Posted on 08/14/2002 9:53:41 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
The Papists have tried to attack sola scriptura and have challenged Protestants to defend it. However, it was the Papists that anathematized sola scriptura at the Council of Trent. It seems to me that if Papists wish to use the magesterial authority to bring a curse on anyone, the RCC must carry the burden of proof, not the Protestant.
The RCC cannot claim that it is the standard for settling the issue of the role of scripture by appealing to its own authority. In doing so, Rome attempts to define the terms of the debate: the church, truth and tradition. Protestants did not allow the Papists to define the terms of the debate. They will not do so now.
The Papists have sought to ascribe the motives of Protestants regarding the role of Scripture. Fine. One must question the morality of such ascriptions, but questions of morality have never deterred the Papists before.
However, since the question has never been raised, it seems entirely possible that the only reason why the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is under attack by the Papists in general, and on this board in particular, is because Catholics are starting to actually read their Bibles and are becoming Protestants! Therefore, the Papist might be attacking the sufficiency of scripture in order to keep their people in line.
Fire away! Rebut the article, but we Protestants will not give any quarter to scanalous attacks on our motives, our consciences or our devotion to God. Rebut the article and its reasoning not the messenger.
The Church did not always have an agreed upon list concerning which texts counted as inspired. It is an agreed upon list that is necessary for “sola scriptura” to get off the ground.
In the second place, we can see that the apostles sensed that the new covenant inaugurated by our Lord Jesus would have a new or augmented canon. Canon and covenant are interrelated and interdependent in the Bible (see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority). Peter testifies to this emerging canon when he includes the letters of Paul as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).
But did the apostles leave a list as to which of the emerging texts counted as inspired? Without a list, it was up to later generations to acknowledge which texts counted as inspired, and to draw up the list. Furthermore 2 Peter 3:16 says neither which texts attributed to Paul are actually by Paul, nor does it say which texts of Paul, Peter has in mind.
In the third place, we must see that the canon of Scripture is, in a real sense, established by the Scripture itself, because the canonical books are self-authenticating .
Oh brother, if the texts are self-authenticating, then why does he say in the next paragraph that the popes and the councils used criteria to which everyone has access? If being one of Christ’s sheep is sufficient for identifying which texts count as inspired, then why were popes and councils necessary to resolve all the disagreement about the supposedly self-authenticating texts? Why was there not spontaneous agreement? Why did they have to use criteria at all?
Any Protestant want to take the self-authenticating test? Which of the following sentences are inspired by the Holy Spirit? a.) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. b.) Speak to my sisters, that they love the Lord, and be satisfied with their husbands both in the flesh and spirit.
Note: you must figure out the answer without making reference to your Bible. The answer should be self-authenticating.
In the fourth place, we must see that historically the canon was formed not by popes and councils; these actions simply recognized the emerging consensus of the people of God as they recognized the authentic Scriptures. Indeed, whatever criteria were used by popes and councils to recognize the canon (authorship, style, content, witness of the Spirit, etc.), these same criteria were available to the people of God as a whole.
Emerging consensus?! There were no few bloody words exchanged between Augustine and Jerome on which books were inspired.
Let’s look at the criteria that were necessary for these supposedly self-authenticating texts:
authorship-- too bad the authorship was then and now in dispute, especially with the last two letters of John and Revelation
style-- the style of a text is hardly accessible to those members of the people of God who happen not to know Greek, which is a significant number of them. What about those who could not read at all? How were they supposed to figure out the style? Besides, every text has styl. Which styles argue for inspiration and which do not? And how in the world were the people of God supposed to know which styles argued for inspiration and which did not.
content --here begins the circular reasoning. By content I assume that he means that a text could not count as inspired unless every part of it was consistent with the received rule of faith or some shared understanding of what was orthodox and what was not. But this is precisely the Catholic’s point, there was a rule of faith, or a shared understanding of what was orthodox, already received in the Church, transmitted without the presence of an agreed upon canon of texts, and that rule of faith or shared understanding served as an essential criterion according to which the texts were acknowledged to be inspired or not. The rule of faith could not have been simply identical with a specified list of texts, for the specified list did not yet exist, and was itself being worked out according to a presupposed understanding of what constitutes orthodoxy.
witness of the Spirit --does this mean that the popes and the conciliar bishops were guarded by the Holy Spirit from all error in their final decisions as to what went on the list of inspired texts? If so, then he just conceded the infallibility of the Church. If the witness of the Holy Spirit was anything less than that, then it is conceivable that the list is wrong. The final judgment of the councils and popes, even though the Spirit helped, might very well have been wrong. Maybe the book of Revelation is not inspired after all? Maybe James is not? Maybe the deutero-canonicals are inspired, maybe the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is inspired. After all, it was received in the church of Corinth as such for quite some time.
