tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post6410172585942749642..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material SufficiencyNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39463415568844899892018-06-29T21:54:14.814-07:002018-06-29T21:54:14.814-07:00Nick, I am wondering if the view of material suffi...Nick, I am wondering if the view of material sufficiency of scripture undermines the notion of oral Tradition as part of the deposit of faith. For example, the well know quotation of Paul telling his readers to hold fast onto all they were taught both in the epistles and by word of mouth. It is the Catholic belief that these teachings were past down from the Apostles. For example, the details of the celebration of the eucharist. I read one of your arguments based on the absence of detailed instructions for worship found in scripture as a way of encouraging Protestants to realize that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith. However, if the Bible is materially sufficient, then with the right guidance all aspects of proper Christian worship could be found in NT written texts, right? But you did a good job of pointing out you can not find such instruction in the scriptures, just very limited statements cleary not intended to instruct the faithful in worship. I would accept material sufficiency more easily if it were qualified in some additional way. For example, can I say material sufficiency is limited to what is necessary for salvation. If I do that it seems that would allow scripture to point to the Church as the visible institution one can turn to define Christian worship. Scripture may not say that explicitally which is why it is proper to use the term materially sufficient. Or am I totally missing it here? Can you help me understand these issues? I'd really appreciate it. ThanksRevert 101https://www.blogger.com/profile/16707301142064210752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22231069016060960892010-11-06T17:58:04.453-07:002010-11-06T17:58:04.453-07:00"Probably the most famous - and most importan..."Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity."<br /><br />## How about:<br /><br />The New Testament ?<br /><br />ISTM one could - if so inclined - build a very strong case for sinfulness of accepting the NT books as inspired Holy Writ. Jesus gave us a NT, in His Body & Blood (Matthew 26:26) - so the written NT is obviously the first indication of the Church's rejection of the sufficiency of Christ. As one of these (uninspired) books says, "Many are called but few are chosen" - the fewness of the saved being proved by the fact that hardly any Christians reject the heresy of having an NT Jesus did not command the Church to have. <br /><br />And so on, in a similar vein :) There is absolutely nothing but wishful thinking to suggest that the NT is Holy Writ - *unless* Protestants adopt the Church's Holy Writ. All the arguments they make for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books, are equally valid against the NT. They don't notice the contradictions & errors in the NT, because their tradition regards the NT as inerrant & inspired Holy Writ. <br /><br />This, IMO, is a serious difficulty for the Fundamentalist understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.<br /><br />The example of Trinitarian errors makes the same point, but in a different way. <br /><br />Nice weblog - keep it up :)Kerberoshttp://mikecat10421@aol.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-55682192677912093822010-10-26T12:29:36.955-07:002010-10-26T12:29:36.955-07:00@Gerry
You said, "So if I cannot rely on my ...@Gerry<br /><br />You said, "So if I cannot rely on my own interpretation, how do you suppose I can identify the true church?"<br /><br />You are approaching this from a modern perspective. If you were living in the first few centuries of the Chruch, this question would seem out of place. The Church is identified with those who are teaching with the authority passed on to them by the apostles. This authority was passed on from generation to generation and was the key to defining and fighting against heretical beliefs, as well as defining the canon. You find the Church by locating those who had this authority passed on to them in an unbroken line of succession from the 1st century. <br /><br />Do you contend that the earliest Christians did not believe that there were identifiable people who had authority?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04653644792930523119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-41579677560584206132010-10-22T16:06:44.439-07:002010-10-22T16:06:44.439-07:00@Jae,
