Rather, it is it is RCs who must reject anything that contradicts Rome as that is the supreme authority for Truth. Meanwhile, as i first require Scriptural substantiation, i reject the AIM (assuredly infallible magisterium) of Rome because it is not found in Scripture.
For Scriptural proof of her infallible magisterium has never been provided by anyone, but instead it is extrapolated out of promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, which presuppose an AIM is essential for this and assurance of Truth (such as what writings are of God and what they mean), which is why i ask my questions.
Only to be met with silence, or a denial that a basis is needed (faith is a gift), or that is contains too many presuppositions (but which are RC presuppositions), or which fail to apprehend what the RC position is arguing, and thus misconstrue what the issue is
For in the face of our Scriptural reproofs of RC traditions, we are constantly given "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," "without the Catholic church you would not have a Bible," "he that rejects you [Rome] rejects me" and other like polemical assertions that reprove as "private interpretation" contrary arguments, and argue a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, and preservation and for providing Truth and assurance of it (including knowing what the Bible is and means). And that her historical descent of apostolic succession proves she is that magisterium. Thus those who rebel against Rome are
Yet the texts they extrapolate this AIM from are interpretive, and assurance of Truth being obtained on the basis of objective examination of evidences is an evangelical means of determining Truth, and instead the RCs is assured such texts support Rome because she is infallible and uses them for support. Thus the RC basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, who has infallibly decreed she uniquely possesses this.
I can see no further reason to go around in this circle with you.
I assure you, it is not my argument that is circular, it is the RCs.
Either you accept from your own experience that human beings need a final tangible authority to settle matters of dispute, and that Jesus knows this need which is why he established the church the way he did, or you don’t.
Again, you are misrepresenting the issue, which is not that of the place of the teaching office, but an assuredly infallible magisterium. Westminster: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.... - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
In order to defend Rome, you must argue that the perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is Biblically essential to assuredly settle matters of dispute, and thus to provide Biblical assurance of Truth, including recognizing which men and writings are of God and what they mean, so that dissent from this is rebellion against God.
You don’t agree that God uses humans to teach humans.
You are resorting to straw man.
You don’t agree that Tradition actually generated Scripture, (both new and old testaments)
Another straw man. That fact that some (and only some) of Scripture first existed in oral form does not justify anything that also was oral as equally being the assured word of God, as writing of God, like men of God, were essentially established as being so due to their unique and enduring qualities and attestation, not by the decree of an AIM (if you disagree, tell me how anyone know Isaiah and his writings were of God). And once Scripture began to be written, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And additional conflative and complementary writings were added to it. Thus Rome's traditions must be judged by Scripture, and which shows they are not found therein, including her traditions of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, which is the real basis for these traditions having authority. "Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
you don’t agree that there is any need for a teaching authority despite your protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary.
More straw. What is not Scriptural is an infallible supreme court, and which in Scripture was not how God provided or preserved Truth and faith. Instead He often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. Thus the church began under dissenters, the Lord and apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2:20) And these followers of Christ did not make the mistake of also presuming of themselves above that which is written.
What function does a teaching authority serve if, at a certain point in a study of Scripture you come to a point where you disagree with your teachers? Your elders? You may submit to them or you might not, citing the Bible as your reason to disagree. And then you leave that church to find or found another and the process starts all over again.
What a disaster! I even know of an entire religion that began when the common people held a man in the desert who are insects to be a prophet indeed, and gladly heard an itinerant Preacher, (Mk. 12:37) both of whom reproved by Scripture as supreme (Mk/ 7:2-16) the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) over Israel, who were the inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) and which leaders challenged and rejected the authority of both of them.
But which Preacher established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, , by conformity to text and in virtue and supernatural attestation, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus since the church actually Thus both men and magisteriums can be right as well as wrong, but because the laity can and so differ, then not simply is a magisterium needed, but an assuredly infallible one is. Thus rather than competing Truth claims having to be established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation as the Lord and the apostles did, the autocratic say so of the infallible magisterium does so. But as this is not Scriptural and they can and so err as the Pharisees did - thinking "of men above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mk. 7:7) - then the problem of the men teaching errors is elevated to an institutional level leading souls into corporate error.
Under this sole ecclesia (the church is the sole supreme authority) model then unity is indeed easier to obtain, depending on how strict leadership is, and thus cults such as the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses can claim the most comprehensive unity, and can require assent even to things conspicuously absent in Scripture (as PTDS ) promulgated by men whose words are held as assuredly infallible under certain conditions, even if they are devils.
In contrast, unity due to establishing truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power is how the church began, in dissent from the established magisterium, but this means that the authority of men and of unity in doctrine is relative to the weight of warrant. Thus the unity of the early church was in basic doctrines and under men whose authority was unmistakably supernaturally and virtuously Scriptural manifested to be of God, while the so-called apostolic successors of Rome manifestly fail of both the requirements and manner of attestation of Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17; 2Cor. 4:2; 6:4-10; 12)
As under the Scriptural model assurance of Truth is relative to the weight of warrant, thus evangelicals overall have historically contended for the many core Truths we hold in common with Catholics, and against those (cults) who deny them, but thus also against traditions of men being taught as doctrines.
Meanwhile, outside what we both concur on, doctrinal unity in Rome is quite limited and largely on paper, and disagreement abounds, while what Rome really teaches is shown by what she does and effects, which is much that of fostering a liberal majority by treating them as members in life and in death. Evangelicals are actually more unified in key conservative basic beliefs.
Your teachers are mere figureheads, at the mercy and whim of their flock. The pastor doesn’t fulfill his role of Shepard in that scenario, he’s a man of popularity. Trying to please as many as possible in his congregation so they don’t all leave or throw him out.
Another straw man unless you think i am defending Unitarianism or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen types. Go tell the pastors even at the local SBC here or other churches i can tell of that you want to be a member, but deny the apostle's creed, Hell fire, salvation by grace thru faith, or a faith that does not effect obedience, etc. etc.,and see how far you get. Instead one must affirm such truths, and or the strong preaching (not a 10 minute sermonette) will make liberals quite uncomfortable. And thus those who remain are not there due to perfectly pleasing preaching. But those who deny such truths can easily find a home in Rome with your liberal majority.
After all, it’s their right to do so, if the pastor doesn’t follow the Bible (ie, do what the congregation THINKS the Bible says) There’s no real submission there. There’s no real authority.
So again, this presupposes the one job of 1st c. Jews should have been to follow their pastors regardless of what seemed to them as error. And that evangelical churches must not have any doctrinal statements and pastoral oversight that pastors and teachers are to uphold and the congregation to appeal to in case of pastoral error. And when a pastor preaches liberalism or is molesting kids and leadership knows and does nothing, then those who know must have no means to remove him. That is what your Roman model more easily allows.
There’s no real submission there. There’s no real authority.
That is absurd. Your logical fallacy thus far has been to assume what can happen under a form of one system invalidates all that is under that system. I could excuse this as rank ignorance, otherwise it is recourse to using what some liberal churches do as a reason to reject Scripture as being the supreme authority, yet it is overall the churches which most strongly hold to Scripture as being the wholly inspired and authoritative word of God that most strongly hold to pastoral authority and require submission. I spent years in a Fund. Baptist church, and have been in others and can speak from experience. And despite your portrayal, the fact is that Evangelicals have been far more unified in key core beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
And which is far more than in Roman Catholicism, which is where i came from, in which even public prosodomite murderers are treated as members in life and death, and can even get masses said in their own house. Rome is where those who want to escape accountability can easily be at home.
There’s no vulnerability on the part of the people who are unwilling to say, “You know what, I might just be wrong and can’t see it. I may never be able to see how I’m wrong but I’m willing to trust in my elders over my own opinion”.
While there is a place for submission in some things when one is ignorant, or awaiting more light, what you describe as a whole is fit for a cult in which there is essentially implicit assent of faith and of mind and will. Which Rome calls for, but settles for nominalism at best. And many RCs advise against such submission to local elders, which of course are a entity that is foreign to the NT church as a distinctively sacrificial class titled "priests." Once again, under your idea that the historical magisterium always knows best invalidates the church before it began. .
There’s none of that. And there should be.
You have used enough straw in your attempted polemic to have a bonfire.
The Bible can’t be the sole rule on matters of faith, all of human history proves all this does is not only allow, but encourage individuals to ignore history and tradition whenever it suits them, eventually citing Scripture as the reason for fragmentation.
Actually, SS does not reject the need and place of the magisterium, but not as infallible and supreme over Scripture, while what human history proves that it is when Scripture is not strongly preached and held to as literally being the wholly inspired word of God and supreme standard on matters of faith that the most critical errors are seen. Which is exampled in such sola ecclesia cults as the Mormons , the Watchtower society, and others in which souls follow a man or men like RCs are do toward their supreme authority. All profess Scripture is the word of God, but it is not their supreme standard, but their org. is, and thus as with RCs, they are to believe only what their church says is assuredly truth.
Sola ecclesia takes the problem of erroneous personal teaching to an institutional and corporate level, thus necessitating God raising up men from without to correct such presumption, as in times past. .
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” ”—“Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means” "...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X
Then you have liberal Prot churches, who, while not requiring implicit assent of faith and of mind and will, foster a low view of the authority of Scripture, often subscribing to liberal revisionism, which is also seen in much of RC Bible scholarship.
And rather than ignoring history and tradition whenever it suits them, we show that it is Rome which autocratically presumes to portray, history tradition and Scripture to support her, and even modern Catholic scholarship, among others, provides testimony against past portrayals of history.
Meanwhile she often compels Scripture to support her, but as it does not provide what she desires, it is no wonder such fabrications as the Donation of Constantine , widely accepted as authentic during the Middle Ages, and the extensive and influential medieval forgeries, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals , and others were employed by Rome to validate her claims,
And which Romanized version means played a part in the division with the tradition-based EOs.
In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine.[56] The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine.[57] "The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."[58] Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy, and subsequently the Catholic Church was split in two in the Great East-West Schism of 1054. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054
And thus under the alternative model, that of sola ecclesia, you also have fragmentation, with Catholicism existing on schism and sects. And as said, outside your limited and largely paper unity, Catholics are less unified than evangelicals in practice, which is where it counts, not mere profession. Thus to be consistent with your logic that disunity invalidates a system, Catholicism must be invalidated.
As I’ve said to another if that kind of disorder and rebelliousness is what you believe God intends for his “invisible church” so be it. It just doesn’t work for me, as a believer who’s also a human being.
The fact is that the very model for determining and assurance of Truth that you oppose is that which the church began under. While as said, pastoral authority is upheld, and obedience to the preaching the Scriptural word of God, the church did not begin under the premise of assured magisterial infallibility reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church.
The oral preaching of the word of God was established as being so by this means, and words and accounts committed to print, "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:4) For "the gospel of God" was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," and "made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26)
The problem with this model in which the authority of men and truth claims are est. as being so by scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by conformity to text and in virtue and supernatural attestation, versus the premise of assured magisterial veracity so that the words of men are supreme and implicitly submitted to, is that the former is dependent upon the weight of warrant, and which the Biblical apostles powerfully provided. But we do not see such apostles today. If you want Biblical unity in basic in the scope they saw, then we need such leadership.
Yet apart from paper unity, today the strongest unity on key core truths is among those who hold most strongly to Scripture being as i described before, yet which also sees the most pronounced disagreements. Which is also true in Rome, as the most pronounced disagreements is among those who are most committed to doctrinal purity. Under both models assent to certain truths is required, and disagreement is allowed in others, but Rome sees far greater liberal and errant views, some of which she herself teaches. She could deal with the problem of dissent from her own views by actually engaging in strong preaching and strict discipline if she had the heart to do so, but she does not, while this would not solve the problem with her own errors. Thus due to both issues true believers must heed the exhortation,
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:17-18)
Your argumentation most certainly is circular because of the following:
You demand Scriptural proof of the infallible magisterium. When provided you don’t accept them (you just derided one in your last post to me, to whit, “Whoever hears you hears me”). You don’t accept them because you don’t accept that there has been a Traditional teaching associated with that and other passages.
So you reject infallible teaching because it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion), and it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion) because you reject the traditional teaching associated with such passages. It’s classic circular reasoning.