Finally, answer this you Protestants. Why is the following story not a self-authenticating proclamation of God’s own word?
Jesus Christ established a church, and he intended that church to be one in its official doctrinal commitments, holy in the sense that the head of the church—Christ-- is preeminently holy and that personal holiness is developed in and through the practices of the church, catholic in the sense that the whole of Christ’s message would remain preserved throughout all time and spread to the whole world, and apostolic in the sense that the teaching authority of the Christ himself flows from Christ, through the apostles, to the successors of the apostles. The successors to the apostles – bishops-- constitute a college with the successor of Peter as its head, and when the bishops of the Church solemnly declare a certain teaching, it is no one less than the Holy Spirit who guarantees the truth of the teaching they declare. The Holy Spirit guarantees both the teaching of the whole college, and the teaching of the successor of Peter in particular (under certain specified conditions). The Scriptures are a privileged source from which the Church formulates the message that Christ has revealed to the world, and it is only by reading the Scriptures with the Church – who has the right understanding of them—that one can come to the real meaning of the Scriptures and the message of Christ.
Suppose I hear this story proclaimed by the Catholic Church and it strikes me in my heart to be a perfectly reliable word of God? What if it authenticates itself to me?
Are you asking whether I know which books were listed in earlier lists of canoninical texts? No, I do not know which books they listed, the lists were destroyed after all. But, then, seeing that they were destoyed, how do you know a.)that there was exactly one canon destoyed and not a plurality of disagreeing lists, b.) that even if there was one canon, it agreed with the canon you yourself currently use, and c.)that no other local church had any canons rivalling the one's destoyed?
Clearly there was a canon of scripture before Constantine, right?
I suppose there were several lists of books prior to Constantine. But they disagreed with each other, and the various texts were received differently in various local churches. Was there a single canon received as normative throughout the universal Church? No. If there was one list received throughout the universal Church, why was there so much disagreement between local churches both before and after Constantine as to which texts were inspired?
Do you think that Pope Damasus might have gotten his canon from those bibles that survived the Diocletian destruction.?
It is logically possible that Damasus got a canon from lists that survived destruction, but possiblities do not argue for actualities. Even if he did, so what? Let us assume for the sake of argument that he did get his canon from a list that survived destruction. That does the defender of sola scriptura no good unless you can show further that 1.) the canon he "got" was the only canon received as normative throughout all the local churches,2.) that no decisions had to be made as to which list was to be normative for all. But if there were multiple lists treated as normative in different local churches, and a variety of views about which texts counted as inspired,then somebody or other had to make a judgment as to which texts counted as inspired. Now, that judgment -- whoever made it-- was either fallible or infallible. Which alternative do you prefer?
Well, having completely failed the test of apostleship, you have no grounds for claim to divine inspiration. Even if your story was true, which it is not, that does not make it scriptural any more than any church creed is scripture or any more than Cliff's Notes are the same as the books themselves.
Regarding authorship, apparently you completely missed Augustine's quotes regarding deferring to the majority. It's one thing to do a little homework on the origins of points of scripture, but I submit that anyone who makes blunt proclamations of certain parts of scripture being unauthentic has an agenda with an ignoble goal.
What is the standard of truth by which to reform and purify the church of false and conflicting interpretations of Scripture? It cannot be Scripture alone.You seem to think that texts-without-interpretations are standards of truth, when in fact a text-without-an-interpretation is nothing but language that is susceptible to numerous, diverse, and conflicting, and inconsistent thoughts in its readers. The text needs to have a normative interpretation in order to be the source for a body of readers to form a single, common, consistent set of thoughts. The standard of truth in the church, therefore, must be an understanding of Scripture normative for all members of the Church. Is it your personal understanding of Scripture that is normative for all members of the church? If it is, then you attribute to yourself the very same authority that the Catholic Church attributes to herself, for she holds nothing other than that her interpretation of Scripture is normative for all her members. If your personal understanding of Scripture, your view as to what the text really means, is not normative for all Christians, then why should the Bishops of the Catholic Church, or anyone else for that matter, consider themselves beholden to your understanding of Scripture?