You said: "Yet, it seems clear from Ma...@Jae,<br /><br />You said: "Yet, it seems clear from Matthew 16 (and other passages) that the church that Christ founded would be able to do these things."<br /><br />It's very ironic that you point to me the Scriptures whereas you asserted the fact that I am not infallible to interpret them.<br /><br />You also mentioned the four marks of the church. Are you sure that these marks are acceptable to all or just to some. If it's just for some then there is a possibility that it is self-serving. And what is your basis for this four marks? I hope you would not refer to the Scriptures since you asserted that people are not infallible.<br /><br />So if I cannot rely on my own interpretation, how do you suppose I can identify the true church?<br /><br />Thanks.Gerry Solimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13286763935979087895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-84100771365126437832010-10-19T19:58:31.449-07:002010-10-19T19:58:31.449-07:00Gerry said, "What I mean is, what makes you c...Gerry said, "What I mean is, what makes you choose your church as the true infallible interpreter, that is the Roman Catholic church, over the other churches that claims to be true such us the Eastern Orthodox, the LDS, the Watchtower etc.?"<br /><br />Well, besides the fact that Jesus gave the four "marks" of His universal Church, a purely invisible universal church would be unable to speak her mind (i.e., teach on matters of faith and morals), or regulate her life (i.e., set down norms for sacramental celebrations, proclaim what is truth regarding current, modern challenges of the time viz. artificial contraception, gay-marriage, cloning stem cell etc. and other communal practices). Yet, it seems clear from Matthew 16 (and other passages) that the church that Christ founded would be able to do these things. If a visible, and visibly unified, universal church has never existed, then it is difficult to make sense of Christ’s promises. If such a church did exist, but has subsequently been destroyed, well, forget about difficulty of making sense–Our Lord would have manifestly broken his promises. But that is not possible.<br /><br />This "Church" spoken by Christ Himself in Matthew and Paul have ordained bishops, priests and deacons who have an "OFFICE" - that should survived even when the current occupant dies and must and should be traced all the way back to the original Apostles themselves as spoken by the early Church Fathers. Its like the "office" of the President that must be traced back to Mr. George Washinton.<br /><br />Good references, (Lists of Popes): <br /><br />Encyclopedia Brittannica, World Atlas, Oxford Dictionary, Irenaues' writings and Early Church Fathers by Jurgens.<br /><br />Peace.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-48494980413651600062010-10-18T16:25:43.017-07:002010-10-18T16:25:43.017-07:00Russell,
You said: In Scripture, Jesus said abso...Russell, <br /><br />You said: In Scripture, Jesus said absolutely nothing about “Catholic Tradition,” or anything near this. So, this must come from Tradition. <br /><br />I would disagree with this claim, but even if I were wrong, it wouldn't necessarily need to come from Scripture since Sola Scriptura isn't true. <br /><br /><br />You said: [The formal/material distinction] is simply an opinion, a distinction fabricated by men, but absent from the Bible. <br /><br />The distinction only comes from the fact Protestants invented Sola Scriptura, i.e. claiming formal sufficiency. Catholics denied this. The problem with your approach is that it unfairly presumes Sola Scriptura is true, even given the status of "untouchable", but doesn't actual prove it. On the flip side, I've shown why "material sufficiency" is the most Scripture can convey. <br /><br /><br />You said: Going to the church to settle disputes in no way proves that the church is infallible. <br /><br />It would necessitate that, since the Church would have to be able to authoritatively settle doctrinal disputes. If the Church were merely a panel of fallible men, then Christ's teaching would be put in the dubious position of either (a) possibly binding errant doctrine, or (b) making the Church's authoritative claims no better than any other panel of humans. <br /><br /><br />You said: "The church is indeed the body of Christ, but the Catholic Church of which you are a member has done some “interesting” things (to put it politely) in the past, things that do not reflect infallibility." <br /><br />This is along the lines of the ad hominem fallacy. That the Church is Christ's Body makes it indefectible by definition.<br /><br /><br />You said: Nick, you also accused me of special pleading concerning my understanding of 2 Timothy. But I find it ironic that, according to at least one source (Wikipedia) that defines the term, we are given some interesting *examples* of special pleading, like:<br /><br />Special pleading means focusing only on data helpful to your cause while ignoring data harmful to your cause. In the case of Sola Scriptura, you've admitted it wasn't operable during that time, yet you none the less presuppose it is a true doctrine and demand we do so likewise without good biblical evidence. The examples you gave from wiki are true under certain circumstances, but not all. <br /><br /><br />You said: "Again, in this passage in Acts, the solution to the problem is “the word of His grace,” i.e., the Word of God. I believe you just reinforced my point here."<br /><br />You're incorrectly assuming that "Word of God" means "the Bible," when that's not true. That phrase only means "The Bible" in a minority of cases. <br /><br />I am glad we had a good discussion here, I would just (again) ask you to realize that by your own admission the doctrine of Sola Scriptura didn't apply during the Apostolic age, and there are no clear cut Scriptural texts teaching the doctrine. No Catholic or Protestant should be forced to make a blind leap in accepting such a doctrine.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-34368554166875433312010-10-16T21:28:27.093-07:002010-10-16T21:28:27.093-07:00Hi Nick,
I, too, do not want us to keep repeating...Hi Nick,<br /><br />I, too, do not want us to keep repeating ourselves, so I’ll try to be brief.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“Catholic Tradition is true because *Jesus* says it’s true”<br /><br />Nick, did you get this information from the “material sufficiency” part of revelation (the Bible) or from the “formal sufficiency” part (Tradition)?<br /> <br />In Scripture, Jesus said absolutely nothing about “Catholic Tradition,” or anything near this. So, this must come from Tradition. Therefore, it is indeed circular: “Catholic Tradition is true because the Catholic Church’s Tradition teaches that *Jesus* says it’s true.”<br /><br />I certainly disagree with your 3 reasons that the church today has infallibility. You said:<br /><br />1) “the Bible is not formally sufficient”<br /><br />This is simply an opinion, a distinction fabricated by men, but absent from the Bible. I will let *someone else* stand before the Creator, the Author of Scripture, and tell Him that His Sacred Word, His Revelation to mankind given for the sake of man’s salvation, is in the “wrong form,” that it is somehow “insufficient.” <br /><br />2) “passages like Matthew 18 ‘tell it to the church’ would be impossible if no authoritative Church existed after the Apostles”<br /><br />Going to the church to settle disputes in no way proves that the church is infallible. <br /><br />3) “the Church is the (Mystical) Body of Christ as Paul explicitly says, which means it's necessarily indefectible and acts with Christ's authority”<br /><br />The church is indeed the body of Christ, but the Catholic Church of which you are a member has done some “interesting” things (to put it politely) in the past, things that do not reflect infallibility.<br /><br />Nick, you also accused me of special pleading concerning my understanding of 2 Timothy. But I find it ironic that, according to at least one source (Wikipedia) that defines the term, we are given some interesting *examples* of special pleading, like:<br /><br />1) “claiming that vocabulary is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application”<br /><br />This sure sounds a lot like the Catholic Church, which claims that she is the *sole authentic interpreter* of Scripture and Tradition (CCC #100) <br /><br />2) “claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly”<br /><br />Like Tradition…<br /><br />3) “assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view”<br /><br />So often we hear Catholics accuse Protestants (who DO understand the Catholic view, but just disagree) of not being able to understand Catholicism.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“Lastly, if you're really concerned about Paul's final thoughts, addressing the most important issues before departing, I can't think of anywhere more relevant than Acts 20:28ff”<br /><br />Nick, I’m glad you mentioned that passage, because I believe that in 2 Timothy 3 and Acts 20:28ff, the problem and the remedy in both contexts parallel very nicely. The problem in both contexts is false doctrine and deception. And the remedy in both contexts is the Word of God. In Acts 20, you quoted 28 thru 31, but go down to the very next verse:<br /><br />32 “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”<br /><br />Again, in this passage in Acts, the solution to the problem is “the word of His grace,” i.e., the Word of God. I believe you just reinforced my point here.<br /><br />Nick, I don’t want to hog the discussion nor be redundant, so I will bow out now and give you the last word. I do want to thank you for being a gentleman all through this discussion. I appreciate the time and space you’ve given me, and I also appreciate the others who participated.<br /><br />Feel free to visit my blog and to comment. The same goes for everyone else who visits here. And I pray for grace, truth, and light for every one of us. Thanks again.<br /><br />In His Name,<br />RussellRussellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-88233714703980776572010-10-15T16:01:24.973-07:002010-10-15T16:01:24.973-07:00Russ,
You said: First, this is very circular. It...Russ, <br /><br />You said: First, this is very circular. It is the same old “Catholic Tradition is true because the Catholic Church says it’s true” mentality. <br /><br />This is not circular, and I'll prove it very easily by analogy: <br />“Catholic Tradition is true because *Jesus* says it’s true”<br />Is this circular? Better not be. <br />The issue is not whether this is a fallacious system (because it is actually logically sound), but whether the Catholic Church really speaks in Christ's name. <br /><br /><br />You said: Second, I see no biblical reason to believe that any person or group in the post-apostolic church would have the gift of infallibility. <br /><br />I can think of at least three good reasons: (1) the Bible is not formally sufficient; (2) passages like Matthew 18 "tell it to the church" would be impossible if no authoritative Church existed after the Apostles; (3) the Church is the (Mystical) Body of Christ as Paul explicitly says, which means it's necessarily indefectible and acts with Christ's authority. <br /><br /><br />You said: "Paul knew that new divine revelation would some day cease. And although Sola Scriptura was not yet operating (i.e., the church was still receiving new revelation), Paul offers ONLY Scripture as the solution and rule of faith in this critical context. So he must have been, in fact, looking forward to a transition... from “oral plus written” to “written only.”"<br /><br />This is the double fallacy of special pleading as well as anachronism. By your own admission, Sola Scriptura was "not yet operating," so any instructions the Apostles gave couldn't have been instructing them to engage in SS. <br />To say Paul "must have been looking forward to a transition" is admitting you don't really know what Paul's thought was and at most are assuming what Paul "must have been" thinking. <br /><br />Your (Sola Scriptura) position is bankrupt logically and Scripturally, so if you're going to criticize the Catholic position, you must *first* find a coherent and Biblical hill to 'attack' from. <br /><br />Russ, buddy, I'm asking you to stop and think about your own position. <b>Put me aside and convince *yourself* that Sola Scriptura has good solid Biblical footing.</b> As I keep showing, there's not a leg for SS to stand on and it's grasping at straws. Is this really how the foundational doctrine of Christianity, after the Trinity, is supposed to be testified to by the Apostles...in virtual silence? And the "strongest" proof being put forward is an anachronistic interpretation of private (not public) correspondence from Paul to Timothy? <br /><br />Lastly, if you're really concerned about Paul's final thoughts, addressing the most important issues before departing, I can't think of anywhere more relevant than Acts 20:28ff<br />"<b>Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops. Be shepherds of the church of God</b>, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." <br /><br />Paul is speaking to bishops here to guard and pass on what they've been authoritatively entrusted to do. Paul says nothing about turning to Scripture here, which would be the absolute ideal place if Sola Scriptura was as important and critical as Protestantism suggests. Even in spite of the wolves that appear, there is no total apostasy foretold, because the Holy Spirit will guide the Church.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30351882867716490172010-10-15T00:27:56.909-07:002010-10-15T00:27:56.909-07:00Russell said, "But we *can* have *sufficient*...Russell said, "But we *can* have *sufficient* certainty… which is in no way reduced to “confident guessing."<br /><br />The "confident guessing" stuff was an answer of a very prominent Reformed apologist about how they arrived at Biblical interpretations since they didn't accept CERTAINTY CLAUSE which would entail an infallible entity besides the fact they admitted and asserted that humans are not innerrant.<br /><br />So, for you it is sufficienct "CERTAINTY" meaning being CERTAIN....that's equal to 100% assured, indisputable beyond error and infallibly believing in something, that sounds like an infallible interpreter to me, don't you gree?Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-77635197483944849902010-10-14T21:28:40.169-07:002010-10-14T21:28:40.169-07:00Nick,
You said:
“As Spoils has noted, the canon ...Nick,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“As Spoils has noted, the canon of tradition is found in the Magisterium and it’s teaching throughout history…”<br /><br />First, this is very circular. It is the same old “Catholic Tradition is true because the Catholic Church says it’s true” mentality. Second, as I told Chris (Spoils) above, I see no biblical reason to believe that any person or group in the post-apostolic church would have the gift of infallibility. So, the whole Catholic concept of “Infallible Tradition” is built on a foundation of shifting sand.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“To say 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves this transition is not only a leap of logic, it betrays the fact this passage applied immediately and thus no ‘transition’ time applied.”<br /><br />The simple truth is that the Apostle Paul is pouring out his heart in an urgent message, knowing that he was near martyrdom, probably writing his last message to a trusted (spiritual) son, Timothy. The context is that difficult times are coming upon the church (3:1), with deception getting worse and worse (3:13). Paul offers a solution to this deception, a rule of faith, which leads to salvation (3:15). He mentions only Scripture in this context, and that it is indeed inspired (3:16), but he doesn’t stop there. He tells us that this inspired rule of faith will also equip us for “every good work” (3:17). He then charges Timothy to “preach the Word” (4:1-2), pointing back to the same language that he was using when referring to Scripture in 3:16 (terms like “reprove”, “rebuke”, “instruction”, and “doctrine” found in verses 4:2-3). <br /><br />Paul knew that new divine revelation would some day cease. And although Sola Scriptura was not yet operating (i.e., the church was still receiving new revelation), Paul offers ONLY Scripture as the solution and rule of faith in this critical context. So he must have been, in fact, looking forward to a transition... from “oral plus written” to “written only.” <br /><br />It seems unthinkable, in light of the urgency of Paul’s appeal, that he would omit the mention of “Oral Tradition” in this context, if it were all that the Catholic Church says it is.<br /><br />Your “applied immediately” argument is also invalid. Things like circumcision and dietary laws also “applied immediately,” yet they were to go through a transition later on.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89931310253688457232010-10-14T21:14:54.890-07:002010-10-14T21:14:54.890-07:00Hi Chris,
