Application of Sola Scriptura & magisterium [Archive]

phantaz sunlyk

May 9th 2003, 11:16 PM

**7** how does it feel to be; one of the beautiful
PEOPLE? (baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man ...) dig the Beatles?

shouldn't those (i.e. you) who interpret the infallible magisterium of the Catholic church have to be divinely appointed in order to interpret it?

**8** that doesn't seem necessary to me. for example, if i'm wondering about whether or not this or that belief or practice is within bounds, i can ask. since we believe in the authority of the Magisterium, and since the Magisterium is always contemporary, it therefore follows that either an answer or a boundary is always available.
this seems to me to be more inline with what went on in the Apostolic Church. questions arose, but there were people there to give definite answers. sometimes the things that Paul said were taken in precisely the wrong way ("all things are lawful for me"). in such a case, someone was there with the ability to pass a definitive and binding judgement.
and the question then becomes, what reason have we to think that new questions wouldn't arise with new times? and furthermore, what would be the mechanism whereby those new questions would be answered? that the "faith once and all delivered to the saints" already was delivered by no means implies that such a mechanism wouldn't be needed--if that were the case, then Jude wouldn't have needed to have written an epistle to state the fact.
the earliest fathers seemed to have taken this for granted. Clement understands the bishops as being appointed by the Apostles and vested with their authority, and likewise Ignatius considers the office of the bishop to be essential. Irenaeus shows up the falsehood of heretics by pointing to apostolic succession, and so on.
at the same time, it is worth considering whether or not this mechanism is essential, and if it is possible for Christianity to survive without it, and if it needed to survive without it, what would take its place. the Church's that lean on Tradition and Church seem to me to have a more sturdy epistemic frame, however.

I mean, doesn't the infallible magisterium have divine authority?

**7** yup, though i'm not sure precisely how this works out in all of its details and applications. my basic method is this--i understand Scripture in light of the fathers, and the fathers in light of the Catechism, and the Catechism in light of what the Church says today. if i still have questions (which i often do), i stay within the bounds posited by the above, taking in the thought of theologians and speculating on me own.
of course, i don't "know by heart" every doctrine that the Church i belong to expounds. that said, my assent is implicit in the act of Communion, and my own intuitions (i.e., the way i "take" Scripture) almost always coincide with the Church's official teaching.

At the very least, wouldn't you need divine appointment to interpret infallible Ex Cathedra statements?

**8** so long as you're willing to grant that communication is possible, the answer is no. were it the case, however, that the Magisterium wasn't essentially contemporary, then the answer would be yes.
peace.

Bartholomew

May 9th 2003, 11:37 PM

Welcome back.

Today @ 11:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92541#post92541)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** that doesn't seem necessary to me. for example, if i'm wondering about whether or not this or that belief or practice is within bounds, i can ask. since we believe in the authority of the Magisterium, and since the Magisterium is always contemporary, it therefore follows that either an answer or a boundary is always available.
Protestants consult the Scriptures in the same way. In fact, you could replace the word "Magisterium" with "Scripture" in your last sentence.

I said:
I mean, doesn't the infallible magisterium have divine authority?
To which Matt (not me) responded:
**7** yup
That's all I needed to know.

I said:
At the very least, wouldn't you need divine appointment to interpret infallible Ex Cathedra statements?
Matt responded:
**8** so long as you're willing to grant that communication is possible, the answer is no. were it the case, however, that the Magisterium wasn't essentially contemporary, then the answer would be yes.
peace.
I don't follow.

~Matt

greyphilosophy

May 10th 2003, 05:11 AM

I think I disagree with step 2 of the process. Just because something is not found in scripture doesn't mean it isn't from God. Maybe it would be better to say if it contradicts the word then it isn't from God.

phantaz sunlyk

May 10th 2003, 01:28 PM

**8** wussup matt? :teeth:

Protestants consult the Scriptures in the same way.

**7** then ask st. john what he meant regarding eating the flesh of Christ, and whether or not the "blood and water" that poured out of Christ's side was intentionally meant to be understood in a more-than-literal sense.
also, ask st. matthew how he understood mt. 16:18f. and whether or not the author of "Hebrews" thought the Wisdom of Solomon to be Scripture.
these are questions that those of us with a contemporary interpreting authority can get an answer to. you can't; therefore, you don't "consult Scriptures in the same way."

In fact, you could replace the word "Magisterium" with "Scripture" in your last sentence.

**8** St. John is dead. you can't put him on the witness stand and ask him what he "really" meant.

I don't follow.

**7** so you're a "leader"?
once again, not much by way of interaction from the Grand Inquisitor.
thanks for the welcome back.

Bartholomew

May 10th 2003, 02:16 PM

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92868#post92868)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** wussup matt? :teeth:
Good day to you.

I said:Protestants consult the Scriptures in the same way.
Matt Said:
**7** then ask st. john what he meant regarding eating the flesh of Christ, and whether or not the "blood and water" that poured out of Christ's side was intentionally meant to be understood in a more-than-literal sense.
also, ask st. matthew how he understood mt. 16:18f. and whether or not the author of "Hebrews" thought the Wisdom of Solomon to be Scripture.
these are questions that those of us with a contemporary interpreting authority can get an answer to. you can't; therefore, you don't "consult Scriptures in the same way."
Dear me. Are we to suppose that when I go and read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that it's not teaching a principle found throughout Christian and Jewish history? Or how about John 21:30-31? Are we to conclude that more is necessary beyond the "simple" Gospels for life, such as an interpreter that wasn't fully developed until Trent? Or that when I look at Genesis 3:15 it's actually foreshadowing Mary? What about with Revelations 12? And with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, aren't we forced to read "brothers" as cousins or step-brothers, even though the text clearly demonstrates otherwise?

What your contemporary interpreter claims to be able to do is interpret the Gospels and Scriptures in the same way the Apostles did, in ways that could never be arrived to with a plain reading and study of them, or even the earliest of Church fathers! You'd think that the Apostles didn't know how to write their own Scripture in a manner by which people could understand!

Now, why do I still hold that we consult the Scriptures in the same way you consult the Magisterium? Quite simply because we can look and do a straight reading of them, and that the doctrines never change in them...unless of course you'd like to claim that Rome's doctrines are ever changing or are unclear? Your claim that we don't consult them the same way you consult the Magisterium is, well, absurd. While you claim that we don't have access to some unspoken tradition that embodies the Apostle's original interpretation (not just teachings, as most of your denomination claims), what does this have to do with consulting the Scriptures themselves for what we need to know? The comparison is like me saying that you really don't consult the Magisterium in the same way as most Catholics, because you have access to some interpretations of their infallible decrees that were around since the decrees were made. It makes no sense and it doesn't have anything to do with how Protestants consult the Scriptures vs. how Catholics consult the Magisterium.

Oh, and I'm sure you've read Hebrews 4:12. If that does not describe a "contemporary" authority, I don't know what does.

Btw. why would I ask John about the blood and water "pouring" out of Jesus' side? Wasn't it Luke, the doctor, describing it? As far as I know, medical science has been able to identify what kind of death he had. Luke either understood what was happening, or was doing what a good doctor would do, and record the symptoms of death. To read that it was referring to John 6 is anachronistic, at best. Besides, do you think the disciples ran over to it and started eating and drinking it? Or that Holy Pious Mary, who was present at the cross, and the supper, saw an opportunity to feed and drink on Christ's literal body and flesh and went for it?

Oh, and about John 6! If you really took it literally, all you'd feed on would be Christ's body, 24/7. As far as it looks from a non-Catholic point of view, you don't take the words literally enough.

Besides, I don't see your priests consecrating people into branches in order for them to become grafted into the literal vine of Jesus Christ. What gives?

I said:
In fact, you could replace the word "Magisterium" with "Scripture" in your last sentence.
To which Matt responded:
**8** St. John is dead. you can't put him on the witness stand and ask him what he "really" meant.
He told us what the purpose of his Gospel was. I'm sure you've read it. In fact, I've even referenced it for you.

I said:
I don't follow.
To which Matt tactfully responded:
**7** so you're a "leader"?
once again, not much by way of interaction from the Grand Inquisitor.
Not much by way of clarification either. (Besides, it's hard to interact with someone who doesn't understand what and why I originally responded to this thread and responds anyway.)
thanks for the welcome back.
You're welcome.
~Matt

phantaz sunlyk

May 10th 2003, 07:14 PM

**7** wuttup homey?
thus spake zarathustra--

Dear me. Are we to suppose that when I go and read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that it's not teaching a principle found throughout Christian and Jewish history?

**8** no one would care to deny that 2 Tim. 3:16f implies a principle. what is in question is the nature of the principle, the extent of its application, and the vital context it assumes.
Christ's vesting the apostles with authority is also evidence of a principle--a principle which those after the apostles were quite aware of.
thus spake zoroaster--

Or how about John 21 [sic]:30-31? Are we to conclude that more is necessary beyond the "simple" Gospels for life,

**7** or howzabout Jn. 20:21-23?
and i know a JW who has just written a 400 page book on how Jesus isn't God--in it, he uses the passage you refer to as "proof" that since Jesus is God's Son, he therefore isn't God. people write within a context--that context is assumed and defines the sense in which their words are to be taken. your mistake is that you either assume that Scripture is trans-contextual (re your denegrating comment about Wright, Hurtado, and the like), or that it is such that it specifically and literally addresses questions of our day.

And with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, aren't we forced to read "brothers" as cousins or step-brothers, even though the text clearly demonstrates otherwise?

**7** nope. the Orthodox have usually understood it as referring to children Joseph had with a woman he was married to before Mary.
and how did Luther and Calvin understand those passages, by the way? oh, that's right! you don't need the teachings of men to help you understand Scripture! Scripture means Scripture! just the word of God, thank you very much!

What your contemporary interpreter claims to be able to do is interpret the Gospels and Scriptures in the same way the Apostles did, in ways that could never be arrived to with a plain reading and study of them, or even the earliest of Church fathers!

**8** the exact same charge could be leveled against the NT authors, who quite often went well beyond using the OT in a literal-only sense. that Paul uses allegory (Hagar, Sarah; Old Covenant, New Covenant; Slavery, Freedom) and that John uses anagogy (the bride of the Lamb, the Church) means that the use of Scripture in a more-than-literal sense is divinely sanctioned. it is this principle which has ever remained the same in the Apostles, the fathers, and today.

You'd think that the Apostles didn't know how to write their own Scripture in a manner by which people could understand!

**8** that may win you points with Farrell Till, but not with me. give me Origen after praying over John 1:1 for four hours over the modern funda-literalist with his candle and Bible and copy of Strong's any day of the week.

Now, why do I still hold that we consult the Scriptures in the same way you consult the Magisterium? Quite simply because we can look and do a straight reading of them,

**7** the fact that the apostles themselves thought the "straight reading" of the OT insufficient is proof that the "straight reading" is insufficient. the fact that Paul had to correct people's misunderstanding's of what he said--and this in his own day--is proof that the word of God, whether spoken or written, always needs a reliable interpreter.

Your claim that we don't consult them the same way you consult the Magisterium is, well, absurd

**8** it is not at all absurd. the very flatness of your response shows that you have either not perceived the problem or that you are unprepared to face it.
i can ask the Church--today--if my understanding of this or that passage or doctrine is incorrect or out of bounds. you can't do the same with St. John--he isn't going to come back from the dead and tell you whether or not you have completely misunderstood him. you can't put Paul on the witness stand and ask him in what way, exactly, we should understand 2 Tim. 3:16f. St. Matthew will not tell you whether or not it is Peter or the faith of the believer or both who is/are the "rock" upon which Christ built his Church.

Oh, and I'm sure you've read Hebrews 4:12. If that does not describe a "contemporary" authority, I don't know what does.

**7** actually, i doubt you've read Heb. 13:7. if that (alongside the fact that the epistle itself is evidence of an authority teaching the faithful) isn't evidence of a vital-context, i don't know what is.
and if the whole of Hebrews doesn't sanction a more-than-literal approach to Scripture, then i don't know what does.