If we were to have two standards for life and faith to bind the conscience of individuals, those standards must be infallible. Dr. Godfrey has articulated several traditions in which the RCC developed one tradition and then rejected it in favor of another. Which tradition was correct? If the tradition has changed, that means that it is necessarily fallible at some point. The Bible is not subject to such difficulties and is infallible. Why trust a standard subject to error?
Jesus Christ established a church...
What do you mean by church? I think we have different definitions of that term.
and he intended that church to be one in its official doctrinal commitments, holy in the sense that the head of the church—Christ-- is preeminently holy and that personal holiness is developed in and through the practices of the church, catholic in the sense that the whole of Christ’s message would remain preserved throughout all time and spread to the whole world, and apostolic in the sense that the teaching authority of the Christ himself flows from Christ, through the apostles, to the successors of the apostles.
For one thing, Christ is not only preeminently holy, He is the only one who is holy and He actually defines holiness. In addition, you do not account for the fact that the church of Jesus Christ is served by sinful men. In fact, unbelievers could take up positions of authority. Other than that, I am generally tracking with you. The successors to the apostles – bishops-- constitute a college with the successor of Peter as its head, and when the bishops of the Church solemnly declare a certain teaching, it is no one less than the Holy Spirit who guarantees the truth of the teaching they declare.
If that is what you believe, fine, but there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures which points necessarily to your conclusion. As a presbyterian, I believe in the rule of elders and the authority of synods and councils. But, I see nothing pointing to the conclusion that Peter is the successor of Christ. In addition, because of the sinful nature of men, there is not necessarily so that all doctinal statements can be guaranteed to be error free.
The Holy Spirit guarantees both the teaching of the whole college, and the teaching of the successor of Peter in particular (under certain specified conditions).
Uh... OK, so what is the scriptural basis for this teaching?
"The Scriptures are a privileged source from which the Church formulates the message that Christ has revealed to the world, and it is only by reading the Scriptures with the Church – who has the right understanding of them—that one can come to the real meaning of the Scriptures and the message of Christ."
"only." If that is true, then it would be extremely dangerous for an individual to own their own Bible. But the RCC at Vatican II said that individuals should be encouraged to own and read a Bible in their own language. So which tradition is it? Vatican II or the Catholic Story?
Again you repeat the oft repeated assertion that the Bible means what the RCC says it means because the RCC says it is the only entity qualified to say what it means. Again circular reasoning. And that dog won't hunt.
The RCC anathematized the adherents to sola scriptura. It has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that Protestants deserve the curse of the RCC.
Will someone PLEASE answer that question.
I give a stipulative definition of "church" -- look at the Catholic Church. That is what I mean by "church".
You say if that is true, then it would be extremely dangerous for an individual to own their own Bible. You are replying to the line in the Story in which I use the expression "reading the Scriptures with the Church". When I say "reading" I do not mean merely the act of looking at letters on the page, but reading in the richer sense of actually thinking through, contemplating the meaning of, receiving what is said. Reading, in my sense of the term, is a lifelong process that includes multiple acts of sitting down with the text in front of you. So the points about individuals owning bibles is irrelevant. I think all Catholics should have a bible and read it, and one can be sitting in a room by onself, looking at the bible and still be "reading with the Church". The sense of "reading" I had in mind was the same sense as you have when you ask someone "how do YOU read Romans ch.6?" You are not asking whether they sit or stand while glancing at the pages. You are asking how they understand the text.
you repeat the oft repeated assertion that the Bible means what the RCC says it means because the RCC says it is the only entity qualified to say what it means. No, I am asking why a person, say, me, cannot make a non-inferential assent to the WHOLE Catholic Story, and make that assent NOT because the Catholic Church tells the Story, but in light of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that the Catholic Story is not merely the Church's Story, but God's own story. Could someone PLEASE answer that question without appealing to the very thesis being disputed on this thread, i.e. sola scriptura?
I guess I am to assume that you would reject the claims of any Catholic apologist that engages in circular thinking? Get back to the original point and please address the article itself.