You said:
“Of course, as Catholic I bel...Hi Chris,<br /><br />You said:<br />“Of course, as Catholic I believe (as I alluded to before) that the Holy Spirit is guiding the entire process... it's a matter of faith for me.”<br /><br />The Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, but I don’t see Him guaranteeing infallibility to anyone or any group in the post-apostolic church. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />“Yes, as a Catholic I can tell you with certitude what the canon of Scripture is. How, as a Catholic, do you think I can do that?”<br /><br />My point was, and still is, that you’re able to SHOW me one facet of your rule of faith (the canon of Scripture), but not the OTHER (the canon of Tradition). Why should anyone believe that this “other” one (that you can’t show me) is infallible? The claims of “Infallible Tradition” tend to lose their impact when you can’t show what that Tradition is.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“Your question doesn't made sense to me. I tried to illustrate this to you by asking you to give me the list of all of the teachings of Scripture, but you haven't really dealt with that...”<br /><br />Chris, I could attempt to give you a list of all the teachings in the Bible, but I would most likely miss something, somewhere in there. But that’s not the point. The point is, I know WHERE to find its teachings… in the 66 books of the Bible. Canon arguments aside, the boundaries (i.e., the framework) of my rule of faith rest within the pages of those books. But where is the (complete) canon of Tradition? <br /><br />Catholics can use all the fancy, eloquent, and articulate arguments they want, but the bottom line is (by their own admission), they can’t tell us what “Sacred Tradition” is, nor where to find it all. I’m asking a very simple and straightforward question, but they can only dance around this question while claiming that I’m either ignorant of Catholic teaching… or I’m asking the wrong question… that mine is a fallacious and anti-sacramental approach, etc., etc.<br /><br />Tradition is supposedly something that needs to be “lived” or “experienced”.… But how can one know if he is “living” it or “experiencing” it correctly? How can one OBEY Tradition if he can’t identify it? And, can you answer this without circular reasoning… without saying, “Because the infallible Magisterium teaches that”? If not, I’d rather stick to a rule of faith that’s more objective and identifiable.<br /><br />Concerning the argument that since only Scripture is called “theopneustos”, then ONLY Scripture is God-breathed: I agree that this does not necessarily follow. But this fact certainly does not help your case in any way. This particular argument, by itself, doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura, but it is a major part of the overall evidence for it. I believe the “concept” is certainly there when taking the evidence as a whole. <br /><br />By the way, I like your “fish”: <’)))><Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-37254713578539212642010-10-11T11:54:13.794-07:002010-10-11T11:54:13.794-07:00Hi Russell,
You said: I’m not the one who is hav...Hi Russell, <br /><br />You said: I’m not the one who is having trouble with my canon. I know what the boundaries (canon) of my rule of faith are. Catholics are the ones having a hard time with determining the boundaries for the canon of their own Tradition. <br /><br />At the risk of both of us repeating ourself, I'd simply point out you're approaching this wrongly and with a double standard. As Spoils has noted, the canon of tradition is found in the Magisterium and it's teaching throughout history, with a classic example of the canon of Scripture itself. Tradition is not in "page and list" format you're looking for or expecting to see. <br /><br />Your demand that it conform itself to such a thing is a double standard since you yourself "refuse to" (I say "refuse to" not to suggest you're doing it for any ill reason) create such an "itemized list" of Christian doctrines from your source of authority, the Bible.<br /><br /><br />You said: "Concerning Sola Scriptura not being operative when revelation was still being given, I agree. But I don’t see a problem with this. There are a number of “transitions” found in Scripture, and Sola Scriptura is only one such transition." <br /><br />You might not see the problem, but it's there, and it's pretty serious. You claim there are a number of such "transitions" <b>*found in Scripture*</b> and that SS <b>*is one such 'transition' found in Scripture</b>. The question is: where is this transition found in Scripture? If you can't find it, then you're position is instantly self-refuting. <br /><br />To say 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves this transition is not only a leap of logic, it betrays the fact this passage applied immediately and thus no "transition" time applied. <br /><br />I cannot believe for a second that God would establish his Church on such manifestly shaky reasoning and arguments, and especially Scriptural "support" (if such can be called "support").Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-61855075474881017582010-10-11T09:03:32.196-07:002010-10-11T09:03:32.196-07:00Greetings Russell!
I just wanted to continue our ...Greetings Russell!<br /><br />I just wanted to continue our little conversation. :)<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>You asked what 'boundary' I was speaking of. I was referring to the limits of the contents of Catholic Tradition. In other words, what is the 'canon' of Tradition? And how do we know the limits, or boundaries of what it teaches? How do you prove if someone is 'adding' an unauthorized teaching to it?</i><br /><br />I am not sure I see the same need that you do to have a "list" of Holy Tradition. Especially since part of having a living/teaching Magisterium is their ability to interpret things for us *today*. Of course, as Catholic I believe (as I alluded to before) that the Holy Spirit is guiding the entire process... it's a matter of faith for me.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>I know you would be able to tell me what your canon of Scripture is. Why not the canon of Tradition?</i><br /><br />Yes, as a Catholic I can tell you with certitude what the canon of Scripture is. How, as a Catholic, do you think I can do that? <br /><br />Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are related, mate, but... that doesn't mean that they are the same.<br /><br />Your question doesn't made sense to me. I tried to illustrate this to you by asking you to give me the list of all of the teachings of Scripture, but you haven't really dealt with that...<br /><br />I didn't say one should use any deductions when interpreting the Bible... I just have a problem with deductions that I would call "questionable." <br /><br />For instance... saying that the Bible calls Scripture "theopneustos" in II Tim. 3:16 and that nowhere else in the Bible is anything else called "theopneustos" equals the Bible teaching that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith is a deduction that I would call questionable. It doesn't follow logically... one who uses a line of "reasoning" like this is usually *presupposing* SS, not proving it.<br /><br />By the by, I never said that I wanted you to find me those exact words in Scripture... I wanted proof of the concept being asserted. You can read back to check if you like. :)<br /><br />I hope that you are well.<br /><br /><')))><Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-5721376608856605452010-10-10T20:21:08.382-07:002010-10-10T20:21:08.382-07:00Hello Nick,
You said:
“I don't see what sign...Hello Nick,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“I don't see what significant advantage ‘boundaries’ give you if you still cannot come up with a list of doctrines, much less the canon itself.”<br /><br />Nick, I’m not the one who is having trouble with my canon. I know what the boundaries (canon) of my rule of faith are. Catholics are the ones having a hard time with determining the boundaries for the canon of their own Tradition.<br /><br />Concerning Sola Scriptura not being operative when revelation was still being given, I agree. But I don’t see a problem with this. There are a number of “transitions” found in Scripture, and Sola Scriptura is only one such transition. <br /><br />And I also believe that the context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 points to this particular transition in a simple and straightforward way. <br /><br />But then again, we already had this discussion...Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-32114688029760621332010-10-10T20:16:24.020-07:002010-10-10T20:16:24.020-07:00Hi Chris,
You asked what “boundary” I was speakin...Hi Chris,<br /><br />You asked what “boundary” I was speaking of. I was referring to the limits of the contents of Catholic Tradition. In other words, what is the “canon” of Tradition? And how do we know the limits, or boundaries of what it teaches? How do you prove if someone is “adding” an unauthorized teaching to it? <br /><br />I know you would be able to tell me what your canon of Scripture is. Why not the canon of Tradition?<br /><br />Chris, you also mentioned “questionable deductions” when reading from Scripture. Well, I agree that we shouldn’t use *questionable* deductions. But we can’t rule out deducing things from the Scriptures, since many things that we believe must be received by deduction. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that the exact words, “The Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church today” are not in the Bible. But I believe that we CAN deduce Sola Scriptura from its pages, just as we can deduce other important teachings, like the Trinity, and the incarnation, etc., etc. There are many, many things in Scripture that can and must be ascertained by deduction, things that may not be precisely worded as we word them today, yet the concepts are there.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-5791306631541063682010-10-10T16:56:00.654-07:002010-10-10T16:56:00.654-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gerry Solimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13286763935979087895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-6611350693771268632010-10-10T16:51:16.218-07:002010-10-10T16:51:16.218-07:00@ Jae
You quoted:
