore those who are ding [sic] the twisting have faith and they are the ones who end in perdition.
Yes John, they do have faith. That is part of the mystery and why we are strong in our defense of the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
If I might suggest, consider that part of the verses from where we quote: the Faith once delivered to the Saints in a broader context to them, here:
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
As I addressed your comments way above at the earlier parts of these comments I cited Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
I would hope you would express some appreciation for our care in contending for the Faith as much as you?
That is what is so alarming with the citation I reiterate of yours above!
We see James, the brother of Jesus, say that there are those who "have" the Faith we are contending for, demons, who shudder.
Scripture teaches us about demons and what they do believe! They too believe what we believe about the Only True God! Yet that does not stop them from twisting the Scriptures! Hmmmmmm?
As ChafterDTS has mention not a couple of times in here, to him, it seems you argue as an atheist or agnostic.
I was having fun at your expense, granted, by implying you were an [g]odly atheistic agnostic arguing for the RCC faith.
Putting aside my little foolishness in that, I will say now to you you have to agree we are dealing with eternal questions and perdition for those who hold to the "truth" of True Faith and then go ahead and twist away the Scriptures? The OT and NT have nothing good to say about what will befall such souls that do this! Cf Deu. 4:2, Rev. 22:18.
There has been done to many souls great harm because of this practice of twisting the Written Truth, the Scriptures.
I would take careful account of your continual twisting of Truth in here seeing, as James wrote, I will reiterate again:
Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
As to your earlier comments about my redirection, I truly hope what I am addressing now is not the same in you mind now?
I wrote: "Paul himself recognized the fallibility of the apostles. Your failure to recognize it is based on your ecclesiastical idolatry."
JM replied: "where did Paul recognize the apostles were fallible?"
a) In the case of Peter; and
b) Here:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
And, of course, there would be no need to go from Antioch to Jerusalem if Paul could just infallibly teach in Antioch.
JM wrote: "you made the claim that Rome cannot trace a belief back to the apostles so back the claim with evidence. ... It’s your duty to back your claims with evidence; otherwise the readers will think you are a two bit crank who wants to slander Rome at any chance, no matter how much evidence there is in church history."
a) No, for the reasons I've already given above.
b) Rather than claim there is evidence, why don't you start up a blog in which you trace transubstantiation back to one or more of the apostles. I'd love to see the evidence of that.
"The distinction between substance and accidents may well have been dependent upon the knowledge of Aristotle’s metaphysics which was probably not well known by the early fathers."
a) It's not an apostolic doctrine. That's the key point.
b) There were plenty of pagan Greeks who were converted. It's hard to imagine that they knew lots about Plato but knew nothing about Aristotle.
"Aristotle probably became Christianised through Thomas Aquinas’ work, who used Aristotle to obtain a deeper insight into what occurred at consecration of the species."
Thomas wasn't the innovator, no.
"If I am right about Aristotle, then the question concerning the lack of discussion concerning substance and accidents is accounted for through the discovery of Aristotle by Christian theologians during the middle ages, therefore we should not expect to see this distinction being made by the early church fathers."
a) I'm not particularly concerned with what your expectations are. The question is whether the doctrine is apostolic.
b) And, of course, if the apostles were unfamiliar with Aristotle, they would not have couched a doctrine in Aristotelian terms.
"This is my initial response on the matter."
ok
"Nevertheless, the RCC position is that doctrines develop and the distinction of accidents and substance by the fathers is probably not the first place to start."
I'm pretty sure that I, as critic, get to pick where we start as far as pointing to non-apostolic doctrines.
- TurretinFan
"Evidently your initial statement “For example, your argument about circular arguments fails, because it misrepresents the sola scriptura position. We don't offer the testimony of Scripture as a deductive proof of Scripture's inerrancy.” fails because your position that SS requires one to begin from Scriptura. Scriptura is the starting point” has been shown to be fallacious, as shown above."
I did warn about just repeating your assertions, didn't I?
"The assumption that believers don’t twist the scripture is “rebutted by our experience of nearly 2000 years of heretics doing just that.”"
You should probably read more carefully. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.
"By the way, I never said unbelievers do not twist the scriptures, I said “If they didn’t believe the texts to be inspired why would they bother twisting the scriptures?” which means there is a group of people, who believe the texts to be inspired (that’s why Peter calls the texts scripture), therefore those who are ding the twisting have faith and they are the ones who end in perdition."
Believers don't end in perdition.
"is it reasonable to believe Philip was fallible in light of the miracle that occurred?"
Yes.
-TurretinFan
Canadian,
Me: One, Vincent really was of the view of sola scriptura...".
You: Vincent spends time lauding the sentences of Councils and Popes too. He is a witness AGAINST SS,...".
As you might imagine, I do not hold your sentiments here? I don't see where Vincent of Lerins writes this sort of witness against the Bible we hold dear?
Of course I am not nearly as read as you with regard to him, so I ask, would you kindly submit some citation/s of Vincent that argues against Sola Scriptura?
thanks
ChafterDTS,
I wanted to leave this comment with regard to your comments in here to encourage you; not to aid you in stumbling or by them they become a stumbling block to you?
