Sola Scriptura Revisited

http://effectualgrace.com/2016/10/10/sola-scriptura-five-part-series/ (presentation of a 5 part series by James White posted by John Samson).

(Corrected a misspelling and reposted - original posting 2/3/2017).

SW: In listening to White's recent presentation he does cover many things we've already discussed here on the CathApol Blog - and he freely admits, much of this ground is already covered.  The topic he believes no Catholic apologist has ever defended is the nature of Sacred Tradition.  Karlo Brousard, the apologist White is answering to in the above linked series, says, according to White, that there is a difference in the nature between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Well really, is there?

SW: White likes to point out what sola scriptura is, and more importantly what it is not. He claims that many Protestant apologists get stuck because they attempt to defend something which sola scriptura is not - in other words, a Straw Man. White believes that many a time the non-Catholic apologist allows the Catholic apologist to define what sola scriptura is and they end up debating that instead of what sola scriptura actually is. He lists examples like, "sola scriptura contains all truth, so when we see truth outside of Scripture - sola scriptura is proven false;" and then states, "since Scripture does not tell us the color of St. Matthew's eyes or the menu they had in April of the second year of Jesus' ministry, Scripture is lacking and thus we need Sacred Tradition to fill in the gaps" (I'm paraphrasing a bit there). The problem I have with these statements is that I have NEVER heard or seen a Catholic apologist use those arguments! I've seen White throw them out before as to belittle the Catholic position - but I have never seen said arguments. Now I'm not saying said arguments have never been made - and I would agree with White that many Protestant apologists really don't know what sola scriptura means - which is understandable. There are several variations on the definition of sola scriptura, they even debate among themselves the difference between "sola" and "solo" scriptura!  (Linguistically speaking, the only difference in those Latin words is one is masculine and the other feminine and since "scriptura" is feminine, the "proper" phrase is "sola scriptura" so "solo scriptura" is not only contrary to Scripture, it is contrary to Latin grammar).  That some or even many apologists are confused is not incomprehensible. This is why, in the course of my debates (several have been with White in the past) I don't use other people's definitions - I use White's definition. White's definition is "sola scriptura is the teaching that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." He bases that statement on the nature of sola scriptura - that it is "God breathed" (in Greek, "theopneustos") and since nothing else is "God breathed," that Scripture, and Scripture alone, holds the highest spot in authority and teaching for the church. I believe I am accurately representing White here.

SW: Let's take a page from White's book(s) and define Sacred Tradition as to what it is and more importantly, what it is not. Let's start with what it is not.  Sacred Tradition is not expressed in every personal opinion of popes and/or Church councils whether ecumenical or non-ecumenical. White brings out the fact that there is no dogmatic decree on the Canon of Sacred Scripture until the 16th century at the Council of Trent. I agree with him on this point. Then he goes on to point out that though the non-ecumenical councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo, late in the 4th century, named the Canon, that there were even popes after 382 AD which disagreed with the inclusion of "the apocrypha" (not really the best term here, and White knows this - the more proper/accurate term is "deuterocanonical").  382 was the year St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the ancient texts into the Vulgate, but it wasn't completed until 405 AD. This is significant because the Council of Trent refers to Jerome's Vulgate as "the" Canon.

SW: What then IS the nature Sacred Tradition?  Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of Jesus Christ to the Apostles. It is that which has been believed and taught from the beginning, but was not necessarily written down until there became a need for it to be formally defined. A prime example of this is the Blessed Trinity. You will not find the word "trinity" in Scripture and the closest you will find it being scripturally expressed is in 1 John 5:7-8, which while theologically sound and accurate, is also known as the Johannine Comma and is believed to be a later addition to the text as "the comma" is not found in the earliest of the manuscripts we have of 1 John. The fact is, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity was not dogmatically defined until the Nicean Council about 300 years after Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth. Several heresies arose in those first 300 years, some denying the Trinity AND using Scripture to support their denials (Arianism being among the greatest of these heresies). Ultimately it would be the sacred authority of the Catholic Church along WITH Scripture which defined the Blessed Trinity and not Scripture Alone. The point is, when it was defined the Church stood on what was the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, and guided by the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, she defined the Blessed Trinity to end the debate/argument among faithful Christians.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/sola-scriptura-series-by-dr-white/ (Ken Temple summary of White's series)

Ken Temple's (KT) additional comments (in purple):

There are a few points that I would have added into the already excellent material.
(1) Dr. White made an excellent point about 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that the verb, “you were taught” is past tense, so it cannot include things like the (2) Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950) or (3) the Immaculate Conception of Mary ( 1854) or (4) the infallibility of the Pope ( 1870) nor certain dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – the ones against Protestantism and justification by faith alone.  I would add (5) also Purgatory, which all the elements of it only came together after Gregory the first, bishop of Rome from 590-640 AD.   (6) He made a good point that John Henry Cardinal Newman knew this, that is why he had to come up with his “development of doctrine” theory of the Roman Catholic Church.

SW: Let's take a look at Mr. Temple's points.

1. That 2 Thes. 2:15 uses a past tense verb is not troublesome to the Catholic apologetic.  First off, just because something wasn't in writing at the time does not mean it was not taught and/or believed.
2. In 51-52 AD the Blessed Mother may not have finished the course of her life on earth. From "Scripture Alone" we cannot say for sure when her passing was - but I'm certain no Protestant believes she did not pass.
3. The Immaculate Conception is deduced from Scripture, especially the point of her being named "Full of Grace."  Yes, Protestants argue that the title does not necessarily equate to the Immaculate Conception - but their arguments do not negate the scriptural basis of Catholic teaching. 
4. We must not forget that Scripture also records that both St. Peter alone and the council of bishops (the Apostles being our first bishops) were granted the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose to - and said binding not only was bound on Earth, but also in Heaven. Therefore, the infallibility of the Pope (St. Peter's successor) and the Council of Trent (an ecumenical council of bishops) can be validly argued to have infallible authority - are based in Scripture.
5. Likewise, there are several scriptural references which support the doctrine of Purgatory.
6. That doctrine developed cannot be validly equated to the doctrine/teaching not previously existing.  The fact that definitions of doctrine became necessary at various times throughout Christian history is not an argument against the doctrines already existing - in fact, the definitions simply define pre-existing teachings so that the faithful can have certainty in these teachings.  To paraphrase St. Augustine, after Rome has (infallibly) spoken, the cause (for argument) has ended.  (Sermon 131).

KT continues:

KT: 1. I would add something about the early date of 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (51-52 AD) and so the oral traditions include things written earlier in Galatians (49-50 AD), and 
2.. also, it seems certain that the oral traditions that Paul is saying are binding there in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were all later written out in the rest of the NT books – Romans, Ephesians, 1-2 Corinthians, Colossians, Philippians, John, Acts, Luke, (even by other authors in Hebrews, Matthew, John, Mark, Peter, James and Jude – “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”, (Jude 3), etc.

SW: There is nothing in any of those (later) books which states all oral traditions were included in them!  Mr. Temple's eisegesis is clearly pointed out in this fact. Since he is slinging verses, how about considering 3 John "¹³ I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. ¹⁴ I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face."  St. John, the Apostle who wrote much, did NOT want to put everything in writing! He wanted to wait until he could speak to them, face to face - orally.  Mr. Temple's use of Jude 3 has nothing to do with sola scriptura as Jude is referring to a specific situation of those who have turned against the Lord and are infiltrating the faithful to try and get them to turn away also (so much for once saved, always saved too, but that's a whole different topic) and certainly Temple is not implying that the tiny book of Jude contains ALL which is necessary to be taught and learned for salvation! Is he? Also, that Galations might include things "spoken" of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not say there were not other things passed on by word of mouth and NOT written, such as our example from 3 John 13-14, a much later epistle.
Let us continue...

KT:  Acts 15:19 – the apostle James, the half-brother of Jesus, says, “I judge” – Dr. White made a great point:  “but James, don’t you know “the Vicar of Christ” is seated here right next to you?” The fact that Peter was right there with him, shows there was no such thing as a Pope; and Peter was not the “first Pope.”

SW:  St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, I don't think even our Protestant detractors deny this fact, and as such - he was "responsible" for the Council of Jerusalem, regardless of the fact that the "Vicar of Christ" (a title which comes later) is sitting there with him.  The fact of the matter is that it was St. Peter who stood up and ended the debate!  St. James "judgment" is simply affirmation of what St. Peter already declared!

KT:  3.  also, I would point out that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is expanding “the sacred Scriptures” of v. 15 from OT to all Scripture; even NT books written later.

SW: I, for one, do not deny the sufficiency or profitablility of Scripture - which is spoken of in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, but sufficiency is not the point of the debate - "sola" is!  That Jim-Bob's Bike Shop can sufficiently supply the cyclist with everything he needs doesn't mean that Billy-Bob's Bike Shop cannot do just as good a job supplying the cyclist.  A claim of sufficiency (satis scriptura) or profitability does not validly answer the challenge the adherent to sola scriptura is presented with.

KT:  4.  Paul already put Gospels on same level as Torah in 1 Timothy 5:18. “Paul is enlarging on the previous reference . . especially by his use of πασα.”  (πασα = pasa = “all”) George Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, p. 448

SW: This is a non-argument in the sola scriptura debate - I am not aware of any Christian who does not put the Gospels on the same level as the Torah. The bigger point here is not just the Gospels, which among Christians were widely accepted as Scripture, but also the Epistles which were also accepted as Scripture - as well as some of the other books which were included in early canons of Scripture, but ultimately rejected as such in the late 4th century (and they are still good reading, just not "on the same level as Torah").

SW: In summary, the best that White, Samson and Temple can come up with is an argument for satis scriptura - which Catholics do not deny! What we, Catholics, do deny is sola scriptura - and what's more is, Scripture itself does not teach sola scriptura! That said, in light of the fact that Scripture itself teaches us that Scripture is NOT the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, we have "the other pen" (also an argument White likes to make) so Scripture certainly is NOT alone so far as infallibility is concerned. 

Thus, when a pope speaks ex cathedra (defining something to be part of Sacred Tradition) or an ecumenical council infallibly defines a teaching, this puts Sacred Tradition, not above or below Sacred Scripture, but equal to Sacred Scripture as both are infallible. White can no longer claim that no Catholic apologist has or will defend the nature of Sacred Tradition (and I am not the first to do this).

In JMJ,
Scott Windsor<<<

Validity

John Bugay10/05/2013 5:53 PM

Scott: You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years. Just a word about "validity". Apostolic succession itself has no validity -- especially not the Roman version. In reality, it's a late second century invention -- it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions. In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity". Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto.

Since this was a distraction to the point I had made on Triablogue (and I accept the responsibility for introducing the distraction) and I cannot create a new entry on Triablogue, I am creating a new topic here.

Well, in reality here, the article by Michael Kruger [1] which Mr. Bugay refers to is not really about apostolic succession, rather the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture - which was INDEED a process which went way BEYOND the second century!  In fact, there was not a relatively stable canon until the late fourth century.  That being said, Kruger's article is talking about sola scriptura - which is the Protestant root of authority, the "sole infallible rule of faith for the church" [2].  In that sense, he is opposing sola ecclesiam, the Catholic position.  I'll get back to the sola scriptura v. sola ecclesiam argument in a moment.  Let me remind the reader, MY POINT was:  "You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years."   Mr. Bugay, in his attempt to divert the discussion to sola scriptura, has not answered to any of my objections!  Let me enumerate them, just to be crystal clear.  

1. No Eucharist
2. No apostolic succession
3. No history beyond, or even a bit less than 500 years.

NONE of these points are answered!  In essence, Mr. Bugay's diversion is concession to my points.  I thank him for such an easy victory!

Let us look at what he did argue for himself, instead of the diversion of Krugar and sola scriptura:

In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions.

What are these alleged "unbiblical accretions?"  An undocumented, unsupported assertion is wholly an invalid argument.