You accuse me of utilizing straw men in my arguments but fail to demonstrate how my assertions about your faith system are false. Namely, that there is disunity in the so-called “invisible church”. You point here http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html as proof there is more doctrinal unity in the invisible church than in the Catholic. But this is flawed in two respects:
First, the denominations mentioned there have serious doctrinal differences whether you want to admit it or not. For example, the AOG believe that salvation can be lost due to sin, whereas Presbyterians do not. The Foursquare Pentecostal “church” believes in the modalist (”oneness”) heresy, whereas the AOG and Lutherans and a few others (not counting the “evangelical” group because I don’t know what that means, since that’s rather vague) believe in the Trinity.
Second, even beyond these serious differences among the “invisible church”, the statistics you cite do not show what you claim for another reason, and that is that all they really show is, that the Catholic Church (at least in America) has done a poor job of catechising her members. One may think this is a cop out, or evading the issue at hand but it isn’t. On one had you claim the Church is more *doctrinally* diverse than the “invisible” church and then with the other hand only demonstrate not her actual doctrines, but her lack of proper education. There’s a clear difference there in what is being claimed and what is being shown, whether you see it or not.
No Catholic (at least none on FR) says the Church has been great at education, in the last 50 or so years. Thanks be to the 60’s counter culture. But this isn’t proof of doctrinal disunity. And then of course one has the problem stated previously, which is that the denominations listed disagree more than any Catholic does. If you don’t agree then fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree there I guess. To me though, the dogma of the Trinity seems to be a pretty important one.
You have also relied on the same criticism as Scott, to whit you point to the scandals of men in the Church, as if that demonstrates anything more than sinners in the church. I’m frankly not impressed, and will leave it at that (see my other posts to Scott if you’d like more there)
Finally you claim that the Catholic Church is “sola ecclesia” which is flat out not true. Talk about using straw men! In brief, that term is misleading as it may lead one to think the church just makes things up as she goes along and claims infallibility when someone disagrees.
No, that’s not the church’s claim in fact the opposite. As “pillar and ground of the truth” the church holds up (supports) both Scripture and Tradition.
Not the Tradition of men but the Word of God which you yourself a knowledge was and is the genesis of (some) Scripture. (I still maintain all but it’s a minor point to quibble IMO)
So we have the pillar and ground of the truth holding up the Word of God. And how does it do that? By teaching what she was taught by Christ, by word of mouth and by letter.
Let me put it this way because I think it will be clear this way, even though sadly you may find it insulting: you may not agree with the church’s teaching on a matter, but your disagreement with the church proves nothing. Because as “reasonable” as they might be (although I have demonstrated at least a few areas of error already), the church has equally reasonable counter arguments. The difference between the two are you are not : 2000 years old and appointed by Christ. So your reasoning is that of men only.
Finally still you claim the early church began in rebellion to the heirarchal system of the Jews which is true in a way but in a way not true. It’s true Jesus taught that the Pharasees (among others) were wrong about HIM, but he never taught that the Jews were wrong about the LAW. Indeed, Jesus himself exported his followers to “do as they say but not as they do” because he knew that humans would ALWAYS need a system of governance to resolve dispute and dissension. Just not the system the Jews had perverted by their man-made traditions.
So he wasn’t exhorting his followers to become some kind of anarchists, rather to throw off the man made portions of the Jews and KEEP the rest, including their heirarchal structure.
Otherwise the anathemas St. Paul spoke of have no meaning. What does it mean to “let him be accursed” if, after given such a rebuke, all an early Chrisitian had to do was to down the road to another “church” and join that one? After all, there wasn’t any unified visible authority, right? Or wait, there was one, but it didn’t mean much since Jesus was a rebel anyway, they could go to another “church” in another country then.
I don’t think so. I think the anathemas of St. Paul carried some weight. I think anyone unfortunate enough to find himself in such a state knew they were out of the CHURCH, as a WHOLE, until and unless they repented. And such an excommunication couldn’t be done, from even a practical standpoint much less a theological, unless there WAS a governing body in place that had the ultimate authority to speak finally on matters of faith.