Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
Nice way to limit the choices with not one, but TWO strawmen.
Rome says, “We hold this to be absolutely true, but we have no Scripture to actually back it up. We DO, however, have a lot of bits and pieces of Scripture that we've thrown together to MAKE some stuff we claim to be absolutely true.
Would that help?"
I don't belong to a church, I am the church.
And I don't hold that ANY doctrines of men are *infallible*, The only infallible thing is Scripture. Not men's interpretations of it.
Notice the deflection to avoid answering the question?
Suddenly it’s about everyone else’s doctrine/dogma’s.
Another evasion by a Catholic when asked something specific about their church.
Pinning a Catholic down to get a straight answer out of a Catholic about their church is like nailing jello to a wall.
What would then be the list of your fallible dogmas/doctrines? Your infallible ones?
I think one of our lists would be identical.
No, it's still about both our d/d. I'm asking the same question you asked. That would apply the same standard to both.
And, I think we'll see the answer to the 'list' question will be the same - if we do so.
I doubt it. I don’t agree with the Catholic church on a lot and don’t recognize its claim of infallibility in the first place.
Well, then, have at it. You were asked first.
I’m guessing you will agree.
One list is “All of them.”
The other list is “None of them.”
Now, what are on your lists?
And the list goes on. Bless God for what He provides.
Even among RCs, and some ambiguity. But i do not think l am operating out of a misconceptions about this dogma.
But I think the way to illustrate the problem of your position is to ask you: Can you list the dogma/doctrine that you hold to that are fallible?
You first, since its your claim to assured infallibility, while a list of fallible doctrines would be that which is not included as infallible.
You see such things as your infallible church infallibly teaching such a thing as the Assumption of Mary, though not recorded or foretold in Scripture, and lacking even early support in tradition. But which is held as assuredly true based upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome.
Meanwhile, not that even a donkey can speak infallible truth, but what is at issue is the gift of infallibility that is assured under a scope and subject-based criteria.
I do see the infallible Scriptures teaching they are the infallible rule and supreme standard for faith, as literally wholly being the assured word of God.
And thus as teaching (minimum)
the literal nature of historical accounts
the truths expressed by the Apostle's Creed, including God as creator consisting of Father, Son and Spirit all possessing the same Divine nature,
the reality of biblical miracles
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
his sinless lift and vicarious atonement for sin
his bodily resurrection from the dead
his judgment of the elect as well as the lost, and the eternal bliss of believers and eternal punishment of the wicked.
salvation by faith (albeit a faith that effects obedience) versus formal justification by ones own holiness and salvation obtained on the basis of works meriting it.
baptism in confessing faith in the risen Lord Jesus
prayer to Heaven being to the Lord alone, not Mary, etc.
I did. See previous.
What is your list?
This is a good example of your doctrine. Is it a fallible or infallible doctrine?
You have not yet provided a list of what fallible or infallible doctrines you hold to.
What happened is that you deflected the conversation, which dan graciously answered anyway, while you have not yet done so.
So where is YOURS?
Time to pony up. Especially since you were asked first.
Certainly I have. All doctrines and dogmas of the Church are infallible - else they would not be doctrines and dogmas. They are not hypotheses.
Which doctrines and dogmas of yours are infallible?
So when the CCC says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, that means that is someone is not Catholics, they are not saved and you agree with that. Correct?
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
— Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
So, give an example of your dogma - fallible or infallible, take your pick.
I see no list by you, while i provided a list of things i see infallible Scripture teaching. Start to explain yourself if you want to continue. And see my next reply.
If you want a meaningful exchange you need to explain what your argument is. We both can make lists of things we see our respective infallible authorities teaching. But since anyone can speak possibly something that is Truth without error, even an atheist, the issue is on what basis is this determined and thus how one obtains assurance.
What i said is truth without error insofar as they are demonstrably taught in Scripture, as was ever the case in Scripture, and which pertains to Rome’s teaching as well. The veracity of a truth claim is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
But no one or office has the gift of assured infallibility that provides that they will be whenever they teach universally on faith and morals will be infallible.
Is your argument that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.