In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity"

The Gnostics, whom Bugay even refers to here, a "Biblical!"  They based their beliefs in Scripture too, albeit an invalid reading/interpretation of Scripture - but their claim to being "Biblical" is just as valid as Mr. Bugay's!  For that matter, the Catholic Church is also "Biblically based," in that we point to many Scriptures as supporting our arguments.  Merely stating "Protestant churches are Biblical" is a relatively meaningless statement.

Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto. 

Again, no substance, just an unsupported assertion.  Mr. Bugay does not present a single alleged "lie" which has allegedly been "foisted on Christianity."  And he tops that off with nothing less than a direct ad hominem toward anyone who has accepted Catholicism as the one, true Faith.  

Does Mr. Bugay think he's making a valid argument here?  He has done nothing of the sort!

Let us now look at what Mr. Bugay said regarding authority...

it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. 

Right here he gives away the store!  First off, if it was a legitimate establishment of authority against the Gnostics, then what makes it illegitimate after that period of time even up to the present?  Secondly, there can be no usurpation of Christ's own authority when it was upon His authority (Matthew 16:18) the Church was built!  Again, that Church did not wait 1500 years to be built either, and as Bugay concedes, it establishes a legitimacy in presenting its case against the Gnostics in the second century!  

Let the reader be reminded, the "first century" are the years before 100ad!  That was the apostolic era, seeing as how St. John (according to Tradition) lived well into the 90s of that first century.  The "second century" then begins with the first generation of bishops in the post-apostolic era.  It is precisely those bishops, most notably St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and direct successor to the Petrine seat at Antioch, who specifically declares the validity of the authority of the office of the bishop:

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid. [3]  (emphasis added)

St. Ignatius lays it out strong and hard here!  To be "valid" it must be permitted by the bishop and/or one whom he has approved.  Period, end of story!  Keep in mind folks, St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle!  This apple fell straight off the tree!

So how about late second century:

St. Irenaeus 
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). [4]

And third century:

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]). [5]

And fourth century:

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]). [6]

Clearly the matter of apostolic succession is brought up early and often in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (and there are many other quotations with citations which could be brought out). 

So, How About Sola Scriptura?

Well, at the root, sola scriptura is a non-scriptural concept, even anti-scriptural.  Why do Catholic apologists say this?  First off, no where in Scripture will one find the teaching that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, no where.  Secondly, Scripture itself points us to ANOTHER infallible authority!  In Matthew 16:19 Jesus states that St. Peter (speaking to him alone at this point) has the authority to bind or loose whatsoever he chooses - and whatsoever he binds or loosed is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless you contend that error can be bound or loosed in Heaven, that is infallible authority given to St. Peter!  Then later in the same Gospel, Matthew 18:18, this authority is similarly given to the rest of the Apostles as a group.  So, on one hand you have the authority given to the one (pope) and on the other hand you have this infallible authority given to the group (the college of bishops).  Sola scriptura is utterly refuted at this point!

In short, sola scriptura is a lie - so who has, in Mr. Bugay's words, been "deceived and latched on to" the lie?

In over 25 years of my defending the Catholic Church and challenging sola scriptura, NOT ONE PERSON has been able to document the teaching of sola scriptura from Scripture!  Certainly there a many attempts to use verses which support a concept of satis scriptura (sufficiency), but NOT ONE speaks to "sola."

Back to the argument from Kruger and the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture...  where does Scripture dictate to us which books are to be counted as Scripture?  Certainly there are some clues, but no where is there an "infallible table of contents" in Scripture alone.  The process of establishing the Canon of Sacred Scripture is itself an argument AGAINST sola scriptura because Scripture itself, or alone, does not define the canon!

[1] http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-church-over-the-bible-or-the-bible-over-the-church/
[2] James White as qtd. on: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
[3] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ignatius_smyrnaeans.htm (paragraph 8)
[4] Qtd. on: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
[5] ibid
[6] ibid

GB Sola Scriptura Discussion Final?

Well, it seems that interest in the Sola Versus Solo Scriptura

discussion has subsided, so unless something else comes up,

this will be my final posting to Green Baggins on this subject.

Since that topic does not seem to be getting read on GB anymore

I will post my responses here.

> TurretinFan said,

> April 17, 2013 at 9:59 am

>

> Regarding #150:

>

> I (TF) had written:

>>> Even if you win a rhetorical point by saying that our doctrine should be

>>> called “Satis Scriptura,” or whatever, we are still sitting her with just

>>> a Bible as our infallible rule of faith until you show us the other

>>> supposed rule.

>

> Scott, you replied:

>> Well, I believe I have adequately demonstrated “the other rule.”

>

> TF: I don’t doubt that you believe you did so, but you’re wrong.

sw:  Well, again, the "unanswered question" here asking "Can error

be bound or loosed in heaven?" It's a simple, yes or no response

here.  If "yes" - then how can we know the Bible itself is infallible?

If "no" - then most certainly these "men" were given infallible

authority.  Then comes the question of "succession" in their "office"

or "bishoprick" Which has also been demonstrated through several

passages AND the fact that in some of the earliest of the ECFs we

have explicit lists of "succession" - especially to the Bishop of

Rome.

>> sw: You sound as if you’ve conceded to me the rhetorical point of

>> satis scriptura, have you?

>

> TF: a) It’s a little strange to me that you are so eager to try

> to make a purely rhetorical point. I would have hoped you were

> more interested in the substance.

sw: Rhetoric is not necessarily without substance.  All argument is

rhetoric.  The point is what you're REALLY defending is

indeed satis scriptura and not sola scriptura, for which there is no

scriptural defense. If you disagree with me, don't simply state I am

wrong, be the first to point us to THE passage in Scripture which

explicitly states Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the

Christian church.  Again, there is NO SUCH VERSE!  Prove me

wrong, don't just proclaim it.

> TF: b) And no, I don’t grant the rhetorical point, either. While

> the exclusive aspect of Scripture in the post-apostolic era is

> less clearly addressed than the sufficiency of Scripture, it is

> also something taught in Scripture.

sw: And again I challenge you, or anyone else reading this, to

present the passage from Scripture which would affirm your

unsubstantiated statement of "it is also something taught in

Scripture."  I repeat, it is NOT taught in Scripture and

just because you say it is does not make it so.

>> sw: re: that man and/or those men

>>

>> This is not the article/topic for Apostolic Succession, though

>> we have touched upon it in passing. MY POINT is that infallible

>> authority was given to that man and/or those men. Would you

>> agree with me that far?

>

> TF: a) Actually, if you are trying to demonstrate the

> “other rule,” then you need to get from the apostles to that

> other rule. If your “point” is not to establish the

> “other rule,” then your point misses the point.

sw:  Well, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  The evidence

is clear for those who are objectively looking at what has been

presented.  If you're looking solely with the intent of

disproving, then with such a biased view, you will likely not

see it.

> TF: b) The idea that “infallible authority was given to” them

> is rather vague.

sw:  It's not vague if you will (finally) answer the question I

have been asking.

> TF:  I have an infallible Bible,

sw: Without using circular argumentation, how do you know your

Bible is infallible?

> TF:  ...and so long as I teach what it says, then whatever I

> bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

sw: Jesus is not addressing "the Church" at the point of the

"binding and loosing" passages.  In Matthew 16 it is ONLY St.

Peter and in Matthew 18 it is ONLY the Apostles.  I realize

Protestants would like to make this a global charism,

but they are reading something into the text which is not there

when they do.

> TF:  So, you could say that infallible authority has been given

>  to me.

sw:  I could say that, but it would not be true.  

> TF:  Moreover, in the context of Matthew 16, the “binding and

> loosing” seems connected with the keys and the gates of hell.

sw:  Actually, as I already pointed out at GB, it has to do with the

“kingdom of heaven” - not the “gates of hell!”  The context which

speaks of the “gates of hell” refers to “the Church” and the fact

that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

> TF:  In other words, it seems that it refers to the gospel

> message – the proclamation that those who trust in Christ are

> loosed from their sins, and those who do not remain bound by

> the gates of hell to be under the power of death.

sw:  An interesting interpretation, for sure - but not accurate nor

contextual.  The “proclamation” is “whatsoever YOU shall bind

on earth...” and “whatsoever YOU shall loose on earth” is bound

or loosed in heaven.  There is nothing in the context to even

imply that this is referring to someone trusting in Christ or not,

but is clearly an authority given to St. Peter and the Apostles.

Context lucidly demonstrates this authority and decidedly

leaves your interpretation in error.

Next I will turn my attention to “PBJ” in comment 218

> peacebyjesus said,

> April 21, 2013 at 10:18 am

>

>> sw:  I believe it is a bit silly to request me to present

>> something outside of Scripture to point Protestants to,

>> knowing that Protestants will reject any authority outside

>> of Scripture! That being said, I point to Scripture which

>> tells the Bible believer that men were given infallible authority.

>

> PBJ:  And RCs will effectively reject any authority outside of

> the church, as only what she says Tradition, Scripture and

> history teach has authority (sola ecclesia). “Authority” is thus

> relative.

sw:  Well, “authority” is relative, but the request for me to

provide you with something you know ahead of time you will

not accept is, as I said, “a silly request.”  What RCs may or

may not do is not relevant to the question/task presented to

me.

> PBJ:  And it is indeed silly to suppose that a straw man

> refutes SS, as historically understood, as if nothing besides

> Scripture can be of viable use, rather than all such being

> subject to Scripture.

sw: Thank you for proving my point!  When you make the

statement of “all such being subject to Scripture” - you’ve

precisely stated what my position explains and why it is a

silly request to ask me to prove something outside of

Scripture.

> PBJ:  But such use of straw men is necessary when

> Scripture only affirms one source as being wholly inspired

> of God and (as written) the standard for obedience and

> testing and establishing truth claims, and providing for

> practical means in understanding it.

sw:  The passage you refer to (again) speaks to the sufficiency

of Scripture, or in Latin - satis scriptura.  Because that

particular passage makes no mention of “another source”

does not logically mean there is no other source!  This is an

invalid argument from silence.  As I stated earlier too -

Scripture does affirm another infallible source in St. Peter and

the Apostles.  So, the verse you keep referring to not only

does not say sola scriptura, elsewhere in Scripture

the concept is utterly refuted - that is, for those who have eyes

to see.

> PBJ:  And that rather than an assuredly infallible magisterium

> of men being God’s transcendent means of providing and

> preserving Truth, the church actually began in dissent from

> those who were over that entity which historically was the

> instrument and steward of Holy Writ and inheritors of the

> Promises, sitting in the very seat of Moses.

sw:  To take your position is to make the Scriptures false in

Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18.  Perhaps you would be

up to the task of answering the question I’ve been repeatedly

asking?  “Can error be bound/loosed in heaven?”  Yes or no.

I fully expect your response to either be more obfuscation or

silence.

> PBJ:  It is likewise silly for a RC to appeal to Scripture as if

> that were the real authority for his doctrine, and then to insist

> that his interpretation of it is true, despite the evidence

> against it,

sw:  Why is it silly for me to appeal to the authority YOU accept?

That being said, you have not presented any valid evidence

against my claims and/or interpretation of Matthew 16 and 18.

> PBJ:  ...but this is required when one attempts to support a

> tradition of men that rests upon the premise of perpetual,

> assured magisterial infallibility, which has infallibly declared

> itself thusly. And around it goes.

sw:  Around it goes?  Sorry, but it is Scripture which declares

what will later be called our Magisterium - that’s not a circular

argument.  Scripture is an authority you accept SO you

SHOULD accept that there is ANOTHER authority!

> PBJ: It has already been shown you that your claim that

> binding and loosing was restricted to the apostles is false,

sw:  No, just because someone CLAIMS my argument is

false does not make it so!  No one has proven my argument

to be false - and since there was no one else present (this

was not a public sermon when Jesus spoke of binding and

loosing) my argument is on very solid ground.

> PBJ:  while the things Rome has bound include the

> Scriptures themselves, and the things she has loosed

> include the unholy sword of men upon them that loved

> them, while becoming as the gates of Hell for too many

> who trusted in her.

sw:  1) Yes, the Canon of Sacred Scripture has been infallibly

bound - even YOU accept the Church’s authority upon the

Canon of the New Testament!  Keep in mind it was the

Catholic Church in Catholic councils which initially spelled

out the Canon of Sacred Scripture and it was a Catholic

priest under direct request from Rome which translated the

Scriptures into the (then) common tongue of Latin (St.

Jerome).  It is that same Latin Vulgate which was declared

infallibly to represent the Canon of Sacred Scripture.  

These are facts of history which you cannot honestly deny.

sw: 2) There is no infallible “loosing of the sword” (holy or

unholy), so you’re just wrong there.

sw: 3) Becoming “the gates of Hell” would be exactly

contrary to what Scripture records Jesus promising, so

either your statement is false - or Jesus’ is.  I’ll stick with

Jesus’ statement!

And finally...

Don said, in comment 219:

April 22, 2013 at 12:19 am

> Don: Cathapol 215, (speaking to James Swan, who never

> replied)..

>

>> sw: …knowing that Protestants will reject any authority

>> outside of Scripture!

>

> Don: Um, sure, because all us Protestants are anarchists?

sw:  I didn’t say that, but one need only look at the literally

thousands of Protestant sects which have multiplied

virtually exponentially since the so-called “reformation.”

Catholicism has ALWAYS been there throughout 100% of

Christian history, and for over 50% of that history the Church

was ONE.  Protestantism crept onto the scene in the last

25% of Christian history and has divided itself so many

times since then that if one objectively wants to make an

argument for anarchy - historically speaking that logically

goes to Protestantism.  Now again, I did not make an

argument for anarchy, but since you brought it up, I

thought I should clarify.

> Don:  I would like to think by now that you understand

> that Protestants merely reject any authority that sets

> itself up to be equal to or above Scripture.

sw:  Well two things here.  First off, please pardon my

hyperbole.  I do recognize that Protestantism (for the

most part) does recognize other authorities, including

the Church, just not other infallible authorities.  Secondly,

I do not argue that the Church is above Scripture, though

I know others have attempted to SAY that is my position,

it is not.

> Don: Anyway, as you are aware, Scripture never

> mentions anything about a “Bishop of Rome,”

sw: Not by that name, but Scripture DOES mention the

“office” of the “bishoprick” (several times) and the fact

that this “office” is an “apostolic office” is undeniable, so

Peter, being a bishop who was in Rome (martyred there

on the same day St. Paul was martyred there).  The

Bishoprick of Rome is traditionally traced back to St. Peter,

so historically speaking - your argument is quite empty.

> Don:  and Protestants have heard and reject the

> exegetical efforts to get from Matthew 16 to the Vatican

> and Magesterium.

sw:  It doesn’t take much exegesis to get there... for those

who have eyes to see, that is.

> Don:  So there’s no great need to rehash those arguments.

> But evidence to support those arguments would be

> welcome; that seems to be what James Swan is requesting.

sw: Well, in this response I have not requoted all the arguments,

but I have referred to them and there are links back to the

original statements so the interested reader can go back and

read (or reread) what was stated.

> Don:  What sort of evidence? Well you’re correct that

> declarations from the Magisterium would not be sufficient.

> But simple, unbiased historical evidence would work fine.

> For example, if somebody found an authentic Polycarp

> manuscript that says something like, “…just like ol’ Pope

> Anacletus used to say…,” then you’d have some

> extremely strong evidence for Apostolic Succession;

sw:  Oh, like something from the Council of Chalcedon stating

"Peter speaks through Leo!"  See:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/02/catholic-authority.html

and:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/08/ecfs-on-papacy.html

> Don:  from there, an argument that they would possess

> infallible authority would not be automatically accepted but

> would probably be quite strong.

sw:  Well, SEVERAL sources from the Early Church Fathers

are cited in the sources I cite above.  I see that you still leave

yourself an “out” from the argument, but at least you’re willing

to grant that such arguments are “strong.”  

sw:  So, with these replies, unless someone has something

of substance to counter with, I end my participation in the

Sola versus Solo Scriptura discussion on Green Baggins.

AMDG,

Scott<<<