Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

The CrippleGate ^ | OCTOBER 28, 2015 | Eric Davis

[fishtank]

Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

By Eric Davis

OCTOBER 28, 2015

This Saturday, October 31, commemorates nearly 500 years since one of the greatest movements of God in church history; the Protestant Reformation. Up to the time of the Reformation, much of Europe had been dominated by the reign of Roman Catholicism. To the populace was propagated the idea that salvation was found under Rome and her system alone.

But as the cultural and theological fog cleared in Europe and beyond, God's people gained a clarity that had been mostly absent for centuries. The Reformers gained this clarity from keeping with a simple principle: sola scritpura, or, Scripture alone. As they searched the word of God, they discovered that Rome deviated radically on the most critical points of biblical Christianity. With one mind, God's people discerned from Scripture that, tragically, Roman Catholicism was a desecration to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[philfourthirteen]

Are we all either among the sheep or the goats? I infer from the parable that all of the sheep did good works and I guess I can go along with your reasoning that their works only counted because they were done in the name of Jesus. But wouldn’t that disqualify a death-bed conversion (assuming you believe in that).

I know I ask a lot of questions but I do agree with the great Catholic convert John Henry Newman who said that a 1000 questions doesn’t make a doubt.

Scripture can be quite fun, can’t it? There are lots of mysteries and so little time.

[xone]

I infer from the parable that all of the sheep did good works and I guess I can go along with your reasoning that their works only counted because they were done in the name of Jesus.

Do you believe in universal salvation? Works done without Christ have no reward. Salvation isn't that reward, salvation is a result of the sinner being justified by Christ. The sheep are sheep because they have been justified, not because they have works. The works of the sheep are those things that God had prepared for them to do in advance as Ephesians says.

As for the 'deathbed conversion', the thief on the cross is a prime example of that, where were his works? He was with Christ after death, because he believed. Men aren't capable of knowing if a conversion at death is real, but God knows and that is the only thing that counts.

[philfourthirteen]

Do you believe in universal salvation?

No. (Though with God all things are possible). I believe there is a hell and I hope it's rather uninhabited.

As for the 'deathbed conversion', the thief on the cross is a prime example of that, where were his works?

Sorry if I confused you.

Q:
Dismas would have to be among the goats when Christ judges the nations, right? Or put another way, how could he be among the sheep without works? (I know - he's in Limbo!! Just kidding!!) But here's what Christ says about the goats:

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life - Mt 25:46

That's why I was wondering if all are included in that judgement.

[Salvation]

Dismas — Baptism of Desire.

He will be among the sheep at the final judgment since he asked Jesus for forgiveness.

[xone]

Dismas would have to be among the goats when Christ judges the nations, right?

Of course not! If that is his name, but generically the thief on the cross was with Christ that day in paradise as we have Jesus' own word on that subject. He was made righteous by Christ as all the sheep are. The common denominator is faith. All are included in that judgement.

[daniel1212]

Pt. 1 of 2 by God's grace:

• Really? Perhaps you might explain what it is, about which I'm allegedly "ignorant"? And "feigning" is something of a reach, since you know neither my mind nor my heart, yes?

I did not say I knew you were ignorance of the debate or feigning the same, but that is what I perceive. i From being unable to understand my reference SS not negating the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority, as RC often charge ( Pardon? What on earth are you talking about?), and in the continued context of SS, to formal and material sufficiency (it's reading like a raw copy/paste from a completely different conversation!) , to expressing bewilderment over my reference to Caiaphas as regards ensured infallibility. After 25 years!

• First, you assume (without logical basis) that I'm ignorant. Then you decide that I need to be "reproved" for my ignorance (an odd and presumptuous choice of words).

Yes, you made a bold denial which presumed familiarity, and which you had showed you were not.

• Finally, your reply uses a tone of "reproof"

Yes, as in addition to your responses after your bold denial are your statements about the Councils of the Church infallibly defining the canon, and that the submission VEHEMENTER NOS teaches only refers to infallible teaching, and rejecting that render religious assent (excluding public dissent) id required even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si'.

• Forgive me, FRiend, but: in my experience, those who fill up their posts will imperious huffing and puffing and insults to the opponent's intelligence are trying to cover up their own weakness.

And in my experience, those who often much fill up their posts will imperious huffing and puffing about how they (or their church) were treated are trying to cover up the weaknesses of their argument. .

and failed to understand or to answer informed questions regarding it.

• Oh, piffle! You're blowing smoke, FRiend, and the reader knows it. If you're really in such a bloody rush to see a more detailed explanation of my position (and responses), search the Religion forum for my comments

No, that is not what you do in forum, unless you at least provide a link, but if you make such a bold denial then it presumes you understand what you are denying, and thus questions regarding that are warranted. Even if instead a lack of familiarity is evidenced then being called on it is also in order. That said, are you done with your protests?

But you failed to even define what you consider SS to be,

• Perhaps you missed my point #3, in the very comment to which you're replying? I

Wrong, as you had not yet made that comment, and thus at that point you had indeed failed to define what you consider SS to be.

• 3) [Sola Scriptura] itself--the principle that "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" and "Scripture alone is the norm by which all salvific matters are to be judged"--is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

Which i responded to, and again affirm the former as regards binding beliefs on a corporate level, unless another body of wholly inspired Truth has been and is being spoken by Rome today, which would need to be established on the same essential basis as Scriptural writings came to be.

And that as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

• St. Athanasius had input

Not the kind some RCs cite him for. Athanasius (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon)

, but the canon of Scripture was formalized at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), the decisions of which were ratified by the Pope soon afterward (though the complete canon was mentioned earlier than that).

And? How does this provide an infallible canon? Neither council were ecumenical, and Pope Innocent I affirming that canon in a letter to a Bishop of Toulouse hardly made it so, nor otherwise rendered the canon settled and indisputable. (and as regards papal sanction, the Biblia Complutensia was published under the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, which states that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, were not canonical).

• Luther not only removed the 7 "deuterocanonical" books from the Canon altogether (and placed them in an index in the back with what he considered "apocrypha"), but he also wanted to do away with the Epistle of St. James

Same disdain (which somehow refutes SS), same question. So..

Is your argument that the contents of the canon was settled from the 4th century on till that maverick Luther came along and removed 7 books, in rebellion against Rome.

• I wouldn't put it so dramatically, but: yes... with the caveat that Luther wasn't the only one to do so during the era of the Protestant rebellion; he was just the first "popularizer" of the idea.

Wrong, and which is so much RC propaganda, no matter how long you or others have been repeating it. For the fact is tha scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon for RCs. Luther was many who disagreed on which texts were Scripture proper, and had strong scholarly support for so doing. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) was one among others, and who exhorted his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings).

Yet, also following ancient judgment, Luther did not exclude these books from Bible, but included them separately as edifying, but not Scripture proper and suitable for doctrine.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding the status of the deuterocanonicals in the Middle Ages,

There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

And during the time of Trent Cardinal Cajetan, who was actually an adversary of Luther, and was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, was one among others who had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship. In his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII) he states:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." (http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836)

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

In addition, Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” And that,

The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56

There is lots more here by the grace of God, which was provided before but evidently neglected, and the fact is that Luther was no maverick in dissenting, and had strong support for doing so, and could not have rebelled against an infallibly defined canon since it did not exist until after his death!

And if Luther's dissent was such the issue RCs imaginably make it to be due to their Luther loathing, then the pope and his adversities failed to see it as such, except with the problem of 2Mac 12 (which actually does not actually support purgatory anyway) .

1. By the time of Christ, there were two OT canons in use: the Palestinian Canon (which excluded the so-called "Greek books"--i.e. the ones Protestants abandon)

Rather, the books Caths adopt, seeing as they were rejected of old, and evidence testifies to the Tripartite Palestinian Canon as being the one those who sat in the seat of Moses held to (with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.), and to which general obedience was enjoined, with the canon never being manifest as a dispute; And that this was the Tripartite canon which the Lord referenced in Lk. 24:44. (And specifically opened the minds of the disciples to, not to Tradition.)

Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon

Researchers also state,

[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."

Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division

While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

• , and the Alexandrian Canon (a.k.a. the Septuagint, translated from Hebrew to Greek in the years 250-50 B.C., or thereabouts, which has all 73 complete books). The NT quotes freely from both canons (there are noticeable differences in wording, when the NT quotes from one canon vs. the other); and, in fact, the NT quotes from the Septuagint more often than it does from the Palestinian canon

But which offers no support unless you can establish that the 1st century LXX contained the deuteros. However, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.

Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Moreover, simply because Scripture quotes from a source does not make the whole of it canonical, as Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)

Moreover, Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

In short: it was for self-serving reasons that the Palestinian Jews rejected the Septuagint and embraced the Palestinian Canon

Rather, they found further reasons for justifying their ancient rejection of it, with you yourself affirming that by the time of Christ, there were two OT canons in use: the Palestinian Canon.."

• Later, Martin Luther co-opted this idea (of embracing the Palestinian Canon exclusively--ironic, since the anti-semitic Luther was now pretending to let the Jews dictate which books were Scripture and which were not!

What kind of logic is that?! If holding to Jewish judgment is invalid then we must reject books of the OT which the NT references as Scripture, it is written, etc.. In addition, how does concurring with ancient Jewish judgment translate into letting the Jews dictate what we believe? By such reasoning you slander not only Luther but the judgment of many church "fathers" as well. But this is consistent with the Roman reasoning often displayed which argues that if we concur with Rome about the NT then we must submit to her judgment in all things. Perverse logic. Even a broken clock...

In addition, Luther's later inexcusable but exasperated tirades against the recalcitrant Jews (such as who provided Moses to speak unadvisably with his lips: Ps. 106:33), and its use by evil men also finds substantial Catholic company. And in addition it testifies to how Luther is hardly the pope RCs seem to imagine he must be to us, in the light of their preoccupation with him (while excusing their infamous popes as not speaking from the chair), as evangelicals are the strongest supports of the Jews and Israel, which Rome has a poor record on. .

• since many of the deuterocanonical books contained teachings which he rejected (e.g. prayer for the dead, in 2 Maccabees 12, etc.).

Really? This is typical propaganda take 2, but the "etc." is a mystery while 2 Maccabees 12 which advocates offerings with prayers for those who are clearly said to have died due to idolatry, which according to Rome is a mortal sin for which there is no hope.

Thus they must resort to special pleading that maybe they repented in their dying moments, but died anyway due to idolatry. And the offerings for them was that they may see the resurrection, which those in purgatory are assured of, not that they may escape from purgatory.

(2Ma 12:40) Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.

For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. (2Ma 12:44)

Moreover, it can be argued that Rome's decision to affirming the larger and generally accepted canon, after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it, was motivated by a desire for support for her traditions.

• Common sense, if nothing else, insists that there must be an infallible way to discern which books are "inerrant Scripture", and which are not... or else the "inerrancy" of those books will be of little use (since there'd always be doubt as to whether the "right books" were chosen).

Really? Consider where your logic leads! Which is that before Rome decided that she was necessary for souls to know which writings were of God, then no one could be sure if Exodus was of God, or Isiah, etc. Thus the abundant references to the written word of God in the OT actually were of questionable authority, and thus the NT church and "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) was established upon dubious sources.

But yet since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, then n her declaration that she is infallible is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Instead, Scriptural common sense tells us that while the magisterium has judicial authority, and souls can speak infallible Truth, no one or office can presume the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but common souls could correctly discern what was of God, even when the historical stewards of revelation where in error. And thus the church began in dissent from them.

• Otherwise, Protestants are left with what R.C. Sproul calls "a fallible collection of infallible books"

And thus no OT books could have authority as Scripture, for if even one was established as being so then so could 66. Yet what we see is that writings came to be established as being Scripture, and which magisteriums could only discover, recognize, ratify, affirm.

Holding that a collection of infallible books, meaning without error, is fallible is a contradiction, as if all the contents as infallible, then so is the list, but not due to "infallible" magisterial decree under a special charism which ensures that. The issue is what determines what is infallible so that one can have assurance? If you need an "infallible" magisterium then as said, no one could know for sure if anyone or anything was of God before Rome. But they did.

And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth. (1 Kings 17:24)

And as here, the Scriptural way to know something "infallibly." or as sure as one can be in this life, is based upon evidential warrant, in which God provides warrant for steps of faith, and thus to assurance.

• Protestants who try to account for the current "table of contents" of Scripture are at a loss to explain how

Why do you continue to post this refuted polemic? Or why is is incomprehensible that if common souls recognized both men and writings of being God and thus followed itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, then they can also recognized further writings as being God, leading to a canon?

• why that list shoudl be trusted as "absolutely true, without error" (aside from mere personal feeling/sentiment about the matter--which is a poor sort of way to decide such things)

Really? A false dilemma, as the alternative to an infallible mag. is not mere personal feeling/sentiment, but evidential warrant. And thus consider where logic leads in rejecting this, as upon what magisterial judgment did common souls hold that John the baptizer was a "prophet indeed," and so forth? And upon what basis are converts expected to convert to Rome? They make a fallible decision to trust in a supposedly infallible church. Likewise souls do as regards Scripture. expect in this case their judgment is warranted, and confirmed as they trust and obey.

In addition your idea of SS is a strawman if it supposes that it excludes the need for the church, etc. More on this later.

• did not claim that

Really? How is your description of SS claims that "all believers will be guided by the Spirit to all necessary truth, and all necessary true interpretations of Scripture, on their own" not denying the need for the church, etc.?

[daniel1212]

Pt. 2

• (Recall: do you believe the SDA idea that worship on Sunday is punishable by damnation,

Which argument was dealt with, for SS does not claim it must result in all believers concurring and never disagreeing. Nor can the Roman alternative. Under both a limited degree of unity is seen, as well as disunity, and the further groups get from Scripture being supreme and instead they think of men above that which is written, then the more dangerous they become. And which is how the SDA began and continues, as with Rome. One elitist org,. versus another.

RCs attack the premise that individuals can rightly understand the Scriptures, but then they make one man as unable to err or be reproved if he speaks according to a scope and subject based criteria, and unable to be deposed. Which as said, takes the problem of personal error to a corporate level, including fostering (what in Scripture would be) worship of a sinless, bodily resurrected almost almighty heavenly demigoddess , which is not the Mary of Scripture.

The alternative is what we see in Scripture, that of souls being able to discern what is of God, but with the magisterial office, beginning on a local level, judging hard cases, with God raising up manifest men of God if need be to correct it. Which again is how the church began and how it has been preserved as the body of Christ, with Scripture being the supreme sure standard. But which allows for "competition" and requires the church to continually manifest that it is of the living God versus resting upon self-proclamation, in which the only valid interpretation of Scripture and history can be Rome's.

• Re: the idea that SS Protestants "haven't the foggiest idea how the Bible came to be": unless one is willing to embrace the "fallible collection of infallible books"

More absurdity as already shown. What applies to Scripture also applies to men. Under the Roman model no one could know for sure if Moses or the prophets were of God, nor anything they wrote. Everyone had to wait until a church of Rome decided it was essential for this! What pretensions to grandeur. Instead souls today can assuredly know what is God as before, including taking steps of faith which lead to more assurance.

one cannot hold to a "true and secure canon of Scripture" and still embrace "sola Scriptura".

You obviously have not read much of my replies as you just parrot the same refuted polemics. One can hold to "true and secure canon of Scripture" which was progressively established just as they could hold that any books of the OT were and that John was a prophet indeed, and part of a company of prophets, without a (self-proclaimed) infallible mag..

1. it's obvious that "Scripture testing the contents of Scripture" is a logical absurdity--akin to (as I mentioned before) choosing one's own biological father. Scripture cannot decide what belongs in Scripture.

Do you even read my replies much? That was dealt with long ago, as it is no more a contradiction to SS than holding that reading Scripture is since Scripture does not provide for eyes! Which as said before, presumes that SS only holds to formal sufficiency, yet that presumes what is provided under material sufficiency.

Scripture testifies to souls rightly establishing what is of God, and if that can be done for 22 books then it can for 66. And it is only then that SS is held to fully apply, for although God always formally provided enough for man's salvation, and for what God wanted him to know at that time, it did not always provide all the revealed Truth that the Christian is to know in this life.

Thus SS cannot and does not presume it was always operative, any more than sola ecclesia can. Before the Law was written, God only expressly revealed Himself to a select few souls. But when He made a covenant with an entire organic nation, then He provided the written Law, and God chose to preserved His word by writin. (cf. Ex. 17:14) Which became the standard for obedience, by which further revelation was tested and added to its contents. And with that body becoming manifest as ended, then its is the standard for faith and morals, though God can convict, comfort, "speak" personally to souls (or SS preachers at least pray He does during the offering!)

• I'm tempted to ask if you subscribe to the Westminster Confession, and whetehr you think it's necessary to do so for salvation... but I'll pass that by.

I referenced it as a historical document on SS rather than RC strawmen

• Fine... let's look at that. First, I did not claim that SS throws away everything but the Bible; I claimed only (and I was merely quoting anti-Catholic SS believers on FR) that SS holds Scripture to be the only norm by which matters of faith are to be tested. As such, your own accusation of "straw man" against me is, in itself, a straw man.

I said "if," as others RCs have argued that and your "on their own" sounded like it. Simply because it is expected that one can understand the rules of baseball does not exclude umpires. And as shown, only norm refers to it being the only sure source as the wholly inspired word of God.

• what authority do these "Westminsterian synods and councils" have, and from what authority? Who decides whether the decisions of these groups are correct, or incorrect, and on what basis?

They have the same basis and have authority as with as any authority, and as subject to a supreme source as they are. Was the OT magisterium infallible though disobedience to it was a capital crime? (Dt. 17:8-13) Are secular courts? Their authority is based upon the word of God which teaches such can only arise of God ordains them, and can punish dissent, yet they are to be disobeyed when obedience to God requires it. The premise that such must be infallible to have authority, and that such is effectively above Scripture is what has no basis in Scripture.

• how would anyone know whether that unanimous opinion is right?

That is to be decided on a local level, and more universal if need be (and SS is not opposes to a central mag., which concept Rome actually poisons), as in Scripture and with binding decisions, but not as presuming ensured infallibility of office. While RCs constantly attack SS as only resulting in division and heresies, broadly defining Protestantism in so doing, the reality is that those who hold the highest views of Scripture are the most conservative and unified in basic beliefs in contrast to the fruit of Rome, whose unity is very limited and largely on paper. And Scripturally, the evidence of what one really believes is that of what she does and effects. Yet RCs expect us to become brethren with the liberals which she treats as members in life and in death.

And as an autocratic authority, Rome can redefine herself, but which results in division, with many RCs becoming as Prots in principle deciding what is valid teaching based upon their judgment of what historical teaching says. As one post wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

• Re: the idea of the Church teaching material sufficiency of Scripture,..-I guess my original source wasn't very careful to make distinctions!) it isn't taught dogmatically... i.e. it's still up for debate.

Add that to the list .

• Scripture is NOT formally sufficient as a guide or norm for faith, since it isn't designed to work alone, nor can it interpret itself, nor can it determine its own contents, etc.

But SS does not hold that formally sufficiency means Scripture produced either God or itself or the canon, or leaves the soul without helps, but the formal part presumes what the material aspect provides. God having provided Scripture, reason, language, etc and who convicts, draws souls, opens hearts and granted repentant faith, therefore a soul can discern writings and a body of such as being of God, and as well as its meanings and what is needed for salvation and growth in grace, without additions of equally inspired traditions, though other external helps are affirmed.

• See my previous comment (#136), re: the chasm of difference between the slight and easily-remedied subjectivity/ambiguity which Catholics have, vs. the utter and insoluble subjectivity forced upon Protestants by "sola Scriptura".

Then see the reality i referred to, that of the smoke screen of quite limited and largely paper Roman unity, while what she calls us to be members in is an amalgam of varying beliefs, even among clergy, and under popes and a magisterium under which obedience in one century can require exterminating all the "heretics" and in another can mean affirming them as viable separated brethren (though that also is subject to interpretation), and Muslims as worshiping the same god as they.

• pointing out the leaky boat of another person doesn't fix the leaks in your own boat)?.Either sola Scriptura can lead to certain truth, or it can't...

Which also applies in principal to Rome with her own leaky boat, but there was no fallacy, as i affirmed that under SS one can lead to certain Truth, that Scripture is of God and how to be saved, which is obvious, unless you want to argue that souls today cannot read a text as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again. And seek baptism and a church as per its teachings.

As said, under SS as well as under the Roman alternative there is both unity in essentials as well as divisions, and the issue is which one is Scriptural, that of souls discerning what is of God, both Scripture itself and what it teaches, with Scripture magisteriums for disputes, or an infallible magisterium as essential for both, and requiring implicit submission, resulting in cultic unity if enforced, If RCs allow that souls can discern Scripture as being of God and teaches that Rome is the one true church then they would have to allow that souls may have the opposite conclusion, thus they actually argue that souls cannot know that Scripture as of God apart from faith in her.

• and since the stakes are eternal salvation vs. eternal damnation, it's not a matter about which we can afford to be casual or chevalier, or leave to chance.

Indeed, and which is a prime reason why I contend against the errors of Rome, as one who was raised devout, but born again at about age 25, under strong conviction of my empty state, and thru tearful repentance and trust in the Lord Jesus to save by His grace, with evangelical radio clarifying salvation was by grace, not the merit of works. And i remained so for 6 years, during which i was a weekly a weekly mass-going RC, and sought to serve God as a CCD teacher and lector. But rarely did i find souls who realized the manifest regeneration i did with its profound yet humbling transformative effects, unlike in evangelical churches.

But as under the Roman model for determination of Truth, since the magisterium is in error, so also the people, in which salvation begins with becoming good enough to be with God via sprinkling, and and thus usually ends with becoming good enough to be with God thru purgatorial suffering commencing at death, and are said to have truly merited eternal life due to their works done under grace (salvation by works thru merit). If you want the teaching i can provide it.

Therefore RCs typically never come to the place that I did, as a damned and destitute sinner in need of regeneration, but are treated as children of God already effected by sprinkling them (usually) as an infant. And even the most nominal are basically assured of eventually entering glory due to purgatory and their merits and the merits of Rome.

• So... using the "general rules of the Word" and the "light of nature", I can now pronounce any Sunday-worshipping Protestants to be in danger of hellfire, since they do not keep the Sabbath, as per the Commandment of the Lord.

The light of nature , and Christian prudence refers to using Biblical principals in some circumstances where there is no clear teaching, and while men can claim what they may, including that they have a unique charism of infallibility, yet using Scripture, and the "general rules of the Word" and even the "light of nature" we can reprove them (who effectively began under a female "pope"), as was done in Scripture. Which we do and thus thus their minority status.

The Roman alternative is to infallibly declare you (as a collective elite) are and will be perpetually infallible whenever you speaks in accordance with your infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders your declaration that you are infallible to be infallible, as well as all else you accordingly declare.

Under which Scripture, history and tradition can only consist of and or mean what you say in any conflict. Thus the recourse of no less than Cardinal Manning in the light of Prot challanges:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

And under which

"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."" (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals,

And yet it is you who want to invoke cults!

• You don't see the problem, here?

I pray you do.

• :) Lovely. But: why should I take Westminster's word for anything? I'm quite serious: what infallible charism or mandate do they have to bind Christian consciences to accept what they say as "true"? I hope you're not suggesting that I take their collective opinion simply on your say-so...

No, on my say so would be akin to the error of Rome, and you can only take anyone's word on anything on the same basis as souls heeded the Biblical prophets . or the Bereans took the words of the apostles on anything. Which was NEVER on the basis of ensured magisterial infallibility, but upon evidential warrant, which Scripture, as written, being the supreme standard.

Rome infallibly decrees papal infallibility, and thus i can ask you, why should I take Rome's word for anything? I'm quite serious: what infallible charism or mandate do they have to bind Christian consciences to accept what they say as "true"? I do not think you are suggesting that I take their collective opinion simply on your say-so, as it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things).

• This begs more questions than I can easily count! Yes, I know that this was in the context of you trying to show that "Sola Scriptura doesn't exclude ordinary means, light of nature, etc."; well and good. But it leaves you with two options: either prove the assertion (i.e. on what basis do you assert that "ordinary means"--whatever they might mean by that--are guaranteed to lead to a "sufficient understanding" of Divine revelation (or anything else)?)

I take "Ordinary means" as referring to evident principals of interpretation, which we unconsciously employ in everyday communication, context, genres, grammar, familiarity with the other utterances on the subject at hand. Which includes recognizing historical narratives as literal events, while depending upon what Rome sanctions can mean reading for decades ccommentary in her own officially sanction Bible that such events as the Flood, the Tower of Bable, etc. were fables, Joshua's conquests were fold tales, and Sermon on the Mount was not there, etc.

Thus such helps must be approached critically. And while some souls can be saved and grow in grace without commentaries, others need more grace And as the noted theologian i quote also said, The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology)

• or abandon the "sola" in "sola Scriptura", since it's never to be used alone for ANYTHING.

In your idea of alone yes, as that would even exclude that the Bereans were looking to Scripture as being the sole standard in examining the veracity of apostolic preaching thereby, or must imagine that SS means it was always the standard for people of God, but both of which would be a strawman of SS, as explained before.

(I'd remind you that the Catholic Church champions the value and necessity of the Scriptures, too; She merely reminds the faithful of the plain fact that Scripture is not, and cannot be, meant to be used ALONE, and it never claims to be.)

In reality, what this is manifest as meaning is that Rome reduced Scripture to be a (abused) servant to support her, as it only consists of and means what she says, which means at best it cannot contradict her, but which it manifestly does .

ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture,

• First of all: you're assuming your own conclusion in order to try to prove it (which is a logica fallacy, when last I checked); you're demanding proof from Scripture (alone!) that the Roman Catholic Church holds an infallible Magisterium..

Actually, I am not trying to prove my own conclusion that SS is Biblical by this statement, but speaking as one who holds to it and is refuting your fallacious statement, “the Bible doesn’t teach “sola Scriptura”, anywhere. Not even close,” I am judging the claim of Rome thereby.

• and no such proof is necessary for those who reject the silly, illogical, and unscriptural idea of "sola Scriptura".

But which will not allow you deliverance from this lack, as you must also even reject that Scripture is the supreme standard by which the validity of Truth claims are to be ascertained (sola prima) though a faithful RC is not to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of her teachings, and such searching is superfluous as only one conclusion can be allowed, that which supports Rome.

• Second: Scripture does indicate that Christ's Church will be the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15--and I wonder how that could be, if She were capable of error in Her teaching),

What? You want to invoke a text as supporting ensured infallibility that indicates the church supports Truth and grounded in it, not that it is basis for the authority of Scripture, and or the supreme authority on it. Which is reading into the text based on the few words actually in the Greek ("church living God, pillar and ground the truth"), and with one, stulos, that is nowhere else seen, either in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek (and beware of the root word fallacy . Hedraios itself does occur 3 times in the NT, and is translated as "stedfast" twice (1Co. 7:37; 15:58) and as "settled" once Col. 1:23, which the church is to be in supporting the Truth, since it began upon Truth for most of Scripture preceded the church, which was established Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

But one need not know what what the texts says in the original language, as that the church is of the truth, and is grounded in and supports the Truth is what Scripture elsewhere makes manifest.

The only sense in which the church is the pillar and ground of the truth is like as Israel was, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:2) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)

• that the Holy Spirit will "lead you [plural--said to the Eleven at the Last Supper] into all truth" (John 16:13),

Again, how does this indicate a promise or necessity of ensured infallibility? The Lord has always been progressively leading His people into all Truth - without needing an infallible magisterium of men and usually not via one - providing periods of new revelation as well as continual leading into Truth by opening the understanding of believers to what was already provided, as the Lord did in opening the understanding of the disciples after His resurrection.

And in leading the disciples into all Truth the Spirit inspired writers, mainly Paul as the primary writer of the NT, to reveal more of His word, including the gospel which Paul did not receive via men. (Gal. 1:11,12)

That Rome is privy to some revelation that exists in an amorphous form is akin to claims of cults. Rome's sppsd "apostolic successors" do not speak under Divine inspiration like as the writers of Holy Writ, and fail of both the qualifications and credentials of Biblical apostles (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12).

And while we do not see new corporate revelation now, God still illuminates the understanding of what is written, while leading into all Truth likely will end when believers see Jesus, (1Jn. 3:2) that being when that which is perfect is come, the perfect revelation of Christ, when believers shall no longer know in part, or see through a dark glass, but shall know even as they are known, (1Cor. 13:9-12) face to face with God their savior.

Moreover, as with other things in this Jn. 16:13 statement (which was after the Supper of cp. 13, after which the Lord said "Arise, let us go hence" - Jn. 14:31), including being martyred, the promise was not to the 11 alone or only thru them.

• that both St. Peter and the other first bishops were given Christ's Own authority to bind and loose matters of faith, both in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18), and that the Church was the final arbiter in matters concerning sin and spiritual offenses (Matthew 18:15-17).

Which attempts further testify to the lack of support for Rome, as the binding and loosing power was also not unique to them, or required infallibility. For the judgments of the OT magisterium were also binding, and could loose as well, dissent from which judicial judgments God made a capital crime, as said before. (Dt. 17:8-13) That certainly is binding. Even civil authorities can judicially and physically bind or loose persons. (Rm. 13:1-7) As could husbands toward toward their wives and fathers toward their daughters as regards vows they made to God. (Numbers 30:5.8) But all such were themselves subject to correction by Scriptural reproof, as the Lord did to those who sat in th seat of Moses. (Mk. 7:2-16) In addition, men such Elijah even had power to spiritually bind and loose the heavens, (1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45) with loosing those who are afflicted or delivering them to bondage being another, (Lk. 4:18; 13:16; 1Cor. 5:1-5)

The OT mag. has its NT counterpart in the promise of Matthew 16:19, which encompasses both the purely spiritual as well as judicial realm and Matthew 18:18 refers to the latter, operating as Dt. 17 to resolve personal conflicts, though that can extend to doctrinal disputes in both cases. But which did not promise or require ensured infallibility.

In addition, while judicial decisions such as in personal conflicts belongs to the magisterial office, the spiritual power of binding and loosing can be exercised by holy believers. For after Mt. 18 expands the teaching on binding/loosing to say Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19,20) And note that the Lord affirmed one doing ministry in His name even though he was not part of the apostles company.

Likewise in James 5, in which the intercession of presbuteros - not hierus=priests - obtains healing, including if as a consequence of chastisement for sin (cf. Mt. 9:2-7) is followed by the only exhortation to confess sins to others, which is a general one to one another, with the promise of healing, not due to clerical status, but due to holy fervent prayer: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) is what James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens, (Ja. 5:17,18) which is exhorted for all believers. Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

• that the Church was the final arbiter in matters concerning sin and spiritual offenses (Matthew 18:15-17).

A distinction must be made between being the judicial court in matters of dispute, which the magisterium was in Scripture, both Old and New, versus it being The Word of God on faith and morals. The judgment of SCOTUS is to settle matters, but it does not mean they are necessarily right and autocratic, being above the Constitution, nor did sitting in the authoritative magisterial seat in Scripture mean that they were necessarily right and autocratic, being above Scripture. Which meant souls could be correct in their dissent from it in following preachers of Scriptural substantiation.

• Third: common sense and plain logic require that "sufficient and certain knowledge of salvation-related matters" requires not only inerrant data, but an infallible guardian and interpreter... or else human sin and error will corrupt, dilute, and destroy/lose that inerrant content in rather short order.

It is amazing how much help RCs imagine God needs. He “neglects” to do such things as provide even one prayer in Scripture among approx. 200 addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord , so Rome “helps” Him out by invoking extraBiblical practices that developed. He likewise neglects to anywhere state that Mary did no sin, despite His practice of mentioning lesser notable aspects of characters, from the number of toes to Anna's prolonged virginity, so Rome helps Him out by invoking tradition. And here, even though the Lord somehow preserved His Word and faith for thousands of years without an infallible magisterium, so that an abundance of writings could be invoked by some itinerant preachers in support of a new sect of faith, Rome decided He needed ensured magisterial infallibility to do so else they would “destroy/lose that inerrant content in rather short order”! And somehow this new magisterial charism is nowhere taught, even among the list of ways in Hebrews that the New Covenant is better.

Instead, Rome much corrupted the faith, but God raised up men to correct it, as He did in the past.

Thus common sense and plain logic require that "sufficient and certain knowledge of salvation-related matters" requires not only inerrant data, but an infallible guardian and interpreter. And you simply cannot establish ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility from Scripture, despite what you see as indicating it, nor it is logically required unless you disallow the means God used in Scripture to preserve His Truth and faith.

• you refer to a "teaching office"... how do you judge the results of the teaching office?

Once again, why not look to Scripture? Upon what basis was the Lord's reproof of their traditions of men of those who sat in the seat of Moses? That they were contrary to tradition?

For that matter, what did the Lord rebuke the devil by, and in other places reprove the Pharisees and Sadducees, and what did the Lord open the understanding of the disciples to? That some of Scripture first existed in oral form, and sometimes words in oral are called the word of God is true, but it was not by magisterial decree that anything became Scripture, nor after Moses wrote the Law that any oral tradition was declared to be the word of God.

Instead it is actually because oral Truth was written that we know it was the word of God, and oral preaching was and is subject to testing by Scripture, that being the standard as the wholly inspired and assured word of God. And Rome cannot claim to be preaching the word of God under the inspiration of the Spirit like as Scripture was penned.

• And which teaching office do you have in mind? The Seventh Day Adventists?

First, we know what Roman Catholics have in mind, but where in all the letters to the church is submission to Peter as the supreme universal, let alone infallible, head enjoined? Despite the many problems, critiques and commendations, submission to Peter is nowhere enjoined, even as a solution nor commended as a virtue, including in the 7 letters to the representative churches in Asia. (Rv. 2,3)

Moreover in Acts 15 it is James which provides the definitive Scripture-supported judgment (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14) on what was to be decreed, confirmatory of Peter's testimony and exhortation, and what Paul and Barnabas had been preaching, the veracity of which Scriptural judgment was not based upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility.

And which was an affirmation of the evangelical gospel of grace, that “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they,” in which souls were told that “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” and were born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-11)

But what Scripture does is to give a general exhortation to “obey them that have the rule over you,” (Heb. 13:17) like as it does toward civil rulers, which applies to souls under whatever government they find themselves in. But as seen in Scripture, such are not autocratic entities but are subject to Scriptural reproof. Rome is closer to “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them.” (3Jn. 1:9) than Peter.

It is true that the NT church did manifest a limited, basic unity under a central magisterium, but which was under manifest men of God (2Co. 6:4-10) such as i do not see today, yet I support that in principal, as said, a central Scriptural magisterium is the ideal. But due to the Roman deformation of the church then division was required, and which is commanded, (2Co. 6:13-18; cf. 1Co. 11:19) and like as Israel after Moses and Joshua and the divided kingdom, accommodation to this means there is no central universal magisterium, only local and denominations.

The latter is what Rome effectively is, as she cannot rule over those without her, especially after the loss of her unscriptural sword of men, and is compelled to admit that properly baptized Prots are part of the body of Christ (as are a few of her own). Even if she denies them the use of the proper term “church,” contrary to Scripture, while since even the Laodiceans were called a church then Rome might be herself.

• The Anglicans (who wrote the Westminster Confession, from which you copied so extensively), who believe that "gay marriage" is in conformity with God's Will?

Those who choose to remain in that too-close-to-Rome- denom (which they should not) are to be conditionally subject to them like as someone is to be to civil rulers over them wherever they may be.

• Which teaching authority do you have in mind, and how can I know that your decision is the right one

It seems RCs are so mesmerized by Roman pretensions that they cannot see what Scripture reveals. Again, how did 1^st century souls discern that some prophet in the desert who are insects was of God and correct in reproving those who sat in the seat of Moses? “Inherited biases and/or personal tastes” or because they had enough Scriptural judgment to see the contrasts? Under the Roman model, it was the judgment of the historical magisterial office that they should have followed.

nor was [the Magisterium] ever necessary for God to preserve Truth and faith.

• Even five seconds of clear thinking would show that that idea is nonsense. See above.

Misrepresentation. In context i was referring to the an infallible magisterial office, and in the light of what Scripture says, even five seconds of clear thinking shows that that idea is nonsense. See above.

God actually often did so by raising up men from without the magisterium which they reproved. Which is how the church began.

• This is too vague for me to address, yet; do you have examples in mind?

Ever hear of prophets, wise men and scribes? (cf. Mt. 23:34)

:) Ah, yes... the epithet "Roman", which whets the indignation of anti-Catholic ears...

Yes, RCs take offense at that, but it is used by popes and prelates, and is often necessary, as here, to differentiate between EOs (some do consider themselves to be Catholic) and Roman Catholic, while it is of the Roman Empire from which is took some of its form, with her Caesariopapacy, etc.

• Does your Bible contain 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6? How about 1 Corinthians 11:2?

Such refers to enjoining obedience to known contemporary-preached Truths by manifest apostles of God, not on the basis of ensured infallibility. Why do you no read what i wrote: “Paul enjoined the Thessalonians to keep what was orally preached, yet Rome cannot tell us what it was, but the veracity of his preaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation. [Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 11:19 etc.] While Paul provided new wholly inspired revelation, which Rome cannot claim, a SS preacher can call for hearers to obey the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, under the premise that they are, and subject to proof thereby which the noble Bereans subjected the preaching of Paul to, (Acts 17:11) [while] the whole church went forth "preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)

Inspired writers can include true words, events or prophecy from an external source, and the basis for veracity of the words and events of Christ which Luke provided was that they were from contemporary eyewitnesses, (Lk. 1:2;) versus 1700+ years later binding souls to believe some extrascriptural event which lacks testimony even for hundreds of years after it allegedly occurred (thus scholars denied it was apostolic tradition), with the veracity of it based upon the premise that an office possesses ensured infallibility and thus what is “remembers” is true. Rome cannot claim to speak as Biblical apostles or its writers binding extrascriptural Truths to the church universal.

And see additional comments above on this issue.

• A phobia of oral tradition is not only irrational, but it's unbiblical, as well.

SS churches can affirm traditions (wedding ceremonies, etc.) if not binding, while a phobia of oral tradition being declared to be equal with Scripture under the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility is not only rational, but it's Biblical, as well. Such pretensions are found in cults.

and essential for salvation faith, and life. A soul may read such a text as Peter's sermon in Acts 10 and become born again just as the hearers of it there did,

A soul may also be saved by following whatever lights God allows in his existence (i.e. those who never hear the Gospel, but who follow the law written on their hearts by God, as best they can);

Which is another claims which sees variant interpretations by RCs. One one hand Francis said the blood of Christ makes atheists children of God, and a cardinal allowed that atheists could have eternal life, while some strict traditionalists even reject baptism of desire.

• the Protestant idea of "born again" is at variance with Jesus' Own words (and the rest of Scripture), unless you're talking about regenerative Baptism, which saves us (cf. 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, etc.)

Jesus own words can be taken to mean one must sell all and give to the poor to be saved, (Mk. 10:21) or just half and repay wrongs fourfold, (Lk. 19:8,9) or literally consume His “real” flesh and blood, (Jn. 6:53,54) or just believe in His promise to save those who believe in Him. (Jn. 11:25,26) Thus RCs place far more weight on the gospels than the rest of the NT. But as the gospels interpret the OT, so the further revelation of Acts and the rest of the NT interpret the gospels, which Scripture interpreting Scripture.

In which we see that it is repentant faith, which will effect obedience in being baptized, forsaking false gods, repay wrongs if able, and overall characteristically follow the Lord in whom, they believe, that appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness on Christ's account, thus making peace with God. (Rm. 3:25-5:1ff)

Thus salvation is promised to those who simply believe on the Lord Jesus who was holy but died and rose to save us, (Acts 10:43) and to those who believe and confess the Lord Jesus, and who call upon the Lord, (Rm. 10:8,9, 13) and to those who believe and are baptized, (Mk. 16:16) and to women ”in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety,” (2Tim. 2:15) meaning their normative role. And which effects justify one as being a believer. (1Ths. 1:4ff; Heb. 6:9,10)

But RCs confuse the effects of justifying faith with the cause, imagining a ritual itself (ex opere operato) with the prop[er intent effects regeneration, and actually being made good enough to be with God, which perfection of character ("actually be perfect as the Father is perfect" "having the perfection of our heavenly Father," as another thread states) they must attain in order to finally enter glory.

But while consistent with what i said, while forgiveness and the Spirit is promised by Peter to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus, (Acts 2:38) as that requires faith, what the first purported pope plainly taught was that “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43) Which they did and received the Spirit, thereby confessing this faith in tongues, and only then were baptized as souls who already were born again. Which Peter goes on to say (Acts 15:7-11) was that of God “purifying their hearts by faith,” and which he uses in affirming salvation by the grace of God.

For it is the faith which baptism both requires and expresses that is counted for righteousness, but (as reformers taught) must be a living kind of faith which effects obedience, versus an inert faith. The latter of which is what James 2 protest against, while Paul deals with whether a system of works-merit can justify one, the Law being the epitome of that. For if James is speaking of justification in the same sense as Moses in Gn. 15:6 and Paul in Rm. 4 then he is contradicting both, as it was when helpless Abraham believed God alone could and would effect the realization of His promise that he was counted as righteous, and which was not due to him suddenly actually becoming good enough to be with God.

Yet as faith effects works, then one can be said to be justified by the kind of works which evidence faith, versus a barren one, as per the sense James is dealing with. And like as forgiveness is equated with healing in Mt. 9:1-7, (“whether is easier, to say...”) and works are faith in action, then they can sometimes be used interchangeably.

If we only both believed that only the kind of faith which effects obedience, which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so, then it would do away with the mutual charges of “easy believism” between both RCs and Protestants, but while some of the latter teach that an obedient type of faith is not necessary, in Catholicism one is said to have truly merited eternal life by his works done in God. Which emphasis results in Catholics expressing that the reason God would let them into Heaven is because of their merit, and or that of their church. Such with never realize regeneration with that kind of faith, versus coming to Christ as one damned and destitute, and casting all faith upon God to save them by the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Rm. 3:10-25ff)

Yes, that is long, but this is a primary issue, and this is turning into an extensive exchange, and i guess i have a theological bent.

you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls

• Er... sorry, but could you re-word that, again?

As with Scripture, consider context. You argued “ We have a living person (or persons) whom we can ask for clarifications, if we misunderstand something from Rome,” but you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls to look to, which is just what you are arguing against. And one can hardly argue that the supreme magisterium is going to give timely answers to the multitude of questions about the meaning of aspects of RC teaching.

• You don't seem to understand what infallibility (in this context) means, and the conditions in which it applies.

I did and do, and your explanation does not refute what i said at all.

• All other things being equal, we Catholics are obligated to give every possible consideration and weight to even the non-solemn teachings of the Pope; but we are not bound to them under pain of sin. So... no, the Pope's comments about global warming, political systems, and other things outside of the purview of explicit doctrine are certainly not safeguarded by the charism of infallibility, nor are Catholics obliged to agree with such pronouncements (which are not intrinsic to the faith).

Thus according you, versus other RCs, one can dissent from teachings which they are to give all possible weight to, yet not sin. Yet as with dissent by those of “invincible ignorance,” does not mean it is not evil. But you use the “pain of sin” condition to exclude required religion assent, which allows for internal doubt but not public dissent. And you again leap from solemn teachings (which can be conciliar as well, with the approval of the Pope) to the “Pope's comments about global warming” — which actually teach it is real and a dire global threat — and thereby convey that all a RC is really bound to assent to is that which is infallible defined, which (according to at least one professional RC apologist is in the minority of what RCs believe and practice).

And which examples how much RC teaching is subject to interpretation, and is in contrast to so much teaching i provided and others that can be provided. But since such were only non-infallible papal teachings then i suppose you can reject them.

Your pain of sin clause notwithstanding, it remains that even such teaches of Vatican Two as deal with religious freedom, etc. require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/nature-of-intellectual-assent-that-is.html) And as do encyclicals, including those on social teachings, as The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states, “In the Church's social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. Insofar as it is part of the Church's moral teaching, the Church's social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it.” - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

And as said, it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. And which he presents as definite problems requiring a response based upon Catholic teaching.

. Other Roman Catholics look at Catholic teaching on assent and conclude that “Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).” — http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9330822#post9330822

Thus while RCs disparage Scripture as able to be the standard for faith and morals due to its interpretive problems, and point us to the Catholic magisterium as the solution, they disagree on what such means and there validity, as well as which teachings are infallible.

Meanwhile, just which teachings are infallible are subject to interpretations, as can their meaning, and to suppose you can get an infallible answer to questions concerning such is absurd

• Nonsense. As a non-faith-related example: "2 + 2 = 4" is an infallible statement, and it doesn't require supernatural grace to grasp it. "My father is older than I am" is an infallible statement, as well (and similarly accessible to the ordinary human mind).

Please! In context we were dealing with infallible answers to theological questions, not 2 + 2 = 4. And my denial is not that the magisterium cannot speak infallible Truth, nor that a pagan could, but the ensured formulaic infallibility Rome claims.

• Just so: there are clear conditions under which a papal statement (and/or other magisterial statement) is infallible:

I was aware of that, as well as the variant claims as to how many there are or possibly could be, http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf, besides their meaning. You have the infallible (quite apparent) decree by Pope Eugene IV that firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” And consistent with this Rome (non-infallibly) required Catholic rulers to exterminate all the heretic from the land, or effectively lose their power.

But Vatican Two takes this and broadly affirms properly baptized Prots as separated brethren through whom the Spirit works (and rather than separating them with the sword it affirms religious freedom.) Thus some traditionalists require that Prots must convert if they will be saved, while advocating for a Catholic monarchy under which Prots would be more like Christians in Muslim theocracies. And if such Vatican Two is not binding, or clear enough, they may. And such Catholics of variant views , along with liberals, are your brethren in the light of Rome's manifest interpretation of herself, from which we must separate.

• I'm not sure why you'd think an infallible definition to be so impossible to produce. For example: do YOU (personally) have any intellectual problem understanding WHAT the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Vary is? It's not rocket science...

No, that is clear, but despite typical RC responses to this issue, infallible teachings as per Rome are not restricted to papal decrees, but include thode by the universal magisterium in union with the pope, which, as well as which part of the encyclicals, the CCC etc, express infallible teaching, significantly broaden the scope and the interpretations.

• That should be enough, for the moment, though I missed a few points; you've waited long enough for this reply (which I sent as soon as my schedule allowed). Feel free to ask again about anything I missed which you'd still like addressed.

Yes, we finally agree on something! Thank you for taking the time, though i dare say it took me much longer and is not proof read. But may it serve to help by God's grace.

[paladinan]

Sorry for the delay; real life intrudes a bit, this week.

No offense, but... good grief, man, you make my head hurt! I admire the effort and time you put into your replies... but it's a colossal exercise in missing the point! Let me explain:

1) "Sola Scriptura" means either that it ALONE is to be used as the guide and norm for faith, or it doesn't. The issue of formal vs. material" sufficiency is an interesting one (and it led me to a discovery I'd not seen before--i.e. that the Church has not defined the material sufficiency of Scripture as a dogma... at least, not yet), but it's ultimately beside the point--since "sola Scriptura", if it's to mean anything but an empty phrase, must presuppose BOTH.

Honestly: such volumes of verbiage (and I don't mean to demean your effort--it obviously took a great deal of time and patience) in an effort to have your cake (hold to the "SOLA" of "sola Scriptura") and eat it as well (claim that other things can "assist" Scripture in "norming" the faith, though you never define the boundaries... which is hardly surprising, since it would be a logical absurdity: those "other things" would need to be "approved" and "normed" by Scripture before being used to "help" Scripture "norm" anything--including themselves), is something of a weary spectacle. Let me try to put it into plain logic:

a) Sola Scriptura, if the phrase is to mean anything at all, requires that Scripture ALONE be used for something substantial to the faith... yes? If not, then the "sola" has been jettisoned and diluted to nothing, and you abandon the classical Protestant use of the term (cf. Luther, etc.). You're free to make up your own new and esoteric definition of SS, but you're not free to masquerade that as a "canonical" definition... especially since a definition of "SS" without the first "S" is really rather pointless.

b) If SS means that Scripture ALONE is to be used as the "norm" of faith (and you do know that the "SOLA" is what Catholics reject, yes? Some Protestants get muddled on that idea, and assume [wrongly] that Catholics do not regard Scripture as authoritative, inerrant, divinely inspired, etc.), then it must be true that nothing else can be used for such "norming", save in subordination to it... yes?

c) When you make an impassioned plea of "other things, such as councils and such, can be used to decide the contents of Scripture, interpretations of Scripture, etc.!", I really do wonder if you're listening to yourself! Surely you realize that an authority is only as reliable as that on which it rests? (And it's facile to say, glibly, "Ah, but we and our teachings rest on the Rock of Christ!"... since any group which disagrees with you can claim the very same thing... and both of you cannot be right at the same time. Look up the "law of non-contradiction", if needed. In short: that would settle nothing.) If you're prepared to claim that the "table of contents" of Scripture is without error, then you're attributing that infallibility of judgment to the council (or what-have-you) which decided it in the first place! And in doing so, you'll have plagiarized the Catholic position by stealth, and left Protestantism behind (and I'll be happy to welcome you into the nearest RCIA program! :) ).

d) If you claim that your understanding of Scripture is "sufficient for salvation", I'll be justified in asking how you come to that conclusion... especially since millions of Christians--who also pray, study, etc., and have abilities which match or exceed yours and mine--read the same Scriptures and come to different conclusions! How do you presume to say that your interpretation of, say, John 6 (which teaches the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, as plainly as day), is RIGHT, and the Catholic view is WRONG? You're very free with "devil-words" such as "cult, deception, etc."... but that's mere bad-mannered fluff (and obviously raw opinion and empty rhetoric--since anyone else could use them against you, with at least the same authority); now, you're on to prove your case. And no... I read your very long missives, and they do not prove such, at all. They are impassioned attempts to show that "SS allows things other than Scripture to be used"--which I never denied. They are intense attempts to show that "Roman Catholics can experience confusion with their own doctrines, too!"--which is a mere appeal to the "tu quoque" fallacy, and it equivocates the substantive and fundamental disagreements within SS Protestantism with the minor and easily-handled confusions which might come from this-or-that Catholic doctrine being heard by a Catholic individual.

Apologies for the very brief quote (I don't mean to slight the rest of your effort), but this is quote telling (especially in the logical sense):

Which argument was dealt with, for SS does not claim it must result in all believers concurring and never disagreeing.

You don't understand! LOGIC requires that Protestants not hold FLATLY CONTRADICTORY beliefs, while still claiming that "The Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone led them to both positions". Protestants cannot hold to "SS" while accepting flatly contradictory positions in their "teachings of Christ's Church". Either Sunday worship is damnable, or it isn't; wither Saturday observance of the "Sabbath" is obligatory, or it isn't; you can't cling to both, shrug your shoulders, and say, "Well, we don't need to agree on EVERYTHING!" If you don't agree on what sends you to HELL, then you're in serious trouble, FRiend!

Nor can the Roman alternative.

Not only false (there are no contradictions within Catholic dogma), but a "tu quoque" fallacy. Pointing out someone else's leaky boat doesn't patch your own.

Under both a limited degree of unity is seen, as well as disunity, and the further groups get from Scripture being supreme and instead they think of men above that which is written, then the more dangerous they become.

That "limited degree of unity" is obviously not sufficient for Protestants... since there is a "limited degree of unity" between SS Protestants and Catholics... but you don't accept that as license to embrace Catholicism, do you? Besides: this is obviously your mere opinion, since your view of "above what is written" (which is an oblique reference to 1 Corinthians 4:6, I assume?) rests entirely upon your personal judgment... or else you'd reject "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" as being "above what is written"!

And which is how the SDA began and continues, as with Rome. One elitist org,. versus another.

Irony, thy name is daniel1212! That's a pretty elitist thing to say, don't you think?

Which as said, takes the problem of personal error to a corporate level, including fostering (what in Scripture would be) worship of a sinless, bodily resurrected almost almighty heavenly demigoddess, which is not the Mary of Scripture.

Forgive me, but... this quote of yours is loaded with what we, in college, called "weasel words":

"what in Scripture would be" = your personal interpretation of what Scripture says, without so much as a scrap of evidence. Where does it say that veneration of one of God's masterpieces is somehow "forbidden"? The idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary being "worshipped" (in the modern sense of the word--i.e. adoration, latria) is entirely in anti-Catholic imaginations. I assure you, I've never "worshipped" Blessed Mary as a "goddess" (or any such nonsense); she is God's masterpiece, but she is a creature, totally dependent on him... SS anti-Catholic opinions and misconceptions and canards notwithstanding.

"worship" = SS anti-Catholic opinion and mind-reading of what they assume Catholics to be doing.

"sinless" = well, at least you have that part correct. :)

"bodily resurrected" = yes. Your problem with that is... what, exactly? How does this go against Scripture in any way? Do you also balk at the bodily resurrection of Lazarus, or the man thrown into Elisha's tomb, etc.? Do you balk at the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elijah? Explain, please.

"almost almighty" = not only weasel words, but slimy. The Blessed Virgin is only as "mighty" as God allows her to be... akin to the "mighty" nature of St. Michael the Archangel, who's as powerful as God wills him to be. This is simply a sloppy smear of a position which SS anti-Catholics happen not to like.

"heavenly demigoddess" = what on earth does that mean, exactly, aside from possibly using the word "goddess" to stir up indignation in SS anti-Catholic readers? Can you supply a definition for this apparent example of raw rhetoric?

You obviously have not read much of my replies as you just parrot the same refuted polemics.

Remember what I said about "irony", above?

One can hold to "true and secure canon of Scripture" which was progressively established

This is a flat assertion of raw opinion, FRiend. We "can"? Why? On what basis do we trust the conclusion to be assuredly true and reliable (as must be the case, since it means the difference between salvation and damnation)?

just as they could hold that any books of the OT were

They could, eh? Which books of the IT do you mean? 2 Maccabees? The Book of Jubilees? The Assumption of Moses? You're begging (and dodging) the original question completely; HOW was the OT "canonized"? It's not enough to say that "it was done progressively, and besides, the Westminster Confession says that the use of councils is perfectly legitimate for such discernments without danger of spoiling the inerrant contents"... since the WC hasn't proven its divine mandate (above and beyond spouting its mere opinion), and since "appeal to progress when deciding an infallible collection of Scripture" is about as illogical as saying that "life can evolve from non-life, and a rational human soul can evolve from an animal soul, because the change was gradual!". Piffle. Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reason.

and that John was a prophet indeed, and part of a company of prophets, without a (self-proclaimed) infallible mag..

And you know that John (the Baptist, I assume?) was "a prophet indeed"... how? I assume that it was from reading the Gospels... yes? How do you know that the Gospel which you read is "true Scripture"? The fact that it just happens to be in your Bible is mere happenstance... since the book of 2 Nephi just happens to be in the Bible of a member of the LDS, and since the Book of Jubilees just happens to be in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Here's your problem in a nutshell, FRiend: if you cling to a "hard" definition of "sola Scriptura", then you refute yourself (since Scripture doesn't teach it). If you "soften" the definition, then your argument becomes circular, since Protestant definitions and interpretations are used to "prove" the authority and reliability of the Protestant Bible, which in turn is used to "prove and norm" the original definitions and interpretations.

If you're truly serious about the "don't go beyond what is written" idea, you'll drop "sola Scriptura" like a hot cinder from the netherworld.

[paladinan]

One other note on a point, above: "almost almighty" = not only weasel words, but slimy.

I forgot to add "illogical to the point of being ridiculous"... since it's akin to saying "almost infinite"... which is logically meaningless.

Douglas Adams might be proud, I suppose ("infinity minus 1"), but math and logic people really won't be convinced. :)

[daniel1212]

I admire the effort and time you put into your replies... but it's a colossal exercise in missing the point! Let me explain: 1) "Sola Scriptura" means either that it ALONE is to be used as the guide and norm for faith, or it doesn't.. The issue of formal vs. material" sufficiency is an interesting one.."sola Scriptura", if it's to mean anything but an empty phrase, must presuppose BOTH....

• an effort to have your cake (hold to the "SOLA" of "sola Scriptura") and eat it as well (claim that other things can "assist" Scripture in "norming" the faith, though you never define the boundaries... which is hardly surprising, since it would be a logical absurdity: those "other things" would need to be "approved" and "normed" by Scripture before being used to "help" Scripture

No matter how much you must insist on defining "sola" in such as absolutist sense that you can claim it is "a logical absurdity," which contrary definition seems to be driven by necessity, since the Roman alternative is what is not in Scripture, it remains contrary to what i am arguing. That being that "Sola" refers to Scripture as alone being the supreme sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals, it uniquely being the wholly God-breathed, infallible, substantive and perpetuated body of Truth, thus being uniquely qualified and sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the faith and life of the Church, providing the Truth essential for salvation and growth in grace. Thus, one may surpass the understanding of his teachers by study of the Scriptures.

This was true in the basic sense even for the OT:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7-8)

Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:11)

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. (Psalms 119:99)

BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)

Where is the like ever said of oral tradition? Or that the instruments of Divine revelation are equal to it in authority as sources of Truth?

And the means of preservation was by writing:

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8)

We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: (Psalms 78:4-6)

But God giveth more grace under the New and better covenant (as the book of Hebrews especially explains, but not by an ensured magisterial infallibility). That there is yet more that can be revealed is not contrary to SS, since Scripture affirms that, but the claim is that what is necessary is in Scripture.

Catholics here may contend that their church is providing more Truth like as the NT added to the Old but in decreeing binding beliefs her magisterium is not speaking via Divine inspiration as Scripture was penned under. And while Rome denies that she is providing any "new" revelation, yet she effectively is by declaring as binding Truths extrascriptural revelation that she claims was already Divinely revealed.

Though passed down oral tradition was a medium for some of Scriptural revelation, not all in the former was of God, and the latter is wheat from among chaff, and penned under the full inspiration of God. Rome wants to make part of what was passed down as being equal with Scripture, but while obedience can be enjoined to Scriptural oral teaching, the veracity of Catholic Tradition is based upon the premise of her ensured infallibility, which is never the basis for the validity of Truth claims by men in Scripture.

Going back to the beginning, before the written law God revealed Himself in a limited way to a very limited number of souls, supernaturally attesting to these men as being of God. Oral tradition then was the supreme law, and sufficient for what God wanted them to know then, and who were judged in accordance with the degree of grace given them.

But when God choose to reveal Himself and His will more comprehensively and to an entire nation, and to preserve that express Divine revelation, He chose to place it in writing, first through the manifest man of God, Moses (contrary to the discredited <a href="http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm">JEDP</a> theory of predominate RC scholarship). And thus the Law became the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, and to which Law were added conflative and complementary writings. The NT is a result of this and as following the same process of establishment, with both men and writings of God being established as being such essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation and not by mere self-declaration.

One may argue that this means that the people of God as a body who discerned and established, by God's grace, writings as being of God must be infallible, akin to EO theology I believe, but which no more infers supreme authoritative judgment to them as if possessing the infallible character of what they "elected" then it does to them concurring that a man is of God and is to be obeyed. Nor is this inconsistent with SS, outside of erroneous concepts.

In addition, the validity of which canonical judgment (as with the validity of the church) continues to be maintained due to the same basis as these writings came to be established by, resulting in continued love of the Scriptures by those free to accept or reject them, and not by required inclusion as per Rome.

As writings were established (even if as now, not universally, but without it being a manifest issue of conflict with thosde who sat in Moses' seat) therefore from defeating the devil at the beginning of His ministry, (Mt. 4:1-11) to defeating Jewish leadership during His ministry, (Mt. 22:23-45) to establishing the prophetic basis of the gospel at the end, (Lk. 24:27,44,45) the Lord's appeal was to Scripture, not oral tradition. Likewise Paul could, "as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.' (Acts 17:2)

In the Roman alternative, what the One True Church® with its popes and bishops says is alone the supreme authority on faith and morals, "the rule that rules" (like Scripture is to us), as Rome alone "infallibly" and or supremely defines both what Scripture and Tradition is and means, and is essential to know what is of God, and thereby the Bible has its authority, though she affirms lesser authorities, as well as the light of nature, the use of reason, etc.

Under the premise that same God is the author of the doctrine the church, then Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law, as saith Pope Leo XIII. And in which system as regards particular primacy, the pope alone is the supreme authority on Truth, needing not the affirmation of the bishops, who cannot even depose him (without his consent). And it is typically evident that for RCs e engage that the assurance of the veracity of RC claims rests upon the premise of what is claimed.

But Scripturally it was by "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Corinthians 4:2) and with all love for the Truth, searching the scriptures daily, whether those things were so,(Acts 17:11) in the light of that assurance was provided.

• You're free to make up your own new and esoteric definition of SS, but you're not free to masquerade that as a "canonical" definition..

What? You mean you have been the one providing multiple quotes from a primary standard historical document and SS theologian in explaining SS, or me??? Under your strawman of SS it seems even referencing Westminster should be excluded, let alone such things as affirming the light of nature.

• (and you do know that the "SOLA" is what Catholics reject, yes?

I do know they reject a erroneous idea of SS, as i do.

• Some Protestants get muddled on that idea, and assume [wrongly] that Catholics do not regard Scripture as authoritative,

You are again failing to make necessary distinctions. In Roman Catholicism Scripture is authoritative only insofar as it is what the Roman magisterium as the supreme authority says it consists of and means, under the premise of Rome's ensured veracity, while under SS the magisterium is authoritative in what it says only insofar as it is not contrary to Scripture, under the premise of the ensured veracity of the latter. Under both systems souls must discern what is of God, and is taught, and decide what to assent to based upon warrant. Now tell me under which of the two do we see the church beginning under?

In addition, RCs have already shown that they (as well as RCs who differ with them) can interpret their supreme authority — even rejecting what in their judgment is not infallible — as Prots can interpret their supreme authority.

• then it must be true that nothing else can be used for such "norming", save in subordination to it... yes?

Again, "nothing else can be used" does not mean as excluding reason, the Holy Spirit, etc., nor necessarily excluding eternal sources as helpful. But that as concerns an infallible supreme Source, Scripture alone is The Standard for faith in providing the Truth sufficient for salvation, that the veracity, anointing, scope and depth and perspicuity of the 66 books of Scripture is such than one can (not necessarily will) be saved by reading it alone and grow in grace in the Christian life.

But having a supreme and sufficient source not mean all who read it will come to the same conclusions as to its meaning as if Scripture supplanted the magisterium, so that what it formally provides is the extent of God's grace, as if it formally provides everything in the absolute sense, which would exclude even the use of reason, as well as external helps, with the latter being more helpful to some than others. But in respect to this Scripture alone is the supreme source by which all Truth claims are tested , upon which the teaching of lower authorities, which Scripture provides for, are examined by.

For while Westminster teaches that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith," etc., yet "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." (Westminster, XXXI)

This is what we see in Scripture, that of the authority of magisterial office, with its binding judgments, and as the human judicial court for obedience, it being the supreme court, but not as the supreme authoritative source on Truth, as if it were the wholly inspired and assured word of God, to which the believer and magisterium ultimately owes obedience to (from which established Source the magisterium finds its establishment). And how that Source came to be established as such without making its "electors" supreme or as being contrary to SS was explained above.

The context in which the past testimony to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture was emphasized was that of Rome's presumption of herself being essential to ascertain what is of God, which even progressed to the point that personal access of the Scriptures in the native tongue was much restricted for hundreds of years, until no longer able to do so. After which liberal scholarship largely supplanted it, against which evangelicalism historically contended.

Protestant interpretation of Scripture employed all the ordinary means of interpreting a text, especially the tools which humanist scholarship had developed for interpreting ancient texts, and respected the views of theologians and exegetes of the past as useful, but not normative, guides to understanding Scripture. The real difference between the classic Protestant and the classic Roman Catholic views lies in the Protestant rejection of the view that tradition, expressed in the teaching of the magisterium, possesses a binding authority against which there can be no appeal to Scripture. (Richard Bauckham; “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason,” in Benjamin Drewery and Richard J. Bauckham, eds., Scripture, Tradition, and Reason)

The doctrine of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture has frequently been misunderstood and misrepresented, both by Protestants and Catholics. It does not mean that the matters and subjects with which Scripture deals are not mysteries that far exceed the reach of the human intellect. Nor does it assert that Scripture is clear in all its parts, so that no scientific exegesis is needed, or that, also in its doctrine of salvation, Scripture is plain and clear to every person without distinction. It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest. The way of salvation, not as it concerns the matter itself but as it concerns the mode of transmission, has been clearly set down there for the reader desirous of salvation. While that reader may not understand the “how” (πῶς) of it, the “that” (ὅτι) is clear.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 477.

Turretin states, The question then comes to this—whether the Scriptures are so plain in things essential to salvation (not as to the things delivered, but as to the mode of delivery; not as to the subject, but the object) that without the external aid of tradition [especially as binding beliefs] or the infallible judgment of the church, they may be read and understood profitably by believers. The papists deny this; we affirm it.

Turretin again: The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. We only wish to proscribe the darkness which would prevent the people from reading the Scriptures as hurtful and perilous and compel them to have recourse to tradition when they might rest in the Scriptures alone. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology)

Thus reformers, while upholding SS, "To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 47),

Again, Scripture alone is the only infallible Source to which nothing is equal, and formally providing sufficient salvific Truth, and by which we see external helps materially provided for as sanctioned, which includes the Lord personally leading, "speaking" to souls, but the teaching of such is examined in the light of Scripture as it being The standard, versus a person or office claiming perpetual ensured infallibility, which binds believers to believe certain things it channels out of an amorphous body of oral tradition.

In contrast, in Roman Catholicism, souls make a fallible decision to trust in a non-inspired office of men (and a man) as their sole supreme infallible authority, which provides them with infallible teachings, including a canon of Scripture and canonical Traditions, and all that is essential for salvation and perfection.

• When you make an impassioned plea of "other things, such as councils and such, can be used to decide the contents of Scripture, interpretations of Scripture, etc.!", I really do wonder if you're listening to yourself! Surely you realize that an authority is only as reliable as that on which it rests?

Indeed an authority is only as reliable as that on which it rests (on what authority does the church of Rome rest?). You are demanding that in order for something to be The infallible standard then it must exclude any other authority as having any, or as excluding the use of an interpretive source. Even the US Constitution says the Judges in every State shall be bound it and the Laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, as being the supreme Law of the Land. (Article 6)

• (And it's facile to say, glibly, "Ah, but we and our teachings rest on the Rock of Christ!"... since any group which disagrees with you can claim the very same thing... and both of you cannot be right at the same time. Look up the "law of non-contradiction", if needed. In short: that would settle nothing.)

What in the world? Does the reality of competing sects of RCs each invoking infallible magisterial teachings invalidate it as alone being the supreme office? The claim for a source as alone being supreme and instrumentally able to produce essential unity is not a promise that all who invoke it will see unity, and is not refuted by dissension. A hammer as being sufficient to drive a nail is not refuted because some use it to crucify the innocent.

• If you're prepared to claim that the "table of contents" of Scripture is without error, then you're attributing that infallibility of judgment to the council (or what-have-you) which decided it in the first place! And in doing so, you'll have plagiarized the Catholic position by stealth, and left Protestantism behind (and I'll be happy to welcome you into the nearest RCIA program! :) ).

Which is more erroneous reasoning, as making a correct judgment by the grace of God does not equate to or require possessing ensured (formulaic) infallibility of judgment, which is what plagiarizing the Catholic position by stealth would require. RCs themselves make what can only be called a fallible judgment, meaning it allows for the possibility of error, in judging Rome as being of God and as warranted to be their supreme and infallible authority, (which she effectively is for them) to which all lesser sources owe their authority. And they claim to have found that their judgment was warranted and right, which is what their authority claims, despite competing authorities. Likewise, souls fallibly judge certain writings as being of God, and consequently a body (canon) of them, and which judgment they find confirmed, which is what these books claim, despite competing "holy books."

And in reality, the premise than an infallible magisterium or otherwise the possession of any charism of ensured infallibility by men, outside of Divine inspiration (vs. popes speaking "infallibly"), is essential to discern what is of God, and or for assurance, is not Scriptural. Souls could know of a truth that someone or something was of God based upon evidential warrant, without possession of ensured infallibility.

• d) If you claim that your understanding of Scripture is "sufficient for salvation", I'll be justified in asking how you come to that conclusion...

Who said it is was my understanding of Scripture that is claimed as "sufficient?" You are confusing the instrumental sufficiency of Scripture which enables salvation by faith in what it says with guaranteeing correct understanding upon any who read it. Again, I can guarantee a hammer if sufficient to drive a nail, but which does not ensure one who uses it will do so.

But that my judgment is correct must be based upon Scriptural substantiation, as seen in Scripture. Was the veracity of the reproofs of the truth claims of John the Baptist based upon the premise of ensured infallibility, or ultimately in the light of what Scripture said? You whole the premise of the necessity of ensured infallibility is the problem!

• . especially since millions of Christians--who also pray, study, etc., and have abilities which match or exceed yours and mine--read the same Scriptures and come to different conclusions!

So do Roman Catholics, while both SS types and they see common assent to a limited degree in core Truths. Moreover, the most grievous heresies are seen under the RC model for assurance of Truth, in which leadership formally or effectively presumes a level of assured veracity above that which is written of such, (cf. 1Co. 4:6)

• How do you presume to say that your interpretation of, say, John 6 (which teaches the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, as plainly as day), is RIGHT, and the Catholic view is WRONG?

Simply by examining Scripture with Scripture, which manifestly shows, by the grace of God, that only the metaphorical view is easily and completely conforms to the rest of Scripture in its totality. In contrast, for one, if is consistent with taking Jn. 6:53,54 the way RCs typically insist, literally, then since this is as much an unequivocal imperative as other "verily verily" statements, then they must hold that those who deny the Catholic "Real Presence" (though apparently that was originally an Anglican term) do not have spiritual life in them, and that physically eating was the means of obtaining it in Scripture, but which it never is.

And they must find the Lord's Supper being the central activity of the NT church, officiated by clergy distinctively titled "priests," who offer it as a sacrifice for sins, none of which is seen in the testimony of the life of the church in the NT (Acts onward), interpretive of the gospels.

Instead, the Lord's Supper is only manifestly described in one epistle, in which they were to show, declare, proclaim the Lord's death for the church by taking part in a communal meal, thereby recognizing the body of Christ by treating each other as blood-bought (Acts 20:28) members of what is called the one body, one bread. Only by so doing was the Lord's Supper that of fellowship with the blood and the body of Christ, thus with Christ Himself.

But which they were not doing by eating independently, with some being full and others hungry, shaming them that have not, thereby not recognizing the Lord's body as made up of such members. (1Co. 11:17-34; cf. 1Co. 10:16-22) In both chapters it is the church that as the body of Christ that is the focus, as it was bought by the sacrificial body and blood of Christ, fellowship with as per that love they were to show by recognizing each other via that communal "feast of charity," which signified oneness, like as the pagans had fellowship with devils via their dedicatory feasts, not by physically eating the flesh of demons.

Yet i did not mean to open up another branch to this debate.

• Not only false (there are no contradictions within Catholic dogma),

Nonsense. It can only be said that there are no contradictions within Catholic dogma because she autocratically defines what is a contradiction. Your own sects testify to this, as among other things, it is quite clear that the aforementioned infallible teaching that broadly consigns to eternal damnation to those who do not remain in the bosom of the Roman church, subject to the Roman pontiff, is quite contrary to broadly affirming SS type Prots as being separated brethren. If you want to understand the latter as excluding those who left Rome, and who honestly do not see, and thus know, that Rome is the One True Church, then you are part of one sect interpreting Catholic teaching that way, but the pope and magisterium is not doing much to help you, in word or deed.

Nor can the Roman alternative

1. but a "tu quoque" fallacy. Pointing out someone else's leaky boat doesn't patch your own.

Wrong again. The appeal to hypocrisy in order to to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument would be wrong if it was generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument, but the context was that of your pointing out someone else's leaky boat — your argument was as regards unity — but which indeed doesn't patch your own boat. In addition, your argument presumes you have an alternative that actually does what you reject the other by as not doing. Moreover, you avoided having to engage this by appeal to hypocrisy, but the issue was unity, as if the Roman alternative does not see divisions, as well as the sola ecclesia model (which many cults effectively operate out of) taking the problem of personal error to the corporate level.

• since there is a "limited degree of unity" between SS Protestants and Catholics... but you don't accept that as license to embrace Catholicism, do you?

You are confusing unity with full communion. We can recognize any truly born again RC (I was) as separated brethren, with whom Protestants who walk in the Spirit can realize basic rejoicing in Christ with, versus their church being foremost, but as a system Rome is contrary to that.

In addition, unity in the NT itself was limited, not comprehensive, but of one heart and one mind under manifest apostles of God, which do not see the likes of today, yet not directly dealing with all the myriad of things we see today. Yet even under the most profoundly manifest men of God souls can practically be as atheists, as Moses realized.

But it is the most basic and essential "unity of the Spirit" which, even since becoming born again as a RC, I have even spontaneously realized in meeting others (as i evangelized) who likewise has realized this profound transformative conversion and Scripture-grounded relationship with Christ that I rarely find with RCs. I have a humble, happy Latino neighbor of simply faith in Christ, in whom i rejoice with in Christ, as He is his manifest object of affection, singing souls and even writing on his car, and who thinks I do a great job in serving the Lord. And who in time past was as good as dead, and used to drink etc., but the Lord manifestly saved him. I can emphasized Jesus saves, and we only pray to the Lord without him taking offense, though sometimes he wears the beads. But his wife has a decidedly different spirit, not the gleaming "praise the Lord" one (yes, it can be used in vain), but is much about her (distinctive) Catholic Mary, etc, unlike in the NT church. I am basically happy about him, but grieved by her. There is no real basic fellowship in an around Christ, unlike with so many of those in evangelicalism, Calvary Chapel to Pentecostals to SBC types, but not with Mormons,
JWs" etc.

And today it is those who most esteem Scripture as literally being the word of God that are most unified in basic conservative beliefs.

As regards devotion,al unity due to Christ being in them and they in Christ, the esteemed SS preachers Charles Spurgeon found in his day,

Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines. (Sword and the Trowel, May, 1891)

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

We hear much moaning over our divisions. There may be so me who are to be deplored among ecclesiastical confederacies, but in the spiritual C hurch of the living God, I am really at a loss to disc over the divisions which are so loudly proclaimed. It strikes me that th e tokens of union are much more prominent than the tokens of division. But what ar e they? First there is a union in judgment upon all vital matters. I converse with a spiritual man, and no matter wh at he calls himself, when we talk of sin, pardon, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and such like themes, we are agreed. We speak of our blessed Lord. My friend says that Jesus is fair and lovely - so do I. He says that he ha s nothing else to trust to but the precious blood; nor have I anything else. I tell him that I find myself a poor , weak creature; he laments the same. I live in his house a little while - we pray together at the family altar, you could not tell which it was that prayed, Calvinist or Arminian, we pray so exactly alike, and when we open the hymn book, very likely if he happens to be a Wesleyan he chooses to sing, "Jesus, lover of my soul." I will sing it, and then next morning he will sing with me, "Rock of ages, cleft for me."

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

And you have the kind of basic unity French RC political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859 (best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) testified to:

The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same... (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)

But as seen among your own, the strongest bonds as well as the sharpest contentions are usually seen among the most committed to doctrine.

• since your view of "above what is written" (which is an oblique reference to 1 Corinthians 4:6, I assume?) rests entirely upon your personal judgment..

Wrong again, as any claim of mine must rests not on my say so, which would be violating 1Co. 4:6, but must rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation which i can provide, as in Scripture. Meanwhile your objection is exactly what you could say to any preacher in Scripture, since the only higher appeal (save to the Lord Himself) was to non-infallible, yet authoritative magisterium. But the very validity of the magisterium as well as its judgments rests upon what was written.

Contrary to how RCs typically seem to see the NT, it was not a new novel faith, but rested upon OT writings to which it abundantly appealed to, as well as the manner of supernatural attestation which it records being given to that which was of God, but with what was written being supremely determinative.

As said, I do hold that a central magisterium is the ideal, but mainly due to the deformation and arrogance of Rome that is seen as a negative.

• You don't understand! LOGIC requires that Protestants not hold FLATLY CONTRADICTORY beliefs, while still claiming that "The Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone led them to both positions".

Wrong again, as refuting SS, for it is not the claim of SS that holding that warrant from Scripture uniquely must be the basis for the validity of beliefs, and which it is sufficient to provide, means that all who subscribe to it will be in unity. Even those who hold that official sanction by Rome must be the basis for the validity of beliefs, since the official teachings of the Roman church must be the supreme law, cannot show that all who subscribe to that basis will be in unity. Logic requires that if you are going to claim 20 years of debate on this that you evidence you actually read sites as this which specifically deal with your specious arguments at length.

• or else you'd reject "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" as being "above what is written"!

Wrong again, under SS as defined, for it is based on what is written, in principle and precept. Scripture alone is the only substantive transcendent body of Truth said to be wholly inspired of God, thus being the assured word of God with its unique anointing, (Heb. 4:12) and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">abundantly evidenced. </a>

And which is the only body said to be instrumentally used (by the Scripture-based NT church) "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tim. 3:16,17)

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and consequently this materially provides for a canon of Scripture.

RCs seem to think than an autocratic infallible magisterium must be the answer to the problem of competing claims, but the Scriptural reality is that while God ordains the magisterial office, the validity of its judgments versus competing claims must rest of upon appeal to a higher authority, manifesting that it is warranted by that. Which authority itself became established due to warrant.

And which is how the SDA began and continues, as with Rome. One elitist org,. versus another.

• Irony, thy name is daniel1212! That's a pretty elitist thing to say, don't you think?

More chaff. Maybe imagine another logical fallacy? Rather than this fallacious charge of hypocrisy rather than dealing with cults sharing the same basis for veracity, my use of Daniel1212 does not refer to the eschatology of Daniel, but to my personal needing to wait for certain blessings.

including fostering (what in Scripture would be) worship of a sinless, bodily resurrected almost almighty heavenly demigoddess, which is not the Mary of Scripture.

• Forgive me, but... this quote of yours is loaded with what we, in college, called "weasel words":

Considering how in the dark you indicated you were no wonder you charge ambiguity. You are not in debate class but in real life, and once again your recourse to such escape attempts is invalid, for in reality i am not creating misleading impressions here by making mere vague or ambiguous claims in order to leave an escape hatch when the burden of proof becomes too much to substantiate what it says or implies, but I asserted that RCs engage in what in Scripture would be worship of a created being, as the link substantiated, which is held as having all but unlimited power put into her hands, and is not the Mary of Scripture.

• "what in Scripture would be" = your personal interpretation of what Scripture says, without so much as a scrap of evidence.

Really? So you want these responses to be even longer, or after 20 years you still do not click on links which provide supplementary material if it might impugn Rome? Or you want to rely upon the fallacy that no Truth claim can have any weight unless it has the support of an infallible magisterium? Where do you ever see NT brethren bowing down in homage and adulation to other brethren, versus an aversion to that, let alone praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, despite about 200 prayers being recorded, and with created beings residing in glory? Such doctrine is an argument against sola ecclesia and for SS.

• "worship" = SS anti-Catholic opinion and mind-reading of what they assume Catholics to be doing.

Wrong again, as this refers to activity, which is how worship is described in Scripture, for actions are to express the heart. What do you think would be the judgment in Scripture to someone kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture (no mere obeisance) to created beings especially in the unseen world (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for heavenly help, and making offerings to them?

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

The only burning of incense and making offerings unto anyone but the Lord in Scripture was to the only to the queen of heaven in Scripture, and it was not Mary. (Jeremiah 44:16-17) </font></p>

• "sinless" = well, at least you have that part correct. :)

But is utterly without real substance in Scripture, including by necessity, and despite specious RC extrapolation. And which conspicuous absence is contrary to the diligence of the Holy Spirit in testifying to the exceptions to the norm as regards far lesser character in Scripture as well as major ones, from longevity, so strength, to height, to toes, to holiness, to diet, to clothing, to virgin birth, lack of genealogy, to the thrice mentioned sinlessness of Christ.

• "almost almighty" = not only weasel words, but slimy. The Blessed Virgin is only as "mighty" as God allows her to be..

You sure are desperate! Do you really think I meant Mary had all but unlimited power on her own, or that is was as linked material provided? You complain about the length of my posts but your specious attempts at fault finding are much responsible.

• The idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary being "worshipped" (in the modern sense of the word--i.e. adoration, latria) is entirely in anti-Catholic imaginations.

So we finally found the one here who is "mind-reading of what they assume Catholics to be doing."

• "bodily resurrected" = yes. Your problem with that is... what, exactly? How does this go against Scripture in any way?. Do you balk at the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elijah? Explain, please.

I will explain, by God's grace. Once again your assumption is wrong, assuming that the objection must be based on a lack of precedent in Scripture, and that it this is provided, while in fact being bodily resurrected and crowned in Heaven does not (the giving of rewards awaits the Lord's return and judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) ) while the real objection is to making a binding belief out of something that is at best only possible as an exception, yet without complete precedent, while it is also even lacking in early testimony, and was thus opposed by RC scholars as being made binding belief. As a recent post substantiated here.

• "heavenly demigoddess" = what on earth does that mean, exactly, aside from possibly using the word "goddess" to stir up indignation in SS anti-Catholic readers? Can you supply a definition for this apparent example of raw rhetoric?

I did, thus it is not "raw." It is not my fault, if like certain other RCs, you will not follow links to such "anti-Catholic" supplementary material even if from RCs. Of course, true to form, you can reject such as not being what the Catholic church teaches, even if some of it is by popes, which gets into the confusing realm of discerning which magisterial realm each teaching falls under, thus what degree of assent is required, unless only infallible teachings require any. In addition is that the Scriptural definition of what constitutes belief, which is not mere words but what one does and effects. And it is quite manifest that what RCs typically express, under the principle that they cannot honor their Mary to excess, is without "official" censure and receives implicit sanction.

You obviously have not read much of my replies as you just parrot the same refuted polemics.

• Remember what I said about "irony", above?

Remember how spurious your attempted mind reading charge of irony was against danie1212?

• This is a flat assertion of raw opinion, FRiend. We "can"? Why? On what basis do we trust the conclusion to be assuredly true and reliable (as must be the case, since it means the difference between salvation and damnation)?

How can you ask this in the light of Scripture, unless you as blinded under the premise than an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God? How could anyone know that any of the OT writings were of God? How could those which were referenced by the Lord and the apostles as being the word of God, as being Scripture, as having authority — which their opposition never contended against as being so — have come to be held as such? And if even one book can become recognized as assuredly being of God then so can two, and ultimately a canon.

In addition, since scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther — then the (standard) RC objection against the Protestant lack of an assuredly true and reliable complete canon via infallible magisterium would apply to the majority of RC history, while the Protestant. 66 book canon with ancient support was rather quickly and largely universally settled (Westminster itself lists it) .

Note also that the EO canon is not completely identical to that of Rome, while whether the canon of Trent is completely identical to that of Hippo and Carthage is a matter of continued debate. As is (between Roman Catholics) whether Trent actually closed the canon. And if the names of the books of canonical books are infallibly defined, then why are the attribution of authors not? Or are they?

just as they could hold that any books of the OT were

• They could, eh?

Yup.

• Which books of the IT do you mean? 2 Maccabees? The Book of Jubilees? The Assumption of Moses?

Beginning with the ones which historically prevailed and are testified to as being held as as being the word of God, as being Scripture, as having authority, "it is written.."

• You're begging (and dodging) the original question completely; HOW was the OT "canonized"? It's not enough to say that "it was done progressively,

I am not dodging anything, but as the Lord answered the like question as to the source of His authority with a question, in order make them think and realize the error of their presumption, so i will do with you:

How were any men or writings recognized and established as assuredly being of God, such as Isaiah, to John the baptizer? And if they were (as was told you, in the light of their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), then why cannot more be added to that group? But do you see this discernment as inferring ensured infallibility on the part of the "electors?" Or a lack of this as being excluding Biblical assurance?

RCs seem to think than an autocratic infallible magisterium must be the answer to the problem of competing claims, but the Scriptural reality is that while God ordains the magisterial office, the validity of its judgments versus competing claims must rest of upon appeal to a higher authority, manifesting that it is warranted by that. Which authority itself became established due to warrant.

Before the law God revealed Himself in a limited way to a very limited number of souls, supernaturally attesting to these men as being of God. Oral tradition then was as SS, being the law and sufficient for what God wanted them to know then But when God choose to reveal Himself and will more comprehensively, and preserve that express Divine revelation, He chose to place it in writings through the manifest man of God, Moses. And thus the Law became the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, and thereby more writings were added. The NT is a result of this and followed the same process.

• since the WC hasn't proven its divine mandate (above and beyond spouting its mere opinion),

Wrong, as the same charge could be leveled at any civil authority as well, while Scripture teaches that all powers that be are ordained by God, even if there is no guarantee that all what such do will be. While Rome declares that she is The Authority, since according to her interpretation only her interpretation (of history, tradition and Scripture) can be right in any conflict (though one RC told me Rome does not interpret: it declares), the validity of the NT church requires that it must continually manifest that it of the living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart, as the NT church was.

But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

• and since "appeal to progress when deciding an infallible collection of Scripture" is about as illogical as saying that "life can evolve from non-life, and a rational human soul can evolve from an animal soul, because the change was gradual!". Piffle. Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reason.

Actually, it is your perverse Roman reasoning that is illogical nonsense. Evolving a rational human soul can evolve from an non-rational animal soul simply is not the same thing as the development of the canon, as the latter is not a constitutional change in being, but is simply an extension of content. A collection of even 5 books due to such being established as assuredly being of God — and souls could know what was of God, "of a truth" even in the OT — in principle supports a larger collection. A validity of which continues to be maintained due to the same basis as these writings came to be established by.

Your rhetoric is a poor substitute for reason.

• And you know that John (the Baptist, I assume?) was "a prophet indeed"... how? I assume that it was from reading the Gospels..

Indeed, likewise he was recognized as as being a prophet indeed in the light of his manifest Scriptural holiness and Spirit-empowered preaching, his heavenly qualities and attestation. Such as led to the gospels.

How do you know that the Gospel which you read is "true Scripture"?

Like as souls knew the Law was of God, and John was. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, unless you cannot comprehend souls assuredly knowing what is God without an assuredly infallible magisterium, which is a unScriptural novelty.

• The fact that it just happens to be in your Bible is mere happenstance... since the book of 2 Nephi just happens to be in the Bible of a member of the LDS,

The fact is that your "facts" just happen to be fallacious, as competing canons of holy writ simply do not translate into accidental development (which is much the reality with the papacy), any more than competing deities do. The virtuous and attestive basis by which certain writings ended up on the list of classics has been explained, which in Christianity was not due to any magisterium placing them there, but which can affirm what had been most universally established, the validity of which canon continues to be maintained due to the same basis as these writings came to be established by, and not as due to required reading.

But in Mormonism and Rome, the veracity of what is of God rests upon the premise of the cannon-be-wrong leadership, requiring the inclusion and reading of them, and both of which autocratic entities added fables to their collection, ensuring that otherwise obscure books were maintained (as well as hindering , in times past by Rome, personal access to all it holds as Scripture).

• Here's your problem in a nutshell, FRiend: if you cling to a "hard" definition of "sola Scriptura", then you refute yourself (since Scripture doesn't teach it). If you "soften" the definition, then your argument becomes circular, since Protestant definitions and interpretations are used to "prove" the authority and reliability of the Protestant Bible, which in turn is used to "prove and norm" the original definitions and interpretations.

Wrong again, as whatever your ambiguous "hard" and "soft" SS and "prove" means, the reality is that there is nothing circular in holding Scripture as being the only infallible sufficient authority (thus The Authority) on faith as described, and thus appealing to it as substantiating that men and writings came to be established as being of God. While you seem to require the "sola" in SS as being in absolute sense excluding any means by which Scripture is even discerned and read, this not the case, nor are we arguing that the definitions and interpretations used in support of the authority and reliability of the Protestant Bible are themselves infallible, nor are those who discerned writings as being of God, thus making them competing authorities.

Meanwhile RCs use Catholic definitions and interpretations of Scripture and history to "prove" the infallible authority of their church as alone being the supreme standard on truth, and essential for ascertaining Truth and assurance thereof, and then invoke her authority "prove" their sources and definitions and interpretations are valid.

Even if you disagree with this methodology, and think SS is refuted, yet it remains that you are not going to find Scripture teaching ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office as per Rome as essential for ascertaining Truth and assurance thereof, nor that being the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation as requiring or affirming said infallibility.

• If you're truly serious about the "don't go beyond what is written" idea, you'll drop "sola Scriptura" like a hot cinder from the netherworld.

I am truly serious about not going beyond what is written as being universally binding beliefs (not simply obedience), and which writings supports SS as described, while if you're truly serious about the "go beyond what is written" idea under the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which Scripture, Tradition and history only mean what Rome says they do, then I know some cults that you could consider. They even have more actual unity than Rome, as with her, unity in salvific error. Sadly.

Sorry for the delay, but these take me days.

[Springfield Reformer]

If I may offer a thought on “almost almighty,” I think the very point of the matter is that the degree of power attributed by some to Mary, by an accumulation of attributes, seems to approach that of full divinity. Think “asymptotic curve.” :)

And if you stumble on the math, I submit that you have missed the point, which is that some folks really do have a difficult time distinguishing Mary from deity, and I have Catholic relatives to prove it.

So the proper category is psychology, not math. People, as you must know, are capable of growing all kinds of illogical and inconsistent thoughts in the same mental garden. All they need is an excuse, and the phrase in question gives them precisely that. It was ill-advised, and the concern of Nestorius that it would be abused has turned out to be rather well founded.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

One other note on a point, above: "almost almighty" = not only weasel words, but slimy.

As substantiated, there were no "weasel words," but considering the evident ignorance or you have displayed, partly due to not following links, it is no wonder you claim ambiguity is used due to inability to substantiate what something is seen to infer.

I forgot to add "illogical to the point of being ridiculous"... since it's akin to saying "almost infinite"... which is logically meaningless.

Rather than seeking mathematical violators in the letter of what was written, consider the intent, in which having "all but unlimited" power (Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem) is the phrase you should object as to describing Mary, as it is without substance, while authors who you hardly compete with do not concur with your judgment, as "almost almighty" as with "almost infinite" as with "almost perfect" is frequently seen used in published books to describe something close to that condition.

For as the The American Heritage Book of English Usage states as regards "almost infinite," that as with such absolute terms as "omnipotent," "in its strict mathematical sense it cannot be modified or compared," yet "in nontechnical usage, of course, infinite is often used to refer to an unimaginable large degree or amount, and in these cases it is acceptable to modify or compared the word."

But resorting to microscopic examination of the letter of my replies in attempting to find fault is not surprising, since you cannot actually refute what i defend, nor establish the Roman alternative.

[af_vet_1981]

The wicked man you venerate published a seven point plan that was the blueprint for the Holocaust his countrymen looked to and implemented almost four centuries later.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
1. First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
2. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
3. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
4. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
5. Fifth, I advise that safe­conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).
6. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
7. Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

* * *

But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

* * *

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.

* * *

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated. "

[af_vet_1981]

Luther's hatred of the Jews violated the Second Greatest Commandment, the violation of which is the root of all antisemitism. People imagine themselves to be spiritual brethren of the Messiah and hate the children of Jacob, the physical brethren of the Messiah. They even imagine this hatred is pleasing to God, willfully or blindly ingnorant that To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? ] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Leviticus, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses seventeen to eighteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses sixteen to nineteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses thirty one to forty six,
Mark, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses twenty nine to thirty four,
First John, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses three to four,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold emphasis mine

[fishtank]

“The wicked man you venerate...”

Not true. I don’t venerate Luther.

He’s not my pope, and I’m not a Lutheran, either. Luther was able to only PARTIALLY ‘protest’ against Rome.

He retained far, far too many Romish practices - including, as you mention, a hatred for the Jews.

In fact, the modern replacement theology is a direct descendant of Luther’s errors.

[af_vet_1981]

Not true. I don’t venerate Luther.

I thought you posted this thread.

Did you
come to bury Luther , not to praise him?
The evil that men do lives after them;

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III

[paladinan]

Sorry again for the delay; this week is pretty jam-packed.

You wrote:

No matter how much you must insist on defining "sola" in such as absolutist sense that you can claim it is "a logical absurdity," which contrary definition seems to be driven by necessity, since the Roman alternative is what is not in Scripture, it remains contrary to what i am arguing. That being that "Sola" refers to Scripture as alone being the supreme sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals, it uniquely being the wholly God-breathed, infallible, substantive and perpetuated body of Truth, thus being uniquely qualified and sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the faith and life of the Church, providing the Truth essential for salvation and growth in grace. Thus, one may surpass the understanding of his teachers by study of the Scriptures.

Er... FRiend... you really have a tendency to talk past the arguments to which your posts are responding. Let me try to break this into small bits, so as focus our discussion a bit:

1) You've said (above, and elsewhere) that the "sola" in "sola Scriptura" refers to "Scripture as alone being the supreme sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals" (etc.). Fine. Can you please tell me WHY you believe that? 2) Akin to #1, above: can you please explain HOW (apart from the Catholic explanation of an infallible Magisterium discerning and defining the matter) the books of Scripture were chosen, which (as you say) form the "sole, supreme, sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals" (etc.)? So far, you've said simply that "it's okay to appeal to councils and things other than Scripture"... and I don't disagree (that's the Catholic position, after all); but surely you can give some solid basis for the AUTHORITY of those "powers which put together the Scriptures" (apart from simply urging me to accept it on your say-so). I've seen plenty of assertion (and plenty of finger-pointing at others--"they do it, too!", etc.--but nothing in the way of proof, or even of solid evidence). Forgive me for saying so, but: SS Protestants (especially anti-Catholic SS Protestants) often have an entrenched habit of using their strong, fiery feelings and wishes to supply for proof--a bit along the lines of: "If this burns in my soul so fiercely and firmly, it simply MUST be true, and it's absolutely self-evident!" In the case of your replies, you (forgive me) inundate me with loads of verbiage (which isn't bad in and of itself--I do the same, at need), but with nary a scrap of proof... nor even any clear evidence that you understand what such proof requires and entails! As a few examples, look at your subsequent quotes:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

Logic exercise: please define (literally: de = to, fine = end; tell me the limits of that term and the concept which it represents) the object to which the phrase "THIS WORD" refers. You seem to be interpreting it as meaning "Scripture, whole and entire"... which would be silly, since vast parts of the Bible hadn't been written at the time when the Book of Isaiah was written; so that won't work. To what do you refer?

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7-8)

[several other similar quotes deleted for space]

That's a wonderful passage... but I wonder how it furthers your cause. No faithful and well-informed Catholic will argue against the IMPORTANCE and the AUTHORITY and the NECESSITY of the Scriptures; we argue only against the Protestant tendency to try to use them ALONE as the "guide/norm/etc." of faith... since it's not designed to do that, and it doesn't CLAIM to do that.

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)

Yes. Now, we need a definition of "THY WORD". You take it to mean the 66-book Protestant Bible, complete with Protestant interpretations (and additions, such as "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide", etc.); I don't see how you could possibly conclude anything of the sort. Taking this individual text as a piece of logical data, it's very vague; it certainly says that the "Word" is the Word of God... but it doesn't say whether that "Word" is written, or oral, or both; nor does it define the CONTENTS of that "Word", even if it WERE restricted to "written Word". Do remember that "Word of God", in the Scriptures, refers primarily and ultimately to Jesus, Himself (the "Logos", John 1:1, etc.).

Where is the like ever said of oral tradition? Or that the instruments of Divine revelation are equal to it in authority as sources of Truth?

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

So... St. Paul commands the disciples to hold fast to the traditions (oh, that word rings harshly in some Protestant ears!) which were given them, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter... and he says to shun those who do NOT accept those aforementioned traditions (either oral or written). That, when heard without "audio blinders", leads the logical person to conclude that the MODE of delivery of the tradition (whether oral or written) is a matter of indifference--both are equally important, and equally binding. Common sense should tell the same thing to the unbiased reader, since the early Church was hard at work--with evangelizing, baptizing, ordaining, absolving sins, anointing, etc.--for decades before the NT was even WRITTEN, much less compiled, approved as actual Scripture, and put into wide circulation (which took centuries). Any beliefs to the contrary are simple wishful thinking.

I'd also gently point out that, logically speaking, it proves very little to say, "the Bible is the most important... because the Bible says so!" Ever hear of "circular arguments"? Ever hear of St. Augustine saying, "I would not believe the Gospels themselves, had not the Catholic Church recommended them to me" (since heretics appeal to the Scriptures as freely as do orthodox Christians)? Think this through!

And the means of preservation was by writing: Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8)

(*sigh*) I don't suppose you'd be open to staying within the bounds of your data, and saying that writing was *A* (and not "the", in the sense of "only") means of preservation? The Scripture passages you quote simply don't prove (or even mean) what you claim that they mean.

More later... time crunch!

[daniel1212]

And if you stumble on the math, I submit that you have missed the point, which is that some folks really do have a difficult time distinguishing Mary from deity, and I have Catholic relatives to prove it.

Now you can be charged with mind-reading, which of course pagan idolaters could respond with to justify their bowing down before a statue and giving offerings to them, beseeching the heavenly entity they represent for help as dispensers of grace, as if they could hear all such prayers, while no one in Scripture ever addressed created beings in prayer to Heaven, let alone pray before statues of them.

[Springfield Reformer]

1. On Augustine:

You quote Augustine as saying:

"I would not believe the Gospels themselves, had not the Catholic Church recommended them to me"

But Augustine also once said this:

 "God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible." See Augustin on Psalm 89

So whatever Augustine meant regarding his movement to the Gospel by the church, he did not, apparently, draw a connection between that and the much later evolved doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility. Based on his ability to distinguish between creature and Creator, it seems reasonable he would reject infallibility as a property of any human gathering.

Furthermore, Luther and others dispute whether, in the quote you cite, Augustine was referring to the teaching authority of the Roman See, or whether, more like Ignatius, he was simply referring to the universal congregation of Christ followers as the source of this recommendation of the Gospel.

Furthermore, it has been observed that Augustine is not commending the authority of the church as something he was blindly obliged to obey, but rather that he came to consider the Gospel because the church influenced or stimulated him to investigate it.  

From this we can see, as you have observed, that it is helpful to carefully study the use of terms in context, to try and understand them in the most accurate way possible.  Unfortunately, for every one of us that reminds others of this principle, it applies equally well to ourselves.  Which is why these conversations must be saturated in God's grace, which we all need, because we are all fallible, and those of us who purport to teach others will have the greater judgment.  Something to remember.

2. Qualitative Sufficiency.

I observe in your posts a tendency to use the ongoing production of Scripture over time as an argument against "coverage" of the Biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura.  I believe this is an error in understanding what Sola Scriptura is, as a formal teaching. The principle of SS does not require that the full extent of Scripture be known. This may surprise you but it is true.  SS is a qualitative, not a quantitative assessment. It is in the nature or quality of God communicating with us, in words, that we find His communication sufficient to the purpose He intends for it.  

At this point you might suggest I am blurring the line between formal and material sufficiency.  Indeed I am, and with deliberation.  There is a sense in which the two very closely related categories have been artificially separated for polemical purposes, but I find what holds them together greater than what distinguishes them.  Consider for example the cruel fiction of giving a starving person a text that contains every fact necessary to create a wonderful meal, but the poor soul doesn't have his johnny quest decoder ring, and starves to death anyway because he cannot read the encrypted text.

Put another way, a text that was preemptively encrypted would not have material sufficiency to the person who could not read it. No amount of reading would provide the reader with any information they could use. Whether to believe in Christ or reject Him is not even the question.  The poor reader can't get so far as to determine whether anything is being said at all, or whether the words were randomly generated by a mindless computer.

Does the Scripture's self-description concerning it's God-breathed nature come anywhere close to that nonsense? Not at all. You can parse away at scope all you like, and that seems to have been your main defense against the obvious. But in fact a young man who feeds on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God will indeed cleanse his ways, and will find his spiritual life sustained by it, and will find, as Paul told Timothy, that everything they need to come to Christ and live for Christ is not only there, but not encrypted at all to the believing heart, and even capable of convicting the unbelieving heart, for the clarity of its message.  This is what God's word says about God's word.  It's the quality, not the quantity.

3.  About Circles in Epistemological Logic.

You have critiqued this axiomatic approach to understanding the supreme authority of Scripture as the a priori application of Protestant definitions in order to come up with Protestant conclusions.  I do not believe that is correct (and if I have not represented your view correctly, please feel free to correct me).  But I would point out that the escape from circularity in any argument is non-trivial, and Roman epistemology is fraught with far more puzzling circles than the evangelical solution.

To be clear then, we hold that God exists, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Are we still on the same page?  Or are these uniquely Protestant propositions?  Moving on, we hold that it is not Protestant, or Catholic, but just generically Christian, to believe the following:

3. That God is love, and so is actively seeking reconciliation with lost sinners, 
4. That to do so He communicates with them for the purpose of directing them to believe in Him, and specifically to believe in Jesus, so that they will be saved.
5. That as God, He has a perfect ability to communicate with any human, and is limited only by His own purpose.  
6. That according to His purpose, He may reveal His Messiah to Peter and hide Him from Caiphas, at His sole discretion,
7. That Scripture does indeed testify to the superiority of the words of God in discerning the mind of God,
8. That even if Scripture did NOT explicitly declare its own qualitative superiority, such would be implicit in the nature of divine purpose and communication.
9. That God created the world and therefore the entire infrastructure of human processes of thought and communication,
10. That as a result the communication of God by design must be intelligible, else one is accusing God of either irrationality or incompetence or cruelty,
11. That therefore if God communicates at all, it is necessarily sufficient for His purposes, and necessarily intelligible to the audience to whom He is speaking.

Thus both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture are reasonable and proper inferences from data both you and I hold in common, which inferences are confirmed in many places by Scripture's self-attestation.

What about oral transmission of divine truth?  Certainly Paul was justified in expecting compliance with his oral teaching, as he was an apostle after all. Paul never confirms the perpetuation of an oral tradition not traceable to known apostolic teaching.  One cannot simply pull a new tradition out of a magic hat and proclaim it sacred by fiat.  That requires a different principle, a presumption of authority in the magic hat, which if the hat cannot produce it, why should anyone choose the hat over the indisputable record of God's own words?  

Peace,

SR  

[paladinan]

Sorry to keep delaying—too much to handle (in real life busy-ness), at the moment; I’ll try to catch up on some of these, this weekend. Ergh.