"Here lies the problem. S...@ Jae<br /><br />You quoted:<br /><br />"Here lies the problem. Since, to a Protestant, no Church leader or group of leaders possess, as a divine gift from the Holy Spirit, infallibility when interpreting Scriptures, it is intrinsic to our Church “worldview” that whatever our church leaders teach or whatever “authority” they exercise might not be the correct interpretation of Scripture. Since there is no judge to decide which is the correct interpretation of Scripture amongst competing interpretations."<br /><br />I would like to ask just one question:<br /><br />Given that there is a necessity of an infallible body to correctly interpret the Scriptures, how do you know that your church is that infallible body?<br /><br />What I mean is, what makes you choose your church as the true infallible interpreter, that is the Roman Catholic church, over the other churches that claims to be true such us the Eastern Orthodox, the LDS, the Watchtower etc.?<br /><br />Thank you.Gerry Solimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13286763935979087895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18169200853174422592010-10-08T13:49:40.987-07:002010-10-08T13:49:40.987-07:00Here's a real problem for protestantism which ...Here's a real problem for protestantism which I quoted from Jason a former protestant in Called to Communion blog which i found very compelling:<br /><br />"....as a fellow Protestant who has not yet (emphasis on the yet) became Catholic, I have a question for you (reformed). ....You appeal to an example in Scripture to prove your case. Now lets see the problem with this, being fellow Protestants with, I would suppose, a similar background. Excommunicating a person or group from the Church, or Body of Christ, is an act of Church authority that the Church leadership is granted from Christ. We see Paul commanding the Church leaders of Corinth to do exactly this to a certain man in 1 Corinthians. Now, the Protestant view of Church, in regard to both its leadership and its personal members, neither subjects have the gift of infallibility in interpreting Scripture, which is the Protestants only infallible source of divine revelation. As other articles on this site have pointed out, “All appeals to Scripture are an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture.” Here lies the problem. Since, to a Protestant, no Church leader or group of leaders possess, as a divine gift from the Holy Spirit, infallibility when interpreting Scriptures, it is intrinsic to our Church “worldview” that whatever our church leaders teach or whatever “authority” they exercise might not be the correct interpretation of Scripture. Since there is no judge to decide which is the correct interpretation of Scripture amongst competing interpretations. It cannot be Scripture for that is the subject matter. I mean, there is no guarantee that a Protestant Church leader has not “missed” something in the scriptures that some future Biblical scholar might uncover. I mean this is basically what we have in Protestantism, a leadership’s understanding of dogma depending on a war between scholars. The laymen has to become a scholar himself. Its imperative, in the Protestant Church view. If my Pastor, at my Protestant Church, encourages me to confess a certain doctrine, I am discouraged from confessing it based on his authority. I have to become the judge of what he says in order to confess it. So once again, even the ability to understand the Gospel (which you say the Catholic adds to), in Protestantism, depends on the laymen becoming just as scholarly as the leadership, and just as much their judge as they are mine. So, in Protestantism, how could there ever be a right situation, given the possibility of doctrinal error, for the Protestant leadership, or even myself, to ever have the authority to judge that an individual or group should be anathematized? The Protestant view of the Church can never allow it. And this is a problem."<br /><br />Further reading: cut and paste the link.<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-88462417069371493532010-10-07T08:32:27.085-07:002010-10-07T08:32:27.085-07:00Hi Russell,
I don't see what significant adv...Hi Russell, <br /><br />I don't see what significant advantage "boundaries" give you if you still cannot come up with a list of doctrines, much less the canon itself. <br /><br />Anyway, on another blog I made a short post that Protestants here might be interested in: <br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />Here are three popular Protestant apologists quotes which are easily available online:<br /><br />James White: The main element of [Catholic apologist] Mr. Ray’s misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: <b>the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists.</b> What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” <b>You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation.</b> How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” <b>It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t.</b> Who said it did?<br /><br />William Webster: The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, <b>a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age</b>.<br />Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, <b>founded on the Scriptures themselves</b>, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses <b>today</b>, the written Scriptures or the Bible.<br /><br />Joe Mizzi: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the <b>only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age</b>.<br /><br />Each of these quotes agrees: Sola Scriptura was not practiced by Christ nor the Apostles nor Apostolic Christians. This means any Scriptural text appealed to to teach Sola Scriptura cannot (logically) be teaching the doctrine, since it was functionally impossible at the time. The rule of faith didn’t (fully) exist yet. The notion that all inspired oral teachings would one day be confined to Scripture is likewise a (dogmatic) claim not taught in Scripture itself.<br /><br />Starting at this point, I don’t see how Sola Scriptura has a chance.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-34964013600427688362010-10-07T08:11:15.810-07:002010-10-07T08:11:15.810-07:00Russell,
I posted something just a couple of minu...Russell,<br /><br />I posted something just a couple of minutes ago as a response to your response to me... I don't see it popping up on Nick's main page as a recent comment yet... Can you see it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-29538958243639657032010-10-07T08:01:40.334-07:002010-10-07T08:01:40.334-07:00Hello Russell!!
Thanks for your question.
You...Hello Russell!!<br /><br /><i>Thanks for your question.</i><br /><br />You're more than welcome, mate! :)<br /><br /><i>You asked for the official list of the teachings of Scripture.</i><br /><br />I did as for the official list of the teachings of Scripture!!<br /><br /><i>Well, all of its teachings are contained in (and limited to) its books (66 for the Protestant / 73 for the Catholic). In either case, the number of these books serves as its boundary.</i><br /><br />The boundary (boundaries really) of the canon (differing canons really) which Christians (Roman and otherwise) in communion with the Pope of Rome and Christians affiliated with various Protestant communities have decided to recognize as the Holy Writ, no? Not some kind of doctrinal "boundary," I hope since I don't believe that the Holy Writ (in any canon recognized by any Christian communion [of which I am currently aware]) asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, but... ;)<br /><br /><i>Though we may not agree on the number, this boundary is definite and clear for both of us. This has been my point all along.</i><br /><br />We don't agree on the number... perhaps the Bible can clear up this issue of canon for us? ;)<br /><br />Seriously though... what boundary? The doctrinal/rule of faith boundary? I, for one, haven't ever seen convincing proof that this teaching is asserted in either canon we spoken about so... I don't plan on agreeing to your boundary idea unless I am convinced that we're only speaking about the canon and not about the 'sole rule of faith' since there are distinct topics.<br /><br /><i>The content of Scripture has clear parameters, but the content of “Sacred Tradition” has no definite and clear parameters.</i><br /><br />Is the guidance of the Holy Spirit a clear enough parameter? ;)<br /><br /><i>Yet, Catholics still want to attach “infallibility” to it.</i><br /><br />Well... the Holy Spirit is incapable of error, IMHO. ;)<br /><br /><i>Concerning your other question, if the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, then there is no valid reason to believe it is a biblical doctrine or principle.</i><br /><br />I am glad to hear that you think so. :)<br /><br /><i>But, of course, I believe that it DOES teach Sola Scriptura, and I have biblical reasons for believing that.</i><br /><br />I am sure that you do!! I would love to see biblical reasons that didn't make deductions based on going logically beyond the statements made in the Bible about the nature of the Scriptures... or biblical reasons that presuppose SS from the very start. I would be utterly refreshing to see evidence offered from the pages of Scripture alone where it's obvious that the the concept that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith is being plainly asserted... without any questionable deductions... presuppositions, etc...<br /><br />I hope that you are well!!<br /><br />Blessings!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-71141353537380544132010-10-06T20:34:39.683-07:002010-10-06T20:34:39.683-07:00Hello Chris,
Thanks for your question.
You asked...Hello Chris,<br /><br />Thanks for your question.<br /><br />You asked for the official list of the teachings of Scripture. Well, all of its teachings are contained in (and limited to) its books (66 for the Protestant / 73 for the Catholic). In either case, the number of these books serves as its boundary. Though we may not agree on the number, this boundary is definite and clear for both of us. This has been my point all along. The content of Scripture has clear parameters, but the content of “Sacred Tradition” has no definite and clear parameters. Yet, Catholics still want to attach “infallibility” to it.<br /><br />Concerning your other question, if the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, then there is no valid reason to believe it is a biblical doctrine or principle. But, of course, I believe that it DOES teach Sola Scriptura, and I have biblical reasons for believing that.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-63863366084776542072010-10-06T07:32:43.803-07:002010-10-06T07:32:43.803-07:00Russell,
Could you do me a quick favor and give u...Russell,<br /><br />Could you do me a quick favor and give us the official list of the teachings of Scripture?<br /><br />Also. If I believe that the Bible does not *assert* the *concept* that the Scriptures are the "sole infallible rule of faith..." what should I think about SS?<br /><br />In Christ,<br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-91703250081293122112010-10-05T18:12:14.372-07:002010-10-05T18:12:14.372-07:00Hello Jae,
You said:
“It is like drinking the pu...Hello Jae,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“It is like drinking the purest water (infallible Bible) from a soiled cup (fallible interpretation)”<br /><br />Jae, we ALL have “soiled cups,” but we don’t need infallible certainty to be saved and to live for God. But we *can* have *sufficient* certainty… which is in no way reduced to “confident guessing.” <br /><br />Catholics often try to present a false dilemma by saying that either: <br /><br />1) We must have infallible certainty, or <br />2) We will inevitably be wrong.<br /><br />But a person can be *right* without being infallible. <br /><br />For more info on this, you can click on my name above to access my blog. There, you can see the article, “Dialogue on Bible Interpretation,” which I hope will clarify things.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-11452249396981267232010-10-05T16:56:15.028-07:002010-10-05T16:56:15.028-07:00Jae and others,
Check out my latest Sola Scriptu...Jae and others, <br /><br />Check out my latest Sola Scriptura article on William Webster.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com