tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post7195416148087327823..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Dialogue With Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer on the Rule of Faith in the Church Fathers, Part One (Papias)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84419382446580857202010-02-09T16:48:15.080-05:002010-02-09T16:48:15.080-05:00Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is ...Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google "Famous Rapture Watchers"), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if you have a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if you want to have "security" for your retirement years and hope that the big California quake won't louse up your plans, you have a decided conflict of interest - right, John? Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters - who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don't dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don't you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you're mulling all this over, Google "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 179-year-old fantasy.Maryleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06908381142759295559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21636698113462749962010-01-27T19:11:59.789-05:002010-01-27T19:11:59.789-05:00Ronnie,
Thanks for your reply and your arguments....Ronnie,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply and your arguments. I am late in getting back to you because… at first I think this had been deleted, then, when I tried to post a response… I was alerted to the fact that there was some kind of error and I couldn’t post. Then… well… the topic disappeared from the front page… Anyway… here you go…<br /><br />I simply don't agree with your assertion that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church today.<br /><br />Just because I say, "nothing else is God-breathed like the Scriptures," doesn't mean I also think that that God hasn't, isn't, and won't protect the Church from teaching error. <br /><br />Even if I don't regard the teachings of the Popes and Councils "theopneustos," I do believe (and the Church teaches) that God protects Her from teaching error... that's Catholic teaching on this matter and it's not contradictory so far as I can tell. <br /><br />So God's protection of the Church in this regard, while it's not regarded as "inspired," (in the same manner as the Scriptures) if it is God doing the protecting... it's no less infallible. Different gift to the Church... same result in the end.<br /><br />I see no problem believing both these concepts at once. It makes perfect sense in the Catholic worldview. You seem to want to force me to reject a piece of it that I feel is integral... and you want me to see it as the logical choice. I can't see that unless I adopt a Sola Scriptura mindset from the get go, accept alien ideas about what the Church is and what Her role is. That's not really a critique of the Catholic worldview from within the Catholic worldview.<br /><br />You said earlier (about my being uneasy about agreeing to the terminology of Scripture being "God speaking"):<br /><br /><i>"Well, this wording come from Scripture so I guess you are not sure you like the wording of Scripture?"</i><br /><br />If I were you ask you, "We both agree that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, right?" I am assuming that you'd want to qualify an answer of "yes," correct? Especially speaking with a Catholic. I was a bit worried about how you (as a Reformed Protestant) were using that terminology... I don't want to accept alien concepts by agreeing to the ideas that *might* be behind the usages of certain words and phrases. It doesn't mean that I disagree with the usage in principle... I was just trying to be careful.<br /><br />I hope that you have been well.<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49874847054911994902010-01-24T22:04:53.881-05:002010-01-24T22:04:53.881-05:00"Scriptures are the highest authority"??..."Scriptures are the highest authority"??<br /><br />Not so sure that these <i>self-appointed</i> characters would agree! <br /><br />“Be not judges yourselves of your own fantastical opinions and vain expositions; and although you be permitted to read Holy Scriptures and to have the Word of God in your mother tongue, you must understand it is licensed so to do only to inform your conscience and inform your children and families, not to make Scripture a railing and taunting stock against priests and preachers. I am very sorry to know and hear how irreverently that precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rimed, sung, and jangled in every alehouse and tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same.”<br /><br />Henry VIII, Last speech to parliament, December 24, 1545.<br /><br /><i>English Church History from the Death of King Henry VII to the Death of Archbishop Parker,</i> Rev. Alfred Plummer, 1905, Edinburg, T. & T. Clark, p. 85.<br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England" rel="nofollow">Wikiquote</a>.<br /><br />“Luther's claim to authority as a teacher of God's Word is the common claim of every Christian who proves his belief from the Scriptures. The infallibility of the Scriptures becomes the infallibility of the teachers of Scripture. They can challenge the world as Isaiah did: "To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"; or Christ: "The Scripture cannot be broken"; or Paul: "Though an angel from heaven preached other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" — <br /><br /><i>Theological quarterly</i> (Oct., 1913), Volumes 17-18, The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, vol. xvii, No. 4, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=VeokAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228&dq=%22infallibility+of+the+Scriptures+becomes+the+infallibility+of+the+teachers+of+Scripture%22&lr=&ei=s_JcS4-1F43wMtjtvPgM&client=firefox&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22infallibility%20of%20the%20Scriptures%20becomes%20the%20infallibility%20of%20the%20teachers%20of%20Scripture%22&f=false" rel="nofollow"> p. 288</a>.