I want to acknowledge about your comments that I sense a keen understanding of the Word as you handle it in commenting to others is as it should be, that is, similar to these two reports about how Saints should handle the Word:
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.
Eph 6:16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;
Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,
Eph 6:18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,
Eph 6:19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel,
Eph 6:20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
Reading some of your comments in here and at other comboxes I come away somewhat refreshed after so reading!
It also reminds of our Dear Savior in these verses too:
Rev 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
Rev 2:16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 19:14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.
Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Thanks again and continue letting Him use your mouth too! :)
"An authority that relies on tradition which according to you is fallible and not inspired. So if you refer to 2 Peter 3:16 to establish Paul’s writings as scripture using tradition as an authority, you have violated SS. If you refer to 2 Peter 3:16 as scripture to establish Paul’s writings as scripture, then your method is circular. Either way SS is illogical."
Let me say this once more to you: we don't establish which scriptures are scriptures using "sola scriptura." That would be illogical. Sola Scriptura takes Scripture as its starting point, not its ending point. This should be obvious - at least once it has been pointed out.
"Its [sic] only self evident to those who hold a doctrine that has no basis in reason or scripture."
It's a matter of logic. Sola X implies you have X. This is not complicated stuff.
-TurretinFan
FT- b) Rather than claim there is evidence, why don't you start up a blog in which you trace transubstantiation back to one or more of the apostles. I'd love to see the evidence of that.
JM – Transubstantiation would be easy to defend from the manna narrative in John 6, the institution passages in the Gospels and the passages in 1 Cor 10 and 11 concerning the body and blood of the Lord. If the bread has a real presence of Christ, but appears as bread, then the accidents of the bread such as the color, weight and shape do not change, so the change in what appears to be bread must be what is not sensed, which is a cause standing under the appearances. This cause is known from Aristotle’s philosophy as the substantial form, which stands under the accidents of all substances. Therefore when the early fathers discussed the Eucharist and said there was a real presence of Christ, they were not referring to the accidents changing, but anther part of the thing causing a change from bread to Christ. This thing is the change in substantial form, which causes a change in substance. Therefore when the gospels, Jesus and Paul say the bread and wine are the body and blood of the Lord, or this is my body and this is my blood, they were referring to a substantial change in the bread and wine.
Evidently when we combine the correct philosophy of Aristotle concerning the nature of bodies and the correct theology of the Eucharist as expounded in scripture, the fathers and Trent, we arrive at a substantial change in the bread and wine transubstantiated to have the body and blood of Christ.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is taught by the church fathers here – http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#justin
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt) - “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
FT -"The distinction between substance and accidents may well have been dependent upon the knowledge of Aristotle’s metaphysics which was probably not well known by the early fathers."
a) It's not an apostolic doctrine. That's the key point.
JM – The key point is the real presence is taught in the early church and this doctrine developed within the church over time to be defined at Trent as transubstantiation. Therefore the doctrine is implicitly contained in the apostolic deposit.
b) There were plenty of pagan Greeks who were converted. It's hard to imagine that they knew lots about Plato but knew nothing about Aristotle.
JM – Apparently St Thomas had Aristotle’s texts translated after the texts were lost for many years, so we would expect the philosophy of Aristotle to be used when it was only well understood by the church around the time of the middle ages. Even if this is dismissed, there is nothing in scripture that requires the early fathers to express the Eucharistic mystery in philosophical terms. Therefore because they didn’t use those terms doesn’t mean the mystery cannot be expressed in the terms of substance and accidents when Aristotle’s metaphysics is accepted by church philosophers and theologians. To say transubstantiation is not apostolic is to miss principles of development of doctrine.
FT- b) Rather than claim there is evidence, why don't you start up a blog in which you trace transubstantiation back to one or more of the apostles. I'd love to see the evidence of that.
JM – Transubstantiation would be easy to defend from the manna narrative in John 6, the institution passages in the Gospels and the passages in 1 Cor 10 and 11 concerning the body and blood of the Lord. If the bread has a real presence of Christ, but appears as bread, then the accidents of the bread such as the color, weight and shape do not change, so the change in what appears to be bread must be what is not sensed, which is a cause standing under the appearances. This cause is known from Aristotle’s philosophy as the substantial form, which stands under the accidents of all substances. Therefore when the early fathers discussed the Eucharist and said there was a real presence of Christ, they were not referring to the accidents changing, but anther part of the thing causing a change from bread to Christ. This thing is the change in substantial form, which causes a change in substance. Therefore when the gospels, Jesus and Paul say the bread and wine are the body and blood of the Lord, or this is my body and this is my blood, they were referring to a substantial change in the bread and wine.
Evidently when we combine the correct philosophy of Aristotle concerning the nature of bodies and the correct theology of the Eucharist as expounded in scripture, the fathers and Trent, we arrive at a substantial change in the bread and wine transubstantiated to have the body and blood of Christ.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is taught by the church fathers here – http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#justin
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt) - “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
FT -"The distinction between substance and accidents may well have been dependent upon the knowledge of Aristotle’s metaphysics which was probably not well known by the early fathers."
a) It's not an apostolic doctrine. That's the key point.
JM – The key point is the real presence is taught in the early church and this doctrine developed within the church over time to be defined at Trent as transubstantiation. Therefore the doctrine is implicitly contained in the apostolic deposit.
b) There were plenty of pagan Greeks who were converted. It's hard to imagine that they knew lots about Plato but knew nothing about Aristotle.
JM – Apparently St Thomas had Aristotle’s texts translated after the texts were lost for many years, so we would expect the philosophy of Aristotle to be used when it was only well understood by the church around the time of the middle ages. Even if this is dismissed, there is nothing in scripture that requires the early fathers to express the Eucharistic mystery in philosophical terms. Therefore because they didn’t use those terms doesn’t mean the mystery cannot be expressed in the terms of substance and accidents when Aristotle’s metaphysics is accepted by church philosophers and theologians. To say transubstantiation is not apostolic is to miss principles of development of doctrine.
FT- b) Rather than claim there is evidence, why don't you start up a blog in which you trace transubstantiation back to one or more of the apostles. I'd love to see the evidence of that.
JM – Transubstantiation would be easy to defend from the manna narrative in John 6, the institution passages in the Gospels and the passages in 1 Cor 10 and 11 concerning the body and blood of the Lord. If the bread has a real presence of Christ, but appears as bread, then the accidents of the bread such as the color, weight and shape do not change, so the change in what appears to be bread must be what is not sensed, which is a cause standing under the appearances. This cause is known from Aristotle’s philosophy as the substantial form, which stands under the accidents of all substances. Therefore when the early fathers discussed the Eucharist and said there was a real presence of Christ, they were not referring to the accidents changing, but anther part of the thing causing a change from bread to Christ. This thing is the change in substantial form, which causes a change in substance. Therefore when the gospels, Jesus and Paul say the bread and wine are the body and blood of the Lord, or this is my body and this is my blood, they were referring to a substantial change in the bread and wine.
Evidently when we combine the correct philosophy of Aristotle concerning the nature of bodies and the correct theology of the Eucharist as expounded in scripture, the fathers and Trent, we arrive at a substantial change in the bread and wine transubstantiated to have the body and blood of Christ.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is taught by the church fathers here – http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#justin
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt) - “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
FT -"The distinction between substance and accidents may well have been dependent upon the knowledge of Aristotle’s metaphysics which was probably not well known by the early fathers."
a) It's not an apostolic doctrine. That's the key point.
JM – The key point is the real presence is taught in the early church and this doctrine developed within the church over time to be defined at Trent as transubstantiation. Therefore the doctrine is implicitly contained in the apostolic deposit.
b) There were plenty of pagan Greeks who were converted. It's hard to imagine that they knew lots about Plato but knew nothing about Aristotle.
JM – Apparently St Thomas had Aristotle’s texts translated after the texts were lost for many years, so we would expect the philosophy of Aristotle to be used when it was only well understood by the church around the time of the middle ages. Even if this is dismissed, there is nothing in scripture that requires the early fathers to express the Eucharistic mystery in philosophical terms. Therefore because they didn’t use those terms doesn’t mean the mystery cannot be expressed in the terms of substance and accidents when Aristotle’s metaphysics is accepted by church philosophers and theologians. To say transubstantiation is not apostolic is to miss principles of development of doctrine.
I’ve shown rather easily how transubstantiation can be derived from the apostles and early church fathers using deductive reasoning from revealed truths and Aristotle’s metaphysics. Therefore to say transubstantiation is not apostolic requires one to be blind to simple logic and the witness of church history.
I now turn the tables on you and ask you what is your belief concerning the Eucharist. Is the Eucharist only a symbol, have some presence of Christ, a real presence as the RCC says? Pease explain your reasons for your position on this critical doctrine.
"Aristotle probably became Christianised through Thomas Aquinas’ work, who used Aristotle to obtain a deeper insight into what occurred at consecration of the species."
Thomas wasn't the innovator, no.
JM – I’m pretty sure Thomas used Aristotle in his Summa, so he Christianised Aristotle.
"If I am right about Aristotle, then the question concerning the lack of discussion concerning substance and accidents is accounted for through the discovery of Aristotle by Christian theologians during the middle ages, therefore we should not expect to see this distinction being made by the early church fathers."
a) I'm not particularly concerned with what your expectations are. The question is whether the doctrine is apostolic.
b) And, of course, if the apostles were unfamiliar with Aristotle, they would not have couched a doctrine in Aristotelian terms.
JM – And if the apostles were not familiar with Aristotle’s philosophy were should not expect them to use the terms substance and accidents. Nevertheless does this mean the Eucharistic doctrine cannot be explained using those terms? If not, what is there in scripture that says the Eucharist cannot be explained in those terms? Nothing of course, so when the church accepts the philosophical understanding of bodies and the cause of change in bodies as explained through hylomorphism, this philosophical doctrine can and was used to better explain the Eucharistic mystery at Trent.
