Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

PeaceByJesus · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
In a general sense I would say that with respect to the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit works within the Catholic Church in a way that He does not work in individual believers. I would not say that one can encounter the fullness of the truth outside of the Catholic Church, although individual people and non-Catholic communities of faith certainly can arrive at parts of the truth.

Which is either just your opinion, or that of your church, which you have made a fallible decision to trust as being an infallible church. Which presumes this is essential and then gets into the details I asked about.

I am not sure if I would absolutely agree with the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia that you quoted, but it sounds consistent with the manner in which most people come to believe in Sacred Scripture.

By an act of faith in Rome? Upon what basis? That Scripture establishes the Roman or EO church as being the one true church?

Typically someone introduces the faith to you, and you have faith that the person is giving you something truthful or good. It may be a friend, a parent, a significant other, etc. who introduces someone to Sacred Scripture, and believers typically trust the person from whom they receive the Bible. It's not like Bibles just magically appear on anyone's desk, or that people hear a voice from God that says "Buy a Bible from Amazon". So the statement sounds reasonable, if I have understood it correctly. But I do not know if I would go so far as to say that a person could never come to a belief in Sacred Scripture, unless he first has faith a person from whom he received it.

Which is a superficial argument, for unless you believe in blind faith, then confidence in a person or entity must be based on some degree of evidential warrant. However, the Catholic position cannot be that one believes that Scripture provides evidential warrant for faith that the Roman or EO church is the one true church since he is said to need faith in the one true church in order to ascertain what Scripture is.

As for the quote from Cardinal Dulles, I would prefer to see the entire passage before commenting on it, but at first glance I would agree with "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation." I would also agree with "Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief."
I do not know if I would agree with "They have to be told by people who have received in from on high." If he means that outside of the Catholic Church, one cannot come to the fullness of the truth, I would agree with it. But if he means that individual believers cannot discover any parts of the truth without the Catholic Church, I think I would disagree.

I m glad that you do not simply parrot a party line, but Dulles is simply reiterating the common necessary fantasy that one cannot discover what Scripture consists of apart from his church. As told here a few days ago in this thread, it was the actions of men under infallible inspiration that was needed to choose what was scripture.

The premise is not that individual believers cannot discover any parts of the truth without the Catholic Church, but that without her infallible magisterium one cannot assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means.

A EO source even asserts,

"Scripture owes its authority to the Church.” — Alkiviadis C. Calivas, "Theology: The Conscience of the Church," p. 123

However, while judicially, as Westminster affirms, It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith... and authoritatively to determine the same, (CHAPTER XXXI) yet the key issue is whether this infers or requires ensured infallibility of office, which is what Rome presumes.

For 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, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

You see, the problem Catholics face is that the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) does not manifest that the NT church held to all that Catholicism holds as doctrine. For instance, being unable to come up with even one prayer by a believer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord amidst the over 200 prayers in Scripture, and resorting to erroneous extrapolation fails, then their typical recourse (in so many words) is "The Church gave you the Bible, it alone correctly knows what it means in any conflict," which is based upon the premise of ensured veracity.

And which premise would mean that Scripture establishes the Roman or EO church as being the one true church, yet that this said church establishes what Scripture is and means.

Meanwhile, as just told to another poster, even the most qualified scholars who have access to Tradition the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief and practice, resulting in competing "one true" churches.

I would rather defer to Dei Verbum than either of the sources that you cited.

Which presents more problems than it solves, dying the death of a multitude of qualifications contrary to the confusion it is posited as solving.

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Then you both example the divisions in Catholicism, and nullify an argument they use against SS and for SE (sola ecclesia), under the premise that an infallible magisterium is essential, and basically affirm the likes of Mormonism. The SS "Bible Christian" basis for assurance of Truth includes prayer and faith, and reason, but is to be based upon the weight of evidential warrant, of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which was that of the NT church.

Whether an infallible magisterium is necessary or not is no particular concern of mine. I believe that it exists, and that it is from God. I do not need to justify its existence with logic or reason. But if you desire logic or reason, it does seem to be necessary from a practical standpoint, but not for any of the reasons that you have listed. It would be necessary in the same sense that the Supreme Court of the USA is necessary, if you take The SC and the constitution as an analogy to the magisterium and Sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court is not above the constitution but it has been given the task of authoritatively interpreting it. Complete chaos would result if every individual were left to interpret its meaning for himself.

I will try to respond to your other points later.

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
Interestingly, I have seen many threads here at CF which attack sola scriptura in one form or another, but none, to my knowledge, which touch the subject of sola ecclesia, which is the position of the Catholic Church.

That would be an interesting thread. I think that it is a tough charge for a Catholic to defend against, although I would imagine that some apologists or theologians somewhere have responded to it.

I would think that you would need to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture in order to make the charge stick, and that may be a difficult thing for you since no Protestant in history has been able to do it.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
My assured basis is prayer, faith, and to a lesser extent, reason.

So to be clear, your basis for believing that the words of tradition, which you presented as being that of Christ, is not that your church has told you so, or that you have come to have faith in your church and its claim of ensured infallibility?

You need to see that the basic problem is that you have "Bible Christians" who have realized a common regeneration/conversion with its basic transformative effects in heart and life of believing a Scripture-based gospel of heart-purifying justifying faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and which results in further confidence by the Spirit and His witnesses in Scripture.

Then Catholics come to us to claiming that since there is more to what the Lord Jesus said and did, and oral teaching came before Scripture, then then (with one giant leap for Catholickind) what Rome or the EOs call Oral Tradition is also the word of God, just as the Bible is - even though pope and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God as the apostles could, and provide new public revelation thereby, and which Scripture does. And even though souls ascertained men and writings of God as being so long before the church began, and without an infallible magisterial office of men.

The basis for the veracity of oral traditions cannot be the Bible, since Oral Tradition contains things not seen in the only inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, and thus both the assurance that both the Bible is the word of God and Oral Tradition rests upon the premise ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Of course, faith in the One True Church® (Rome or the EOs or whoever else is in the competition) must have a basis, and since it cannot be allowed that souls can assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means apart from said One True Church, and to prove The Church by Scripture and Scripture by The Church would be circular, then appeal is made to Scripture merely as reliable historical document (when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration" - Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility), by which the seeking soul is supposed to find necessary evidential warrant for submitting to Rome or the EOs (never the twain do reconcile).

So somehow a soul is able to recognize Scripture as a reliable historical document but not as the wholly inspired word of God, but can recognize Rome or the EOs as being the one true church of God.

Of course, when a soul sees the contrary, the critical contrast btwn Rome (and a lesser extent, the EOs) and what the NT church believed as manifest in the substantive inspired record of it, then that is blamed on not having faith/submission to said one true church. Thus evangelical-type converts, as relatively few there be, usually convert as a result of committing the error of making the uninspired words of what post-apostolic men determinitive of what the NT church believed.

But as Bible Christians are to ascertain the veracity of Truth claims in the light of evidential warrant, of Scriptural substantiation, then after failed attempts to defend Catholic distinctives from Scripture in condensation to evangelical-types, Catholics usually end up appealing to so called "early church fathers," though they were not.

In contrast, faithful Catholics are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth

Instead,

..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 );

"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."

The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces ...

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- Choosing To Ignore Pope Leo XIII and Pope Saint Pius X | Christ or Chaos

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906

PeaceByJesus · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
Whether an infallible magisterium is necessary or not is no particular concern of mine.

How can it be no particular concern of you as a RC, when it is definitively a particular concern of Rome, and thus devout RCs insist on its necessity, and your own posted prolix papal promulgation requires it?

I believe that it exists, and that it is from God.

Then again, it would certainly seem an infallible magisterium as necessary should be a particular concern. But the basis for this belief and all RC doctrine is an issue, since it is definitively a particular concern of Rome.

I do not need to justify its existence with logic or reason.

Then why did you enter this provocative heated debate? Simply to deny SS but not justify its RC alternative?

But if you desire logic or reason, it does seem to be necessary from a practical standpoint, but not for any of the reasons that you have listed. It would be necessary in the same sense that the Supreme Court of the USA is necessary, if you take The SC and the constitution as an analogy to the magisterium and Sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court is not above the constitution but it has been given the task of authoritatively interpreting it. Complete chaos would result if every individual were left to interpret its meaning for himself.

The premise that SS is contrary to what SS documents such as Westminster affirm, as shown you, is consistent with typical ignorance of SS, though they begin or enter debates to burn their strawman.

And in practical terms where it counts, liberals are far more likely to feel comfortable in Catholic churches, and even find advancement, than conservative ones evangelicals ones.

Likewise erroneous however, is that magisterial authority infers or requires ensured infallibility of office, which is what Rome presumes, but SCOTUS does not. Nor did the OT supreme court, even though dissent from it was a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13)

Thus your argument from logic or reason is erroneous, and ensured infallibility of office as per Rome is nowhere seen in Scripture, and thus that cannot be your basis for belief in it.

Sorry for being hard on you, who does not seem to be like the RC parroting polemicists we typically contend with here, as seen prior in this thread, but the issue we are dealing with here has seen much debate.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
That would be an interesting thread. I think that it is a tough charge for a Catholic to defend against, although I would imagine that some apologists or theologians somewhere have responded to it.

I would think that you would need to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture in order to make the charge stick, and that may be a difficult thing for you since no Protestant in history has been able to do it.

Which is absurd, for the very claim that no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture must be based upon the premise that Rome determines what a contradiction of Scripture is, and which it excludes from being a possibility(!):

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." — Providentissimus Deus

However, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is contrary to Scripture, which teaches that all men are liars, and that while God can yet speak through such, there is no precedent or promise that an office will never err whenever speaking on faith and moral when addressing the whole church.

In Acts 15 we have one example of the church not erring in a matter, but which did not presume ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as the basis for this (it "seemed" good to us...), and only what Scripture said in support (as James gave the conclusive judgment) was treated as the sure established word of God.

And there is no inference that the church would always speak without error, or record of long term preservation from such, and instead Scripture shows that authoritative magisterial offices inevitably err.

Nor was ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility how God provided and preserved Truth - contrary to Catholic extrapolation that makes promises of God's presence and guidance as necessitating it - as God sometimes raised up prophets to correct the magisterial office.

Thus rather than the church beginning upon the basis of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, it began upon dissidents from those who sat in the seat of Moses, prophets and apostles!

Only God is declared shown to possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. and to presume this of an office of men is simply not what Scripture teaches and is contrary to it.

Which is just one of many Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
So to be clear, your basis for believing that the words of tradition, which you presented as being that of Christ, is not that your church has told you so, or that you have come to have faith in your church and its claim of ensured infallibility?

I believe because I desired to know the truth, I asked God to show me the truth, and I believed God when he showed me the truth. God is the primary object of faith, not the Catholic Church. This is explained in the Catechism.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe

III. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FAITH

Faith is a grace

153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven".24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"25

Faith is a human act

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to "yield by faith the full submission of. . . intellect and will to God who reveals",26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived".28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

158 "Faith seeks understanding":33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."3

You need to see that the basic problem is that you have "Bible Christians" who have realized a common regeneration/conversion with its basic transformative effects in heart and life of believing a Scripture-based gospel of heart-purifying justifying faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and which results in further confidence by the Spirit and His witnesses in Scripture.

Well, from my perspective, for a person to be a Bible Christian, he must accept all of the books that God has revealed as his word. Protestant Christians reject some of the books that God has revealed as his word, so I could not call any of you Bible Christians in good faith. The Bible Christians that you describe above are all Catholic Christians, from my perspective.

redleghunter · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
Well, from my perspective, for a person to be a Bible Christian, he must accept all of the books that God has revealed as his word. Protestant Christians reject some of the books that God has revealed as his word, so I could not call any of you Bible Christians in good faith. The Bible Christians that you describe above are all Catholic Christians, from my perspective.

There's a lot more history to your claim.

There is a long history of debate leading into Trent of the protocanonical books of the OT and the deuterocanonical books.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasizedthat in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
How can it be no particular concern of you as a RC, when it is definitively a particular concern of Rome, and thus devout RCs insist on its necessity, and your own posted prolix papal promulgation requires it?

Its necessity is not a particular concern of mine, because I am confident that it exists, and that it is from God. I do not need to question whether everything is necessary.

Then why did you enter this provocative heated debate? Simply to deny SS but not justify its RC alternative?

There were some questions that I wanted to ask, and obtain answers to. One of my main objectives was to better understand the particular objections of certain posters in this forum.

And in practical terms where it counts, liberals are far more likely to feel comfortable in Catholic churches, and even find advancement, than conservative ones evangelicals ones.

I do not look at Christians as liberal or conservative, but as one in Christ Jesus.

Sorry for being hard on you, who does not seem to be like the RC parroting polemicists we typically contend with here, as seen prior in this thread, but the issue we are dealing with here has seen much debate.

I did not find anything you wrote to be particularly hard, but thank you for your concern.

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Which is absurd, for the very claim that no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture must be based upon the premise that Rome determines what a contradiction of Scripture is, and which it excludes from being a possibility(!):

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." — Providentissimus Deus

However, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is contrary to Scripture, which teaches that all men are liars, and that while God can yet speak through such, there is no precedent or promise that an office will never err whenever speaking on faith and moral when addressing the whole church.

In Acts 15 we have one example of the church not erring in a matter, but which did not presume ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as the basis for this (it "seemed" good to us...), and only what Scripture said in support (as James gave the conclusive judgment) was treated as the sure established word of God.

And there is no inference that the church would always speak without error, or record of long term preservation from such, and instead Scripture shows that authoritative magisterial offices inevitably err.

Nor was ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility how God provided and preserved Truth - contrary to Catholic extrapolation that makes promises of God's presence and guidance as necessitating it - as God sometimes raised up prophets to correct the magisterial office.

Thus rather than the church beginning upon the basis of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, it began upon dissidents from those who sat in the seat of Moses, prophets and apostles!

Only God is declared shown to possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. and to presume this of an office of men is simply not what Scripture teaches and is contrary to it.

Which is just one of many Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).

Reported for goading. You did not need to insult me by calling my post absurd. Please be civil.

As for the substance of your post, I wrote that "no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture". I did not write that "no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts the personal opinions PeaceByJesus." Your post above does not contain much Sacred Scripture, so it is difficult for you to show where any Catholic dogma contradicts it.

But please give it a shot, if you desire. I am quite confident that you will be unable.

Afra · Mar 16, 2018

redleghunter said:
There's a lot more history to your claim.

There is a long history of debate leading into Trent of the protocanonical books of the OT and the deuterocanonical books.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasizedthat in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

The Deuterocanonical Books are the inspired word of God. You have been told the truth. Whether you choose to accept it is entirely up to you.

redleghunter · Mar 16, 2018

Afra said:
The Deuterocanonical Books are the inspired word of God. You have been told the truth. Whether you choose to accept it is entirely up to you.

I just presented you with the historical views of the two leading Catholic minds going into Trent as recorded by a Catholic expert on the council.

Now if you can show me any of the dueterocanon books contain information where they claim or show qualities of Divine inspiration, then I will entertain such.

But there is more. The Reformers were not the only ones calling these issues into question.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse…Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

Of course the slam dunk answer is "what difference does it make" because Trent settled this. Which is correct from a 16th Century Catholic Trent position.

I wanted to point out that leading into Trent within the Church herself, there was a long tradition dating back to the Athanasius canon of the deuterocanonical OT books being for edification and not equal to in authority of the protocanonical OT books for doctrinal authority.

With names such as Athanasius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene (couple of those names are Doctors of the Church), the protocanonical vs. deuterocanonical was a Catholic tradition. Until Trent.

The notions that Luther, other Reformers or Protestants in general ‘made this stuff’ up and that it was a 16th Century AD machination no longer holds water. The evidence shows there was even dissent within the walls of the Council of Trent.

Finally, given there was such debate within the walls of the Council of Trent, also shows evidence the OT canon was not settled in the 4th Century AD as some argue.

Source material can be found at this Google Books site:

Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Hubert Jedin was a Catholic Church historian from Germany, whose publications specialized on the history of ecumenical councils in general and the Council of Trent in particular, on which he published a 2400-page history over the years 1951-1975.

Afra · Mar 17, 2018

redleghunter said:
I just presented you with the historical views of the two leading Catholic minds going into Trent as recorded by a Catholic expert on the council.

Now if you can show me any of the dueterocanon books contain information where they claim or show qualities of Divine inspiration, then I will entertain such.

But there is more. The Reformers were not the only ones calling these issues into question.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse…Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

Of course the slam dunk answer is "what difference does it make" because Trent settled this. Which is correct from a 16th Century Catholic Trent position.

I wanted to point out that leading into Trent within the Church herself, there was a long tradition dating back to the Athanasius canon of the deuterocanonical OT books being for edification and not equal to in authority of the protocanonical OT books for doctrinal authority.

With names such as Athanasius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene (couple of those names are Doctors of the Church), the protocanonical vs. deuterocanonical was a Catholic tradition. Until Trent.

The notions that Luther, other Reformers or Protestants in general ‘made this stuff’ up and that it was a 16th Century AD machination no longer holds water. The evidence shows there was even dissent within the walls of the Council of Trent.

Finally, given there was such debate within the walls of the Council of Trent, also shows evidence the OT canon was not settled in the 4th Century AD as some argue.

Source material can be found at this Google Books site:

Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Hubert Jedin was a Catholic Church historian from Germany, whose publications specialized on the history of ecumenical councils in general and the Council of Trent in particular, on which he published a 2400-page history over the years 1951-1975.

I cannot convict you of that truth using human reasoning. Based on your response I am sure that you have already considered the logical evidence and arguments on both sides.

The Holy Spirit can convict you of that truth, either speaking to you directly or through the Church. If you want to know the truth, ask God to show you the truth. And then believe it. That applies to me as well.

Good evening.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 17, 2018

Afra said:
I cannot convict you of that truth using human reasoning. Based on your response I am sure that you have already considered the logical evidence and arguments on both sides.

The Holy Spirit can convict you of that truth, either speaking to you directly or through the Church. If you want to know the truth, ask God to show you the truth. And then believe it. That applies to me as well.

Good evening.

Which while such prayer is essential, is entirely subjective, and by itself is no different than what Mormonism exhorts seekers to do as regards whether the book of Mormon (fantasy) is true.

Again, you are on a thread which Catholics attacks SS, and require us to reject Scripture as alone being the supreme infallible authoritative standard for faith, with its contents being the assured word of God, and to accept the church of Rome (or the EO) as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say is the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus equating herself with the inspired writers of Scripture and apostles who could speak as wholly inspired, even though her popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God.

Thus you are requiring implicit faith in Rome, and while some subjective feeling may suffice for some as it does for the book of Mormon, we who find Scripture as warranting our confidence as the supreme infallible authoritative standard reject both as presumptuous false prophets.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
Which is absurd, for the very claim that no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture must be based upon the premise that Rome determines what a contradiction of Scripture is, and which it excludes from being a possibility(!):

Afra said:
Reported for goading. You did not need to insult me by calling my post absurd. Please be civil.

Which itself is absurd. Calling an argument absurd/preposterous is not calling you absurd, and censoring and even reporting such a critique of your assertion is not being civil.

As for the substance of your post, I wrote that "no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture". I did not write that "no Protestant in history has been able to prove that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts the personal opinions PeaceByJesus." Your post above does not contain much Sacred Scripture, so it is difficult for you to show where any Catholic dogma contradicts it.
But please give it a shot, if you desire. I am quite confident that you will be unable

Which response is also preposterous, since I manifestly did "give it as shot," that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is nowhere seen in Scripture, and contrary to what it does reveal, while your blithe dismissal simply illustrates the problem akin to what I said at the beginning.

Which is that since the assertion of Rome is that it is clearly impossible that any dogmatic teaching shall in any respect be at variance with Scripture, than no matter how manifest a contradiction may be, for the Catholic devotee who believes in ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, then then any and all such cases must be dismissed as merely personal opinions.

Which the type of reasoning seen in is cults, contrary to how the NT church began, upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

And I did not think it necessary to actually provide substantiation that Scripture teaches that all men are liars (Romans 3:13) and that while God can yet speak through such instead of ensured perpetual magisterial Scripture shows that authoritative magisterial offices inevitably err, (Isaiah 28:7; 56:10,11; Jeremiah 26:7; Luke 24:20; Acts 4:26; 7:52) and thus God sometimes raised up men from without that office to correct them (Jeremiah 26:8; Matthew 3:7; Mark 11:27-33) and thus the NT it began upon dissidents from those who sat in the seat of Moses, ( Matthew 23:2) that of Jesus of Nazareth whom they rejected, (John 7:45-48) and prophets and apostles. (Ephesians 2:20)

Thus while we can see even donkeys speaking the word of God, nowhere is a magisterial shown to possess perpetual magisterial infallibility in doctrine whenever speaking to all the church on faith and morals (which Caiaphas was not), which evidence is needed as being an exception to the norm (what God can do cannot be the basis for a doctrine that says He did do it), and and only God is declared shown to possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. (Titus 1:2; 1 John 1:5; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29)

PeaceByJesus · Mar 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

So to be clear, your basis for believing that the words of tradition, which you presented as being that of Christ, is not that your church has told you so, or that you have come to have faith in your church and its claim of ensured infallibility?

Afra said:
I believe because I desired to know the truth, I asked God to show me the truth, and I believed God when he showed me the truth. God is the primary object of faith, not the Catholic Church. This is explained in the Catechism.

What follows does not contradict what the CE said (the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) but explains that faith is a gift of God, for which "is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie," yet since according to Rome one cannot know what the word of God apart from faith in the intermediary authorities, but faith in God means faith in His instruments.

Yet in RC theology, in order to know and thus have faith from the word of God, faith in the instruments of it must come first. Thus as explained before the CE states that "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe
III. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FAITH
Faith is a grace
153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven".24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"25

Faith is a human act

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to "yield by faith the full submission of. . . intellect and will to God who reveals",26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived".28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

158 "Faith seeks understanding":33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."3

There is no dispute here that faith is a gift from God, yet contrary to atheistic charges, it is not blind faith, but has a basis of evidential warrant, and does not exclude faith in revealed truths also being based on appearing as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason. Relevant to this, your pasted article refers to "motives of credibility," and I suppose this is supposed to be your answer as to your basis for believing.

That while the Catholic position is that one cannot ascertain what Scripture consists of apart from an implicit act of faith in her, yet he can have faith in Rome based upon "motives of credibility," though to be logically consistent, since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17) but one needs faith in Rome to know and believe the word of God, then faith in the intermediary authorities must first be a faith that is based on historical evidences, by which the convert places submissive faith in the church of Rome as God's supreme instrument on earth to lead and guide him/her.

If so, then you must actually deal with our motives of credibility for rejecting Catholic distinctives, including the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, rather than blithely dismissing our reasoned rejection of this such since Rome rejects the possibility that Scripture can contradict her.

Which relates to the larger issue of why we should believe Rome when she, and thus you, tells us that something not in Scripture, and even foreign to it (from praying to created beings in Heaven to the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility), is the word of God.

Meanwhile you have left a multitude of questions unanswered which relate to faith in Rome telling us that something not in Scripture is the word of God, and thus why we are to reject SS in favor of SE.

You need to see that the basic problem is that you have "Bible Christians" who have realized a common regeneration/conversion with its basic transformative effects in heart and life of believing a Scripture-based gospel of heart-purifying justifying faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and which results in further confidence by the Spirit and His witnesses in Scripture.

Well, from my perspective, for a person to be a Bible Christian, he must accept all of the books that God has revealed as his word. Protestant Christians reject some of the books that God has revealed as his word, so I could not call any of you Bible Christians in good faith. The Bible Christians that you describe above are all Catholic Christians, from my perspective.

And thus you have thus rejected an entire group of Christians here as being so, unless there is another class of true, non-Bible Christians. Shall I report you?

Meanwhile under the premise that Bible Christians arr only those that God has revealed as his word, which refer to the 73 book RC canon, then you must reject multitudes of RCs for most of Rome's history, from Jerome to Cajetan as being so, while the EOs must reject you.

Afra · Mar 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Which while such prayer is essential, is entirely subjective, and by itself is no different than what Mormonism exhorts seekers to do as regards whether the book of Mormon (fantasy) is true.

Again, you are on a thread which Catholics attacks SS, and require us to reject Scripture as alone being the supreme infallible authoritative standard for faith, with its contents being the assured word of God, and to accept the church of Rome (or the EO) as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say is the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus equating herself with the inspired writers of Scripture and apostles who could speak as wholly inspired, even though her popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God.

Thus you are requiring implicit faith in Rome, and while some subjective feeling may suffice for some as it does for the book of Mormon, we who find Scripture as warranting our confidence as the supreme infallible authoritative standard reject both as presumptuous false prophets.

I did not require anything of you. You can do whatever you please, of course. Each person is judged by God and should follow his own well-informed conscience.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

How can it be no particular concern of you as a RC, when it is definitively a particular concern of Rome, and thus devout RCs insist on its necessity, and your own posted prolix papal promulgation requires it?

Afra said:
Its necessity is not a particular concern of mine, because I am confident that it exists, and that it is from God. I do not need to question whether everything is necessary.

Afra, you are on a thread which Catholics attacks SS, and require us to reject Scripture as alone being the supreme infallible authoritative standard for faith, with its contents being the assured word of God, and to accept the church of Rome (or the EO) as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say is the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus equating herself with the inspired writers of Scripture and apostles who could speak as wholly inspired, even though her popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God.

For this reason and others already posted, we reject the presumption of Rome as unwarranted and refuted. Which refutation, as past pages attest (such as
as in here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) by the grace of God, other RCs have not been able to overcome.

Then why did you enter this provocative heated debate? Simply to deny SS but not justify its RC alternative?

There were some questions that I wanted to ask, and obtain answers to. One of my main objectives was to better understand the particular objections of certain posters in this forum.

Then you should read some of the last few pages of the thread before jumping in and requiring is to repeat the nonsense already refuted.

And in practical terms where it counts, liberals are far more likely to feel comfortable in Catholic churches, and even find advancement, than conservative ones evangelicals ones.

I do not look at Christians as liberal or conservative, but as one in Christ Jesus.

Actually you reject any and all Protestant Christians as Bible Christians who reject the Catholic deuteros, and thus reject an entire group of Christians here as being so.

I did not find anything you wrote to be particularly hard, but thank you for your concern.

The hardness refers to the tone, which you do find hard.

PeaceByJesus · Mar 17, 2018

Afra said:
I did not require anything of you. You can do whatever you please, of course. Each person is judged by God and should follow his own well-informed conscience.

Which "argument" is a poor apologetic, and is like another poster who resorts to the same, and thus affirms Quakerism.

Afra · Mar 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Which response is also preposterous, since I manifestly did "give it as shot," that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is nowhere seen in Scripture, and contrary to what it does reveal, while your blithe dismissal simply illustrates the problem akin to what I said at the beginning.

Which is that since the assertion of Rome is that it is clearly impossible that any dogmatic teaching shall in any respect be at variance with Scripture, than no matter how manifest a contradiction may be, for the Catholic devotee who believes in ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, then then any and all such cases must be dismissed as merely personal opinions. Which the type of reasoning seen in is cults, contrary to how the NT church began, upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

And I did not think it necessary to actually provide substantiation that Scripture teaches that all men are liars (Romans 3:13) and that while God can yet speak through such instead of ensured perpetual magisterial Scripture shows that authoritative magisterial offices inevitably err, (Isaiah 28:7; 56:10,11; Jeremiah 26:7; Luke 24:20; Acts 4:26; 7:52) and thus God sometimes raised up men from without that office to correct them (Jeremiah 26:8; Matthew 3:7; Mark 11:27-33) and thus the NT it began upon dissidents from those who sat in the seat of Moses, ( Matthew 23:2) that of Jesus of Nazareth whom they rejected, (John 7:45-48) and prophets and apostles. (Ephesians 2:20)

Thus while we can see even donkeys speaking the word of God, nowhere is a magisterial shown to possess perpetual magisterial infallibility in doctrine whenever speaking to all the church on faith and morals (which Caiaphas was not), which evidence is needed as being an exception to the norm (what God can do cannot be the basis for a doctrine that says He did do it), and and only God is declared shown to possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. (Titus 1:2; 1 John 1:5; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29)

Reported for goading. There is no need to insult me by calling my post preposterous. Please be civil.

By "give it a shot" I meant demonstrate that a dogma of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture. You did not do that. In fact, in your previous post you did not even recite any scripture at all (although you did mention Acts).

And I have not relied upon any claim of papal infallibility in any of my posts.

Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Similar threads