Btw. why would I ask John about the blood and water "pouring" out of Jesus' side? Wasn't it Luke, the doctor, describing it?

**8** pathetic. another sola-scripturian anti-Catholic funda-literalist who doesn't even bother to read the Bible. Luke never mentions the blood and water; John mentions it in Jn. 19:34.

To read that it was referring to John 6 is anachronistic, at best.

**7** at this point in the game, i'd say that to read it at all would be a big step for you. after you've done that we can talk about what it means.

Oh, and about John 6!

**8** exclamation point (!) the rock-solid logic that follows must have excited you ...

If you really took it literally, all you'd feed on would be Christ's body, 24/7. As far as it looks from a non-Catholic point of view, you don't take the words literally enough.

**7** this is pathetic, and i'm not gonna waste my time talking to a brick-wall who can't reason his way out of a paper-bag. get back at me after you've done some more reading.

He told us what the purpose of his Gospel was. I'm sure you've read it.

**8** yes, i have read it. that makes one of us.

(Besides, it's hard to interact with someone who doesn't understand what and why I originally responded to this thread and responds anyway.)

**7** yawn.
adios. if the quality of your responses doesn't improve i'm putting you on "ignore".

Bartholomew

May 10th 2003, 08:57 PM

Today @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93119#post93119)
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** wuttup homey?
thus spake zarathustra--
I can help you unpack your thoughts, if you need.
**8** no one would care to deny that 2 Tim. 3:16f implies a principle. what is in question is the nature of the principle, the extent of its application, and the vital context it assumes.
Christ's vesting the apostles with authority is also evidence of a principle--a principle which those after the apostles were quite aware of.
thus spake zoroaster--
Sounds...good...zoroaster...
**7** or howzabout Jn. 20:21-23?
and i know a JW who has just written a 400 page book on how Jesus isn't God--in it, he uses the passage you refer to as "proof" that since Jesus is God's Son, he therefore isn't God. people write within a context--that context is assumed and defines the sense in which their words are to be taken. your mistake is that you either assume that Scripture is trans-contextual (re your denegrating comment about Wright, Hurtado, and the like), or that it is such that it specifically and literally addresses questions of our day.
It says what it says, Matt. Since the clear context indicates on type of reading, perhaps you could provide the correct "Catholic" interpretation of the passage? (I mean, com'on...we don't want everyone reading this thread to be left with my "JW" style interpretation.)

**7** nope. the Orthodox have usually understood it as referring to children Joseph had with a woman he was married to before Mary.
Earth to Matthew, this is Reading 101...I just said that one of the ways we're forced to read the passage is step-brothers! I was covering both positions, if you'd actually take some time to carefully read what I write.
and how did Luther and Calvin understand those passages, by the way? oh, that's right! you don't need the teachings of men to help you understand Scripture! Scripture means Scripture! just the word of God, thank you very much!
Luther and Calvin didn't have access to the type of Greek softward and Lexicons we do. Besides, they aren't infallible.

I love how Catholic bring up Luther and Calvin, expecting Protestants to suddenly accept their intepretation as if they were infallible, or even super-authoritative. Don't get me wrong; they were great guys. But they were just like us--fallible human beings.
**8** the exact same charge could be leveled against the NT authors, who quite often went well beyond using the OT in a literal-only sense. that Paul uses allegory (Hagar, Sarah; Old Covenant, New Covenant; Slavery, Freedom) and that John uses anagogy (the bride of the Lamb, the Church) means that the use of Scripture in a more-than-literal sense is divinely sanctioned. it is this principle which has ever remained the same in the Apostles, the fathers, and today.
The exact same charge could be leveled against the NT authors? How are they doing exactly what the Magesterium does? Last I checked, the Apostles wrote and interpreted Scripture. Your Magesterium simply interprets it.
**8** that may win you points with Farrell Till, but not with me. give me Origen after praying over John 1:1 for four hours over the modern funda-literalist with his candle and Bible and copy of Strong's any day of the week.
Okay, enjoy Origen. Just don't stick too hard to the fallible guy.

**7** the fact that the apostles themselves thought the "straight reading" of the OT insufficient is proof that the "straight reading" is insufficient. the fact that Paul had to correct people's misunderstanding's of what he said--and this in his own day--is proof that the word of God, whether spoken or written, always needs a reliable interpreter.
No one is denying the need for teachers and the like. But best of luck to you proving that the RCC is the official "interpreter" of the Scriptures.

If you'd like to use your reasoning about the Scriptures, the Magesterium must be insufficient simply because people still misunderstand it. The Traditionalists are one such example.

Like it or not, people's failure to study the Scriptures hard and prayerfully has no bearing on the quality of the Scriptures themselves. When the Gospels say "Jesus broke bread," I don't need an infallible interpreter to tell me that it really says "Joseph feed animals."
**8** it is not at all absurd. the very flatness of your response shows that you have either not perceived the problem or that you are unprepared to face it.
Let's see. If all I had said was "absurd," then maybe, just maybe, you might have a point.
i can ask the Church--today--if my understanding of this or that passage or doctrine is incorrect or out of bounds. you can't do the same with St. John--he isn't going to come back from the dead and tell you whether or not you have completely misunderstood him. you can't put Paul on the witness stand and ask him in what way, exactly, we should understand 2 Tim. 3:16f. St. Matthew will not tell you whether or not it is Peter or the faith of the believer or both who is/are the "rock" upon which Christ built his Church.
Of course I can't consult the authors of the NT, but I can look at the Scriptures to see the bounds of doctrines.

Btw. since we can ask the Church what is in bounds of doctrine, where can I go for an infallible list of doctrines which the Church has proclaimed...I'd like to start cashing in on this wonderful safe-guard of the Catholic Church.
**7** actually, i doubt you've read Heb. 13:7. if that (alongside the fact that the epistle itself is evidence of an authority teaching the faithful) isn't evidence of a vital-context, i don't know what is.
and if the whole of Hebrews doesn't sanction a more-than-literal approach to Scripture, then i don't know what does.
*sigh* Again, who's denying teachers here, Matt? No one. What's your point?
**8** pathetic. another sola-scripturian anti-Catholic funda-literalist who doesn't even bother to read the Bible. Luke never mentions the blood and water; John mentions it in Jn. 19:34.
Your true colors show.

Yes, I was incorrect in the passage. Thanks for the correction.

But, I still believe that what was being described is scientifically correct.
**7** at this point in the game, i'd say that to read it at all would be a big step for you. after you've done that we can talk about what it means.
Hm, how would you know if I've read it all?

I'll enlighten you while putting to rest your assumption: I have.

Care to discuss now?
**8** exclamation point (!) the rock-solid logic that follows must have excited you ...
You're funny. :sarcasm:
**7** this is pathetic, and i'm not gonna waste my time talking to a brick-wall who can't reason his way out of a paper-bag. get back at me after you've done some more reading.
Oops. Looks like you can't answer. Is this how you respond when someone points out the errors of your thinking?
**8** yes, i have read it. that makes one of us.
See above.
**7** yawn.
adios. if the quality of your responses doesn't improve i'm putting you on "ignore".
:rofl:

Is this how you treated Jason E. when he corrected you on the ECFs a few months ago?

Just for the record, I hope everyone notes that Matt didn't respond to the comments about Mary at the cross. Sure, I was playing a little bit, but wouldn't that be what would happen if Christ truly told us to eat of his literal flesh?

~Matt

phantaz sunlyk

May 11th 2003, 03:50 PM

**8** wuttup homey?

I can help you unpack your thoughts

**7** it appears as though you're having enough trouble unpacking your own. i'll let you know if i get ahold of any connect-the-dot books, though.

It says what it says, Matt.

**8** true true. and since it never "says" the word "Trinity", i don't need to believe in it--Scripture means Scripture ...

Since the clear context indicates on type of reading, perhaps you could provide the correct "Catholic" interpretation of the passage?

**7** that "faith" and "believing in" is not merely mental assent to certain truth claims, but the entire engagement of the person as participating in the Son. cf. chapter 17.
with your "it means what it says" easy reading its possible to be orthodox and arian at the same time.

Earth to Matthew, this is Reading 101...I just said that one of the ways we're forced to read the passage is step-brothers!

**8** you're right, my bad, i apologize.

Luther and Calvin didn't have access to the type of Greek softward and Lexicons we do. Besides, they aren't infallible.

**7** what's a "softward"?
and if lexicons and such are so important, isn't that the same as saying that every generation prior to us is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to gospel truth? after all, is God's word not God's word? are you suggesting that God couldn't have appended a lexicon to Scripture so we could all understand it correctly?

I love how Catholic bring up Luther and Calvin, expecting Protestants to suddenly accept their intepretation as if they were infallible, or even super-authoritative.

**7** that's the whole point. you have no authority at all. we make it a point to understand Scripture within the heritage of the faith of the Church; you use the ("your") fathers insofar as they agree with your reading of Scripture. if you were to become convinced that Hebrews and 1 John teach that those who sin after being "born again" lose salvation, and then leave your Church, you would be doing nothing other than adhering to the ground-principles of Protestantism.
this doesn't mean that Protestants are heretics, or that they have to perpetually divide--it simply means that based on their own ground principles, there is nothing to stop it.
are you aware of how this board--TheologyWeb--got started? over a strong disagreement on eschatology--both sides went by Scripture only, and they couldn't agree on what it meant.

The exact same charge could be leveled against the NT authors? How are they doing exactly what the Magesterium does? Last I checked, the Apostles wrote and interpreted Scripture.

**7** they interpreted the OT in a more-than-literal sense. in this way, their m o is identical to ours, and un-identical to yours, since you treat the Bible like a catechism written in newspaper format.

Okay, enjoy Origen. Just don't stick too hard to the fallible guy.

**8** it is the spirit of Origen that is to be imitated. i'd recommend you some books on this theme, but i don't know of any that come with crayons.

No one is denying the need for teachers and the like.

**7** oh really? out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius, who agreed with you regarding the theology of the Eucharist? or baptism? whatever have you "learned" from these men? do you have anything specific that you can actually say you "learned" from the fathers of the Church?
more likely, you can find a few things that agree with your take on Scripture. but as for having your intuitions conditioned or corrected by the fathers or the councils, it will never happen.

If you'd like to use your reasoning about the Scriptures, the Magesterium must be insufficient simply because people still misunderstand it. The Traditionalists are one such example.

**7** as i've said several times before, the problem with SS isn't that people misunderstand Scripture, it is that Scripture won't tell people when they are taking it the wrong way--the magisterium will. lemme break it down for you.
Scripture: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
Inquisitor: "That's just figurative, obviously. ... right?"
Scripture: ________________________________
Catechism: "The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ"
Phantaz: "Symbolically speaking, or literally?"
Phantaz's Bishop: "both. we affirm the literal sense."
that is why Catholics are on safer epistemic ground than Protestants. a Catholic is a person who is in communion with a Church that is in communion with a priest that is in communion with a bishop that is in communion with the Pope. a Protestant is a person who believes in her interpretation of the Bible.
"traditionalists" aren't Catholics for the simple reason that they reject the Roman See. but if a baptist decides that Scripture teaches the real presence and the efficacy of baptism, he doesn't stop being a protestant; rather, by that very act he has proven himself to be every bit as much a protestant as the Church he just left.

Like it or not, people's failure to study the Scriptures hard and prayerfully has no bearing on the quality of the Scriptures themselves.

**8** wow, that's a revelation.
here's one for you: don't plant corn in the winter.

When the Gospels say "Jesus broke bread," I don't need an infallible interpreter to tell me that it really says "Joseph feed animals."

**7** but if it meant anything more than the breaking of bread, you would almost certainly miss it.
take Hosea 11:1-2. When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I have called my son. The more I called, the further they went from me, sacrificing to Baals and burning incense to idols
the literal sense of this passage has nothing whatever to do with a messiah or an eternal Son of God, but what then of the way that Matthew uses it?
He stayed there until the death of Herod, to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my Son." (2:15)
the fathers of the Church were at home with this way of reading Scripture. it was not merely allowed, it was expected.

Btw. since we can ask the Church what is in bounds of doctrine, where can I go for an infallible list of doctrines which the Church has proclaimed...I'd like to start cashing in on this wonderful safe-guard of the Catholic Church.

**8** start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. but for some reason i doubt you really care.

Your true colors show.

**7** no, those colors were yours. i merely pointed out how ridiculous it is that i'm arguing with a sola-scripturian who doesn't even know his Bible.

Hm, how would you know if I've read it all?

**8** if you hadn't fumbled it so awfully, i'd certainly have less reason to think that you hadn't, which would help.

I'll enlighten you while putting to rest your assumption: I have.

**7** ummm, okay (?) i especially liked chapter 74 in the original Coptic :teeth:
howzabout ya delf?

Care to discuss now?

**8** sure. let's discuss whether or not John has a more-than-literal sense which is intrinsic to the understanding of the text. i'll be relying on my own reading, the first commentary on John by a Church father (Origen), and modern commentators such as Ben Witherington, Ray Brown, and Bruno Barnhart. we can go to the gym and set up a formal debate.
what ya say, superfiend?

Oops. Looks like you can't answer. Is this how you respond when someone points out the errors of your thinking?

**8** it doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.
i have studied logic intensely, and this is why i both laugh and am aggrevated when whipsters such as yourself point out "errors" in my thinking--i laugh because you don't know what you're talking about, and since you don't know what you're talking about, you won't know when you are wrong; then i get aggrevated.
your ability for critical thinking is worthy of no more than Farrell Till. translated into Christianity, this means that you may well be a lifer in the McDowell camp.

Is this how you treated Jason E. when he corrected you on the ECFs a few months ago?

**7** Jason Ang-wee-ur is much like yourself. as Tertullian would have put it, he uses the fathers like a drunkard uses a lamp--for support rather than illumination.

Just for the record, I hope everyone notes that Matt didn't respond to the comments about Mary at the cross. Sure, I was playing a little bit,

**8** whatever does that mean? "playing a little bit"? which "bit" were you playing with? at what point should you be taken seriously?
[speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor]--
Phantaz: since you believe in faith only, then surely you should go sleep with every girl you can and then kill someone. after all, you'll be saved anyway.
Inquiz: that's ridiculous. why would i do that? how does that follow?
Phantaz: HA! gothcha! note how he evades the question!
[/speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor]

Bartholomew

May 11th 2003, 04:53 PM

Today @ 03:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93594#post93594)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** wuttup homey?Hi.
**7** it appears as though you're having enough trouble unpacking your own. i'll let you know if i get ahold of any connect-the-dot books, though.Thanks...let me know....**8** true true. and since it never "says" the word "Trinity", i don't need to believe in it--Scripture means Scripture ...Sigh. You can find the Trinity inside of Scripture.**7** that "faith" and "believing in" is not merely mental assent to certain truth claims, but the entire engagement of the person as participating in the Son. cf. chapter 17.
with your "it means what it says" easy reading its possible to be orthodox and arian at the same time.Cool. What official source is that from?**8** you're right, my bad, i apologize.It's fine.**7** what's a "softward"?I think you're able to indentify a typo when you see one.and if lexicons and such are so important, isn't that the same as saying that every generation prior to us is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to gospel truth? after all, is God's word not God's word? are you suggesting that God couldn't have appended a lexicon to Scripture so we could all understand it correctly?No, I'm saying that Luther and Calvin couldn't have sat down with the software we have today and compared every instance of the word adelphous in the NT and the surrounding contemporary literature with a single click of the mouse.**7** that's the whole point. you have no authority at all. we make it a point to understand Scripture within the heritage of the faith of the Church; you use the ("your") fathers insofar as they agree with your reading of Scripture. if you were to become convinced that Hebrews and 1 John teach that those who sin after being "born again" lose salvation, and then leave your Church, you would be doing nothing other than adhering to the ground-principles of Protestantism.
this doesn't mean that Protestants are heretics, or that they have to perpetually divide--it simply means that based on their own ground principles, there is nothing to stop it.
are you aware of how this board--TheologyWeb--got started? over a strong disagreement on eschatology--both sides went by Scripture only, and they couldn't agree on what it meant.Matt, when we say we have Scripture as our authority that suddenly means we have no authority? And last I checked, Protestants were heretics. But you are more well read than I am. Perhaps we should debate the topic sometime?**7** they interpreted the OT in a more-than-literal sense. in this way, their m o is identical to ours, and un-identical to yours, since you treat the Bible like a catechism written in newspaper format.I still don't follow, but I don't want to waste your time here. You obviously have better discussions to do with people who understand what you're saying.**8** it is the spirit of Origen that is to be imitated. i'd recommend you some books on this theme, but i don't know of any that come with crayons.Let me know if you find one...**7** oh really? out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius, who agreed with you regarding the theology of the Eucharist? or baptism? whatever have you "learned" from these men? do you have anything specific that you can actually say you "learned" from the fathers of the Church?How does this address our discussion? No one is denying the need for teachers. And you respond with what I have learned regarding ECFs? What's the logical connection, Matt?more likely, you can find a few things that agree with your take on Scripture. but as for having your intuitions conditioned or corrected by the fathers or the councils, it will never happen.Where did I say that the fathers were to be the teachers that no one is denying? Of course, this is not to deny that**7** as i've said several times before, the problem with SS isn't that people misunderstand Scripture, it is that Scripture won't tell people when they are taking it the wrong way--the magisterium will. lemme break it down for you.
Scripture: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
Inquisitor: "That's just figurative, obviously. ... right?"
Scripture: ________________________________
Catechism: "The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ"
Phantaz: "Symbolically speaking, or literally?"
Phantaz's Bishop: "both. we affirm the literal sense."
that is why Catholics are on safer epistemic ground than Protestants. a Catholic is a person who is in communion with a Church that is in communion with a priest that is in communion with a bishop that is in communion with the Pope. a Protestant is a person who believes in her interpretation of the Bible.
"traditionalists" aren't Catholics for the simple reason that they reject the Roman See. but if a baptist decides that Scripture teaches the real presence and the efficacy of baptism, he doesn't stop being a protestant; rather, by that very act he has proven himself to be every bit as much a protestant as the Church he just left. I quoted Hebrews 4:12 for you, showing where the word of God is living and active. Although you would have others believe that is simply a dead document that requires someone else to interpret its "voice," Scripture teaches

:fundamentalist mode activated:

that Scripture has a voice that can correct and guide us. We can ignore it just like the Magesterium.**8** wow, that's a revelation.
here's one for you: don't plant corn in the winter. So you agree then? That's good.**7** but if it meant anything more than the breaking of bread, you would almost certainly miss it.
take Hosea 11:1-2. When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I have called my son. The more I called, the further they went from me, sacrificing to Baals and burning incense to idols
the literal sense of this passage has nothing whatever to do with a messiah or an eternal Son of God, but what then of the way that Matthew uses it?
He stayed there until the death of Herod, to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my Son." (2:15)
the fathers of the Church were at home with this way of reading Scripture. it was not merely allowed, it was expected.That's great.**8** start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. but for some reason i doubt you really care.Of course not; the CCC is fallible, is it not?**7** no, those colors were yours. i merely pointed out how ridiculous it is that i'm arguing with a sola-scripturian who doesn't even know his Bible.I didn't know where one passage was. Of course, I am still young and fairly new to studying the Bible, so mistakes I make plenty of.**8** if you hadn't fumbled it so awfully, i'd certainly have less reason to think that you hadn't, which would help.Do you assume this for anyone who makes a Biblical referencing mistake?**7** ummm, okay (?) i especially liked chapter 74 in the original Coptic :teeth:
howzabout ya delf?I have not read it. Is it good?**8** sure. let's discuss whether or not John has a more-than-literal sense which is intrinsic to the understanding of the text. i'll be relying on my own reading, the first commentary on John by a Church father (Origen), and modern commentators such as Ben Witherington, Ray Brown, and Bruno Barnhart. we can go to the gym and set up a formal debate.
what ya say, superfiend?I'm up for it, although I don't appreciate being called a "superfiend." I guess it goes along with coloring within the lines and connecting the dots, eh?**8** it doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.
i have studied logic intensely, and this is why i both laugh and am aggrevated when whipsters such as yourself point out "errors" in my thinking--i laugh because you don't know what you're talking about, and since you don't know what you're talking about, you won't know when you are wrong; then i get aggrevated.Let me conceed, for a moment, that I actually have no idea what I'm talking about. Wouldn't that grant a little bit of meekness on your part and kindness to someone so obviously stupid as myself?your ability for critical thinking is worthy of no more than Farrell Till. translated into Christianity, this means that you may well be a lifer in the McDowell camp.Thanks...I guess?**7** Jason Ang-wee-ur is much like yourself. as Tertullian would have put it, he uses the fathers like a drunkard uses a lamp--for support rather than illumination.Thanks again...**8** whatever does that mean? "playing a little bit"? which "bit" were you playing with? at what point should you be taken seriously?You can answer the Mary objection or not. It's up to you.[speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor]--
Phantaz: since you believe in faith only, then surely you should go sleep with every girl you can and then kill someone. after all, you'll be saved anyway.
Inquiz: that's ridiculous. why would i do that? how does that follow?
Phantaz: HA! gothcha! note how he evades the question!
[/speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor] Where did I say that? If what I said is similar to that, show it to me. Claiming that my argument is like the above is almost (but not quite) as effective as your ad hominen (sic) attacks.

I don't feel like spell checking.

~Matt

PS
If you really think I'm so clueless, why do you persist to talk to me? I don't mean discuss, simply because all I keep getting is attacked. I hope you don't act like this in our future debate.

phantaz sunlyk

May 11th 2003, 11:23 PM

**7** wuttup homey.

Sigh. You can find the Trinity inside of Scripture.

**8** you can also miss it inside Scripture or disprove it from Scripture.

Cool. What official source is that from?

**7** as though you've read any of them? if i were you i'd stick with John.

Matt, when we say we have Scripture as our authority that suddenly means we have no authority?

**8** re

And last I checked, Protestants were heretics.

**7** thus spake the Grand Inquisitor.
i said...
"they interpreted the OT in a more-than-literal sense. in this way, their m o is identical to ours, and un-identical to yours, since you treat the Bible like a catechism written in newspaper format."
you said...

I still don't follow

**8** i believe you. you're not yet capable of making a relevant point. but hey, keep the photo of St. Peter's on your dart board and hit those svedensen and white books hard this summer--that'll certainly help.

How does this address our discussion? No one is denying the need for teachers. And you respond with what I have learned regarding ECFs?

**7** o i c. the bishops of the Church from 90 to 400 a.d. don't count.

What's the logical connection, Matt?

**8** you're using the word logic in the wrong way--i'd be willing to bet an ice-cream cone that you'd do no better than a C if you actually took a logic class.

I quoted Hebrews 4:12 for you, showing where the word of God is living and active. Although you would have others believe that is simply a dead document that requires someone else to interpret its "voice,"

**7** in the Bible the "word" of God doesn't refer to the "written word" simpliciter. the logos/dabar is a far broader conceptual category and it includes Tradition and Church structure within it.

Of course not; the CCC is fallible, is it not?

**8** in certain respects, yes.

I didn't know where one passage was.

**7** oh, but don't you remember? you did know where it was. the pierced side in the gospel of Luke the doctor. i'm all kinds of impressed.

Of course, I am still young and fairly new to studying the Bible

**8** why don't you come back after you've read the Bible and dropped your attitude.

Do you assume this for anyone who makes a Biblical referencing mistake?

**7** it wasn't a simple typo. it was a gross error made even worse by your commentary regarding "luke the doctor". inferences are us.

I don't appreciate being called a "superfiend."

**8** i'll debate a Protestant who doesn't make Protestantism look silly.
you don't like being called "superfiend"? check yourself on the "Catholicism" thread. you can't not make a wrong move.

I guess it goes along with coloring within the lines and connecting the dots, eh?

**7** you'd know better than me.

Let me conceed, for a moment, that I actually have no idea what I'm talking about. Wouldn't that grant a little bit of meekness on your part and kindness to someone so obviously stupid as myself?

**8** you've been a jerk to me since i first responded to you--anyone who doubts it can check the Catholicism (or, in the wacky world of InquisitorKind, "Jack Chick or Augustine's moot point") thread. the measure which you deal has been dealt unto you--its unfortunate that you don't really seek meekness or kindness. you lack the requisite sincerity.
and now, the following was, in usual style, completely ignored by the Grand Inquisitor in his latest "response"--

**8** true true. and since it never "says" the word "Trinity", i don't need to believe in it--Scripture means Scripture ...

**7** that "faith" and "believing in" is not merely mental assent to certain truth claims, but the entire engagement of the person as participating in the Son. cf. chapter 17.
with your "it means what it says" easy reading its possible to be orthodox and arian at the same time.

**7** what's a "softward"?
and if lexicons and such are so important, isn't that the same as saying that every generation prior to us is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to gospel truth? after all, is God's word not God's word? are you suggesting that God couldn't have appended a lexicon to Scripture so we could all understand it correctly?

**7** that's the whole point. you have no authority at all. we make it a point to understand Scripture within the heritage of the faith of the Church; you use the ("your") fathers insofar as they agree with your reading of Scripture. if you were to become convinced that Hebrews and 1 John teach that those who sin after being "born again" lose salvation, and then leave your Church, you would be doing nothing other than adhering to the ground-principles of Protestantism.
this doesn't mean that Protestants are heretics, or that they have to perpetually divide--it simply means that based on their own ground principles, there is nothing to stop it.
are you aware of how this board--TheologyWeb--got started? over a strong disagreement on eschatology--both sides went by Scripture only, and they couldn't agree on what it meant.

**7** they interpreted the OT in a more-than-literal sense. in this way, their m o is identical to ours, and un-identical to yours, since you treat the Bible like a catechism written in newspaper format. [ed. note--he "didn't get" this one]

**8** it is the spirit of Origen that is to be imitated. i'd recommend you some books on this theme, but i don't know of any that come with crayons.

**7** oh really? out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius, who agreed with you regarding the theology of the Eucharist? or baptism? whatever have you "learned" from these men? do you have anything specific that you can actually say you "learned" from the fathers of the Church?
more likely, you can find a few things that agree with your take on Scripture. but as for having your intuitions conditioned or corrected by the fathers or the councils, it will never happen.

**7** as i've said several times before, the problem with SS isn't that people misunderstand Scripture, it is that Scripture won't tell people when they are taking it the wrong way--the magisterium will. lemme break it down for you.
Scripture: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
Inquisitor: "That's just figurative, obviously. ... right?"
Scripture: ________________________________
Catechism: "The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ"
Phantaz: "Symbolically speaking, or literally?"
Phantaz's Bishop: "both. we affirm the literal sense."
that is why Catholics are on safer epistemic ground than Protestants. a Catholic is a person who is in communion with a Church that is in communion with a priest that is in communion with a bishop that is in communion with the Pope. a Protestant is a person who believes in her interpretation of the Bible.
"traditionalists" aren't Catholics for the simple reason that they reject the Roman See. but if a baptist decides that Scripture teaches the real presence and the efficacy of baptism, he doesn't stop being a protestant; rather, by that very act he has proven himself to be every bit as much a protestant as the Church he just left.

**7** but if it meant anything more than the breaking of bread, you would almost certainly miss it.
take Hosea 11:1-2. When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I have called my son. The more I called, the further they went from me, sacrificing to Baals and burning incense to idols
the literal sense of this passage has nothing whatever to do with a messiah or an eternal Son of God, but what then of the way that Matthew uses it?
He stayed there until the death of Herod, to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my Son." (2:15)
the fathers of the Church were at home with this way of reading Scripture. it was not merely allowed, it was expected.

**8** start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. but for some reason i doubt you really care. [ed. note--IK has seen some passages from the Catechism in a William Webster book once. he wasn't impressed.]

**8** whatever does that mean? "playing a little bit"? which "bit" were you playing with? at what point should you be taken seriously?
[speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor]--
Phantaz: since you believe in faith only, then surely you should go sleep with every girl you can and then kill someone. after all, you'll be saved anyway.
Inquiz: that's ridiculous. why would i do that? how does that follow?
Phantaz: HA! gothcha! note how he evades the question!
[/speaking the language of the Grand Inquisitor]

**7** ya say--

Looks like I'm not on "ignore"

**8** you are now.

Bartholomew

May 12th 2003, 12:10 AM

Sorry things had to end this way.

~Matt

brianberean

May 19th 2003, 08:40 PM

Hi Phantaz,

Your post brings up a few questions for me:

**8** that doesn't seem necessary to me. for example, if i'm wondering about whether or not this or that belief or practice is within bounds, i can ask. since we believe in the authority of the Magisterium, and since the Magisterium is always contemporary, it therefore follows that either an answer or a boundary is always available.

>>>How do you go about asking your Magisterium a question? Is the answer you get an infallible one?

Most evangelicals have designated teachers or those in authority they can ask for clarification as well.

**8** so long as you're willing to grant that communication is possible, the answer is no. were it the case, however, that the Magisterium wasn't essentially contemporary, then the answer would be yes.
peace. [/QUOTE]

>>>If the answer to my second question is "no", then I don't see evangelicalism being any different. We have teachers, pastors, etc. who are "essentially contemporary" who can give us definite answers concerning scripture.

My point, which I fear I'm not articulating clearly, is that your system seems to have no "infallible" advantage over the evangelicals system. You are relying on fallible teachers (unless the Magistereum answers to each question you have for them are considered infallible answers) to help you interpret "infallible" sources.

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

May 19th 2003, 11:22 PM

**8** say hey Brian, peace--

>>>How do you go about asking your Magisterium a question?

**7** i've only had to once (as i have an adequate home library that i spend plenty of time in). in this case, i didn't need to take the issue any further than my priest, as the answer he gave me was further corroborated by other evidence i soon discovered (being (1)an official declaration by the Pope which, amazingly, addressed the precise issue i had a question on, alongside (2)reading the work of a theologian--who agreed with me on this issue--who was officially honored by the Church with the Paul VI prize in theology, being the highest honor available for theological achievment in the Catholic Church, and finally (3)seeing that the work of other theologians, who served the Vatican II council as theological experts, gave answers coincident with mine.
the question was over the Monarchy of the Father within the Trinity, and the possible implications thereof. last month i had my stance confirmed even further in a conversion i was fortunate enough to have with a monk who was acquainted with Karl Rahner, and who wrote an entire book on his Christology in Rome.

Is the answer you get an infallible one?

**7** not necessarily. as in the above case, the average questioning is likely to begin with the local priest (similarly, the average Protestant, i suppose, might bring his question to the pastor of the church he goes to).
that said, you've got a decent shot of getting the right (and thus, "infallible") answer from your local priest, and if he is unable to answer your question, he would be more likely to guide you to someone who could, rather than give you the wrong answer.
but even granting that, it seems to me possible for a priest to give a wrong answer (and thus not "infallible"). what, then, distinguishes the Catholic from the Protestant? this--that the Catholic can seek out a Bishop or a Cardinal (someone "higher up" with more teaching authority), and that Bishop or Cardinal can give a specific, definite answer--even if the answer is merely the drawing of boundaries around the various beliefs that can be believed in, without having to choose one specifically.
for example, creation-evolution, eschatology, and the possibility of those outside the Church being saved, are all issues that aren't defined with extreme precision, thus allowing room for speculation. in such cases, there are points that must be affirmed (i.e., that the creation of the first human was a special and specific act of God; that Christ will literally return to earth at his second coming; that anyone who is saved is saved by Christ; etc.), yet at the same time there is room for further reflection.
but, in sum, i'd say that the main difference is this. the Catholic believes in an infallible authority. this authority is constantly addressing the issues of this day, whether through oral teaching or the publication of encyclicals (hence i can trace my Trinity stance, not only back to Scripture, not only back to the Fathers, not only back to the theologians of the middle ages, not only back to my priest, not only back to theological experts within my Church, not only back to arguably the greatest theologian my Church has produced this generation, but also to an official statement by the pope himself which was written within my generation. the Protestant does not believe in an infallible authority--for the Protestant, his pastor may be right, he may be wrong; the one thing the Protestant does know for sure is that his Bible isn't wrong. hence, it seems to me, the Protestant isn't necessarily bound to anything outside of his "take" on Scripture. a Catholic, on the other hand, is bound to the current teaching of the magisterium whether he likes it or not (and i don't like the prohibition of marijuana, i don't like the fact that women can't be priests, i do think that there is a decent argument for birth control, i do like the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on many issues moreso than the stance adopted by my Church, and so on). if the Catholic insists on holding to and advancing/acting upon, these views, he ceases to be Catholic (the "traditionalists" come to mind here, alongside the "liberal catholics"--one of whom, "bishop potts", is a member of this forum). but if the Protestant leaves his Church because he sees something in Scripture that his Church doesn't, he doesn't cease to be a Protestant; quite the contrary, he is doing nothing other than being consistent with the ultimate ground principle of his theological epistemology--that Scripture is his final authority, and that all his teachers may well be in the wrong. "let God be true and every man a liar".

Most evangelicals have designated teachers or those in authority they can ask for clarification as well.

**7** true, but their "authority" isn't on par with, for example, the authority a Catholic believes his Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope to have.
the people in Paul's congregations misunderstood him in his day, and he addressed those misunderstandings "whether by word of mouth or in written form" with an authoritative and binding answer (or, in some instances, merely giving advice)--he didn't, for example, tell his congregations to "pray over the holy writings of Scripture, and the Spirit certainly will answer any questions you have"; rather, he himself provided the answers.
what reason have we to think that questions would stop, or that believers would no longer misunderstand the writings of the apostles and prophets? and if Paul answered questions in his day, and John wanted to discuss the important matters "not merely in writing, but face to face", why should we expect that such a mechanism would be denied to the Church in later years?
the Catholic answer seems to me to be more coherent.

If the answer to my second question is "no", then I don't see evangelicalism being any different. We have teachers, pastors, etc. who are "essentially contemporary" who can give us definite answers concerning scripture.

**8** aye, but the answer was "yes". and, as you indicate above, you don't believe your teacher/authority to be vested with infallibility, and this is a huge difference.

My point, which I fear I'm not articulating clearly, is that your system seems to have no "infallible" advantage over the evangelicals system. You are relying on fallible teachers (unless the Magistereum answers to each question you have for them are considered infallible answers) to help you interpret "infallible" sources.

**8** aye, i see what you're doing. basically, the argument runs like this--
"Catholics criticize Protestants for 'not having an infallible guide to tell them how to understand infallible Scripture', and claim that the Protestant in turn has to make himself an infallible Pope if he is to trust his own reading of Scripture. Yet isn't this inconsistent? The Catholic does the same thing with the official statements of the Church, does he not?" and so on.
but there is a key, crucial difference between us, and this due to the fact that their is an actual, final, and empirical authority available in our Church--the Pope. if, for example, my take on the Trinity had been wrong, his statement on the subject would have corrected me.
one last thing to keep in mind: it will of course be granted that the common man hasn't the time to study the finer points of theology, and therefore is likely to be in the dark on a great number of issues. in light of this it is worth pointing out that the foundation of Catholic unity is participation in the celebration of the Eucharist, for by participating in this, the Catholic participates in Christ in communion with the whole Church, and thereby assent to all Catholic truth is given at the implicit level (actually, i think the Pope just issued a statement on that topic this Easter).
i hope that helped, and i hope you sincerely want to discuss this issue rather than argue with me. also, i apologize if anything in my previous posts to InquisitorKind offended you--i assure you that that isn't my common mode of communicating with those who disagree with me.
peace.

brianberean

May 20th 2003, 10:46 PM

Hi Phantaz -

Thanks for answering. I have a couple follow-ups and counter-points...

Is the answer you get an infallible one?

**7** not necessarily. as in the above case, the average questioning is likely to begin with the local priest (similarly, the average Protestant, i suppose, might bring his question to the pastor of the church he goes to).
that said, you've got a decent shot of getting the right (and thus, "infallible") answer from your local priest, and if he is unable to answer your question, he would be more likely to guide you to someone who could, rather than give you the wrong answer.
but even granting that, it seems to me possible for a priest to give a wrong answer (and thus not "infallible"). what, then, distinguishes the Catholic from the Protestant? this--that the Catholic can seek out a Bishop or a Cardinal (someone "higher up" with more teaching authority), and that Bishop or Cardinal can give a specific, definite answer

Questions:

How likely is it that you, as an individual RC with a question, would get an indepth answer from a bishop or cardinal?

Even if your answer came from a Cardinal it wouldn't be "infallible" in this circumstance would it?

Is there any circumstance where an individual RC can get an answer to his or her specific question that is an "infallible" answer? (Assuming that the answer doesn't lay somewhere within an "infallible" council or papal decree)

but, in sum, i'd say that the main difference is this. the Catholic believes in an infallible authority. this authority is constantly addressing the issues of this day, whether through oral teaching or the publication of encyclicals

When does this authority "constantly address issues of this day" in an infallible manner?

Papal encyclicals aren't considered "infallible" are they?

Most RCs I talk to think that a pope has only spoken infallibly twice in the history of the church.

the Protestant does not believe in an infallible authority--for the Protestant, his pastor may be right, he may be wrong; the one thing the Protestant does know for sure is that his Bible isn't wrong. hence, it seems to me, the Protestant isn't necessarily bound to anything outside of his "take" on Scripture.

You have a good point, although I don't necessarily think its a negative. After all, all saints are instructed to find out what is acceptable to the Lord, in knowledge and discernment approve all things that are excellent and to have no fellowship with unfruitful works (phil 1 and eph 5) . We all will be judged by God individually for our individual choices correct?

if the Catholic insists on holding to and advancing/acting upon, these views, he ceases to be Catholic (the "traditionalists" come to mind here, alongside the "liberal catholics"--one of whom, "bishop potts", is a member of this forum). but if the Protestant leaves his Church because he sees something in Scripture that his Church doesn't, he doesn't cease to be a Protestant;

The liberal and traditionalist catholics will tell us they are catholics. Hans Kung for example, is still a priest in good standing as far as I know.

A protestant does remain a protestant, but this is like saying a Christian remains a Christian when he leaves the RCC. Just as in the RCC if an Evangelical Lutheran leaves his church he doesn't remain an Evangelical Lutheran.

quite the contrary, he is doing nothing other than being consistent with the ultimate ground principle of his theological epistemology--that Scripture is his final authority, and that all his teachers may well be in the wrong. "let God be true and every man a liar".

Sounds like Athanasius :shocked:

Most evangelicals have designated teachers or those in authority they can ask for clarification as well.

**7** true, but their "authority" isn't on par with, for example, the authority a Catholic believes his Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope to have.

While this is definately true for some, I don't know if it's an accurate statement in general. In practice, church authority is very real for the majority of protestants.

the people in Paul's congregations misunderstood him in his day, and he addressed those misunderstandings "whether by word of mouth or in written form" with an authoritative and binding answer (or, in some instances, merely giving advice)--he didn't, for example, tell his congregations to "pray over the holy writings of Scripture, and the Spirit certainly will answer any questions you have"; rather, he himself provided the answers.

Yes but Paul recieved a special revelation from Christ and spoke on that authority. Nobody alive today has this unique qualification. Today the only place we can find the answers directly from someone who had those types of qualifications is in Scripture.

what reason have we to think that questions would stop, or that believers would no longer misunderstand the writings of the apostles and prophets? and if Paul answered questions in his day, and John wanted to discuss the important matters "not merely in writing, but face to face", why should we expect that such a mechanism would be denied to the Church in later years?
the Catholic answer seems to me to be more coherent.

I see your point. However, during "ordinary" times throughout OT history (when oral revelation wasn't ocurring) the Jews didn't have a special prophet of God to lead them. During these times they were left with Scripture. Therefore, during "ordinary" times in the NT era it is not unthinkable for the church to be left with the same situation.

but there is a key, crucial difference between us, and this due to the fact that their is an actual, final, and empirical authority available in our Church--the Pope.

The vast majority of protestant churches have an empirical, final authority available.

i hope that helped, and i hope you sincerely want to discuss this issue rather than argue with me. also, i apologize if anything in my previous posts to InquisitorKind offended you--i assure you that that isn't my common mode of communicating with those who disagree with me.
peace.

I don't know about you. The only two threads I've read that you participated in were the one with Matt and one with Jason Engwer and you treated Engwer even worse :huh:

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

May 21st 2003, 01:17 AM

**8** say hey Brian--

How likely is it that you, as an individual RC with a question, would get an indepth answer from a bishop or cardinal?

**7** as likely as i desire it to be. had my priest not been able to have given an answer, you can bet that i'm intense enough over theology to have the nerve and verve to track down my bishop, and if need be, a cardinal.
but can you give any example of such a situation that may require such? i honestly can't.

Even if your answer came from a Cardinal it wouldn't be "infallible" in this circumstance would it?

**8** depends on the context of the questioning, but most likely, a valid answer (and therefore infallible), and even if not, authoritative nonetheless. like a kid with his parents; even though the parents are wrong in 5% of the time, as a matter of principle it is safe to adopt the stance of following their advice as a rule of thumb.
but once again, i think you're burying the issue in abstraction (it is possible to imagine a scenario such that...) to the point that it is divorced from reality and practicality.
i already gave you a concrete example of how a real question i did have was actually answered for me--and this answer came with a definitive stamp from a source that i recognize as having authority, and the effects of that answer really effected (or could have) the stance i take on the doctrine i asked about. if the Pope's statement (and the Catechism, and the theologians, and my priest) on the monarchy of the Father had been different, i guarantee you my theology would in turn have been modified.

Is there any circumstance where an individual RC can get an answer to his or her specific question that is an "infallible" answer? (Assuming that the answer doesn't lay somewhere within an "infallible" council or papal decree)

**8** can you think of what that circumstance or question might be? a 2,000 year old Church, of course, has a considerable body of literature that it can consult if it needs to; all the more so when it recognizes certain of these as authoritative, and the source of that authority as always contemporary.

When does this authority "constantly address issues of this day" in an infallible manner?

**7** that the authority is priveleged with infallibility does not entail that it will always use it--or need to use it.
when does it do it infallibly? whenever it needs to.
when does it do it authoritatively? whenever it does it at all.

Papal encyclicals aren't considered "infallible" are they?

**8** not sure. but again, i don't see why they'd need to be.

Most RCs I talk to think that a pope has only spoken infallibly twice in the history of the church.

**7** when were these times, and what, specifically, occasioned the adoption of issuing an infallible decree?

After all, all saints are instructed to find out what is acceptable to the Lord, in knowledge and discernment approve all things that are excellent and to have no fellowship with unfruitful works (phil 1 and eph 5) .

**8** two things. first, i don't see anything in the New Testament that presupposes and individualistic (rather than community based) epistemology for such issues (the ethiopian eunuch, Acts 15, Paul telling them to settle their disputes amongst themselves rather than in a secular court, 1 Cor. 13, i think). second, there is an authority structure within that community (Titus).

We all will be judged by God individually for our individual choices correct?

**7** re the comments on "community" above, and Paul's analogy of the body (when one member suffers, the whole body suffers).
i'm not certain how, exactly, judgement will work out. i'm quite certain that there will be a communal aspect to it, however.

The liberal and traditionalist catholics will tell us they are catholics.

**8** it doesn't matter what they call themselves--JW's will tell us that they follow "the bible only", and if i believe in Papal Infallibility while calling myself a "Southern Baptist", certainly my claim would avail reality but little.

Hans Kung for example, is still a priest in good standing as far as I know.

**7** he may well be--he is, as far as i know, under theological censure however (which means he either can't write on certain topics, or that his books will be discountenanced by Rome).
to be censured doesn't automatically entail your being excommunicated. and i don't see why it should.
keep in mind what i said about the Eucharist in my previous post: Protestants think of Christian identity primarily in terms of "accepting as true the following claims..."; Catholics and the East think of Christian identity in terms primarily of participation. hence it seems to me that your imposing Protestant criteria where they don't apply.

Just as in the RCC if an Evangelical Lutheran leaves his church he doesn't remain an Evangelical Lutheran.

**8** the analogy fails because of the difference of principles in the distinct bodies you mentioned. the Catholic would be violating his epistemic principles; the Protestant would be affirming them. the Catholic would cease to be Catholic; the Protestant would cease to be a Calvinist (for example) but would remain every bit as much a Protestant as when he was one.
this was the whole point of the analogy. that you can circumscribe "Catholic" and "Baptist" and "Lutheran" and "Anabaptist" under the common linguistic convention of "denominations" doesn't do away with the substance of the problem.

Sounds like Athanasius

**8** no it doesn't.
Athanasius' trinitarian theology was grounded in the Alexandrian theology of the Fatherhood of God which was explicitly present in Origen, Dionysius, Alexander, and others. the hermeneutic he utilized when interpreting Scripture was utilized precisely to defend Scripture so understood--and i have yet to see a Protestant adopt the same approach to Scripture that Athanasius did, still less approach or articulate the doctrine of the Trinity in the manner he did (have you ever used 1 Cor. 1:24 in conjuntion with Rom. 1:20 as proof of the Son's divinity? were you aware that you could?) that Athanasius disagreed with bishops is hardly to the point--he was himself a bishop (and he did turn to Rome for support, which suggests a certain sense of primacy, atleast in his eyes). Athanasius' adherence to the Council of Nicea is an example of adhering to ecclesial authority--the later creeds that offered opposite theologies were understood by him as being disqualified due to that very fact.
the Arians, if anyone, were the hardcore sola scripturians in the Nicene era (aside from Eunomius, who rationalized poorly with a tactless lack of caution). the definitive study on the Nicene era, R P C Hanson's _The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God_, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, comes to the same conclusion.

In practice, church authority is very real for the majority of protestants.

**8** it may not matter much--the majority of Protestants i know don't need authority, for the simple reason that they don't read their bibles enough to realize that there may be questions that need answering. i work with several, and i talk with them every day. one is a youth pastor (Assemblies of God), and he hasn't even read the whole of the New Testament. another one--a person largely responsible for my conversion to Christianity (i was baptized Lutheran in 2000), hasn't even read any book of the Bible the whole way through. they're both great people, though, and outstanding models of Christian life.
the majority of Catholics are, of course, just as lax. but the point is this--if anything, the common predisposition towards recognizing a authority is most likely simply a common faculty in the human soul. when we have questions, we expect someone to be there to answer; and we expect someone to know what to believe and do who will be there to tell us.

Yes but Paul recieved a special revelation from Christ and spoke on that authority. Nobody alive today has this unique qualification.

**8** Paul also felt it necessary to link up with the apostles to make sure he had "not run in vain", and if the pastorals don't give evidence of Paul "passing the torch", i don't know what you would call it. strong confirmatory power for my take on this issue is evident in Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians.

Therefore, during "ordinary" times in the NT era it is not unthinkable for the church to be left with the same situation.

**7** the relationship between the Jews and God was one resembling what we would call a contract. Deuteronomy lists blessings and woes, the enactment of which depends upon the faithfulness of the nation to the law. and on the side, the priests were recognized as having authority (for better or worse). thus Saul, a Pharisee, has to get permission to persecute the Christians.
the Church is in quite a different category. Christians are grafted into a living body, the head of which is Christ. the OT notion of salvation was covenental nomism; the NT is that of participation in the very being of the Son of God (John 17; Galatians, Ephesians, 1 John).
i grant that what you argue for isn't unthinkable. it is also not unthinkable that the NT should be ignored, with God wishing rather for us to simply "follow the impulse of the Spirit, and let it guide you." but the issue isn't what is and is not theoretically possible, the issue is what is probable, and what the evidence we do have suggests. we have, i would argue, good reason for thinking this (your model) not to be the case. first, i'd cite the a priori argument i already gave above (to which you conceded that you "saw my point"). next, i'd cite certain facts and episodes in the NT (Acts 15; Paul's pastoral epistles). finally, i'd cite the emergence of the bishop in the Church of the second century, with Clement in the first claiming this to be an institution put in place by the apostles themselves.

I don't know about you.

**8** i don't blame ya--i tend to earn either hatred or strong friendship from everyone i talk to.

The only two threads I've read that you participated in were the one with Matt and one with Jason Engwer and you treated Engwer even worse

**7** i had a problem with Jason's m o, and offered to systematically approach the issue from Clement onward, but he insisted on prooftexting.
as for Matt, check out the "Catholicism" thread (in Religion 102) to see how things went south. i made it a point to try to be nice to him, but he was rude to me from the go. i fight a spark with a blow-torch, perhaps this is a fault of mine, yet i never draw first blood.
judge me by the way i've interacted with you. i never insulted you, because you never insulted me. i was never rude to you, because you were never rude to me. i've tried to honestly answer your questions, because you seem sincere. and so on.
peace.

brianberean

May 21st 2003, 03:11 PM

Today @ 06:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102867#post102867)
Hey Phantaz,

[quote]**7** as likely as i desire it to be. had my priest not been able to have given an answer, you can bet that i'm intense enough over theology to have the nerve and verve to track down my bishop, and if need be, a cardinal.
but can you give any example of such a situation that may require such? i honestly can't.

I beleive you'd get your answer. I can't think of an example. The reason I ask is because you brought it up as one advantage the RC has over the evangelical (at least that's how I understood you). If neither one of us can think of an example, then it's probably not too much of an advantage.

Even if your answer came from a Cardinal it wouldn't be "infallible" in this circumstance would it?

**8** depends on the context of the questioning, but most likely, a valid answer (and therefore infallible), and even if not, authoritative nonetheless.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you're equating "correct" (valid) with "infallible". An evangelical can get an answer they are certain is "correct" from someone in authority who they beleive is not infallible. I could ask you a question and get an answer that is 100% correct yet you know claim to be personally infallible. Would you agree that a fallible person can be 100% correct on any (or many) given subject(s)?

i already gave you a [I]concrete example of how a real question i did have was actually answered for me--and this answer came with a definitive stamp from a source that i recognize as having authority, and the effects of that answer really effected (or could have) the stance i take on the doctrine i asked about. if the Pope's statement (and the Catechism, and the theologians, and my priest) on the monarchy of the Father had been different, i guarantee you my theology would in turn have been modified.

What I'm trying to find out is where the RC's "infallible" advantage comes into play in the type of scenario we are discussing. I'm not talking about knowing someone's credibility and qualifications are above reproach so therefore knowing that they are in all likelyhood going to provide a "valid" answer. I'm looking for the power of "infallibility" as the RCC officially claims it has. I understand ex cathedra statements and ecunemical councils but at what other times specifically is "infallibility" exercised within the RCC?

Is there any circumstance where an individual RC can get an answer to his or her specific question that is an "infallible" answer? (Assuming that the answer doesn't lay somewhere within an "infallible" council or papal decree)

**8** can you think of what that circumstance or question might be?

None specifically. Again I'm working off of what I understood one of your contentions of the RC's "infallible" advantage to be. I'm specifically addressing this statement you made, "i'd say that the main difference is this. the Catholic believes in an infallible authority. this authority is constantly addressing the issues of this day". From what I can tell (and I may be wrong) most catholics beleive there hasn't been an "infallible" addressing of issues since Vatican II and some beleive Vatican II wasn't infallible. I've never heard an RC make the claim you made so I'm trying to better understand what you meant.

When does this authority "constantly address issues of this day" in an infallible manner?

**7** that the authority is priveleged with infallibility does not entail that it will always use it--or need to use it.
when does it do it infallibly? whenever it needs to.
when does it do it authoritatively? whenever it does it at all.

I guess this is more how I understand it. I think if you look at how rarely the alleged powers of "infallibility" are used they aren't really the advantage to the catholic with a question that you seemed to be saying they were. Protestant churches excercise authority whenever they do it as well.

Papal encyclicals aren't considered "infallible" are they?

**8** not sure. but again, i don't see why they'd need to be.

Most RCs I talk to think that a pope has only spoken infallibly twice in the history of the church.

**7** when were these times, and what, specifically, occasioned the adoption of issuing an infallible decree?

Again, just trying to nail down that "infallible" advantage. I think I can safely say that the majority of RC apologists don't beleive papal encyclicals are "infallible" so they wouldn't be an "infallible" advantage. The two times most RCs I talk to claim the pope has spoken ex cathedra are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Some RC apologist claim more than two. Some claim there were 4 or 6 or up to 18. It seems that nobody really knows.

**8** two things. first, i don't see anything in the New Testament that presupposes and individualistic (rather than community based) epistemology for such issues (the ethiopian eunuch, Acts 15, Paul telling them to settle their disputes amongst themselves rather than in a secular court, 1 Cor. 13, i think). second, there is an authority structure within that community (Titus).

Matt 13 the parable of the sower and the seeds seems to speak to the individual responsibility of each believer. At the least I think scripture is clear we will each be rewarded individual for our works. (matt 16:27)

Hans Kung for example, is still a priest in good standing as far as I know.

**7** he may well be--he is, as far as i know, under theological censure however (which means he either can't write on certain topics, or that his books will be discountenanced by Rome).
to be censured doesn't automatically entail your being excommunicated. and i don't see why it should.
keep in mind what i said about the Eucharist in my previous post: Protestants think of Christian identity primarily in terms of "accepting as true the following claims..."; Catholics and the East think of Christian identity in terms primarily of participation. hence it seems to me that your imposing Protestant criteria where they don't apply.

The reason I mentioned Kung is because he seems like one person who "insists on holding to and advancing upon these views" (Kung is reluctant to call Jesus "God", he rejects the historocity of the virgin birth, and rejects papal infallibility) as you put it yet he remains a catholic in good standing. From what I understood you saying, someone like Kung shouldn't be called a catholic.

Just as in the RCC if an Evangelical Lutheran leaves his church he doesn't remain an Evangelical Lutheran.

**8** the analogy fails because of the difference of principles in the distinct bodies you mentioned. the Catholic would be violating his epistemic principles; the Protestant would be affirming them. the Catholic would cease to be Catholic; the Protestant would cease to be a Calvinist (for example) but would remain every bit as much a Protestant as when he was one.
this was the whole point of the analogy. that you can circumscribe "Catholic" and "Baptist" and "Lutheran" and "Anabaptist" under the common linguistic convention of "denominations" doesn't do away with the substance of the problem.

Protestantism is a movement, not a denomination and your argument fails on that distinction in my opinion. Lutheranism is a denomination, Southern Baptists are a denomination, Eastern Orthodox are a denomination, RCs are a denomination so that comparison is accurate.

Sounds like Athanasius

**8** no it doesn't.

I don't think a discussion about Athanasius would be too productive. It would include me writing, "huh?" alot. :smile:

I'm not trying to "proof text" Athanasius but from what I've read I think he held Scripture above everything:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)

Don't feel you have to give an indepth response as my only response at this point would probably be "huh?".

I agree with your comments on "authority" so I snipped them.

Yes but Paul recieved a special revelation from Christ and spoke on that authority. Nobody alive today has this unique qualification.

**8** Paul also felt it necessary to link up with the apostles to make sure he had "not run in vain", and if the pastorals don't give evidence of Paul "passing the torch", i don't know what you would call it. strong confirmatory power for my take on this issue is evident in Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians.

Paul wasn't checking to make sure his teachings were correct. If the pastorals don't give evidence that Paul was sure his teachings were from Christ I don't know what would. I agree that Paul passes the torch of leadership, but not his unique standing and authority. I am somewhat familiar with Clement's epistle (read it through once and studied various aspects of also), could you expound on that point.

Therefore, during "ordinary" times in the NT era it is not unthinkable for the church to be left with the same situation.

**7** the relationship between the Jews and God was one resembling what we would call a contract. Deuteronomy lists blessings and woes, the enactment of which depends upon the faithfulness of the nation to the law. and on the side, the priests were recognized as having authority (for better or worse). thus Saul, a Pharisee, has to get permission to persecute the Christians.
the Church is in quite a different category. Christians are grafted into a living body, the head of which is Christ. the OT notion of salvation was covenental nomism; the NT is that of participation in the very being of the Son of God (John 17; Galatians, Ephesians, 1 John).
i grant that what you argue for isn't unthinkable. it is also not unthinkable that the NT should be ignored, with God wishing rather for us to simply "follow the impulse of the Spirit, and let it guide you." but the issue isn't what is and is not theoretically possible, the issue is what is probable, and what the evidence we do have suggests. we have, i would argue, good reason for thinking this (your model) not to be the case. first, i'd cite the a priori argument i already gave above (to which you conceded that you "saw my point"). next, i'd cite certain facts and episodes in the NT (Acts 15; Paul's pastoral epistles). finally, i'd cite the emergence of the bishop in the Church of the second century, with Clement in the first claiming this to be an institution put in place by the apostles themselves.

I think if when it comes down to the bottom line I'd agree with most everything you believe about NT church government except that I'd maintain it should all be subjected to Scripture with the saints (either individually or corporately) ultimately responsible for finding out what is acceptable to the Lord, in knowledge and discernment approving all things that are excellent and to have no fellowship with unfruitful works and not being subjected to a church government that is responsible for doing those things for them and mandating their beliefs. (That was a long sentence :hrm: )

judge me by the way i've interacted with you. i never insulted you, because you never insulted me. i was never rude to you, because you were never rude to me. i've tried to honestly answer your questions, because you seem sincere. and so on.
peace.

Sounds good to me.

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

May 23rd 2003, 01:07 AM

**7** say hey brian, just a heads up--i'll be debating a JW over the Trinity in the upcoming days, so my posts here will probably be sparse.
also, i wanted to say that i appreciate your courteous disposition towards me. it has been good to talk with you :smile:
this post will be very brief, as its late and i'm reading a book i want to finish by tomorrow (and i have to wake up at 5 in the morning). if i miss anything you considered "key", feel free to bring it up again, and i'll return to it as soon as i can.

Would you agree that a fallible person can be 100% correct on any (or many) given subject(s)?

**8** of course, but at the same time, i also believe that 100% of the people who can be (hypothetically) correct about anything are also definitely not correct about everything.
put me, a Southern Baptist, and a Lutheran in a room, and we'll agree about many things. we will also have disagreements on some other things. some of those things we disagree on can and do cause us to belong to distinct Christian communions.
since i recognize that humans can and do go wrong, i think it likely that God will provide his Church with the means to ensure that it won't on essential issues. the history of the Church affords us many examples.
Monophysites agreed with Catholics that the Nicene Creed was correct, but they came to different christologies based on the Creed itself, along with Scripture. these differents were signifigant, and affected the whole Church. both sides appeal to the same authorities, yet they come to different conclusions. in such cases, the value of the Papacy seems to me to be very clear. if i'm confused, i check with what Rome is saying. what Rome says conditions the way i view the issue, and this in a decisive way.
another example: infant baptism seems to me to somewhat confused. i see some of the argument for it, and i see some of the argument against it. yet i'm Catholic, and the Church teaches in no unambiguous terms that baptism is salvifically efficacious; therefore, i accept this practice. my own questions are pursued in a context wherein Rome's claims are accepted as being true. the questions i have may remain for a long while, but the boundaries are definitely set which tell me how far i can go in speculation. and so on.
Protestantism does not, and cannot (based on its defining ground principle of sola scriptura and private interpretation), have this. what a Protestant minister tells his flock doesn't constitute anything like the bounds within which the Protestant churchgoer can speculate--the Protestant doesn't recognize his minister as having authority in that sense. a Protestant can scrap altogether the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and still be a Protestant (see Robyn Banks, on this board), or scrap the doctrine of the Trinity and still be a firm adherent to sola scriptura (see o2bwise, on this board).

Protestantism is a movement, not a denomination and your argument fails on that distinction in my opinion.

**8** a denomination, in the context used here, is a collection of people who accept the same things as being true, alongside sharing the same praxis and collective organization.
Protestantism describes persons who accept the Bible only as their first and last dogmatic authority.
therefore, the fact that Protestantism (a single word which describes different denominations, indicating a common ground distinctive of all of those denominations) is not a single denomination (quite the contrary) precisely proves my point.
the reason you have to describe it as "a movement", and can't describe it as "a denomination" is due to the ground principle shared by all who are a part of that movement. were that ground principle such that it caused unity rather than division, Protestantism would then be both a movement and a denomination.

Lutheranism is a denomination, Southern Baptists are a denomination, Eastern Orthodox are a denomination, RCs are a denomination so that comparison is accurate.

**8** again, i fail to see how this addresses the issue. what divides Lutherans and Baptists is precisely what unites them (sola scriptura, private interpretation); Catholics don't accept that, therefore they belong in a distinct category. we lack the property that draws all Protestants together under the common heading of "Protestant".

I'm not trying to "proof text" Athanasius but from what I've read

**7** what have you read of him?
anyways, i agree that Scripture was the supreme authority for Athanasius. i also agree that the engine is the most important part of a car. but the question is in what way is that most important part coordinated to other things, as depending upon them for the proper execution of its function? (a great engine with no wheels won't get you very far, etc.) every real Catholic theologian (Hans urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, etc.) also holds Scripture and the interpretation thereof as the point of departure. yet this is understood as being operative within an ecclesial context. likewise, modern Arians like the JW's can point to passages where "the Son" is distinct from "God" (cf. Jn. 17:3); the reason why they have still failed to prove their point is because of the way such passages presuppose the Son as being related to the Father.
hence
"hold fast, everyone, the faith we have received from the fathers, which they assembled at Nicea ... and however they (heretics) may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings ..." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, 8)
and so on.

Don't feel you have to give an indepth response as my only response at this point would probably be "huh?".

**8** if you like the Trinity, you'll love Athanasius. check out his "Orations Against the Arians" at ccel.org, and notice the way he interprets Scripture (especially in book 2, where he deals with Prov. 8:22ff)

I agree that Paul passes the torch of leadership, but not his unique standing and authority.

**7** "and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." (2 Tim. 2:2)
"Admonish them sharply, in an attempt to keep them close to sound faith" (Titus 1:13)
i see no grounds for placing a dichotomy between "leadership" and "authority". how the Church would be expected to survive as it went from a Jewish setting (though with Greek inculturation) through Classical culture--without real authorities to guide through all the shipwrecks that such a meeting would definitely bring about--is beyond me.

I am somewhat familiar with Clement's epistle (read it through once and studied various aspects of also), could you expound on that point.

**8** "The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe." (Ep. Cor. 42)
this is inline with Christ's statement to the Apostles that "as the Father has sent me, so I send you", and "he who recieves you recieves me, and he who recieves me recieves him who sent me".

I think if when it comes down to the bottom line I'd agree with most everything you believe about NT church government except that I'd maintain it should all be subjected to Scripture with the saints (either individually or corporately) ultimately responsible for finding out what is acceptable to the Lord,

**8** i respectfully disagree. i don't see this adopted in the NT, i don't see it in the fathers, i don't see it as working out very well in reality, and i don't see it as having any decent claims to being a priori more likely.
thanks for the friendly convo. peace in Christ :smile:

brianberean

May 24th 2003, 10:04 PM

**7** say hey brian, just a heads up--i'll be debating a JW over the Trinity in the upcoming days, so my posts here will probably be sparse.

That's cool and the gang...whenever you get around to it...

Would you agree that a fallible person can be 100% correct on any (or many) given subject(s)?

**8** of course, but at the same time, i also believe that 100% of the people who can be (hypothetically) correct about anything are also definitely not correct about everything.

Right. This is where it becomes our responsibility to pray, study, test, pray and beleive. In fact, we are told in Scripture to pray and study and test in order to come to the correct beliefs. We are not told to submit our will and intellect to a central monarchal church government.

(If my paraphrasing is inaccurate please let me know) You used an example fo Monophysites agreeing wth Catholics on the Nicene Creed, but the fact that they came to different Christologies based on that creed point to the need for a Papacy to interpret Scripture. I don't think this type of situation points to the need of a papacy (first of all it assumes the papacy would always be correct or trustworthy, which history disproves).

Scripture says:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:3-4).

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet 3:16).

You see, just because some people may not have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, and may not be able to see how the rest of us are able to distinguish between a proper and improper use of them, doesn't mean the rest of us are bound by that limitation or point to the need for a papacy.

Protestantism does not, and cannot (based on its defining ground principle of sola scriptura and private interpretation), have this. what a Protestant minister tells his flock doesn't constitute anything like the bounds within which the Protestant churchgoer can speculate--the Protestant doesn't recognize his minister as having authority in that sense. a Protestant can scrap altogether the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and still be a Protestant (see Robyn Banks, on this board), or scrap the doctrine of the Trinity and still be a firm adherent to sola scriptura (see o2bwise, on this board).

Again I think you are making a false comparison. You say a "protestant can still be a protestant" if he doesn't recognize his pastor's authority. That's like saying a Christian can still be a Christian if he chooses to not recognize the authority of his Eastern Orthodox bishop. A Southern Baptist cannot remain a Southern Baptist if he rejects their doctrines openly and doesn't recognize the authority of his pastor or hierarchy.

Protestantism is a movement, not a denomination and your argument fails on that distinction in my opinion.

**8** a denomination, in the context used here, is a collection of people who accept the same things as being true, alongside sharing the same praxis and collective organization.
Protestantism describes persons who accept the Bible only as their first and last dogmatic authority.

I wouldn't define Protestantism that way, nor do most people in my opinion. Most people define Protestants as nonCatholic (or EO) 's who consider themselves Christians. Many don't truly practice sola scriptura.

therefore, the fact that Protestantism (a single word which describes different denominations, indicating a common ground distinctive of all of those denominations) is not a single denomination (quite the contrary) precisely proves my point. the reason you have to describe it as "a movement", and can't describe it as "a denomination" is due to the ground principle shared by all who are a part of that movement. were that ground principle such that it caused unity rather than division, Protestantism would then be both a movement and a denomination.

2 things:
An athiest could use a similar argument against Christianity (movement). The ground principle shared by all who are part of the movement is Christ. Is Christ a flawed ground principle? The "ground principle" can be perfectly legitimate even though those adhering to it are not. Eastern Orthodox adhere to the same Scripture + Tradition ground principle RCs adhere to. So does the Old Catholic Church, the Sedevacantist's etc. The best you could argue is that your ground principle is less flawed on using this argument.

**8** again, i fail to see how this addresses the issue. what divides Lutherans and Baptists is precisely what unites them (sola scriptura, private interpretation); Catholics don't accept that, therefore they belong in a distinct category. we lack the property that draws all Protestants together under the common heading of "Protestant".

Again, that's like saying what divides Christians is what unites them (faith in Christ). Or what divides EOs and RCCs is what unites them (Scripture + Tradition). The flaws belong to the adherers, not to the ground principals. For you to accuse our ground principle (sola scriptura) of being flawed simply because we have divisions is to admit your ground principle must be flawed. You must also admit the ground principle of Christianity must be flawed. To sum up what I'm saying is that, IMO, the "ground principle" argument you are using when taken to its logical conclusion cuts your own throat (so to speak).

I'm not trying to "proof text" Athanasius but from what I've read

**7** what have you read of him?
.... yet this is understood as being operative within an ecclesial context. likewise, modern Arians like the JW's can point to passages where "the Son" is distinct from "God" (cf. Jn. 17:3); the reason why they have still failed to prove their point is because of the way such passages presuppose the Son as being related to the Father.
hence
"hold fast, everyone, the faith we have received from the fathers, which they assembled at Nicea ... and however they (heretics) may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings ..." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, 8)
and so on.

Again, many of the Arians called themselves Catholic and would have told you they were holding fast to their faith recieved from the fathers, correct?

I agree that Paul passes the torch of leadership, but not his unique standing and authority.

**7** "and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." (2 Tim. 2:2)
"Admonish them sharply, in an attempt to keep them close to sound faith" (Titus 1:13)

Yes, he passes on authority, but not "his unique authority" to write Scripture and claim, with complete certainty, his teachings are from direct revelation of Christ (1 Cor 14:37) The kind of leadership and authority Paul taught is also found in most Protestant churches.

I am somewhat familiar with Clement's epistle (read it through once and studied various aspects of also), could you expound on that point.

**8** "The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe." (Ep. Cor. 42)
this is inline with Christ's statement to the Apostles that "as the Father has sent me, so I send you", and "he who recieves you recieves me, and he who recieves me recieves him who sent me".

Clement describes the manner in which the apostles appointed leaders, but history shows that this was not a successful preventative measure for ensuring error didn't creep in. Paul warns of wolves coming from "within" the church. Christ admonishes 5 or 6 of the 7 churches in Revelation for serious error. This is why the evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so.

Brian

RolandJS

May 24th 2003, 11:37 PM

All:
Thanks to all of you for replying! There are a lot of posts here that are way above my head! It would take weeks of rereading and study to catch up with all of you! :) I have to come back here and take some time.
ybiC, Roland

phantaz sunlyk

May 25th 2003, 01:48 AM

**8** say hey brian--

You see, just because some people may not have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, and may not be able to see how the rest of us are able to distinguish between a proper and improper use of them, doesn't mean the rest of us are bound by that limitation or point to the need for a papacy.

**7** i disagree. part of the problem with people being wrong is that they don't always know when they are wrong, and furthermore firmly think they are right.
for more, see Brian Holt's _Jesus: God or the Son of God?_
Pope Leo's Role as pope was essential at the Council of Chalcedon. See also the way Maximus Confessor understands the role of the papacy within a context wherein doctrine is in dispute in the _Trial of Maximus_.
the pope isn't a "doctrine making machine"--it is a good thing for people to seek out the truth, and to have the ability to do so. the pope's office is rather eccentric (in the etymological sense, "outside the center") in the context of the Church. he is there solely to ensure the ability of the followers of St. John to rest on the breast of Christ (the centric role of Christians). "the buck stops here" when it needs to.

A Southern Baptist cannot remain a Southern Baptist if he rejects their doctrines openly and doesn't recognize the authority of his pastor or hierarchy.

**7** sorry, still misses the point. he's still every bit as much a Protestant as when he was one.

Most people define Protestants as nonCatholic (or EO) 's who consider themselves Christians.

**8** that would include JW's. after the affirmation of Sola Scriptura, it seems to me very difficult to bring forth a clear definition, simply because people get different meanings out of it.

An athiest could use a similar argument against Christianity (movement).

**7** can you name one?
in doing so, he would basically be correct. however, an argument pro atheism would by no means necessarily follow. the only thing that would follow is that insofar as the Christians are divided, they are sub-Christian. the flawed ground principle would be seen as the same as what i claim it to be. i infact have an atheist professor who is hindered from being a Christian due partly to this fact. he doesn't at all understand the problem as you suggest he should "therefore, Christ is flawed", but rather, in my sense "with no one to call the shots, disunity will result".
from there, he could do his best to find unity. it is indeed, in my opinion, no accident that a logical rigorist such as Richard Swinburne, converted to Orthodoxy as he began to study the epistemic structures of Protestantism vs. Traditon-based denominations.

Eastern Orthodox adhere to the same Scripture + Tradition ground principle RCs adhere to. So does the Old Catholic Church, the Sedevacantist's etc. The best you could argue is that your ground principle is less flawed on using this argument.

**8** that Scripture + Tradition is less flawed is precisely what i do claim; it is no accident that the Orthodox and the Catholics have far more in common with eachother than Protestants have in common with either of them, even though the Orthodox and the Cahtolics have been, in one way or another, separated for around a thousand years--they both adhere to a thousand years of Tradition.
yet my claim as expounded so far didn't stop there. it stopped with the Papacy today, the magisterium now.
therefore your point has no force with me.

Again, that's like saying what divides Christians is what unites them (faith in Christ).

**7** no its not because that doesn't, infact, divide them. what divides them is their epistemic frameworks. thus the Orthodox aren't Roman Catholics because they reject the (form of) the Papacy (as presently defined); the Protestants aren't Orthodox or Catholic because they reject Tradition and affirm the Bible-only; Protestants aren't eachother because they affirm the Bible-only and can't agree on what it says.
what unites you is what divides you. what unites Catholics and Orthodox with one another, insofar as they are united, is what they agree on (Tradition); what unites Catholics is what they agree on (communion in a church with a priest in communion with a bishop in communion with the bishop of Rome). what divides Catholics from Protestants and the Orthodox is what unites the Protestants and the Orthodox (denial of the papacy, the affirmation of which would cause them both to become Catholic), and this is itself what unites Catholics with Catholics.
it is very easy to grasp, unless you don't want to grasp it.

For you to accuse our ground principle (sola scriptura) of being flawed simply because we have divisions is to admit your ground principle must be flawed. You must also admit the ground principle of Christianity must be flawed. To sum up what I'm saying is that, IMO, the "ground principle" argument you are using when taken to its logical conclusion cuts your own throat (so to speak).

**8** it is flawed because it is precisely that which causes those divisions and the unity, insofar as it exists.
you're simply using words in an equivocal sense, without paying attention to their meaning or application.

Again, many of the Arians called themselves Catholic and would have told you they were holding fast to their faith recieved from the fathers, correct?

**7** not to the extent that the pro-Nicenes did. the Arians were typically less sophisticated in their thinking (even Eunomius, who though he thought rigorously, did not think well, and certainly was incapable of thinking of anything in more than one mental dimension), and had no trouble at all using the Bible to fit their purposes. R. P. C. Hanson concludes that there was no specific forerunner for Arius, "the Bible alone was all he needed".
Athanasius is referring to a specific council, and later in the same letter he adds, as evidence for his case, that the Bishop of Rome agrees with him.
so anyways, i ask, what have you read of Athanasius, and from where did you read it?

Yes, he passes on authority, but not "his unique authority" to write Scripture and claim, with complete certainty, his teachings are from direct revelation of Christ (1 Cor 14:37)

**8** whence the evidence for this claim, though? are you sure you're not positing a dichotomy in Paul's thought that isn't there? i understand authority as being a mechanism that can pass binding judgements; i understand leadership as exemplarism. originally the claim from you was that "leadership" was all that was passed on; now the claim is that an authority, of an undefined nature, was also passed on (as distinct, presumably, from mere "leadership").
could you elaborate, with concrete examples and specifics?

The kind of leadership and authority Paul taught is also found in most Protestant churches.

**7** and where is the authority that can pass judgement on all of them at the same time? Scripture? who is the authority when the parties disagree over its meaning? in what way was the founder of the Christadelphians being "un-Protestant" when he left the Baptists in the 19th century? denying the Trinity? but is not his assent first and foremost to Scripture?

Clement describes the manner in which the apostles appointed leaders, but history shows that this was not a successful preventative measure for ensuring error didn't creep in.

**8** sure it does, because the errors, and those who held to them, were excluded by the Church and her bishops, thereby preserving unity.
where is the "Protestant" council to tell her believers that the real presence is true (or false)?, or that baptism is efficacious (or not)?, or that we shouldn't (or should) believe in a literal thousand year reign?, or that evolution can (or can't) be believed in?, or that abortion is wrong (or right)?, or that homosexuality is (or isn't) morally wrong (or right)?, or that women can (or can't) be pastors? why is it that each belief, whether affirmed or denied, can find a corresponding Protestant body who officially says "yes"?

the evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so.

**7** re prior comments on this subject.
peace in Christ. by the way, are you a Baptist?

brianberean

May 27th 2003, 02:21 PM

**8** say hey brian--

hey phantaz..before I forget to ask..what's up with the name..phantaz sunlyk?

**7** i disagree. part of the problem with people being wrong is that they don't always know when they are wrong, and furthermore firmly think they are right.

I don't see how a papacy solves this problem and here is why: How do you know you are correct about the papacy? How do you know you are not wrong even though you firmly think you are right?

the pope isn't a "doctrine making machine"--it is a good thing for people to seek out the truth, and to have the ability to do so. the pope's office is rather eccentric (in the etymological sense, "outside the center") in the context of the Church. he is there solely to ensure the ability of the followers of St. John to rest on the breast of Christ (the centric role of Christians). "the buck stops here" when it needs to.

Most protestant denominations have a designated person or body that handles "ensuring the ability of the followers of St. John to rest ont he breast of Christ". Most RCs don't beleive the Pope fulfills this duty infallibly. In fact, many disagree with how he does this job including the Assisi prayer sessions and kissing the Koran for example. Again, I see no "infallible" advantage the RC has in this area.

A Southern Baptist cannot remain a Southern Baptist if he rejects their doctrines openly and doesn't recognize the authority of his pastor or hierarchy.

**7** sorry, still misses the point. he's still every bit as much a Protestant as when he was one.

I think we may be coming to an impasse here on this point. I think the point I made earlier about differentiating between a denomination and a movement is the key. The definitions may help:

movement - a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals

denomination - A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

By definition protestantism can not be a denomination because it doesn't have a single administrative and legal hierarchy which is precisely why a protestant can remain a protestant even if they are kicked out of their denomination. You are criticizing protestantism for lacking something that all movements lack (having a single legal hierarchy that can boot people), therefore I don't think your criticisms are valid.

**7** can you name one?
in doing so, he would basically be correct. however, an argument pro atheism would by no means necessarily follow. the only thing that would follow is that insofar as the Christians are divided, they are sub-Christian. the flawed ground principle would be seen as the same as what i claim it to be.

I don't follow. If I am correct, you claimed the flawed ground principle of protestantism to be "sola scriptura". The ground principle of Christianity is not sola scriptura so I don't see how it could be the same as what you claimed it to be. Conversely, you seem to accept that any flaws within Christianity that lead to disunity are the fault of Christians to hold to the ground principle and not that the ground principle is faulty.

**8** that Scripture + Tradition is less flawed is precisely what i do claim; it is no accident that the Orthodox and the Catholics have far more in common with eachother than Protestants have in common with either of them, even though the Orthodox and the Cahtolics have been, in one way or another, separated for around a thousand years--they both adhere to a thousand years of Tradition.
yet my claim as expounded so far didn't stop there. it stopped with the Papacy today, the magisterium now.
therefore your point has no force with me.

Those thousand years of Tradition adhered to by the EOs and RCC produced different beliefs concerning the papacy, purgatory and indulgences, Mary, the OT canon, etc. The schismatic traditionalists, the Sedevacantists and the Old Catholic Church have longer common Traditions.

Even within the loose governmental and institutional constructs of the RCC there is disunity on a large number of beliefs among RC's of "good standing", take traditionalists, conservatives, liberals like Hans Kung, for example. That you all remain in good standing under one governmental type church government is about all the unity you can truly claim if examined closely. Evangelical Apologists like Eric Svendsen make very good arguments that RCs have less unity than Evangelicals.

I concede history has shown that the RCC (with it's pope and Magistereum) has been able, for the most part, to maintain a loose institutional type unity under a governmental type authority better than those churches within protestantism have been able to do. My question is, is that the type of unity Scripture speaks of?

Again, that's like saying what divides Christians is what unites them (faith in Christ).

[quote]**7** no its not because that doesn't, infact, divide them. what divides them is their epistemic frameworks. thus the Orthodox aren't Roman Catholics because they reject the (form of) the Papacy (as presently defined); the Protestants aren't Orthodox or Catholic because they reject Tradition and affirm the Bible-only; Protestants aren't eachother because they affirm the Bible-only and can't agree on what it says.
what unites you is what divides you. what unites Catholics and Orthodox with one another, insofar as they are united, is what they agree on (Tradition); what unites Catholics is what they agree on (communion in a church with a priest in communion with a bishop in communion with the bishop of Rome). what divides Catholics from Protestants and the Orthodox is what unites the Protestants and the Orthodox (denial of the papacy, the affirmation of which would cause them both to become Catholic), and this is itself what unites Catholics with Catholics.
it is very easy to grasp, unless you don't want to grasp it.

All you're doing, IMO, is explaining with some detail how different fallible groups approach the ground principle (faith in Christ, which begets wanting to do God's will) differently. Faith in Christ is what unites all Christians and "how to correctly do God's will" is what Christians disagree on. The only flaw is with those who adhere to the ground principles, not the ground principles themselves.

**8** it is flawed because it is precisely that which causes those divisions and the unity, insofar as it exists.
you're simply using words in an equivocal sense, without paying attention to their meaning or application.

Another impasse? I maintain that sola scriptura no sooner causes protestant disunity than faith in Christ causes Christian disunity or tradition causes RCC-EO disunity. Disunity is caused by the fallibility of those who adhere to the ground principle. (This can also pertain to the disunity within the RCC or any other denomination) Plain and simple, disunity is not evidence of a flawed ground principle. If that were true, then the converse would have to be true that unity is evidence of a valid ground principle. In that case the unity among Mormons, or among JWs would prove their ground principles are valid.

Yes, he passes on authority, but not "his unique authority" to write Scripture and claim, with complete certainty, his teachings are from direct revelation of Christ (1 Cor 14:37)

**8** whence the evidence for this claim, though? are you sure you're not positing a dichotomy in Paul's thought that isn't there? i understand authority as being a mechanism that can pass binding judgements; i understand leadership as exemplarism. originally the claim from you was that "leadership" was all that was passed on; now the claim is that an authority, of an undefined nature, was also passed on (as distinct, presumably, from mere "leadership").
could you elaborate, with concrete examples and specifics?

When I said the apostles passed on "leadership" I thought it was implied that authority must accompany leadership in the context that we are using leadership.

You do recognize that the apostles had unique gifts and unique aspects to their authority that were not passed on to succeeding generations right? One of which is the gift or authority to write Scripture. I'm not exactly sure what "concrete examples and specifics" you are looking for.

The kind of leadership and authority Paul taught is also found in most Protestant churches.

**7** and where is the authority that can pass judgement on all of them at the same time? Scripture? who is the authority when the parties disagree over its meaning? in what way was the founder of the Christadelphians being "un-Protestant" when he left the Baptists in the 19th century? denying the Trinity? but is not his assent first and foremost to Scripture?

I didn't say "the protestant church" has people in this position. Because there is no protestant church as protestantism is a movement so we know that protestantism has no administrative or legal hierarchy. However, why didn't the founder of Christadelphianism stay a Baptist? Probably because those of authority within the Baptist church "passed judgement" when he disagreed with them.

Clement describes the manner in which the apostles appointed leaders, but history shows that this was not a successful preventative measure for ensuring error didn't creep in.

**8** sure it does, because the errors, and those who held to them, were excluded by the Church and her bishops, thereby preserving unity.

You didn't address the point. The point is that even valid apostolic succession did not prevent error.

David King commented on it in his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith:

It is interesting to note that the Pharisees, when disputing with Jesus also appealed to direct lineage and/or succession of persons, contending, "We are Abraham's descendants' (John 8:33), to which Jesus replied, 'If you were Abraham's children you would do the works of Abraham...Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word...He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God...Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw is and was glad' (Jn. 8:39,43,47,56). True succession is not a succession of men, but a succession of doctrine as the Apostle Paul taught: 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'(Gal 3:7).

where is the "Protestant" council to tell her believers that the real presence is true (or false)?, or that baptism is efficacious (or not)?, or that we shouldn't (or should) believe in a literal thousand year reign?, or that evolution can (or can't) be believed in?, or that abortion is wrong (or right)?, or that homosexuality is (or isn't) morally wrong (or right)?, or that women can (or can't) be pastors? why is it that each belief, whether affirmed or denied, can find a corresponding Protestant body who officially says "yes"?

I could make an equally long list (that would included some of these questions) and truthfully claim that whether affirmed or denied a corresponding group of Catholics "in good standing" could say "yes". What does this prove?

the evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so.

**7** re prior comments on this subject.
peace in Christ. by the way, are you a Baptist?

Nope, not baptist. I fellowship with the Calvary Chapel folks.

Brian