"Nevertheless, the RCC position is that doctrines develop and the distinction of accidents and substance by the fathers is probably not the first place to start."
I'm pretty sure that I, as critic, get to pick where we start as far as pointing to non-apostolic doctrines.
- TurretinFan
John,
I have to acknowledge this admirable character quality about you. You just don't want to throw in the towel or quit!
Horah!
You wrote about TF and then responded:
FT -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.
JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere. Proving things to yourself is done all the time when you try to prove a doctrine from the bible using SS. ..."
It is quite understandable you would say what TF wrote there is another vague sentence! I don't fault you for saying or even thinking that!
In fact, such as you are, devoid of the Spirit of Truth, is only a testament to me, at least, there is hope for you?
Huh?
Well, I guess you believe "God is a Spirit"? God is a Spirit. Jesus is too. The Holy Spirit is too, obviously.
With that as the definition of terms, that is, God is Spirit, let this one verse come into your understanding then, especially when you assign such vagueness to TurrentinFan, who is truly a man with such understanding of not only the things of God, His Word, but is just as perspicacious of men too.
The verse and especially note the consequences of obedience to the Faith of it:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
natamllc,
You said:
"As you might imagine, I do not hold your sentiments here? I don't see where Vincent of Lerins writes this sort of witness against the Bible we hold dear?'
I never said Vincent writes anything against the scriptures or imply that he did not hold them dear. Vincent writes against AN IDEA regarding the scriptures. Vincent clearly rebuts the idea that scripture is sufficient, more than sufficient of itself by saying that it MUST be joined with the tradition of the church. He is not saying that there is anything wrong with scripture at all. He is showing that scripture of necessity needs the church's authoritative interpretation or else you will have as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
Why should I give you more citations for you to dismiss with a wave of the hand? Read him for yourself.
Earlier on I gave citations of where an Ecumenical Council claims infallible authority for itself. You are free to disagree with their claim I guess, but that claim clearly testifies that the Councils and the universal church was not operating under SS (which holds that the Protestant canon is the only infallible authority for the people of God.)
Your reference to the apostle Paul in Acts 20:32 "the word of his grace", is not referring to the written word of God. Much of the NT wasn't even written yet. It is referring to the message and the preaching he had entrusted to them. Paul did not pass out bibles, he established churches by the kerygma.
Thanks for your interaction here.
Grace and peace.
Canadian,
This line from you, "Vincent clearly rebuts the idea that scripture is sufficient, more than sufficient of itself," is horribly wrong. It's just the opposite of the truth. Vincent explicitly affirms that idea.
-TurretinFan
Canadian,
hopefully not to belabor the point I will cite within your extract of Vincent his words and make a point:
"... For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. ..."
It is fair to say any time we comment on any extant writer's work and their interpretations of Scripture, we wade into an area of speculation. I stated my view that Vincent really was of the view of sola scriptura. It is, it seems to me, that he was forming a value judgment that the Scripture is sufficient itself and it is with that basis he expresses for himself and to others who read his expressions of the Truth, like me or you, whoever, that Scripture alone is what anything else is to be judged by.
Again, besides the citations provided by TurrentinFan both in this thread and the links back to Vincent's writings in another thread or so, after reading Vincent for myself, I remain faithful to my assertion and speculation that his was a judgment based in Scripture alone.
Why? Well again, I point to another citation of his words.
Within the Vincent quotation above when you read this: "...owing to the depth of Holy Scripture,..." for me, at least, again I gain a strong sense that Vincent relied solely upon Scripture when he writes.
Granted, the maturing process that was experienced back then, that is, during the last part of the First Century God the Holy Spirit was bringing into the minds of those He selected to author His Words, by their conscious experiences, a process for them to realize the importance of writing about His understanding of His Spiritual Truth so they could contrast Truth with what was and still is evident spiritual errors. The thoughts and ideas that were the Truth written down were written against the thoughts and ideas that were not the Truth, examples of what is not the Truth, written also , as a necessary Scriptural record against them, by the First century writers of the New Testament. New Testament Scripture, it follows then, makes up the witness of both the Words of His Grace Luke was writing about Paul speaking prophetically when he was speaking against false doctrine to the Ephesian eldership he was in conference with at Miletus. Second Century theologians and beyond, all interpretors of the New Testament record, were all coming into the same exercise by the Spirit of Truth, so as to discern between good and evil too, so that there could come to fruition the setting forth of God's ordained and complete Work of the Words of God's Grace, His Written Truth, the Bible. Again, why? So as to keep us safe and from the errors of false doctrines that were abounding then and abound even still, now.
What I will say about the citation above cited by me from his writings, that I emphasize, is Vincent was making another emphasis on Scripture again when writing those words. It seems to me he was reflecting something quite similar in sentiment to what the writer of the Book of Hebrews wrote when we read these Words:
Heb 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.
JM – first explain to me how SS is established without reference to the text (which is to use the bible to prove the bible) and then explain how referring to another source is not inconsistent with SS.
FT -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.
JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere. Proving things to yourself is done all the time when you try to prove a doctrine from the bible using SS. So it is consistent with a SS position to have to demonstrate the text was authored by God. If you believe the text is a given as authored by God, then you must show this from the text and of course the text never says it is given that the text is authored by God. In fact 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t say the text was authored by God, it only says scripture is God breathed. Nowhere does the text explain what this means, nor give the criteria located a God breathed text. For all we know there are thousands of God breathed texts all over the world. 2 Tim 3:16 is a very shoddy plank in the SS position indeed.
FT -You see the analogy, I hope. If not, too bad. Unless you have something new to say, you're done in this thread.
JM – the analogy fails so you are done with SS.
JM
TF,
Again,
St. Vincent said:
"But here SOMEONE PERHAPS WILL ASK, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, WHAT NEED IS THERE TO JOIN WITH IT the authority of the Church's interpretation? FOR THIS REASON...."
St. Vincent presents his hypothetical interlocutor who "perhaps will ask, since the canon of Scripture.....what need is there to join with it the authority of the Chruch's interpretation."
The questioner sees no need to add the church's interpretive authority to scripture but Vincent disagrees and says "For this reason.....". It is a negation of the hypothetical questioner's false premise that no authority need to be added because scripture must be sufficient "of itself".
Vincent is clearly not in agreement with his hypothetical questioner and shows that there are reasons that the authority of the church must be joined with the authority of scripture!
Canadian,
Vincent's "since ..." is the reason why the objector objects. Vincent accepts that reason as true, but explains that there is a reason why, despite the fact that Scripture is sufficient and more than sufficient, the objection cannot stand.
-TurretinFan
Natamllc,
Vincent is arguing that due to the depth of scripture's true meaning, it is necessary to have the church's AUTHORITY to be sure of it. He says that it has been this way from the beginning! His whole point is to say that scripture IS NOT sufficient to interpret itself, and neither is it adequate for Donatus and the rest of the listed heretics to run off from the authority and tradition of the church's interpretation.
"Vincent is arguing that due to the depth of scripture's true meaning, it is necessary to have the church's AUTHORITY to be sure of it."
That's not what his canon says at all. It says one needs to do historical investigation of what the fathers taught.
TF,
:-)
No! "Since" is the first word out of the objectors mouth and is the reason for his inability to see a need for the church's interpretive authority. The objector proceeds with his questioning of the need for an interpretive authority because of his false presupposition about scripture made evident by starting out by saying "since".
The objector's incorrect assertion begins with "since" and continues until Vincent take exception beginning with "For this reason..."
Vincent said someone will perhaps ask, (comma) "Since.....
Here's the text again:
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason ...
"For this reason" is an answer to "what need" not a rebuttal of the premise.
-TurretinFan
TF,
Objector:
"Since scripture is sufficient of itself..."
(false premise)
....what need is there of interpretive authority?..."
(incorrect conclusion)
St. Vincent: "For this reason..."
(answer to objectors incorrect conclusion based on his false premise).
This is evident because Vincent continues on to show that interpretive authority (correct conclusion) is necessary along side scripture.
Notice that Vincent does not say, "someone may object," but rather "someone may ask." The reason why they ask is that Scripture is sufficient in itself and more than sufficient.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
The question is this: "what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?"
Vincent provides an answer to that question, he nowhere denies that the premise is false. Look (in vain) for him (or any church father) speaking of Scripture as insufficient.
And certainly no one would be so stupid as to assert that the canon of Scripture is not complete, would they?
Your only reason for rejecting what Vincent affirms to be true is that you have a lower view of Scripture than he does.
That's why later he writes:
And therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by universal councils of the Catholic Priesthood.
Remarkable, isn't it?
Incidentally, the superabundant sufficiency of Scripture is the reason why Vincent writes:
... we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. (that's the line right before the one containing the question)
And Vincent actually does that in practice:
We said above that in the Church of God the teacher's error is the people's trial, a trial by so much the greater in proportion to the greater learning of the erring teacher. This we showed first by the authority of Scripture, and then by instances from Church History, of persons who having at one time had the reputation of being sound in the faith, eventually either fell away to some sect already in existence, or else founded a heresy of their own.
It's also the reason why in his response regarding why we would need to have recourse to something besides Scripture, not its insufficiency, but its depth. He writes:
For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
So, no - Vincent is citing a real reason why someone might question the need for considering history, and the reason is not Scripture's insufficiency.
-TurretinFan
TF,
Thanks for your time and effort here, I appreciate it.
Again, in no way is Vincent, or myself denigrating scripture itself. Vincent's whole point is to confront the objector's view that scripture OF ITSELF negates the need for the church's AUTHORITATIVE interpretation. Scripture is God-breathed words for a Spirit-filled church. The two go together, inseparably. That is why the fathers declare over and over that Tradition brings forth the correct meaning of scripture. Scripture is not viewed by the fathers as being in opposition to the church's Tradition as they issue from the same Holy Spirit who leads her into all truth.
I don't think you, as a SS protestant would accept Vincent's view that there is an authoritative interpretation of scripture given by the church that must be believed to avoid "as many interpretations as there are interpreters." He is testifying that the church is an AUTHORITY along side scripture that can issue binding and normative interpretations, he is not defending a round table of persuasive exegetes with optional interpretations from scripture. This authority must rise above mere opinion, persuasive exegesis, and conjecture to definitively draw the lines between orthodoxy and heresy, schism and unity BY AN AUTHORITY that the scripture OF ITSELF does not accomodate. This is what Protestantism lacks and what St. Vincent shows was in operation in his day.
CAPS are for accent not volume :-)
Pax Christi
Canadian,
if you would indulge me a bit?
You wrote:
Natamllc,
Vincent is arguing that due to the depth of scripture's true meaning, it is necessary to have the church's AUTHORITY to be sure of it. He says that it has been this way from the beginning! His whole point is to say that scripture IS NOT sufficient to interpret itself, and neither is it adequate for Donatus and the rest of the listed heretics to run off from the authority and tradition of the church's interpretation.
I don't have anything that I would disagree with that assessment of Vincent!
I would ask you also to tell me here what "Scriptures" he was writing about?
And, if you can, would you identify which councils he was staying under their authority in his discipleship?
And finally, if you can, would you identify which traditions he was following during his life ministry as well as what traditions he established that others follow in later history; others must have followed his discipleship, his practices under which councils and which Bible he used when writing about the sufficiency of the Scriptures?
thanks
Natamllc,
A response to your line of questioning would require more content than the Commonitory itself, likely. Just read it for yourself. He appeals to papal, patristic, and conciliar authority as well as the "Divine Oracles" which evidently includes Sirach. (Commonitory 21:51)
Canadian,
I am not asking you to write a book or do research for one hereon.
All I am asking is for your opinion and speculation as to the things you have been convinced of with regard to three things Vincent?
One, which Bible, oh, okay. So your belief is Sirach was a part of the collection of Holy Writ he was referring too?
Would 1 John be in that collect? Or 1 and 2 Peter?
What do you believe was the relevant Councils of the day guiding him when making decisions, in your view?
What were the hot topic traditions for Vincent that you suppose influenced his judgments you claim are more than sufficient than Scripture alone?
Well, maybe asking you a direct question will be more satisfactory?
Which Bible do you use?
Which traditions up to the Fifth Century do you allow to influence your judgment these days?
Which Councils got it right after the Fifth Century that you hold too?
Does that help draw out of you your understandings?
I hope so?
"Thanks for your time and effort here, I appreciate it."
Thanks for your interaction as well.
"Again, in no way is Vincent, or myself denigrating scripture itself."
You don't follow Vincent's canon (nor do I). I don't lump your position and Vincent's together, and I don't think you intend to denigrate Scripture, though your position does denigrate it.
"Vincent's whole point is to confront the objector's view that scripture OF ITSELF negates the need for the church's AUTHORITATIVE interpretation."
No, Vincent's point is to establish the need for ecclesiastical tradition. His response about the depth of Scripture shows he agrees with the premise.
"Scripture is God-breathed words for a Spirit-filled church. The two go together, inseparably."
It should be obvious to you that this is not the case, when you consider the Old Testament.
"That is why the fathers declare over and over that Tradition brings forth the correct meaning of scripture."
Different fathers had different views about the relative value of tradition. Vincent is alone in his day and the first in church history to propose his hermeneutical canon (ironic, eh?). But even he does not mean "tradition" in the RC sense - he means a historical investigation - an investigation that Rome's distinctive doctrines cannot pass.
[cont'd in part 2]
[cont'd from part 1]
"Scripture is not viewed by the fathers as being in opposition to the church's Tradition as they issue from the same Holy Spirit who leads her into all truth."
There may be some sense in which Vincent would agree with this, but keep in mind that his approach is to look for a patristic consensus - the Holy Spirit guiding many individuals.
"I don't think you, as a SS protestant would accept Vincent's view that there is an authoritative interpretation of scripture given by the church that must be believed to avoid 'as many interpretations as there are interpreters.'"
There is subordinate authority in the tradition of the church, but I certainly wouldn't take things as far as Vincent does. If Vincent were consistent, he himself wouldn't take things as far as he does.
And be fair: you don't agree with what Vincent is teaching, either. You don't look to universality, antiquity, and consent. If you did, you'd have no doctrine of papal infallibility, not doctrine of transubstantiation, and certainly no dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary.
"He is testifying that the church is an AUTHORITY along side scripture that can issue binding and normative interpretations, he is not defending a round table of persuasive exegetes with optional interpretations from scripture."
No, that's not his argument. Look for him talking about the church issuing binding and normative interpretations. Try to find it. Perhaps I overlooked it. In any event, his primary insistence is on the universality-antiquity-consent canon. That's the line he's trying to use, not an appeal to, for example, the authority of a particular council or bishop.
"This authority must rise above mere opinion, persuasive exegesis, and conjecture to definitively draw the lines between orthodoxy and heresy, schism and unity BY AN AUTHORITY that the scripture OF ITSELF does not accomodate."
I've shown how Vincent actually says the opposite, he says that the heretics can be refuted from Scripture alone (particularly the older heretics).
"This is what Protestantism lacks and what St. Vincent shows was in operation in his day."
Vincent is not representative of his day in this Commonitory. In fact, as you should know, the Commonitory was written in an attempt to oppose the popular teachings of a particular bishop with whom Vincent disagreed (the bishop is not named in the work, but we are able to determine who it was).
"CAPS are for accent not volume"
Understood. Try using the italics or bold tags for this purpose, if you like.
TF, this is brilliant!
I've shown how Vincent actually says the opposite, he says that the heretics can be refuted from Scripture alone (particularly the older heretics).
Oldest heretics=Adam and Eve! :)
It seems to me, of the many things sola scriptura assists in embracing is all the kinds of heresy that deceives anyone.
The puzzle, for me at least, is this Scripture that indicates demons are not readily deceived, except they did fall prey to the trap and moved upon man inciting them to crucify the Christ! :)
Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
Ecc 1:8 All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
Ecc 1:9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already in the ages before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.
I would hope the irony here is of such a volume one would hear it?
In any event Solomon goes on and feeds us this peculiar treat for our consumption:
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
Ecc 3:12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live;
Ecc 3:13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man.
TF,
Remember,I am not Catholic.
Neither Rome, nor the EO, or prots would strictly appeal to Vincent's canon (maybe the EO would the most). He does later discuss development but in a cursory fashion.
That Vincent and Cassian were likely perturbed with development in Augustine is known, but I was highlighting his appeal to papal, conciliar, and patristic authority as defining the very meaning of scripture. Yes, he does seem to imply a "count the noses" methodology which you used against later Catholic dogmatic pronouncements, but Rome would not use that methodology anyway. Reformed protestants embrace the development of doctrine, the scholarly ecclesial interpretation of their choosing, and have no authority to definitively define or uphold the barrier between orthodoxy and heresy, schism or unity. The ancient church had this, so does Rome, but this does bring with it a whole different path fraught with assorted hazards and dangers which it is proper for you and others to highlight. In spite of my former Reformed Baptist adherence, I find the defences against Romes overall thesis unconvincing. James White seems to always get his keester handed to him by Catholics in debate.
Thank you again, you have the last word if you desire.
Grace and peace.
"Remember,I am not Catholic."
Oh? Ok.
"Neither Rome, nor the EO, or prots would strictly appeal to Vincent's canon (maybe the EO would the most)."
ok
"He does later discuss development but in a cursory fashion."
For example? What do you have mind?
"That Vincent and Cassian were likely perturbed with development in Augustine is known, but I was highlighting his appeal to papal, conciliar, and patristic authority as defining the very meaning of scripture."
Which popes and which councils does he point to?
"Yes, he does seem to imply a "count the noses" methodology which you used against later Catholic dogmatic pronouncements, but Rome would not use that methodology anyway."
ok.
"Reformed protestants embrace the development of doctrine, the scholarly ecclesial interpretation of their choosing, and have no authority to definitively define or uphold the barrier between orthodoxy and heresy, schism or unity."
We don't define, we recognize.
"The ancient church had this, so does Rome, but this does bring with it a whole different path fraught with assorted hazards and dangers which it is proper for you and others to highlight."
People claim it (so does the EO, fwiw), but claiming it and having it are two different things.
"In spite of my former Reformed Baptist adherence, I find the defences against Romes overall thesis unconvincing. James White seems to always get his keester handed to him by Catholics in debate."
My impression is quite different, but we'll have to agree to disagree about that. I'm not turning this into a debate about how well Dr. White does against Romanism.
"Thank you again, you have the last word if you desire."
I am happy to have it, thank you.
-TurretinFan
FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.
JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere.
I answer: But you seem to have forgotten that my words were modeled on your words: "Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he knows from the experience."
I don't mind the charge of vagueness, but keep in mind who you are charging.
- TurretinFan
"Each Council declared the authority of all the previous Councils and the 6th was no different."
Which previous councils did Nicaea endorse?
How do you explain the contradiction between the 3rd and 4th ECs with respect to the creed (link to discussion).
"Was the council of Acts 15 infallible? Has God ever given the gift of infallibility to the church?"
The Scriptures, given to the church, are infallible.
There is no particular need to decide whether the council of Acts 15 was infallible.
- TurretinFan
FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.
JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere.
I answer: But you seem to have forgotten that my words were modeled on your words: "Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he knows from the experience."
I don't mind the charge of vagueness, but keep in mind who you are charging.
- TurretinFan
JM2- The revelation made to Abraham from God is direct and that’s why Abraham doesn’t need to prove anything to himself. Yet the claim that God has revealed himself to Christians through the bible is not a direct revelation, but a revelation apparently mediated by a text. The difference between Abraham and the Christian is very different and does not lend itself to a SS argument concerning authentication of the text from an experience with God.
