Replies

.we see the NT church itself beginning because souls had correctly understood both writings and men as being of God, and not on the basis of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

This is not a remarkable fact because since there wasn't any "IM" to begin with obviously there couldn't be any to guide the first Christians. But there was Christ, and after he left, there were His Apostles.

Which proves what? The issue from the beginning has been the necessity of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility in order to correctly know what is of God, which you have been unable to show.

Certainly God has provided wholly inspired infallible providers of Truth, which cannot be claimed of Rome's magisterium (and while you focus on interpreting Scripture texts, it has hardly engaged in any of that) while souls came to assuredly ascertain these sources of Truth and what they said were of God, without a perpetual IM. Nor did even the writers of Scripture possess ensured infallibility so that whatever they ever wrote on faith and morals would be wholly inspired of God.

What Rome has effectively done is to presume a supernatural quality which only Christ is shown to have.

Rather than simply allowing that souls may ascertain that what their church teaches is True in the light of evidence, Rome requires implicit assent to whatever she has and will say in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

You can post paragraphs upon paragraphs in reply but the fact remains that there are no instances in Scripture where you can point to and say, "Look, here's someone just reading Scripture alone and coming to know things of God!" No, what is seen in each instance is someone either listening to and accepting an authority figure (Jesus, one of the Apostles, or through divine revelation the truth is known) who either also uses Scripture and reason to support his claims or just uses reason to do so.

Indeed, and hereby you - who before asserted what the Prot position is - example belief in another fav RC propagandist strawman, that SS means only Scripture is to be used in determining what God reveals, even to excluding reason (taking Luther out of context), and that there is no place for human instruments in so doing.

But which is not what is means, except to a few ignorant fringe extremists, for while holding the Scripture alone is the infallible sufficient (in respective formal and material aspects) standard of faith, under SS it is understood that Scripture provides for reason, illumination, discernment of Truth (and by extension, a canon) and teachers, and the magisterial office, etc.

Thus as no less than the Prot Westminster Confession states,

“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Cp. VI: ...we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

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..." — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

So if anything, a foreshadowing of a needed "assured infallible" authority is shown in the OT, and the beginnings of it is shown in the new.

What kind of superior reasoning is this? All that you have shown is the viability of reason, and human instrumentality and the magisterial office, and of wholly inspired sources, and with souls discerning such to be of God, none of which translates into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, nor that there was one.

There's a significant difference between the OT and the NT that must be considered: in the OT, God had not entirely revealed Himself to man (as much as He has since Jesus' time on Earth). So we can't say, "oh, we should just rely upon the same kind of learning experiences that are found in the OT".

More wrong reasoning: Revelation was always progressive, and God still has not revealed all that man can know, but But when that which is perfect is come...then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:10,13) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

Yet ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was never necessary in order to discern Truth, while the gifted infallible sources which provided it were those wholly inspired of God, and now we have more of that than before, covering from creation to consummation.

If you wanted to propose Rome being as a prophet who foretells events that would be one thing, but you are not, as instead you are promoting a non-inspired magisterium which possesses a gift of infallibility which can render even an extraScriptural event which lacks testimony from the times when it would be popularized, and instead evidences itself to be a fable which developed, to be "remembered" and made into binding doctrine requiring assent to it or else being cut off! And then even claims that this "remembered" event is not new public revelation. Which again is cultic, not Christian

Also, similarly to the events in the NT before Jesus' ascension: we can't just say, "oh, I'm going to rely on having the same kind of learning experience while Jesus was on Earth" for the obvious fact that Jesus isn't here in His own individual human body.

Actually, the "learning experience" was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, that being the only wholly inspired transcendent source on earth, and by which the Lord substantiated His prophesied Messiahship and message by. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44,45)

And again, you cannot compare the IM of Rome with the wholly inspired infallible Scriptures or the Word made flesh.

Now that God has revealed Himself as much as He wills to all Mankind (no more public universal revelation to come) we are left with either relying on the same kind of revelation in the OT (but that's not going to come anymore as again, no more public revelation is forthcoming) or relying upon physical manifestations of Christ to guide our knowledge (but he has ascended to heaven) or relying upon an authority figure here to help guide us to knowkedge of the things of God. An authority figure who is himself (or itself) guided by God.

We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office, but what you mean is that of a perpetual IM, with the premise of its ensured veracity being what the believers assurance rest, but which perpetual ensured veracity of office is foreign to Scripture. Rome cannot claim, esp. now, the level of virtue or supernatural attestation of a Moses or Christ, or to be wholly inspired of God, nor the qualifications and credentials of the foundational apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12). Yet the greater the claim, then the greater the attestation must be.

However, under both the OT and NT Rome did provide infallible sources of Truth, which we uniquely have now in wholly inspired Scripture, with the veracity of Truth claims resting upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, even if not providing new public rev. to which all the church is bound to assent to.

Or we are left with nothing OR we are left with a belief that God (the Holy Spirit) somehow guides each of us individually, apart from any "IM", the exact manifestation of this guidance remains a mystery.

A false dilemma, as we both have Scripture and the teaching and magisterial office, with its authority being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the Lord and His church substantiated Truth claims by, as being the transcendent Standard.

This means that the church cannot rest its claim to veracity upon self-declaration, historical descent or a unique charism, but must continually manifest that it is the church of the living God, resting upon and supporting the Truth.

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20)

And thereby overcome the competition of error, versus the premise of ensured veracity whereby Scripture, history and tradition only mean what she says in any conflict.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:7)

However if this last possibility is the only possibility then we each claim to have the gift of infallibility (from the Holy Spirit) UNLESS we claim that it's not us who are infallible but He who is infallible in us. That is the same thing as saying He talks to us individually, with either an audible voice or one inside our head, to "teach us all things". However that's self deception, which anyone can see if one is humble enough.

As your premise of false so is your argument. Again, it was never necessary for souls to have a perpetual IM in order to know what was of God, though God did at times raise up manifest men and women of God to speak His word. And wholly inspired men to write His word. Neither of which is the same thing as claiming ensured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility, while as written, Scripture became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, to which more conflative and complementary writings were established as being of God in the light of their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation, as men of God were. And won the competition over pseudo-inspired revelation (which Rome also purveys), which are allowed to test the people.

There is a significant difference between: claiming Party A helps Party B with the aid of the Holy Spirit vs.. Claiming the Holy Spirit helps both party A and B directly. The former protects Party B from error on only one given point at a time. It is not assured in the former that either Party A or.B will be correct about everything, all the time. In fact it may at some other point in time be the Holy Spirit's will that Party B teaches Party A. This is the Catholic claim. The latter protects both from error on all points. The latter is the Protestant claim, however is by definition "infallibility" because for all things both parties are protected from error. That's the definition of "infallibility".

You continue to rely upon a straw man, as the Protestant claim - certainly not i ever read nor one asserted here - is not that the Spirit protects both both parties from error on all points. Instead, it certainly must allow that even pagans can know basic Truth to such certainly that they are without excuse for denying it, and and that from the Scriptures, and the "use of ordinary means" (which includes the teaching office) souls can ascertain Truth as surely as anyone did in Scripture, which never necessitated ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And that instead of the latter, God often raised up manifest men of God to correct the magisterium and to provide and preserve Truth and faith. And provided His wholly inspired Scriptures as the supreme standard as the assured word of God. And thus by both means the church began, and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ. That is how Scripture reveals God providing and preserving Truth, which has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried continually.

The church saw its limited unity under manifest Scripturally established men of God such as i do not see today, and the likes of which are too rare today, and thus the earthly divisions are both necessary, much due to Rome, if not the ideal. But the remnant know of a spiritual unity that is Biblical, in contrast to the cultic unity under the premise of the church effectively being superior over Scripture, as per Rome and cults.