<br /><br />"They are sinning against the holy spirit when they refuse to accept the rebuke of the preachers through whom he speaks.” -- Luther<br /><br /><i>Appeal For Prayer Against the Turks,</i> Luther’s Works, Devotional Writings II, vol. 43, ISBN 0800603435,<a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22when%20they%20refuse%20to%20accept%20the%20rebuke%20of%20the%20preachers%20through%20whom%20he%20speaks%22&sa=N&tab=wp" rel="nofollow"> p. 228</a><br /><br />Again Luther (raving against Henry VIII, A.D. 1522):<br /><br />"Wer Anders lehret, denn ich hierin gelchret habe, oder mich darin verdammt, der verdammt Gott und muß ein Kind der Hölle bleiben" <br /><br />"He who teaches otherwise from what I have taught, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell." or <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20&dq=luther+%22must+be+a+child+of+hell%22&lr=&ei=IQFdS9nzMJyKNczC1ecB&cd=1#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22must%20be%20a%20child%20of%20hell%22&f=false" rel="nofollow"> “must be a child of hell” </a>.<br /><br />“Antwort Deutsch auf König Heinrichs Buch” <br /><br />“German Answer to King Henry’s Book” <br /><br />In the Weimar edition of Luther's Works, vol. 10, 1907,<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dLlCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230&dq=%22unnd+mu%C3%9F+eyn+kind+der+hellen%22&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=BfdcS4D3IpKCNv6L8IQN&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22unnd%20mu%C3%9F%20eyn%20kind%20der%20hellen%22&f=false" rel="nofollow"> pp. 229-230</a>.<br /><br />And who could forget the humble Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498).<br /><br />“Colui che scomunica me scomunica Dio” (Italian)<br /><br />“Whoever excommunicates me, excommunicates God.”<br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola" rel="nofollow"> Wikiquote </a>.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44803031514105058802010-01-24T15:26:58.740-05:002010-01-24T15:26:58.740-05:00So you are saying that if I accept the Scriptures ...<i><br />So you are saying that if I accept the Scriptures as theopneustos that I must, logically, believe in SS?<br /></i><br /><br />Argument 1:<br />There is no higher authority than God speaking.<br /><br />The church has no other source of God speaking than the Scriptures.<br /><br />Therefore, the Scriptures are the highest authority in the possession of the church.<br /><br />Argument 2:<br />Only God is naturally infallible.<br /><br />God grants the gift of infallibility to humans through the means of inspiration by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />The Pope and Councils are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore are not infallible.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14348949684744883262010-01-23T20:39:20.806-05:002010-01-23T20:39:20.806-05:00Ronnie,
So you are saying that if I accept the Sc...Ronnie,<br /><br />So you are saying that if I accept the Scriptures as theopneustos that I must, logically, believe in SS?<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57374856322250261532010-01-22T14:24:26.477-05:002010-01-22T14:24:26.477-05:00I am sorry that you feel as though you've had ...<i>I am sorry that you feel as though you've had to "chase" me about the place... I will try to keel this short and simple and old address the SS related stuff, deal?</i> <br />Cool.<br /><br /><i><br />Here's what I think that you are trying to show...<br /><br />A. We both agree that God is the highest Authority.<br /></i><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i><br />(Even though you insist that it matters not that we have different, even contradictory reasons for believing such... and, a chances are, your reasons would any more convincing to me than mine are to you).<br /></i><br />I don’t think our reasons are necessarily contradictory, but emphasis would be different. I too would argue that the church played an important role in the formation of the canon, but it would not be my only reason and not an infallibly binding reason. But that is the canon discussion.<br /><i><br /><br />B. We both agree that the Scriptures are God-breathed (theopneustos).<br /></i><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i><br />C. That makes them "rule of faith worthy."<br /></i><br />Maybe I wouldn’t put it exactly that way, but I think I understand what you are tyring to say.<br /><i><br /><br />D. We both agree that nothing else is God-breathed like the Scriptures...<br /></i><br />Nothing else in our possession today, yes.<br /><br /><i><br /><br />Therefore we must deduce that the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith (i.e. Sola Scriptura).<br /></i><br />Close, but let me put it his way. I deduced that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith because only God is infallible or those that He grants the gift of infallibility. God grants the gift of infallibility through inspiration which is equivalent to God speaking. There can be no higher or equal source to God speaking. Since the only source of God speaking is found in the Scriptures it has no equal. <br /><i><br /><br />Am I close?<br /></i><br />Yes.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37099241842307808892010-01-21T23:44:20.134-05:002010-01-21T23:44:20.134-05:00Ronnie,
Thanks for hanging out.
