Replies

Maybe you should define what you mean by “basis for assurance”. What is the basis for your basis?

I have explained this to you before, and all you want to do is to respond with "The light of Faith is a gift," which is a given, but ignores the instrumentality of that, in which faith has some degree of warrant."

Saving faith is in the "Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance [pistis] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Whereof he hath given assurance (pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of parechō, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Heb_11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of pistis grow out of this one from peithō, to persuade. - WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson

"And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth." "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 17:23-24)

"Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." (John 16:30)

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31)

My assurance is based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being Divine based upon its unique Heavenly qualities and attestation, and then what i believe being in conformity of with that assured wholly Divinely inspired word of God, both in text and in effects, and which includes that which is seen in history and personal testimony.

However, the basic premise of Rome is that since this allows for and see different conclusions, then determination and assurance of Truth cannot be gained by personally objectively examining evidences in the light of Scripture, which the RC is not to do in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and instead an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential, and which the magisterium Rome is, and thus it is upon the premise of her assured veracity that one has assurance of Truth.

As Cardinal Avery Dulles stated: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

Thus an assuredly infallible magisterium is held as being essential for knowing both which revelation and writings are of God and their meaning, and it is then argued that Rome is that magisterium in the light of her historical descent.

But which effectively nukes the church as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

And instead they followed an itinerant prophet in the desert, and then an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture, with it being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

What this means is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is not essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and for providing and preserving it, but assurance of Truth is based upon Scriptural substantiation, with Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, which it is abundantly evidenced to be.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

The magisterium is to authoritatively confirm both men and writings of God as being so, but not as possessing infallibility, and such are of God regardless of the rejection of the magisterium. And thus the church began, with the veracity of the magisterium being itself dependent upon Scriptural substantiation, and not as superior to Scripture which Rome makes herself to be.

For not only does she presume to uniquely determine what is of God and their meaning, but the veracity of RC teaching is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the presumed veracity of Rome. Under which premise all is made to conform to her.

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.

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...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, "Lord Archbishop" of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

>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. Hence it follows that 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

When I look in my garage, I have many tools, each with a different purpose. Depending on the job, I will assemble a kit of tools to get it done. The tools do different things, but they are no way opposed to one another. Having seven rules of Faith has been very effective in keeping the sweet yoke of the Gospel alive and well down through the centuries. If, on the other hand, all I have in the garage is a hammer, then every job starts to look like a nail...

We have seen that private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures has led to division and legions of conflicting doctrines that claim the title of “Christian”. If having only this one rule of Faith is the ideal, why is there such chaos in this method?

Take for example contraception. The Catholic Church was right about this long before the science was known. That is, the Holy Spirit spoke to us through Humanae Vitae, through the teaching authority of the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome. Now we know that the pill is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient. It does not prevent conception, it prevents implantation. So, as a local Catholic priest once told us, it is bad enough that we have to face Jesus Christ and give an account of our life at our private judgement, but it does not help when there will be a crowd of witnesses for the prosecution asking the simple question, “Why did you kill us?” The Catholic Church has been right on this from the beginning, most protestant human traditions have adopted a silent acceptance of such moral aberrations as divorce, contraception, sterilization. This is a direct result of being separated from the fullness of the Faith, from access to the Sacraments established by Jesus Christ Himself, from relying on sola scriptura alone as a rule of Faith, from letting private interpretation be the basis of assurance, from letting human reason be a positive rule of Faith.