JM
The Bible is direct revelation.
The Bible is direct revelation.
Direct revelation is when God reveals a truth to the individual, such as a prophet and mediate revelation is when the prophet mediates the truth to other men. The bible is mediate revelation.
JM
Let's grant your distinction for the sake of not quibbling over semantics. What's the difference in terms of need or lack thereof to prove anything to oneself?
-TurretinFan
"ChafterDTS,I wanted to leave this comment with regard to your comments in here to encourage you; not to aid you in stumbling or by them they become a stumbling block to you?"
Thank you very much for your kind words to me.
"Thanks again and continue letting Him use your mouth too! :)"
You are very welcome. And glory belongs to God alone. :)
"Transubstantiation would be easy to defend from the manna narrative in John 6, the institution passages in the Gospels and the passages in 1 Cor 10 and 11 concerning the body and blood of the Lord."
That would be impossible since the RCC has not made an infallible interpretation of those passages for Roman Catholics. Therefore they have no interpretation of it. You are giving your own personal opinion and private judgement on those passages of which you condemn those who believe in Sola Scriptura. To be sure the full doctrine of transsubstantiation is not found historically until after 900ad. To read that to the church fathers would be anachronism essentially. I would also remind you there is no unanimous consent of the church fathers on the interpretation of those passages as well since you want to claim those for Rome's doctrine on the Lord's Supper.
A major problem I find in alot of your post here is at times your comments imply that only Roman Catholics have a right to read and use Scripture and deny this to Protestants. And you attempt to cast doubt on Scripture to others in your failed attempt to interact with what Sola Scriptura teaches. Scripture is for the people of God and we do not need the Church of Rome with it's false claims that we cant know what the Canon is apart from them. Then to top it off, the RCC fails to back up it's claims of it's authority.
TF, Thank you for your answering of the many false claims that John has made here. You answered them in the same way I would have done. Job well done ! :)
Let's grant your distinction for the sake of not quibbling over semantics. What's the difference in terms of need or lack thereof to prove anything to oneself?
-TurretinFan
JM - The distinction is real and the need for evidence is different in both cases. Direct revelation from God to an individual, such as say an illumination of the human mind by the HS has the HS and the illumination as direct evidence which cannot be rejected by the individual as known as a revelation. The individual can reject the revelation because he has free will, but he can never reject the fact of the event, nor the fact that it was revealed directly to him by God. Why? Because God is the objective author of reality and when he acts inside a man to reveal a truth, he does so objectively so there is no doubt in the man.
However, when a revelation is then mediated to other men from a prophet, the revelation is passed onto other men through the means of words, writing or signs. Each of these mechanisms is not direct and does not leave an impression on other men like the direct revelation made to the prophet from God. Because of this difference, mediate revelation must be confirmed by an authority set up by God to make decisions concerning the legitimacy of the revelations. This is needed all the more when a revelation is mediated to other men, several hundred years after the revelation was given. Otherwise men in later ages no longer have the means to know if the revelation is genuine or not. After all, it is one thing to be say, a man within the nation of Israel under the ministry of Moses or a prophet, who you can talk to and see miracles in front of you, but it is quite another thing to be a man 2000 years away and we have only archeology and some texts to verify what went on without a teaching magesterium to validate that the events and the sayings really were revelations made by God.
To anticipate an objection – we have sufficient evidence to determine that revelations were made by God through the scriptures. Answer – scripture was instituted by the church with the authority to determine the extent of the texts. If this is not so, then we do not know what is and is not written by God, or if any text at all is written by God. Nor do we know if any revelations have been made to man in human history. For without an authority to determine what is and is not revelation, there is a free-for-all regarding revelation and men can and have made up their own religions, based on truth claims, without any authority from God to do so.
In short, direct and mediate revelation are very different and mediate revelation requires the addition of an authority from God who can speak on behalf of God throughout history to validate and establish revelation claims, particularly for men who did not witness the events or know the men who made the revelations.
JM
JM:
With all due respect, you seem to be simply asserting: "Each of these mechanisms is not direct and does not leave an impression on other men like the direct revelation made to the prophet from God. Because of this difference, mediate revelation must be confirmed by an authority set up by God to make decisions concerning the legitimacy of the revelations."
That doesn't seem to follow.
-TurretinFan
Direct revelation is the act of the spirit with a direct ontological impression left on the mind of the man receiving the revelation. Mediate revelation does not do this, therefore there is a big difference between direct and mediate revelation with the later requiring an authority to verify the revelation.
JM
"Direct revelation is the act of the spirit with a direct ontological impression left on the mind of the man receiving the revelation."
Usually the mode of revelation is that men hear a voice or see a vision. Hearing a voice is not more direct than reading a printed page.
"Mediate revelation does not do this, therefore there is a big difference between direct and mediate revelation with the later requiring an authority to verify the revelation."
You've asserted that several times, but you haven't given a logical explanation for why that is.
Do you deny that the Holy Spirit confirms His word to those who read it?
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment