Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; count-your-change; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; ...

So you believe that according to SS, only the Bible can be used to determine doctrine, versus that Scripture alone is the assuredly infallible rule of faith, and while other sources and things which it provides for may be used, yet Scripture functionally is the supreme judge of all truth claims, and that this supremacy is not seen in Scripture?

And is your argument is that since there was no infallible canon, and since Scripture is open to interpretation, then an assuredly infallible interpreter (Rome) was necessary in order to preserve and provide assurance of truth, and establish writings as Scripture, and act as the supreme authority on truth?

Hope to post back tomorrow, God willing.

198 posted on 05/08/2012 8:05:59 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212

I have two main points.

First, as a matter of fact, the Church preceded the writing of the NT.

Immediately after Pentecost, the Church spread the gospel and taught authoritatively both “by word of mouth or by letter.” The Church later recognized particular Christian writings as inspired, formally canonizing these writings centuries later.

There is simply no historical evidence of the doctrine of “the Bible alone,” as the sole rule of faith, in the early Church, nor could the doctrine have even been possible, since the Bible as we know it did not exist in the early Church.

The following point regarding the Church is also VERY important.

If Jesus is Truth Itself, how could He create a Church that would propose false doctrines as true?

It’s impossible, which is why the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” and why Jesus COMMANDS his followers to take their disputes “to THE Church,” not A church, or to Scripture (!).

Secondly, the doctrine of “the Bible ALONE” is self-refuting, because it isn’t in the Bible (!).

Additionally, the rejection of an infallible Church necessarily invalidates the doctrine of “the Bible alone,” because a fallible Church could have written, copied, and canonized writings errantly, making the Biblical writings and canon unreliable. R.C. Sproul tried to resolve this problem by calling the Bible “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

203 posted on 05/09/2012 6:06:57 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson