Sola Scriptura...or why the RCC can't

[Redwolf]

It is impossible for the RCC to practice belief based on the Bible alone.

She would cease to exist, and that she will never permit.

Within her walls, it is not about God, but about power and control. Controlling human beings who were given the right by God to control themselves, choose for themselves, is heady business.

What is it called that controls the mind of adherents through fears and promises and threats........ah, yes, cult.

Please read the article in its entirety. Understand the source, don't shrug it off as bashing. Nothing is farther from intent.
My personal hope is that the catholic will consider that without Christ and HIM called TRUTH and Life Everlasting, there is only the opposite --- lies and death everlasting. There's no other way.

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

........As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.

But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?

A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.

[Hail Mary]

It is impossible for the RCC to practice belief based on the Bible alone.

Yes, that is something we share with the earliest Christians. Wouldn't you agree? I'm talking about the beliefs of the 1st and 2nd century Christians taught by Christ himself and the Apostles, not the 16th century additions.

The Church predates the Bible. You did know this didn't you?

[spiritmech]

While I do have some issues with Catholic power/control, the mains issues aren't really those. They do what they do because they believe what they believe is true. It doesn't really do any good to call people names, etc.

But Sola Scriptura really is a non-starter. You can't wrest the Bible from its context of the last 2000 years. I think the Bible should have a primary place in the life of the Church. An Orthodox service has something like 300 verses referenced or quoted. But there have been many interpreters of the Bible over the last 2000 years (Arius, for one) who believed they were arguing the "plain text" of the Bible.

sm

[themuzicman]

While I do have some issues with Catholic power/control, the mains issues aren't really those. They do what they do because they believe what they believe is true. It doesn't really do any good to call people names, etc.

But Sola Scriptura really is a non-starter. You can't wrest the Bible from its context of the last 2000 years. I think the Bible should have a primary place in the life of the Church. An Orthodox service has something like 300 verses referenced or quoted. But there have been many interpreters of the Bible over the last 2000 years (Arius, for one) who believed they were arguing the "plain text" of the Bible.

sm
Sola Scriptura is not an abandonment of all church tradition. I don't think RedWolf is proposing as such, and certainly Luther and Calvin would not propose such a turn, either.

Sola Scriptura is an acknowledgment that SCRIPTURE supercedes the traditions of the church, and when the two are in conflict, scripture wins.

The abandonment of tradition altogether would be more correctly called nuda scriptura. Haven't seen too many folks propose that one.

Michael

[Adam]

Sola Scriptura is not an abandonment of all church tradition. I don't think RedWolf is proposing as such, and certainly Luther and Calvin would not propose such a turn, either.

Sola Scriptura is an acknowledgment that SCRIPTURE supercedes the traditions of the church, and when the two are in conflict, scripture wins.

The abandonment of tradition altogether would be more correctly called nuda scriptura. Haven't seen too many folks propose that one.

Michael
Call it what you will, Michael, nuda scriptura , whatever, that is exactly what Protestants call for, with just the hypocritical addition
of accepting church Tradition to accept the Bible and (for most of them) the first four ecumenical church councils. (Those who don't we could truly call nuda scriptura, and most of them are scorned as heretics.)
Now this sola scriptura that you prefer , where's that in the Bible?
Adam

[themuzicman]

Call it what you will, Michael, nuda scriptura , whatever, that is exactly what Protestants call for, with just the hypocritical addition
of accepting church Tradition to accept the Bible and (for most of them) the first four ecumenical church councils. (Those who don't we could truly call nuda scriptura, and most of them are scorned as heretics.)
Now this sola scriptura that you prefer , where's that in the Bible?
Adam

Well, let's start with Peter:

19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now, unless you have a problem with "prophecy of Scripture" referring to the inspired Word of God, this (along with creation and Christ Himself) would be the only sources of revelation not made by an act of human will.

Not sure how much more authoritative you can get than that.

As for how the cannon was formed, that would be part of the tradition that isn't objectionable via scripture.

Michael

[Jawa Man]

How could he be referring to the New Testament before all of the books were even finished? His own letter when he wrote it certainly wasn't scripture yet.

[themuzicman]

How could he be referring to the New Testament before all of the books were even finished? His own letter when he wrote it certainly wasn't scripture yet.
I think the apostles had a pretty good sense of themselves. Peter, here, indirectly compares himself to the prophets by comparing false prophets to false teachers immediately after the verse above about prophecy of scripture:

2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Likewise, Paul and John wrote as those who had the authority of a writer of God's Word, so I don't think Peter strictly has the TNK in mind, here, although that's certainly a part of it.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Yes, that is something we share with the earliest Christians. Wouldn't you agree? I'm talking about the beliefs of the 1st and 2nd century Christians taught by Christ himself and the Apostles, not the 16th century additions.

The Church predates the Bible. You did know this didn't you?


Actually, I'm talking about how sacred tradition does not in the least resemble scripture and how it is leading and has led millions to perdition. How it is a mega-deception and how it was ALMOST admitted by Ratzinger, who you know very well knows only too well and so do you - that sacred tradition has nothing to do with God's TRUTH.

"In vain do they worship who keep for doctrine the traditions of men".....is talking about you.

As for what predates the Bible? True believers have always had the written word. The Bible tells you so. "It is written"....says Jesus.......never ever 'it is passed down orally'.

The subject is - Sola Scriptura, and how the RCC misplaced it and pleases itself with lies.

[Pilgrim]

Bah...sola sriptura fails it's own standard.

[themuzicman]

Bah...sola sriptura fails it's own standard.

In what way?

[Pilgrim]

In what way?
If the guiding principle of Sola Sciptura is that scripture alone determines practice and theology then Sola Scriptura fails by its own standard because the Scripture itself never says, "Scripture alone.".

[Redwolf]

Sola Scriptura is not an abandonment of all church tradition. I don't think RedWolf is proposing as such, and certainly Luther and Calvin would not propose such a turn, either.

Sola Scriptura is an acknowledgment that SCRIPTURE supercedes the traditions of the church, and when the two are in conflict, scripture wins.

The abandonment of tradition altogether would be more correctly called nuda scriptura. Haven't seen too many folks propose that one.

Michael


Sola Scriptura as in not sacred tradition, means following Christ according to his written word, and not according to fabricated stuff that has not even reasonable semblance to the written word, which is RCC.

Everything else is taking this subject off-course.......subject is.....RCC doctrine has nothing to do with 'it is written', or 'Jesus says in scripture'

This was 'nearly' acknowledged by the cardinal now pope.

On what basis can this be defended by the rational mind who would claim that doing what Christ requires is imperative?

[bar Jonah]

How could he be referring to the New Testament before all of the books were even finished? His own letter when he wrote it certainly wasn't scripture yet.
Huh? Wasn't scripture yet? That makes no sense. It was the divinely inspired word of God the millisecond it was written down by the author. It didn't become scripture later on. More and more people later recognized that it is scripture. The discerned it, after the fact. People can't just hit a piece of paper with a magic wand of declaration and make something scripture. God made it scripture. Men discerned it, afterwards. Various NT authors recognize each other's writings as scripture, for example. They didn't become scripture a couple centuries later.

You are ascribing authority to men that only rightly belongs to God.

[themuzicman]

If the guiding principle of Sola Sciptura is that scripture alone determines practice and theology then Sola Scriptura fails by its own standard because the Scripture itself never says, "Scripture alone.".

Well, that's not the guiding principle of sola scriptura. As I described above, that would be nuda scriptura.

Sola scriptura simply says that the bible is the sole FINAL authority on matters of practice and theology. Obviously church tradition has an impact on us all. The issue of Sola Scriptura isn't that church tradition exists, but that, in part, it exists in contradiction to scripture.

Michael

[Redwolf]

If the guiding principle of Sola Sciptura is that scripture alone determines practice and theology then Sola Scriptura fails by its own standard because the Scripture itself never says, "Scripture alone.".



Scripture (Christ) says 'it is written'

never ever 'it is passed down orally' to scaliwags and scoundrels to pervert and make naught

When the apostles speak of tradition, they speak of exhorting the gospel of Jesus Christ.....never ever of 'orally passed down' messages that by careful observation this very moment have lost all semblance of accuracy and truth.

[Pilgrim]

Well, that's not the guiding principle of sola scriptura. As I described above, that would be nuda scriptura.

Sola scriptura simply says that the bible is the sole FINAL authority on matters of practice and theology. Obviously church tradition has an impact on us all. The issue of Sola Scriptura isn't that church tradition exists, but that, in part, it exists in contradiction to scripture.

Michael
Wrong, God is the sole final authority on all these matters. That is the historic, orthodox, and reformed understanding. Anything else is dangerously close to makeing and idol of scripture.

[themuzicman]

Wrong, God is the sole final authority on all these matters. That is the historic, orthodox, and reformed understanding. Anything else is dangerously close to makeing and idol of scripture.

And what, exactly, is the bible, if not God's Word?

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Scripture (Christ) says 'it is written'

never ever 'it is passed down orally' to scaliwags and scoundrels to pervert and make naught

When the apostles speak of tradition, they speak of exhorting the gospel of Jesus Christ.....never ever of 'orally passed down' messages that by careful observation this very moment have lost all semblance of accuracy and truth.

Ok, but what does that have to do with Sola scriptura? And where did say anything about "orally passed down messages?"

Show me where the Bible makes the explicit claim that scritpure is the sole final authority? You can't because it doesn't.

Think it through, if you really believe sola scriptura completely, then why bother gathering in community to be taught or to hear the word preached? Why pray for the holy spirit? You have your Bible and each person unto him or herself should do just fine with that alone right? No need for anything else if you really believe sola scriptura.

Taking the idea that sola scriptura is the sole final authority on these matters one would have to conclude, by that standard, that since the Bible is silent on the matter of it's own final and sole authority, that it is not.

[Pilgrim]

And what, exactly, is the bible, if not God's Word?

Michael
So you are of the persuasion that the Bible we have to today in every way is perfect? No transcriptional issues, no matters of culture or history to untangle?

My final authority is not the written word, but the incarnate Word.

[themuzicman]

So you are of the persuasion that the Bible we have to today in every way is perfect? No transcriptional issues, no matters of culture or history to untangle?

My final authority is not the written word, but the incarnate Word.

From my study of textual criticism, I believe that we have the original, inerrant text, and from textual criticism, over 95 percent of scripture we are sure of the original text. Of the remaining 5 percent, I believe there are 15 places where the meaning of the text could be somewhat changed depending on the variant, and none of those places are significant to the theology or practice of the church. (Most of the other 5 percent are things like transposition of "Jesus" and "Christ" and the like.)

So, the text is sufficient. Matters of culture and history are post-textual issues of hermeneutics, and any matter of interpretation that goes through a human being is ultimately going to be fallen.

Now, do you claim to be able to speak to Christ directly?

Michael

[Pilgrim]

From my study of textual criticism, I believe that we have the original, inerrant text, and from textual criticism, over 95 percent of scripture we are sure of the original text. Of the remaining 5 percent, I believe there are 15 places where the meaning of the text could be somewhat changed depending on the variant, and none of those places are significant to the theology or practice of the church. (Most of the other 5 percent are things like transposition of "Jesus" and "Christ" and the like.)

So, the text is sufficient. Matters of culture and history are post-textual issues of hermeneutics, and any matter of interpretation that goes through a human being is ultimately going to be fallen.

Now, do you claim to be able to speak to Christ directly?

Michael
No I don't claim that. I beleive, in the historic, orthodox, and reformed way. That is to say, we have scripture, we have the community of faith, we have the Holy Spirit. I think you actually believe this too or you wouldn't waste your time listening to what other people have to say about scritpture and the practice of faith, nor would you be wasting your time in prayer. You'd just be reading your Bible by yourself, coming toyour own conclusions.

I've spent some significant study in textual criticism myself, first at Gordon-Conwell and then at Harvard Div so I've gotten it from both sides of the divide so to speak. The one thing that is interesting is that we don't have a single extant original text of any letter, law, poem, or history contained in the Old or New Testament. When one compares the current text to the earlist versions, the Holy Bible is amazingly accurately transcribed from then to now and that tells me something divine is involved.

But answer me this, if God is capable of keeping scripture perfect, then why can't he keep our theology perfect with out it? You argue that a thing that comes through a human being is ultimately going to be fallen. If this is so, what makes the handwritten, transcribed, copied, works of the Bible, that go through a human being, any different?

Your first statement is a little confusing, first you say we have the original, inerrant text, and then you say there are 15 places where it isn't? And that actually only 95 percent of it is? If it's original and inerrant, then you shouldn't be able to count any places where you think there's an issue. Unless what you are saying is that we have the original and inerrant version in total, there's just some question as to how it all goes together in terms of the variants.

Ultimately I always go back to the Bible because I do believe it to be the inspired and authoratative and unique witness to Jesus Christ. I just don't think that God ever intended for Scripture Alone to be the standard.

[themuzicman]

No I don't claim that. I beleive, in the historic, orthodox, and reformed way. That is to say, we have scripture, we have the community of faith, we have the Holy Spirit. I think you actually believe this too or you wouldn't waste your time listening to what other people have to say about scritpture and the practice of faith, nor would you be wasting your time in prayer. You'd just be reading your Bible by yourself, coming toyour own conclusions.

However, the only one of those three that isn't communication to the church under the influence of a human will, and that is scripture.

I've spent some significant study in textual criticism myself, first at Gordon-Conwell and then at Harvard Div so I've gotten it from both sides of the divide so to speak. The one thing that is interesting is that we don't have a single extant original text of any letter, law, poem, or history contained in the Old or New Testament. When one compares the current text to the earlist versions, the Holy Bible is amazingly accurately transcribed from then to now and that tells me something divine is involved.

Do you know how many variants there probably are in the various copies that remain? It appears as through God preserved His word through a large volume of fallen men, rather than divine intervention of each copy.

But answer me this, if God is capable of keeping scripture perfect, then why can't he keep our theology perfect with out it? You argue that a thing that comes through a human being is ultimately going to be fallen. If this is so, what makes the handwritten, transcribed, copied, works of the Bible, that go through a human being, any different?

Transcribing scripture from one page to another doesn't require that human being interpret or have any intellectual input into what is written beyond knowing the letters and words. And, as I said before, God seems to have preserved His Word through volume.

Theology is a bit different than transcription. Theology requires that the person actually make a statement of his own about what scripture says to a given topic, and when you engage the human mind in this way, you're engaging the fallen nature of the person. Indeed, human errors of transcription are fairly easy to discover. Human errors of interpretation are much harder to determine, mainly because it is the opinion of another human that opposes it.

Your first statement is a little confusing, first you say we have the original, inerrant text, and then you say there are 15 places where it isn't? And that actually only 95 percent of it is? If it's original and inerrant, then you shouldn't be able to count any places where you think there's an issue. Unless what you are saying is that we have the original and inerrant version in total, there's just some question as to how it all goes together in terms of the variants.

The latter is correct.

Ultimately I always go back to the Bible because I do believe it to be the inspired and authoratative and unique witness to Jesus Christ. I just don't think that God ever intended for Scripture Alone to be the standard.

Well, what other standard for the church at large exists that doesn't involve the expression of a fallen human to communicate it? Only scripture is called "God-Breathed". Only scripture is said to be free from the influence of human will.

Not sure what other non-human communications from God remain. Creation, I suppose.

Michael

[Jawa Man]

I think the apostles had a pretty good sense of themselves. Peter, here, indirectly compares himself to the prophets by comparing false prophets to false teachers immediately after the verse above about prophecy of scripture:

2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Likewise, Paul and John wrote as those who had the authority of a writer of God's Word, so I don't think Peter strictly has the TNK in mind, here, although that's certainly a part of it.

Michael
That explains that Peter knew he was a true teacher, but that doesn't explain why you think he was saying that what we accept as the New Testament canon is a part of scripture. The fact that he wrote before some of the books of the Bible were even started shows that he couldn't have been referring to what we accept as the Bible.

[Jawa Man]

Huh? Wasn't scripture yet? That makes no sense. It was the divinely inspired word of God the millisecond it was written down by the author.
Though I agree, my point is that Peter could not have been referring to his own letter (since how could he know in advance?), or books not made yet, since they didn't exist. To say that Peter did know in advance would be suggesting something that is not in the Bible; there is no hint that Peter knew what was scripture in the New Testament (though it is possible he knew of some books, he obviously could not consider books that were not written).

It didn't become scripture later on. More and more people later recognized that it is scripture. The discerned it, after the fact. People can't just hit a piece of paper with a magic wand of declaration and make something scripture. God made it scripture. Men discerned it, afterwards. Various NT authors recognize each other's writings as scripture, for example. They didn't become scripture a couple centuries later.

You are ascribing authority to men that only rightly belongs to God.
You're making a big deal out of something incredibly small. What I meant by "become" scripture was that it is recognized by the Church as such. I obviously didn't mean suddenly its status magically changed.

[themuzicman]

That explains that Peter knew he was a true teacher, but that doesn't explain why you think he was saying that what we accept as the New Testament canon is a part of scripture. The fact that he wrote before some of the books of the Bible were even started shows that he couldn't have been referring to what we accept as the Bible.

Why not? If he considered himself and his fellow apostles to be like the prophets, what does it matter whether this was written before or after other scripture? Does the writing of this (under the direction of the Holy Spirit) invalidate anything that comes after?

God said that prophets for whom their prophecies don't come true are false prophets. Is that only valid for past prophets?

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Though I agree, my point is that Peter could not have been referring to his own letter (since how could he know in advance?), or books not made yet, since they didn't exist. To say that Peter did know in advance would be suggesting something that is not in the Bible; there is no hint that Peter knew what was scripture in the New Testament (though it is possible he knew of some books, he obviously could not consider books that were not written).
Your argument is logically inconsistent. Did every prophet in the OT understand what he was writing about, in regards to future events? Ezekiel sure had some funky things to say. But you seem to throw this right out the window when you get to Peter.

Now, I would tend to agree that Peter was referring to existant scripture, not future books. But, my point is merely that your argument above is illogical in light of what we know about predictive writings in the OT.

You're making a big deal out of something incredibly small. What I meant by "become" scripture was that it is recognized by the Church as such. I obviously didn't mean suddenly its status magically changed.
Good to know. This is an important distinction, Jawa. But I'm glad that's what you mean, especially in light of those who would have us believe that a group of men "decided" what is scripture and what is not, generations after the NT authors were all dead. Such a view puts men on a level with God.

[Adam]

Well, let's start with Peter:

19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now, unless you have a problem with "prophecy of Scripture" referring to the inspired Word of God, this (along with creation and Christ Himself) would be the only sources of revelation not made by an act of human will.

Not sure how much more authoritative you can get than that.

As for how the cannon was formed, that would be part of the tradition that isn't objectionable via scripture.

Michael
"Will the circle be unbroken, by and by, Lord, by and by"
Apparently not in my lifetime.
Adam

[theblueprint_Ni]

Tradition over Scripture = Man over God. Done deal, it's in the text.. :deal:

[Hail Mary]

Actually, I'm talking about how sacred tradition does not in the least resemble scripture and how it is leading and has led millions to perdition. How it is a mega-deception and how it was ALMOST admitted by Ratzinger, who you know very well knows only too well and so do you - that sacred tradition has nothing to do with God's TRUTH.

Benedict XVI isn't 'admitting' anything, he is proclaiming the truth of tradition and the authority of the Church are equal to that of Holy Scripture. It is put more succinctly in the CCC (80):

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

As for what predates the Bible? True believers have always had the written word. The Bible tells you so. "It is written"....says Jesus.......never ever 'it is passed down orally'.

What written word did True believers have before Moses? And when did Jesus say it is never passed down orally? (Please tell me that is something else you found on Ian Paisley's site)

The subject is - Sola Scriptura, and how the RCC misplaced it and pleases itself with lies.

Redwolf, we don't believe in Sola Scriptura, nor did anyone else until the 16th century. I believe a Sola Scripturist can be saved, but you're missing the full offerings of God's Church.

[Jawa Man]

Why not? If he considered himself and his fellow apostles to be like the prophets, what does it matter whether this was written before or after other scripture? Does the writing of this (under the direction of the Holy Spirit) invalidate anything that comes after?

God said that prophets for whom their prophecies don't come true are false prophets. Is that only valid for past prophets?

Michael
However Peter was not making a prophecy when he wrote what he did about scripture (to assume so would be to go beyond what is written). You would have to assume he is including books not written yet.

[Jawa Man]

Your argument is logically inconsistent. Did every prophet in the OT understand what he was writing about, in regards to future events? Ezekiel sure had some funky things to say. But you seem to throw this right out the window when you get to Peter.
As I just wrote to muz, it doesn't seem like Peter is prophecying here; to find that, you'd have to go beyond the text. I think you agree with me here because you say next,

Now, I would tend to agree that Peter was referring to existant scripture, not future books. But, my point is merely that your argument above is illogical in light of what we know about predictive writings in the OT.
I don't think it is illogical, but even so you came to the same conclusion (maybe by different means) as I did. Which is cool.

And yes, I believe the Holy Spirit led the Church to call scripture what God had already inspired.

[themuzicman]

However Peter was not making a prophecy when he wrote what he did about scripture (to assume so would be to go beyond what is written). You would have to assume he is including books not written yet.

However, Peter WAS talking about the writers of scripture. The Torah are not prophecy, either, yet I'm sure Peter had them in view. Same goes for Joshua-Song of Solomon.

Michael

[Jawa Man]

I agree, he probably did have the entire Old Testament in view. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but how does this prove Peter was also commenting on books not yet written? Maybe the books that came after Peter were fallible. Luther wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, right? Anyway, my point is you can't prove books that came later are scripture through scripture. You would have to assume outside the Bible that Peter was also refering to the other books not yet written.

[themuzicman]

I agree, he probably did have the entire Old Testament in view. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but how does this prove Peter was also commenting on books not yet written? Maybe the books that came after Peter were fallible. Luther wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, right? Anyway, my point is you can't prove books that came later are scripture through scripture. You would have to assume outside the Bible that Peter was also refering to the other books not yet written.

Well, you've already conceded that in their letters Peter and Paul claim to be writing scripture. We also find

1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles-- 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

Paul includes himself in 'apostles' and 'prophets'. Then, if we head over to 1 Cor 15, we find that James is included as an apostle.

That leaves us with the question of whether the gospel writers were apostles. Matthew and John clearly were, since they were among the 12. Luke has never been disputed as such. That leaves us with Mark, who may have been one of the original 12, I don't know that we have a LOT of information about him.

What more do you want?

(silly me, I missed Jude... Brother of James, either one of the 12, or one of Christ's brothers. I don't know that he is as clear as the others.)

Michael

Michael

[Berean Todd]

Don't forget that Peter called Paul's writtings Scripture, so I think we can say that he may well (and certainly the Holy Spirit guiding him) have had NT writtings in mind in speaking of the inspiration of Scripture.

[Jawa Man]

Paul includes himself in 'apostles' and 'prophets'. Then, if we head over to 1 Cor 15, we find that James is included as an apostle.

That leaves us with the question of whether the gospel writers were apostles. Matthew and John clearly were, since they were among the 12. Luke has never been disputed as such. That leaves us with Mark, who may have been one of the original 12, I don't know that we have a LOT of information about him.
However, where in scripture are we told that simply have apostolic roots gives a writer authority? Couldn't an apostle preach the wrong thing? We have Jesus saying the to the Twelve that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. A lot of New Testament books were written by outside-the-Twelve apostles. Couldn't this allow mistakes to come through since the Bible does not give this guidance outside of the Twelve?

What more do you want?
Whoa, I feel like maybe this may be getting some attitude? I didn't mean to sound like I have it. I could be interpreting you incorrectly. However if this isn't being fruitful, maybe we should stop? I don't want to make you stumble or get upset. If there is any frustration it would be good to settle this in prayer, right?

If it helps I think you're kicking the poopoo out of me right now. Well, at least, my argument, now looking back on it, seems a lot more weak. However I may come up with other points later on.

[themuzicman]

However, where in scripture are we told that simply have apostolic roots gives a writer authority? Couldn't an apostle preach the wrong thing? We have Jesus saying the to the Twelve that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. A lot of New Testament books were written by outside-the-Twelve apostles. Couldn't this allow mistakes to come through since the Bible does not give this guidance outside of the Twelve?

Well, go back to Peter. The writers wrote as the Holy Spirit spoke from God. They are God's words given through the Holy Spirit. Paul calls scripture "God-Breathed".

The apostles don't have to be completely inerrant in word and deed. Only in writing scripture.

Michael

[Calvinist4Him]

Well, go back to Peter. The writers wrote as the Holy Spirit spoke from God. They are God's words given through the Holy Spirit. Paul calls scripture "God-Breathed".

The apostles don't have to be completely inerrant in word and deed. Only in writing scripture.

:thumb: Yep, and that only requires faith in God, not in the apostles.

[Adam]

:thumb: Yep, and that only requires faith in God, not in the apostles.
What, I thought you guys were supposed to be defending sola scriptura, not just divine inspiration? My faith in God tells me that John 16:13 means that God is preserving His Church in Truth in the universal Tradition in the liturgy celebrated daily or at least weekly at mass. That Tradition does include reading and reverencing the Bible (and Apocrypha), but by definition in this scenario we don't have sola scriptura.
It is true that Tradition does hold the Bible above itself, so we can't depend on Tradition apart from the Bible. I am not proposing going by solely Tradition, or even most authoritatively from Tradition.
Adam

[themuzicman]

What, I thought you guys were supposed to be defending sola scriptura, not just divine inspiration? My faith in God tells me that John 16:13 means that God is preserving His Church in Truth in the universal Tradition in the liturgy celebrated daily or at least weekly at mass. That Tradition does include reading and reverencing the Bible (and Apocrypha), but by definition in this scenario we don't have sola scriptura.
It is true that Tradition does hold the Bible above itself, so we can't depend on Tradition apart from the Bible. I am not proposing going by solely Tradition, or even most authoritatively from Tradition.
Adam
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come

Huh? You're claiming that the church is inerrant?

Michael

[Redwolf]

[QUOTE=ave_maria]Benedict XVI isn't 'admitting' anything, he is proclaiming the truth of tradition and the authority of the Church are equal to that of Holy Scripture. It is put more succinctly in the CCC (80):

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.



What written word did True believers have before Moses? And when did Jesus say it is never passed down orally? (Please tell me that is something else you found on Ian Paisley's site)


==========================


Yes, we disdain the Paisley's in this realm, the ones who hold up the mirror and say 'look, you are offensive, and offensive to a Holy God who says that it is written'. What did they say of Jesus? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is this not the one we have seen growing up among us? And now look, who does he think he is holding that mirror to our face to force us to see what Pharisees we are?
Pharisees = corrupted God's plain truth and turned it into something not recognizable. RCC, corrupted Gods word and turned it into something not recognizable.
Your church readily claims that when push comes to shove, tradition holds over scripture everytime. Tradition is not supported by scripture, and that is what Ratzinger 'ALMOST' admitted.
And so would you, if you did not close your eyes while looking into that mirror.

[Adam]

13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come

Huh? You're claiming that the church is inerrant?

Michael
We usually speak of the Church as Infallible, a lesser term than inerrant. I prefer the even lesser term, "indefeasible".
See my Post #29 in "Towards the Unity of Orthodox and Catholic", also here on Ecclesiology 201.
Adam

[themuzicman]

We usually speak of the Church as Infallible, a lesser term than inerrant. I prefer the even lesser term, "indefeasible".
See my Post #29 in "Towards the Unity of Orthodox and Catholic", also here on Ecclesiology 201.
Adam

But you admit in that post:

Unlike the rest of you, I can't say, "Call a general council, and we'll settle it all there!" Maybe if we did, God would step in and make sure this council got it right, but I can't assume that, given my own principle.

So, do you assume the infallibility of the Church, or do you not? You seem unwilling to trust such a principle in light of a council that would include the RCC.



In fact, Christ did NOT promise that the church would be infallible. Indeed, the early churches was RIFE with problems that the apostles (most notably Paul) was writting letters to correct.

What Christ DID promise was the Spirit of truth, who would guide us into all truth, but there is no implication that the Church will follow said guidance. Indeed, the church seems unable to keep a constant course, with four major segments that the EO recognizes, plus the host of protestants from the RCC.

(Indeed, the RCC can hardly make a credible claim to "infallibility" after the problems of sexual abuse of children by its priests and more importantly the resultant church coverup of those events. No doubt the EO has some skeletons in its closet as well, being comprised of fallen men.)

Granted that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those in the church (not Church) who are listening to His guidance will find truth, and, as such, various denominations will have been given nuggests of truth for the time that they engage the Holy Spirit. However to claim that one particular group is "THE Church", eternally infallible simply isn't derivable from John 16:13.

Michael

[scholasticus]

"Paul calls scripture "God-Breathed"."

This is the Paul whose only credentials to be an Apostle come from a Greek fellow (probably) named Luke?!

Come on... there's at least a few ounces of Tradition (or "historical Christianity" or whatever you want to call it) mixed in here.

[themuzicman]

"Paul calls scripture "God-Breathed"."

This is the Paul whose only credentials to be an Apostle come from a Greek fellow (probably) named Luke?!

Come on... there's at least a few ounces of Tradition (or "historical Christianity" or whatever you want to call it) mixed in here.

Actually, Paul has credentials from being present with Christ. Luke is simply recording events for us.

Michael

[Adam]

So, do you assume the infallibility of the Church, or do you not? You seem unwilling to trust such a principle in light of a council that would include the RCC.
Michael
I reject the usual claim of infallibility for the Pope or even for a fully recognized general council. I limit infallibility (or better yet, "indefectibility") to the totality of what God has preserved in the worship of the church. What could be more important, or better, than that God is present in His people when they gather to worship him, so that what is in the liturgy itself is God-breathed? At least in the original worship of the church, in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit that guided their worship, the Spirit of Truth moved among them. The liturgies preserved in the Church are formal repetitions of what the Spirit originally moved the first Christians to say in Charismatic ecstasy. Where the liturgies as practiced today agree, we know we have the Truth the Spirit gave those early Christians. We look to the liturgies as found today in the liturgical churches like the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Monophysites, and Nestorians and their offshoots (like the Anglican) and the early liturgies we can find (and which have been largely restored in the Western churches that have participated in the Liturgical Renewal such as the RC and Anglicans and to some degree the Methodists and the Evangelical Lutherans).
Adam

[Jezz]

In fact, Christ did NOT promise that the church would be infallible.
"The gates of Hades will not prevail"?

Indeed, the early churches was RIFE with problems that the apostles (most notably Paul) was writting letters to correct.
And those problems that the Church wrote letter to correct were successfully dealt with by the Church. She did not fail. The gates of Hades did not prevail. She has never failed to deal with heresy.

What Christ DID promise was the Spirit of truth, who would guide us into all truth, but there is no implication that the Church will follow said guidance.
Wouldn't it be a pretty empty promise if that implication wasn't there?

Indeed, the church seems unable to keep a constant course, with four major segments that the EO recognizes, plus the host of protestants from the RCC.
Ummm. what are the "four major segments" that the Orthodox recognise?

(Indeed, the RCC can hardly make a credible claim to "infallibility" after the problems of sexual abuse of children by its priests and more importantly the resultant church coverup of those events.
Agreed. But their claim to infallibility doesn't extend to morality.

No doubt the EO has some skeletons in its closet as well, being comprised of fallen men.)
Then what are they? Seriously. I want to know. And I'm not interested in hearing how this or that Orthodox person did an evil thing, but how the Church as a whole erred and did evil.

Granted that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those in the church (not Church) who are listening to His guidance will find truth, and, as such, various denominations will have been given nuggests of truth for the time that they engage the Holy Spirit. However to claim that one particular group is "THE Church", eternally infallible simply isn't derivable from John 16:13.
And what about St Paul's claim that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth? He does not claim that various different churches are pillars and grounds of different nuggets of truth - he claims that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

[themuzicman]

I reject the usual claim of infallibility for the Pope or even for a fully recognized general council. I limit infallibility (or better yet, "indefectibility") to the totality of what God has preserved in the worship of the church. What could be more important, or better, than that God is present in His people when they gather to worship him, so that what is in the liturgy itself is God-breathed? At least in the original worship of the church, in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit that guided their worship, the Spirit of Truth moved among them.

Where are the charismatic gifts said to be "God Breathed"?

The liturgies preserved in the Church are formal repetitions of what the Spirit originally moved the first Christians to say in Charismatic ecstasy. Where the liturgies as practiced today agree, we know we have the Truth the Spirit gave those early Christians.

OK, where does the bible say that the liturgies based in Charismatic ecstasy are inerrant?

We look to the liturgies as found today in the liturgical churches like the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Monophysites, and Nestorians and their offshoots (like the Anglican) and the early liturgies we can find (and which have been largely restored in the Western churches that have participated in the Liturgical Renewal such as the RC and Anglicans and to some degree the Methodists and the Evangelical Lutherans).
Adam

Well, the basis for doing so seems a bit shakey, to me.

Michael

[themuzicman]

"The gates of Hades will not prevail"?

Resurrection.

And those problems that the Church wrote letter to correct were successfully dealt with by the Church. She did not fail. The gates of Hades did not prevail. She has never failed to deal with heresy.

The Church wrote letters? Or an APOSTLE wrote a letter? I don't see the church as claimant to being its author.

Wouldn't it be a pretty empty promise if that implication wasn't there?

No. Just because someone is guiding you doesn't mean you have to follow.

Ummm. what are the "four major segments" that the Orthodox recognise?

See Adam's post. He lists them.

Agreed. But their claim to infallibility doesn't extend to morality.

So, they're only infallible when they make a claim to being infallible? :lol:

Then what are they? Seriously. I want to know. And I'm not interested in hearing how this or that Orthodox person did an evil thing, but how the Church as a whole erred and did evil.

Of course, you retreat to the nebulous "Church as a whole" thing. Guess what, Jezz. The "Church as a whole" never does anything. Individuals who represent the Church act. If their conduct is unacceptable, it is up to other individuals in the Church to act.

And what about St Paul's claim that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth? He does not claim that various different churches are pillars and grounds of different nuggets of truth - he claims that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Except that he didn't capitalize "Church".

Think of it this way: God preserved His Word, but not in a single copied text that could be easily translated and kept. No, there are literally thousands of copies with oodles of variant readings, and it has required (and continues to require) an army of scholars to compile the original.

Certainly not how WE would expect God to preserve His Word, and yet He has done so.

In the same way, we have lots of churches out there, and God seems content to guide each into truth in the ways that they look for it, and let them wander off into other doctrine when they so choose. Yet, the guiding into all truth still happens, just not in the way that WE would expect.

Michael

[VFarris01]

... what about St Paul's claim that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth? He does not claim that various different churches are pillars and grounds of different nuggets of truth - he claims that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.Have we not been over this before Jezz? When all else fails you resort to dubious tradition.

The "church" being the "pillar and ground of the truth" does not make the church...

... that which makes the truth.

... that which determines what is the truth.

... that which interprets the truth.

The church is the pillar and support of the truth because it preaches it to the world, preserves it, and transmits it from generation to generation."
This is that of which "the gates of Hell will not prevail."

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.—"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.

3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are — (1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. (b.)Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition.
3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18).

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility.

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.—Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.—Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.—Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.

"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.—John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.

10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves.

11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.

12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?

Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:15,17.

13. By what other arguments may this point be established?

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.—Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.—2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.

14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?

"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is:

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.

16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines—1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.—"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.

17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.—Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.—Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so—2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.

18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For—(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.—Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.—Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.— 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."—2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.—John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.—John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.

20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons:

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but—(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

The remainder of this "essay" can be found here:http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html

[Hail Mary]

Yes, we disdain the Paisley's in this realm, the ones who hold up the mirror and say 'look, you are offensive, and offensive to a Holy God who says that it is written'. What did they say of Jesus? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is this not the one we have seen growing up among us? And now look, who does he think he is holding that mirror to our face to force us to see what Pharisees we are?
Pharisees = corrupted God's plain truth and turned it into something not recognizable. RCC, corrupted Gods word and turned it into something not recognizable.
Your church readily claims that when push comes to shove, tradition holds over scripture everytime. Tradition is not supported by scripture, and that is what Ratzinger 'ALMOST' admitted.
And so would you, if you did not close your eyes while looking into that mirror.

Nice use of metaphorical language, but you didn't answer the questions. What written word did True believers have before Moses? And when did Jesus say it is never passed down orally?

Actually its pretty bizarre that you would think Jesus placed some kind of restriction against oral tradition since Christ himself never wrote anything other than something in the sand. Christ relied on oral tradition, that's good enough for me.

[Hail Mary]

(Indeed, the RCC can hardly make a credible claim to "infallibility" after the problems of sexual abuse of children by its priests and more importantly the resultant church coverup of those events. No doubt the EO has some skeletons in its closet as well, being comprised of fallen men.)

Infallibility doesn't mean the members of the Church will be sinless. Infallibility means that the Church will be "preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals."

Granted that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those in the church (not Church) who are listening to His guidance will find truth, and, as such, various denominations will have been given nuggests of truth for the time that they engage the Holy Spirit. However to claim that one particular group is "THE Church", eternally infallible simply isn't derivable from John 16:13.

Which people would you include as "those in the church (not Church)" Does this include the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, et.al?

[Adam]

Where are the charismatic gifts said to be "God Breathed"?
OK, where does the bible say that the liturgies based in Charismatic ecstasy are inerrant?
Well, the basis for doing so seems a bit shakey, to me.
Michael
All straw men, Michael. I didn't say what you said I said. I would have been wiser to refer to the discernment process that properly should occur to restrict charismatic worship within godly bounds. There of course occurs a further distilling process before even holy worship becomes written liturgy accepted as standard. Besides, indefectible is less than infallible, which itself is less than inerrant.
About the shakiness, you have a point, as I seem to be a minority of one here.
This is a good time to add that I do not say that even the best known and most used current liturgies are free of error. For four hundred years the Tridentine Mass prevailed in the Latin Rite of Roman Catholicism, used for hundreds of millions of people every Sunday, but it is not necessarily free of error. The Eastern Orthodox have used the mass of John Chrysotom for even longer, but that does not assure its correctness, and I don't personally even like it.
Allow me to present a result of my research on liturgies. I always thought it strange that the Tridentine RC Mass concluded every time with a reading from the Gospel of John, namely John 1:1-18 (except it was 21:15-19 from Easter to Pentecost). Yet this was also done by the Armenian Church, even though Monophysite and separated for almost sixteen centuries now. The Coptic Church concludes the mass with Psalm 47. These are both joyous and assertive of God's power and glory, as is the following conclusion of the Nestorian Rite:
"O Thou Who hast blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places through Christ Jesus our Lord, Who hath called us unto His kingdom and glory, and hath advanced us to those desirable blessings which pass not away, and which never fade, even as He promised to His disciples, saying:
'Verily, verily, I say unto yu, whosoever eateth My body, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him, and I will raise him up at the last day, and he shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto eternal life'; bless, keep, and sanctify this congregation which has now feasted on the power of His glorious, holy, life-giving, and divine sacraments; and be ye sealed and kept through the sign of the vivifying and glorious cross from all evil seen and unseen, now and for ever and ever. Amen."
These widely scattered liturgical traditions all agree on concluding the mass on a similar upbeat note, just as they all begin with the clergy preparing themselves most piously with confession.
No liturgy I have ever seen dwelt on condemnation of heretics. There are no anathemas to be found.
Adam

[VFarris01]

... you didn't answer the questions. What written word did True believers have before Moses?
This is irrelevant.

Answer this, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why?

... when did Jesus say it is never passed down orally?
Are you trying to make an argument from silence?

Actually its pretty bizarre that you would think Jesus placed some kind of restriction against oral tradition since Christ himself never wrote anything other than something in the sand.
Actually, it is pretty bizarre you would ignore Jesus is repeatedly recorded saying "It is written...," NOT "It has been orally passed down..." If this is not "some kind of restriction" what is?

Actually, it is pretty bizarre you would ignore Jesus is repeatedly recorded admonishing those who held tradition above (or even equal to) what was written. If this is not "some kind of restriction" what is?

Christ relied on oral tradition,...
I am from Missouri (not really), PROVE THIS. Jesus IS NOT recorded to have relied on anything but that which was written. Teaching FROM (using) scripture IS NOT oral tradition.

[themuzicman]

Infallibility doesn't mean the members of the Church will be sinless. Infallibility means that the Church will be "preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals."

Including the sexual abuse of children? What did the Church teach via its deeds in that area? (referring to the Church coverup, of course)

Which people would you include as "those in the church (not Church)" Does this include the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, et.al?

All those who put their faith in Christ for their salvation.

Michael

[Hail Mary]

This is irrelevant.

Well, it was certainly relevant to the point RedWolf was making. (Not Musicman). RedWolf claimed that True believers always had the written word, so what did they have before Moses?

Answer this, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why?

No, because you'll have a chicken and egg problem. How do you form the contents of the Bible if the Bible is all you need concerning faith and salvation?


Are you trying to make an argument from silence?

Did Christ write anything? Yes or No?

Actually, it is pretty bizarre you would ignore Jesus is repeatedly recorded admonishing those who held tradition above (or even equal to) what was written. If this is not "some kind of restriction" what is?

I am from Missouri (not really), PROVE THIS. Jesus IS NOT recorded to have relied on anything but that which was written. Teaching FROM (using) scripture IS NOT oral tradition.

Who said Christ didn't RELY on anything which was written? I said he didn't write anything himself, and relied on oral tradition to preserve his teachings.

[VFarris01]

... you didn't answer the questions. What written word did True believers have before Moses?This is irrelevant.Well, it was certainly relevant to the point RedWolf was making. (Not Musicman). RedWolf claimed that True believers always had the written word, so what did they have before Moses?
Yes, I got the quote person wrong. Good thing this does not rely on oral transmission, huh?

You do understand before Moses, God's dealings with His people was different then than it was after Moses and today, right?

Which is more reliable, the written word or oral tradition? Think it over.

When you tell someone about Jesus do you just blurt it out or do you back up your words with a verifiable source?

Answer this, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why?No, because you'll have a chicken and egg problem. How do you form the contents of the Bible if the Bible is all you need concerning faith and salvation?
What is the source of scripture? Man? If you believe we have the Bible because of man-made tradition you have either been misled or are simply mistaken.

Your chicken/egg problem is misdirection. I did not say the bible is all you need concerning faith and salvation, I asked, "Does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation?"

Please read the "essay" I cited a few posts ago (#51) which can also be found here:http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html (http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html)

Now, answer the questions, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why? What is missing? Tradition?

... when did Jesus say it is never passed down orally?Are you trying to make an argument from silence?Did Christ write anything? Yes or No?
I do not know. It is not recorded He did. Then again, it is not recorded He did not. (I can make the argument from silence too.) Does this matter?

Did Jesus command someone to write anything to anyone? Yes or No? (The answer is, "Yes," btw.) Why do you think He did this? Why do you think He not rely on the person He told to write the letter to orally deliver the message?

Christ relied on oral tradition,...I am from Missouri (not really), PROVE THIS. Jesus IS NOT recorded to have relied on anything but that which was written. Teaching FROM (using) scripture IS NOT oral tradition.Who said Christ didn't RELY on anything which was written? I said he didn't write anything himself, and relied on oral tradition to preserve his teachings.
On reading your post #52 (last two sentences) anyone would be led to believe you meant Jesus relied on oral tradition to formulate His teaching. You have cleared up this misunderstanding.

Jesus taught from what was written. Why do you think He did this?

How do you believe Jesus intended for His teachings to be passed on, by oral tradition, writing, or a combination of the two? Support your answer.

[Jezz]

Resurrection.
Not a bad answer. I disagree, of course, but disagreeing will be more complicated than I have time for right now.

The Church wrote letters? Or an APOSTLE wrote a letter?
False dichotomy. Show me an apostle who wrote a canonical epistle, and I will show you an official representative of the Church.

I don't see the church as claimant to being its author.
The Church has always claimed to be its author, because Christ is its author, and the Church is Christ.

When Saul was persecuting the Church, and Christ appeared to him, He said: "Saul, Saul - why are you persecuting me?". Not "why are you persecuting my Church?" As far as Christ was concerned, the Church as His body was more than "just a metaphor".

No. Just because someone is guiding you doesn't mean you have to follow.
"I will guide you into all truth, as long as you follow me" makes Christ's promise a tautology. It is like saying "If you walk into the truth, then you will walk into the truth." It makes the promise meaningless.

See Adam's post. He lists them.
No, Adam lists what he calls four branches of the Church. That was Adam's claim - a claim which you falsely attributed to the Orthodox Church. You'd do well to admit this mistake now.

The Orthodox do not make the claim that there are "four recognised branches of the Church". The Orthodox are the Church - the other branches have long since fallen from the vine. That is why they are diseased, cancerous and dying.

So, they're only infallible when they make a claim to being infallible? :lol:
To my knowledge, they only claim to be infallible in matters of doctrine and dogma. But I don't claim to be an expert on what they believe in this matter.

Of course, you retreat to the nebulous "Church as a whole" thing.
It is no more nebulous than the EU. If England attacks Iraq without official backing from the EU, does that mean that the EU attacked Iraq? Or if California attacks Mexico without official backing from the federal government, does that mean that the US has attacked Mexico? The difference is not hard to understand.

Guess what, Jezz. The "Church as a whole" never does anything. Individuals who represent the Church act. If their conduct is unacceptable, it is up to other individuals in the Church to act.
Rubbish. Does the US as a whole ever do anything? Does the EU as a whole ever do anything? Or is it merely "individuals who represent the EU acting"?

The difference between individuals acting and a corporation as a whole acting is perfectly well understood by you and others when it comes to international politics. Why do you play dumb when it comes to the Church? And here I was, beginning to think from your other posts that you were close to understanding the difference between individual vs corporate body...

Except that he didn't capitalize "Church".
Actually, he did. He wrote the entire word in capitals, as he did for every word he wrote. And he didn't leave any spaces between the words either - nor did he use punctuation.

But that technicality aside, that was a nice dodge of the passage. Which church do you suppose St Paul was talking about when he called it the "pillar and ground of truth" then, if not the Church? Do you think that translating that passage with a capital C is exegetically unwarranted? If so, then why? If not, then why did you bother making this comment?

Think of it this way: God preserved His Word, but not in a single copied text that could be easily translated and kept. No, there are literally thousands of copies with oodles of variant readings, and it has required (and continues to require) an army of scholars to compile the original.

Certainly not how WE would expect God to preserve His Word, and yet He has done so.
The Bible is not the Word of God. It is a collection of books which contains words about the Word of God. God doesn't need book to preserve His Word - His Word lives in the hearts and minds of His people and in their ongoing, living tradition. The Church.

In the same way, we have lots of churches out there, and God seems content to guide each into truth in the ways that they look for it, and let them wander off into other doctrine when they so choose. Yet, the guiding into all truth still happens, just not in the way that WE would expect.
You're right - it's not at all what I expected. I expected that by "guiding into all truth", God would eliminate errors from His Church - not introduce more and more of them...

But hey, if you can exegete this passage such that "guiding into all truth" actually means "introducing more and more errors", then be my guest. Smoothing this over with the good ol' "God's ways are not our ways" argument might satisfy you, but it does not satisfy me... To me, it seems like an excuse to justify any illogical conclusion you might currently hold.

[themuzicman]

False dichotomy. Show me an apostle who wrote a canonical epistle, and I will show you an official representative of the Church.

Ah, the equivicating on what the Church is and isn't continues....


The Church has always claimed to be its author, because Christ is its author, and the Church is Christ.

Another nice vague statement. Do you mean to say that the Church is God, is a part of God, is the savior of the world? In what sense is the Church Christ?

When Saul was persecuting the Church, and Christ appeared to him, He said: "Saul, Saul - why are you persecuting me?". Not "why are you persecuting my Church?" As far as Christ was concerned, the Church as His body was more than "just a metaphor".

Perhaps because Christ is the head of the church, and when you persecute those under someone's headship, you're persecuting the head, as well? Since we are all of one body, when another part of the church is persecuted, we are all injured by it. We don't have to go so far as to say that the church IS Christ to see this!

"I will guide you into all truth, as long as you follow me" makes Christ's promise a tautology. It is like saying "If you walk into the truth, then you will walk into the truth." It makes the promise meaningless.

That is so convoluted, I'm not even sure where to start. We'll just call it a non-sequitor.

I'll say it again. If someone says that they'll guide you, and you don't follow their instructions, you won't wind up where they're trying to get you to go.

No, Adam lists what he calls four branches of the Church. That was Adam's claim - a claim which you falsely attributed to the Orthodox Church. You'd do well to admit this mistake now.The Orthodox do not make the claim that there are "four recognised branches of the Church". The Orthodox are the Church - the other branches have long since fallen from the vine. That is why they are diseased, cancerous and dying.[quote]

My bad.

[quote]To my knowledge, they only claim to be infallible in matters of doctrine and dogma. But I don't claim to be an expert on what they believe in this matter.

Their doctrine on child sexual conduct by priests is clear by their actions, is it not?

It is no more nebulous than the EU. If England attacks Iraq without official backing from the EU, does that mean that the EU attacked Iraq? Or if California attacks Mexico without official backing from the federal government, does that mean that the US has attacked Mexico? The difference is not hard to understand.

No, but you expose the problem in your saying "The Church as a whole" very nicely. California doesn't attack Mexico. That's a generalized statement that we use, which would mean that the me who are a part of the Californian army violated its border with Mexico and began violence against the defenses there.

In this case, when we refer to "California", we are referring to the political leaders who are running the war, not the entire state of California!

Rubbish. Does the US as a whole ever do anything? Does the EU as a whole ever do anything? Or is it merely "individuals who represent the EU acting"?

Exactly my point. Thank you for making it.

The difference between individuals acting and a corporation as a whole acting is perfectly well understood by you and others when it comes to international politics. Why do you play dumb when it comes to the Church? And here I was, beginning to think from your other posts that you were close to understanding the difference between individual vs corporate body...


I understand the difference. I'm simply pointing out the silliness of your saying "When has the WHOLE CHURCH erred?" The whole church errs when someone representing the church errs. Whether other representatives of the church choose to correct that individual or not defines whether the church continues in error.

Actually, he did. He wrote the entire word in capitals, as he did for every word he wrote. And he didn't leave any spaces between the words either - nor did he use punctuation.

Yes, I understand that. The point is that you're eisegeting this text by inserting "EASTERN ORTHODOX" before ekklhsia.

But that technicality aside, that was a nice dodge of the passage. Which church do you suppose St Paul was talking about when he called it the "pillar and ground of truth" then, if not the Church? Do you think that translating that passage with a capital C is exegetically unwarranted? If so, then why? If not, then why did you bother making this comment?


It would be the body of Christ, which Paul defines as those who have been baptized into it. Who may baptize? Apparantly any other believer who is saved. There simply are no guidelines in scripture limiting who may baptize a believer into the body.

The Bible is not the Word of God. It is a collection of books which contains words about the Word of God. God doesn't need book to preserve His Word - His Word lives in the hearts and minds of His people and in their ongoing, living tradition. The Church.

So, the EO advocates an open cannon?

You're right - it's not at all what I expected. I expected that by "guiding into all truth", God would eliminate errors from His Church - not introduce more and more of them...

So, you think God is able to introduce error into His church? I certainly didn't say that.

But hey, if you can exegete this passage such that "guiding into all truth" actually means "introducing more and more errors", then be my guest. Smoothing this over with the good ol' "God's ways are not our ways" argument might satisfy you, but it does not satisfy me... To me, it seems like an excuse to justify any illogical conclusion you might currently hold.

Again, this is your eisegesis, not mine. The Church is comprised of fallen men who have sinful desires. Error in the church in inevitable when it is controlled by men, and, yes, the EO is controlled by men. Only when we are willing to accept the possibility that what we have believed in the past was wrong are we able to shed the error in our traditions and be further guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

So, when you're ready to stop putting words in my mouth, we can continue.

Michael

[Hail Mary]

Yes, I got the quote person wrong. Good thing this does not rely on oral transmission, huh?

You do understand before Moses, God's dealings with His people was different then than it was after Moses and today, right?

So, you agree with me? True believers did not ALWAYS have the written word as RedWolf claimed. God's dealings with His people is, as you would put it, a misdirection.

Which is more reliable, the written word or oral tradition? Think it over.

When you tell someone about Jesus do you just blurt it out or do you back up your words with a verifiable source?

Then why didn't Christ write anything down? It sounds to me like you have an issue with the way Christ taught.

What is the source of scripture? Man? If you believe we have the Bible because of man-made tradition you have either been misled or are simply mistaken.

Scripture is indeed God breathed and some of scripture is a written account of oral tradition passed down by the Church. For example, the Gospel of Mark (by tradition) is a written account of some of Peter's oral teachings. Thus scripture is inspired by God, and nurtured, preserved, and canonized by God's Church. You can thank the Church in your response if you would like, I'll be happy to hear it. :smile:


Your chicken/egg problem is misdirection. I did not say the bible is all you need concerning faith and salvation, I asked, "Does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation?"

I already answered this - No. And its not a misdirection, especially if "we" includes people living between 33 AD and somewhere around the end of the 4th century. My answer applies to all Christians throughout time, and the Bible certainly didn't contain all "we" needed to know before it was canonized or even written.

Please read the "essay" I cited a few posts ago (#51) which can also be found here:http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html (http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html)

Now, answer the questions, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why? What is missing? Tradition?


Just a note first, if I took time to read every lengthy propaganda piece by all of the virulantly anti-Catholic posters here, I doubt I would have time for my family or my real job. With that said, I read the first part of the piece, until he gets here:

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6),

Obviously Mr A.A. Hodge is interpreting 2 Thess 2:15, and thus presupposes he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church. Since I don't believe he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church, then he's obviously wrong. :smile:

However, his frequent reference to all things 'Romish' is quaintly amusing.


I do not know. It is not recorded He did. Then again, it is not recorded He did not. (I can make the argument from silence too.) Does this matter?

Did Jesus command someone to write anything to anyone? Yes or No? (The answer is, "Yes," btw.) Why do you think He did this? Why do you think He not rely on the person He told to write the letter to orally deliver the message?

Well, why didn't Christ ALWAYS tell them to write a letter? Christ obviously valued oral teaching and the ability of his Church to continue oral tradition.


On reading your post #52 (last two sentences) anyone would be led to believe you meant Jesus relied on oral tradition to formulate His teaching. You have cleared up this misunderstanding.

Jesus taught from what was written. Why do you think He did this?

How do you believe Jesus intended for His teachings to be passed on, by oral tradition, writing, or a combination of the two? Support your answer.

What is this, a homework assignment? Tell you what, why don't you write up a 10 page essay on this subject, extensively supporting your work, and then I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

[VFarris01]

You do understand before Moses, God's dealings with His people was different then than it was after Moses and today, right?
So, you agree with me? True believers did not ALWAYS have the written word as RedWolf claimed. God's dealings with His people is, as you would put it, a misdirection.
No ma'am, I do not agree with you. I would not put God's "chosen people" before Moses in the same box as "true believers" in Christ because, as you should agree, they ARE NOT the same thing.

Not a misdirection dear "lady," this is a FACT.

Then why didn't Christ write anything down? It sounds to me like you have an issue with the way Christ taught.
It is clearly recorded in the Bible, JC taught from SCRIPTURE not tradition. It would seem YOU are the one with "issues" with the way JC taught.

I do not know. It is not recorded He did. Then again, it is not recorded He did not. (I can make the argument from silence too.) Does this matter?

Did Jesus command someone to write anything to anyone? Yes or No? (The answer is, "Yes," btw.) Why do you think He did this? Why do you think He not rely on the person He told to write the letter to orally deliver the message?Well, why didn't Christ ALWAYS tell them to write a letter? Christ obviously valued oral teaching and the ability of his Church to continue oral tradition.
Going again with your argument from silence? Always is a pretty inclusive word. Would you not agree, if JC instructed someone to write something once, He might have instructed others to do so at other times, the HS deeming this nuance not important enough to record?

It is obvious JC valued oral teaching FROM SCRIPTURE... anything else (continuation of His teachings through oral tradition alone or in part) is pure conjecture (argument from silence).

One thing we know for sure... Jesus taught from scripture, not tradition.

What is the source of scripture? Man? If you believe we have the Bible because of man-made tradition you have either been misled or are simply mistaken.Scripture is indeed God breathed and some of scripture is a written account of oral tradition passed down by the Church. For example, the Gospel of Mark (by tradition) is a written account of some of Peter's oral teachings. Thus scripture is inspired by God, and nurtured, preserved, and canonized by God's Church. You can thank the Church in your response if you would like, I'll be happy to hear it. :smile:
Sorry, I will not please your traditionalist heart and make the church responsible for something it (the church) did not do. Once something becomes written it ceases to be oral tradition, yes or no? Nice of you to contradict yourself in two of three sentences though.

Your chicken/egg problem is misdirection. I did not say the bible is all you need concerning faith and salvation, I asked, "Does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation?"I already answered this - No. And its not a misdirection, especially if "we" includes people living between 33 AD and somewhere around the end of the 4th century. My answer applies to all Christians throughout time, and the Bible certainly didn't contain all "we" needed to know before it was canonized or even written.
So, are you admitting the Bible indeed DOES contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? TYVM. The Bible verifies tradition, not the other way around (tradition verifying the Bible).

Please read the "essay" I cited a few posts ago (#51) which can also be found here:http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html (http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html)

Now, answer the questions, does the Bible contain all we need to know concerning faith and salvation? If not, why? What is missing? Tradition?Just a note first, if I took time to read every lengthy propaganda piece by all of the virulantly anti-Catholic posters here, I doubt I would have time for my family or my real job.
A.A. Hodge (b. 1823), was a Professor in Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1877 until his death in 1886. This hardly makes his writings "propaganda" or he a propagandist. If you thought the piece "lenghty" you probably like to read about as much as does my dog (no insult intended).

With that said, I read the first part of the piece, until he gets here:

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6),
Is this as far as you managed to get?

Perhaps you should read further. I posted Mr. Hodge's objections to your objections below for your convenience.

Obviously Mr A.A. Hodge is interpreting 2 Thess 2:15, and thus presupposes he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church. Since I don't believe he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church, then he's obviously wrong. :smile:
You believe only the church has the authority to interpret scripture? Why? Tradition? Because this is what you were taught? Perhaps you were taught wrong!

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.—Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.—Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.—Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

<snip>

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?

"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is:

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.

16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines—1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.—"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.

17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.—Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.—Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so—2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.

18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For—(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.—Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.—Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.— 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."—2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self