I am sorry that ...Ronnie,<br /><br />Thanks for hanging out.<br /><br />I am sorry that you feel as though you've had to "chase" me about the place... I will try to keel this short and simple and old address the SS related stuff, deal?<br /><br />Here's what I think that you are trying to show...<br /><br />A. We both agree that God is the highest Authority.<br /><br />(Even though you insist that it matters not that we have different, even contradictory reasons for believing such... and, a chances are, your reasons would any more convincing to me than mine are to you).<br /><br />B. We both agree that the Scriptures are God-breathed (theopneustos).<br /><br />C. That makes them "rule of faith worthy."<br /><br />D. We both agree that nothing else is God-breathed like the Scriptures...<br /><br />Therefore we must deduce that the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith (i.e. Sola Scriptura).<br /><br />Am I close?<br /><br />IC XC<br />S<br /><br />p.s.<br />If you want answers to the questions you posed in the posts... let me know...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37798162405437134492010-01-20T22:18:27.044-05:002010-01-20T22:18:27.044-05:00Opatatus:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair ...Opatatus:<br />In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. ( Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D. )Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69195023353944725662010-01-20T20:00:17.623-05:002010-01-20T20:00:17.623-05:00If you can't support sola scriptura from the B...If you can't support sola scriptura from the Bible then you have a self-refuting belief. You can't assumed it to be part of the Christain faith that was once deliver to the saints.Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79211559979400291472010-01-20T19:26:25.496-05:002010-01-20T19:26:25.496-05:00“I’ve never claim that Scripture asserts Sola Scri...<i><br />“I’ve never claim that Scripture asserts Sola Scriptura.”<br /><br />You are one of the first Protestants I have seen admit that. Thank you.<br /></i><br />However, I do believe it is true based on the reasons I’ve been stating.<br /><br /><i>:<br />“However, both of us admit Scripture is God speaking, right?”<br /><br />Although I am not sure I like your wording here, for the sake of argument I will agree that we both admit that (that the writings contained in the Holy Writ are theopneustos) “the Scripture is ‘God speaking.’”<br /></i><br />Well, this wording come from Scripture so I guess you are not sure you like the wording of Scripture?<br /><br /><i>Ronnie:<br />“Both of us confess that Scripture is infallible, right?”<br /><br />Again, I am not sure that I am altogether comfortable with your exact wording here. I do agree that Scripture is without error. <br /></i><br />So you deny the Scriptures are infallible, but you believe the Pope is infallible under certain situation? That is a pretty amazing admission.<br /><br /><i><br />Spoils:<br />There is no authority higher than God. Catholics believe this too.<br /><br />I am not claiming that anything is equal to God, but, I think, in some very important ways… our disagreements are more foundational than this.<br /></i><br />But you do believe the teaching of the magisterium is equal to the teaching of God, right?<br /><i><br /><br />Some questions to you about your perspective, for clarification….<br /><br />1. Regarding what God has spoken, where did He assert the concept that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith?<br /></i><br />Answered that above.<br /><i><br /><br />2. If no one (a living human being) agreed with your understanding of Scripture would anyone (a living human being) have spiritual authority over you?<br /><br /></i><br />Yes but authority doesn’t mean it is infallible, inerrant, or can’t be questioned.<br /><br /><i>3. If yes, how could this be?</i><br />Answered above.<br /><i>4. If no, is this a biblical position for a Christian to take?</i><br />N/A<br /><i><br />5. How do you know that the Bible is God’s Word?</i> Number of factors, you got all night?<br /><i><br />6. Does it matter how you know this?</i>Yes.<br /><br /><i>7. Is the consistency of a worldview (on its own terms) important to evaluating it?</i>Yes.<br /><br /><i>8. Do you claim that your interpretation of Scripture is correct? Is your ecclesial community’s? To what extent (a percentage?)? How do you know this? Is it possible you and they are wrong on some fundamental beliefs?</i>Yes, only God is infallible.<br /><br /><i>9. If I believe Sola Scriptura to be self-referentially incoherent should I accept it?</i>No.<br /><br /><i>10. If God didn't "say" that "the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith" should I accept that position?</i>God didn’t say the Pope in Rome is infallible, but you accept that so it depends on the rationale you use.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39610428555229846182010-01-20T19:07:41.002-05:002010-01-20T19:07:41.002-05:00Ronnie:
“Well, do you expect every other group tha...<i>Ronnie:<br />“Well, do you expect every other group that considers itself Christian to question their authority?”<br /><br />Whether I expect it or not doesn’t seem to address my concern about a Christian questioning (read: challenging) those in authority of him being (quite possibly) unbiblical, does it? <br /></i><br />Of course it does, because if you believe it is unbiblical then you shouldn’t expect anyone to do it, therefore you should not want anyone claiming to be a Christian to question their authority. So I’m asking if that is true to see if you truly believe this? BTW, I don’t think it is unbiblical to question those in authority over you, because they are not infallible in system. Only the Scriptures are infallible.<br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />“You do understand the volumes of controversy and different opinions you get from history, right? That alone should make it obvious that it is a much bigger task to get your mind around the history of Christianity for over 2000 years vs the Bible.”<br /><br /><br />You do understand the volumes of controversy and different opinions you get from interpretations of the Bible, right? <br /></i><br />You seem to have missed the point. I’m not talking about the interpretation of history, I’m talking about history itself!! So your comparison would be the volumes of writing from history for over 2000 years against the 66 or so books of Scripture. Isn’t it obvious that there is no comparison in that regard?<br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />“I’m not defining any term I just asked you a simple question that you shouldn’t have any hesitation in answering. What other source of information do you know of that is God speaking/God inspired? If none, then how can you make it equal to God speaking?”<br /><br />I am not in a position to “make” anything “equal” to anything else. <br /></i><br />Oh c’mon. You know what I meant. Obviously I didn’t mean you literally make them equal but they are equal in authority in your belief system.<br /><br /><i><br />And, again, how I know what is “God speaking” and “God inspired” is p-r-e-t-t-y foundational to this discussion. <br /><br />You seem to want to force me to adopt your view when I agree superficially with your words (your, almost, “contextless” words). I don’t see how that’s helpful. <br /></i><br />It is no superficial agreement that we both believe the Scriptures are the word of God. Anyway, like I said, if you want to talk about canon we can, but I’m not going to spend hours a day chasing as you move from one related topic to another.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9668558192534465982010-01-20T18:55:04.493-05:002010-01-20T18:55:04.493-05:00But the Apostles didn’t die without writing anythi...<i><br />But the Apostles didn’t die without writing anything, did they? Did all of the Apostles die before Papias? If so that would mean, of course, that they wrote all they were ever going to write before Papias died, no? Since they were no longer physically present, and, since they had written all they were ever going to write… is it fair to say that (utilizing your language from before) that it was “logically necessary” for Papias to subscribe to Sola Scriptura before *he* died? Even if the heard the Apostles (or an Apostle) speak… I don’t think you’d claim that his memory of what they said was infallible and inerrant. Certainly not God-breathed! So… if I were to hold to your position (as I understand it) I would think that you agree that Papias would *had* to have subscribed to SS before his death.<br /></i><br />The point I was making is that if you heard Jesus,Apostles, or some other source of God speaking you are obligated to obey what they taught even if they died and didn’t write it down. <br /><br /><i><br />As to what “Rome” (and, indeed, all the historic Churches in communion with Her) *does* claim, She claims that She has been charged (by God Almighty) with the business of safeguarding the Holy Faith. And She also claims that God’s Holy Spirit keeps Her from erring in this task.<br /><br />So, while “Rome” doesn’t claim to that infallible papal pronouncements are “inspired” like the “God-Breathed” Scriptures, She most certainly does teach that She is the historic Church and that Her pronouncements (which are guided by the Holy Spirit) *are* to be regarded as authoritative. Whether or not you agree with Her claims is irrelevant to whether or not they are consistent, right?<br /></i><br />So if Rome’s pronouncements are not inspired, not the word of God I have two questions:<br />1) How does it become equal with God’s word? Isn’t the only thing that can be equal to God and His word is God?<br />2) Human beings by nature are not infallible. The only ones we believe are infallible are those that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. On what basis does Rome achieve infallibility?<br /><br /><i><br />I do *not* think that the Magisterium is equal to God, no. But the Magisterium is how I know all of what God wishes to communicate to me in His good time. <br /></i><br />Wow! That is an amazing statement. The magisterium is how you know all what wishes to communicate to you. What role does the Holy Spirit play in your life? I thought He was the teacher?<br /><i><br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I noticed that you didn’t answer my question, but proceeded to ask your own. I don’t mind you asking additional follow-up questions, but this is a dialog so you have to answer questions also.”<br /><br />I have now answered it (above), but to be more clear on this point… No one/nothing is equal to God.<br /></i><br />So why are the words of the Pope that are not inspired by God an equal authority with God’s word? Why are the words of human that is not inspired of God infallible?<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />“I’m not making an argument for how I know we have the Word of God, because you agree with me that we do.”<br /><br />I am not as comfortable as you seem to be about separating what we claim to know from how<br />(foundationally) we claim to know it. I see this as vital to our discussion. You seem to see it as incidental. I assure you this will come up again and again.<br /></i><br />If you want to discuss the Canon and how we know it then we can do that and not address sola Scriptura. If you want to discuss sola Scriptura then lets do so. The issues are closely related but distinct and bring both into one discussion will make something that is already too long and time consuming much more so.<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />“I’m not sure what your point is, but suffice it to say I’m not driving a wedge between Christ and His church.”<br /><br />Ok, I will accept that correction, thanks. <br /><br />Would it be fair to say that you *are* trying to drive an ideological wedge between my claim that God’s Word is authoritative and how I know what God’s Word is? <br /></i><br />No, I wasn’t because I wasn’t even discussing that issue.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55272738334132995262010-01-20T13:31:42.271-05:002010-01-20T13:31:42.271-05:00Ronnie,
Long time no see, eh? ;)
You wrote:
“I’...Ronnie,<br /><br />Long time no see, eh? ;)<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I’ve never claim that Scripture asserts Sola Scriptura.”<br /><br />You are one of the first Protestants I have seen admit that. Thank you.<br /><br />You ask:<br />“However, both of us admit Scripture is God speaking, right?”<br /><br />Although I am not sure I like your wording here, for the sake of argument I will agree that we both admit that (that the writings contained in the Holy Writ are theopneustos) “the Scripture is ‘God speaking.’”<br /><br />You ask:<br />“Both of us confess that Scripture is infallible, right?”<br /><br />Again, I am not sure that I am altogether comfortable with your exact wording here. I do agree that Scripture is without error. <br /><br />You ask:<br />“Both of us would admit there is no higher authority than God, right? So my point is, since Scripture is the only source God speaking that we have in our possession than how can anything else be equal to it without it being God?”<br /><br />There is no authority higher than God. Catholics believe this too.<br /><br />I am not claiming that anything is equal to God, but, I think, in some very important ways… our disagreements are more foundational than this.<br /><br />Some questions to you about your perspective, for clarification….<br /><br />1. Regarding what God has spoken, where did He assert the concept that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith?<br /><br />2. If no one (a living human being) agreed with your understanding of Scripture would anyone (a living human being) have spiritual authority over you?<br /><br />3. If yes, how could this be?<br /><br />4. If no, is this a biblical position for a Christian to take?<br /><br />5. How do you know that the Bible is God’s Word?<br /><br />6. Does it matter how you know this?<br /><br />7. Is the consistency of a worldview (on its own terms) important to evaluating it?<br /><br />8. Do you claim that your interpretation of Scripture is correct? Is your ecclesial community’s? To what extent (a percentage?)? How do you know this? Is it possible you and they are wrong on some fundamental beliefs?<br /><br />9. If I believe Sola Scriptura to be self-referentially incoherent should I accept it?<br /><br />10. If God didn't "say" that "the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith" should I accept that position?<br /><br />I hope that you're having a nice day!! Thanks for sticking around!<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46565820201615736332010-01-20T13:01:13.099-05:002010-01-20T13:01:13.099-05:00Ronnie,
Hello again, mate!
You wrote:
“Well, d...Ronnie,<br /><br />Hello again, mate! <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“Well, do you expect every other group that considers itself Christian to question their authority?”<br /><br />Whether I expect it or not doesn’t seem to address my concern about a Christian questioning (read: challenging) those in authority of him being (quite possibly) unbiblical, does it? <br /><br />Perhaps we missed one another on that point?<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“You do understand the volumes of controversy and different opinions you get from history, right? That alone should make it obvious that it is a much bigger task to get your mind around the history of Christianity for over 2000 years vs the Bible.”<br /><br />You do understand the volumes of controversy and different opinions you get from interpretations of the Bible, right? That alone should make it obvious that it is a much bigger task to get me to agree (especially when I see how Sola Scriptura has played out over the past 500 years) that the Scriptures are any less complicated (to a degree that matters much) than the history of Christendom.<br /><br />You wrote (concerning the history of the Holy Writ):<br />“Yes, but irrelevant point to the question I posed.”<br /><br />I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant at all, but your question has now been answered. <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“We don’t have to agree *why* for you to answer the question.”<br /><br />But we *do* have to agree *why* for the answer to really mean anything more than just the superficial agreement about the general wording of a foundationless proposition existing some kind of vacuum. <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I’m not defining any term I just asked you a simple question that you shouldn’t have any hesitation in answering. What other source of information do you know of that is God speaking/God inspired? If none, then how can you make it equal to God speaking?”<br /><br />I am not in a position to “make” anything “equal” to anything else. <br /><br />And, again, how I know what is “God speaking” and “God inspired” is p-r-e-t-t-y foundational to this discussion. <br /><br />You seem to want to force me to adopt your view when I agree superficially with your words (your, almost, “contextless” words). I don’t see how that’s helpful. <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“You are jumping all over the place now. Those things are important, but not part of this discussion, at least from my perspective.”<br /><br />Ok, I apologize for the jumping… your question and the answer to it (which I deem as almost meaningless without regard to the foundational reasoning behind those things) has been answered.<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46095796913558568752010-01-20T12:26:40.091-05:002010-01-20T12:26:40.091-05:00Ronnie,
Thanks so much for responding. I am real...Ronnie,<br /><br />Thanks so much for responding. I am really enjoying the exchange. <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“If I had heard Jesus or the Apostles speak and they died without writing something down I’m still obligated to believe what Jesus taught, as it is divine truth. But Rome doesn’t claim infallible papal pronouncements are inspired, so why is it equal to God speaking?”<br /><br />But the Apostles didn’t die without writing anything, did they? Did all of the Apostles die before Papias? If so that would mean, of course, that they wrote all they were ever going to write before Papias died, no? Since they were no longer physically present, and, since they had written all they were ever going to write… is it fair to say that (utilizing your language from before) that it was “logically necessary” for Papias to subscribe to Sola Scriptura before *he* died? Even if the heard the Apostles (or an Apostle) speak… I don’t think you’d claim that his memory of what they said was infallible and inerrant. Certainly not God-breathed! So… if I were to hold to your position (as I understand it) I would think that you agree that Papias would *had* to have subscribed to SS before his death.<br /><br />As to what “Rome” (and, indeed, all the historic Churches in communion with Her) *does* claim, She claims that She has been charged (by God Almighty) with the business of safeguarding the Holy Faith. And She also claims that God’s Holy Spirit keeps Her from erring in this task.<br /><br />So, while “Rome” doesn’t claim to that infallible papal pronouncements are “inspired” like the “God-Breathed” Scriptures, She most certainly does teach that She is the historic Church and that Her pronouncements (which are guided by the Holy Spirit) *are* to be regarded as authoritative. Whether or not you agree with Her claims is irrelevant to whether or not they are consistent, right?<br /><br />I do *not* think that the Magisterium is equal to God, no. But the Magisterium is how I know all of what God wishes to communicate to me in His good time. <br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I noticed that you didn’t answer my question, but proceeded to ask your own. I don’t mind you asking additional follow-up questions, but this is a dialog so you have to answer questions also.”<br /><br />I have now answered it (above), but to be more clear on this point… No one/nothing is equal to God.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I’m not making an argument for how I know we have the Word of God, because you agree with me that we do.”<br /><br />I am not as comfortable as you seem to be about separating what we claim to know from how<br />(foundationally) we claim to know it. I see this as vital to our discussion. You seem to see it as incidental. I assure you this will come up again and again.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“I’m not sure what your point is, but suffice it to say I’m not driving a wedge between Christ and His church.”<br /><br />Ok, I will accept that correction, thanks. <br /><br />Would it be fair to say that you *are* trying to drive an ideological wedge between my claim that God’s Word is authoritative and how I know what God’s Word is? <br /><br />IC XC<br />SpoilsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26120189106794993492010-01-20T11:27:56.733-05:002010-01-20T11:27:56.733-05:00Spoils,
My worldview is easily falsifiable... If...Spoils,<br /><br /><i><br />My worldview is easily falsifiable... If you can show me where the *concept* that 'the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith' is *asserted* in the Bible. I will rethink my position...<br /></i><br />I’ve never claim that Scripture asserts sola Scriptura. However, both of us admit Scripture is God speaking, right? Both of us confess that Scripture is infallible, right? Both of us would admit there is no higher authority than God, right? So my point is, since Scripture is the only source God speaking that we have in our possession than how can anything else be equal to it without it being God?Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14877533522276212772010-01-20T11:22:04.838-05:002010-01-20T11:22:04.838-05:00Spoils,
Ronnie:
" ...now I see you are reas...Spoils,<br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />" ...now I see you are reasoning like an adult in that you examine the claims of your church based on historical pedigree. Well history is much more complicated to navigate then the Scriptures. So why not join us and use Scripture to validate the church?"<br /><br />1. Because I'm not all that sure that the question your posing to me is biblical (i.e. I am not all that sure it's biblical for a Christian to question those in authority over him).<br /></i><br />Well, do you expect every other group that considers itself Christian to question their authority? <br /><i><br />2. I am not sure that I agree that history is any more complicated that the Holy Writ.<br /></i><br />You do understand the volumes of controversy and different opinions you get from history, right? That alone should make it obvious that it is a much bigger task to get your mind around the history of Christianity for over 2000 years vs the Bible.<br /><br /><i>3. The Holy Writ has its own history, does it?</i><br />Yes, but irrelevant point to the question I posed.<br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />"My point is fairly simple. We both agree that Scripture is God speaking. Is there another source equal to God speaking that we have in our possession?"<br /><br />We don't agree *why*.</i><br />We don’t have to agree *why* for you to answer the question. <br /><i><br />Of course I see what you are trying to do... you want to define the terms... you want me to say, "of course the Bible is God's Word and there is no authority higher than that." As if my reasons for *believing* that very statement won't affect at all how I see the question or the answer. I assure you that they do...</i><br />I’m not defining any term I just asked you a simple question that you shouldn’t have any hesitation in answering. What other source of information do you know of that is God speaking/God inspired? If none, then how can you make it equal to God speaking? <br /><i><br />By the by, in your worldview... is your interpretation of God's Word the same as God's Word? If not, what's the difference? If there is a/are a difference/some differences... what are the practical implications of it/them?</i><br />You are jumping all over the place now. Those things are important, but not part of this discussion, at least from my perspective.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69998224628350539742010-01-20T11:21:39.298-05:002010-01-20T11:21:39.298-05:00Ronnie:
"Spoils, I don’t know and I’m in no p...<i><br />Ronnie:<br />"Spoils, I don’t know and I’m in no position to say."<br /><br />Spoils:<br />Assuming that all of the Apostles were dead before Papias died... he would *have* to have embraced SS, no? After all you *seem* to have indicated that if Jesus and His Apostles weren't around to give it 'directly' (by which I assume that you mean something like 'orally')... that it would be 'logically necessary' in their physical absence, right?<br /></i><br />If I had heard Jesus or the Apostles speak and they died without writing something down I’m still obligated to believe what Jesus taught, as it is divine truth. But Rome doesn’t claim infallible papal pronouncements are inspired, so why is it equal to God speaking? <br /><br /><i><br />Ronnie:<br />"However, I agree with Jason that we are in different time period now where the only extant inspired Word of God we have is found in Scripture, therefore there can be no higher authority, right? "<br /><br />Spoils:<br />How do we know that we have "found it," Ronnie? It's as if you think that the fact that we're very different on this point should have nothing to do with how we view or answer the question? <br /></i><br />I noticed that you didn’t answer my question, but proceeded to ask your own. I don’t mind you asking additional follow-up questions, but this is a dialog so you have to answer questions also.<br />I’m not making an argument for how I know we have the Word of God, because you agree with me that we do. <br /><i><br />It seems as though you are trying to drive an ideological wedge between God and the Church. God's Word and His Body. Being a member of His Body is how I know His Word... not the other way around.<br /></i><br />I’m not sure what your point is, but suffice it to say I’m not driving a wedge between Christ and His church.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72496000951955318162010-01-20T00:49:25.096-05:002010-01-20T00:49:25.096-05:00Ronnie,
I realize we are spilling a lot of electr...Ronnie,<br /><br />I realize we are spilling a lot of electronic ink here...<br /><br />I will make this easier and less time consuming for both of us.<br /><br />My worldview is easily falsifiable... If you can show me where the *concept* that 'the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith' is *asserted* in the Bible. I will rethink my position... <br /><br />I realize that you'll be tempted to quote a passage of Scripture extolling the greatness of Scripture... or that the Scripture is God-breathed... but, remember, we both agree there, right? Heck... I am even willing to not think about the importance of the presuppositions behind our agreement on this point for this exercise.<br /><br />What I am asking for is an *assertion* of the *concept* that 'the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith' from the Bible itself.<br /><br />As it stands right now... I deny that such a concept is asserted in the Holy Writ. Meaning I see the concept as a self-referentially incoherent one.<br /><br />I think this will save us some time. :)<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9385314608200592792010-01-20T00:40:26.807-05:002010-01-20T00:40:26.807-05:00Ronnie,
I appreciate the fact that you are contin...Ronnie,<br /><br />I appreciate the fact that you are continuing the discussion.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"Spoils, I don’t know and I’m in no position to say."<br /><br />Assuming that all of the Apostles were dead before Papias died... he would *have* to have embraced SS, no? After all you *seem* to have indicated that if Jesus and His Apostles weren't around to give it 'directly' (by which I assume that you mean something like 'orally')... that it would be 'logically necessary' in their physical absence, right?<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"However, I agree with Jason that we are in different time period now where the only extant inspired Word of God we have is found in Scripture, therefore there can be no higher authority, right? "<br /><br />How do we know that we have "found it," Ronnie? It's as if you think that the fact that we're very different on this point should have nothing to do with how we view or answer the question? <br /><br />It seems as though you are trying to drive an ideological wedge between God and the Church. God's Word and His Body. Being a member of His Body is how I know His Word... not the other way around.<br /><br />"So again if the Jehovah Witness believes in their doctrine because they presuppose the Watchtower and the Mormon likewise for his church you are at a stalemate it seems."<br /><br />Perhaps. I suppose it depends on the consistency of each of the worldviews. This should be familiar territory to a Reformed chap... especially if you're a presuppositionalist. ;)<br /><br />You wrote:<br />" ...now I see you are reasoning like an adult in that you examine the claims of your church based on historical pedigree. Well history is much more complicated to navigate then the Scriptures. So why not join us and use Scripture to validate the church?"<br /><br />1. Because I'm not all that sure that the question your posing to me is biblical (i.e. I am not all that sure it's biblical for a Christian to question those in authority over him).<br /><br />2. I am not sure that I agree that history is any more complicated that the Holy Writ.<br /><br />3. The Holy Writ has its own history, does it?<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"I don’t think it is stalement just because we may use a similar line of reasoning."<br /><br />I don't think that we *are* using a similar line of reasoning, Ronnie. I think we're come to a similar conclusion based on *very different* (so it seems) presuppositions. I see that as something foundational... you don't seem to recognize it as that important.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"My point is fairly simple. We both agree that Scripture is God speaking. Is there another source equal to God speaking that we have in our possession?"<br /><br />We don't agree *why*.<br /><br />Of course I see what you are trying to do... you want to define the terms... you want me to say, "of course the Bible is God's Word and there is no authority higher than that." As if my reasons for *believing* that very statement won't affect at all how I see the question or the answer. I assure you that they do...<br /><br />By the by, in your worldview... is your interpretation of God's Word the same as God's Word? If not, what's the difference? If there is a/are a difference/some differences... what are the practical implications of it/them?<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71223299336812555572010-01-19T22:36:12.124-05:002010-01-19T22:36:12.124-05:00Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do no...Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being.” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on the website of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was still being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then must also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not, extract Sola Scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either." (Not by Scripture Alone, page 128)Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28433802333049815312010-01-19T19:46:25.430-05:002010-01-19T19:46:25.430-05:00Spoils,
Do you think that it would be fair to su...Spoils,<br /><br /><i><br />Do you think that it would be fair to surmise that Papias believed in Sola Scriptura before he died? Just asking... (I don't know your beliefs as to the death dates of all of the Apostles as they relate to that of Papias)<br /></i><br />Spoils, I don’t know and I’m in no position to say. My initial point was that Jason’s explanation was very compelling and Dave dismissed it as if he was spewing nonsense. However, I agree with Jason that we are in different time period now where the only extant inspired Word of God we have is found in Scripture, therefore there can be no higher authority, right? At most there could be another equal authority if it is equal to the God speaking. The Protestant point is that we don’t know of extant source of God speaking.<br /><i><br />I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God, but that's because of the testimony of the Church. As it stands my worldview presupposes that the Catholic Church is what She claims to be.<br /></i><br />So again if the Jehovah Witness believes in their doctrine because they presuppose the Watchtower and the Mormon likewise for his church you are at a stalemate it seems.<br /><i><br />I don't see an assertion of the concept that the Scriptures (once the period of "inscripturation" is over) are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, and I am not sure that I buy that "canon is a fuction of Scripture" either... so I don't think this has to do with thinking like a child as opposed to thinking as an adult. <br /></i><br />Do you agree that only the Scriptures are God speaking? If yes, then what is equal to God speaking besides another source of God speaking? Do you have this other source?<br /><br /><i><br />You ask:<br />"So I guess if you were brought up a JW you would be saying the same thing?"<br /><br />I can't speak to this issue with any real certainty as I was not, in point of fact, brought up JW. I will have to think more on this... I would say, however, that the JWs don't have the same historical pedigree as does the Catholic Church... my worldview considers this to be important.<br /></i><br />I made that argument because previously you said you believed in the church because of your upbringing, therefore my point is if you were brought up a JW you would believe in that upbringing. However, now I see you are reasoning like an adult in that you examine the claims of your church based on historical pedigree. Well history is much more complicated to navigate then the Scriptures. So why not join us and use Scripture to validate the church?<br /><i><br />I have seen no reason to believe that Sola Scriptura is true... I guess it would take a clear assertion of the concept from within the pages of the Holy Writ itself for me to reexamine that proposition... I have yet to see anything but a deduction based on a presuppostion offered as proof. Proof that your position is right ***over-and-against*** my position. At best this is a stalemate, IMHO.<br /></i><br />I don’t think it is stalement just because we may use a similar line of reasoning. My point is fairly simple. We both agree that Scripture is God speaking. Is there another source equal to God speaking that we have in our possession? If not then the Scriptures are the highest authority and by default they are infallible if it is the word of God.<br /><i><br /><br />You wrote:<br />"It is logically necessary if you agree that there is no higher authority than God speaking and the Scriptures are the only extant source of God speaking today."<br /><br />I am not I agree with how you worded your premise... and I am not sure how you concluded, <br />"Scriptures are the only extant source of God speaking today." I just know that it seems as if you concluded this for reasons very different from mine.<br /></i><br />OK, then give me another example of God speaking to us in our possession?Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80735862941716832312010-01-19T18:47:24.088-05:002010-01-19T18:47:24.088-05:00TurretinFan,
I did mean Calvin, yes...
Thanks fo...TurretinFan,<br /><br />I did mean Calvin, yes...<br /><br />Thanks for your response.<br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88477949431291188932010-01-19T18:46:18.425-05:002010-01-19T18:46:18.425-05:00Ronnie,
Thanks for answering!!
Do you think that...Ronnie,<br /><br />Thanks for answering!!<br /><br />Do you think that it would be fair to surmise that Papias believed in Sola Scriptura before he died? Just asking... (I don't know your beliefs as to the death dates of all of the Apostles as they relate to that of Papias)<br /><br />I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God, but that's because of the testimony of the Church. As it stands my worldview presupposes that the Catholic Church is what She claims to be.<br /><br />I don't see an assertion of the concept that the Scriptures (once the period of "inscripturation" is over) are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, and I am not sure that I buy that "canon is a fuction of Scripture" either... so I don't think this has to do with thinking like a child as opposed to thinking as an adult. <br /><br />You ask:<br />"So I guess if you were brought up a JW you would be saying the same thing?"<br /><br />I can't speak to this issue with any real certainty as I was not, in point of fact, brought up JW. I will have to think more on this... I would say, however, that the JWs don't have the same historical pedigree as does the Catholic Church... my worldview considers this to be important.<br /><br />I have seen no reason to believe that Sola Scriptura is true... I guess it would take a clear assertion of the concept from within the pages of the Holy Writ itself for me to reexamine that proposition... I have yet to see anything but a deduction based on a presuppostion offered as proof. Proof that your position is right ***over-and-against*** my position. At best this is a stalemate, IMHO.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"It is logically necessary if you agree that there is no higher authority than God speaking and the Scriptures are the only extant source of God speaking today."<br /><br />I am not I agree with how you worded your premise... and I am not sure how you concluded, <br />"Scriptures are the only extant source of God speaking today." I just know that it seems as if you concluded this for reasons very different from mine.<br /><br />I hope you are well. <br /><br />IC XC<br />SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-40963807854166511852010-01-19T17:49:44.292-05:002010-01-19T17:49:44.292-05:00To be clear, the part of your comment that confuse...To be clear, the part of your comment that confuses me is: "Do you think he might have responded to someone who was accusing him of running away?"<br /><br />I'm not sure whether you mean Calvin or someone else, and I'm not sure what you mean by "think he might" in that I guess one could say that he might or he might not - regardless of whether it is Calvin or someone else.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com