The original message of salvation through Jesus Christ was adulterated at the hands of the church of the middle ages. The saving message was corrupted by a priestly caste, and fell into all sorts of bizarre or otherwise false beliefs and practices. Everything from the nature of the Lord’s Supper (real presence and sacrificial character) to Mariolatry to purgatory to the very idea of a special priesthood itself was a bogus invention of men. The church of the middle ages was able to corrupt the message through an assimilation of power/authority to the bishop of Rome, an assimilation unwarranted by the texts of Scripture. The assimilation took place by telling a false tale about apostolic succession, petrine primacy, and other related issues. In order to recover the original message of Christ, it is necessary for all Christians to put a check on the so-called “authority” of Rome by placing Scripture, which is God’s own word, ABOVE any church authority. The Scriptures must constrain the arbitrary teachings of men. Simply taking Scripture as one’s guide, and with the guaranteed help of the Holy Spirit, the doctrines that are truly necessary to be believed for salvation can easily be retrieved from the swarm of confusing myths and merely human ideas (many of them originating in pagan circles) that crept into in the church’s traditions.
If it has not become clear to you by now, both Catholics and Protestants have their respective stories, and personally, I think that both parties assent to each in a non-inferential way. Godfrey's article is exactly what we should expect from someone who is already convinced of the Protestant Story.
By the way, saying that a non-inferential assent to the Catholic story is bogus does not make it so, and there is no point in saying that the Catholic Story is based on The Catholic Church's presuppositions. The Story JUST IS those presuppositions.
How does anyone arrive at the Protestant Story? Simple. You posit sola scriptura, and perspicuity, derive from your reading of the text what the Christian doctrines are, then compare your derivations with the teaching of the Catholic Church. It seems to you that the teachings of the Catholic Church are at odds with what you have derived from Scripture. Furthermore, there seems to be some odd features of Catholic history that worry you. For example, it appears that the Church changed its teachings on certain points. From the comparison between what you think the Scriptures say, and wht you think Rome is saying, it just seems impossible to you that Rome has everything right in its official doctrinal pronouncements. Then, just because it seems so impossible that Rome has everything right, you make a non-inferential assent to the Protestant Story. But is this a reliable method by which to arrive at the truth? Consider the following facts:
1.) You are fallible.
2.) You are limited in your intellectual capacities.
3.) You are sinful, as am I, with a tendency to rationalize.
4.) You need to have your mind continuously renewed by grace
5.) You need to constantly develop your own thinking
6.) You are confronted with a text that has the following properties
a. Written in a foreign language
b. In a foreign culture,
c. with foreign presuppositions
d. with foreign narrative habits
e. with foreign interpretative habits
f. having prima facie internal inconsistencies
g. Susceptible to multiple, conflicting interpretations
h. Having disputed canons, translations, and original wording
i. Proposing mysteries that surpass perfect comprehension
j. About the things most difficult of all to understand clearly
k. That has been thought about continuously by millions of people
l. Each of whom has had personally nuanced readings
7.) You have limited time for study and prayer over the texts.
8.) It is impossible for you to read every argument, counterargument, objection and reply that has ever been offered in interpretative conflicts.
9.) It is impossible for you to read MOST of what has been written about the Scriptures. You could hardly read all of Augustine, nonetheless Chrysostom, Leo, Gregory, etc. We have not even begun to talk about modern commentaries.
10.) It is impossible for you to master all the relevant theological and philosophical literature.
Given facts 1 – 10, how much confidence should anyone have in the method by way of which you arrive at the Protestant Story. How much confidence should YOU have in the Protestant Story? I am sorry, but given facts 1 – 10, I do not so overestimate my rational powers that I think that that I can confidently arrive at the Protestant Story by way of the method outlined above. Even if I were to study and think about the issues for the rest of my life, each of facts 1 – 10 would pose a formidable occasion to pause and think that perhaps I did not yet have the final word on whether the Scriptures really meant what I thought it meant, or even whether the Scriptures I had were inspired at all.
Being the sort of creature that I am, in just these sort of circumstances, I count on God to provide a way for me to satisfy my aspirations for knowing the revealed truth to the fullest extent possible, and without fear of being deceived. But lo and behold, there is the Catholic Church telling a different story. On that story, they do not say “Hey kid, figure it out on you own. Pick up the bible, it is perspicuous enough. You won’t go to hell, if you just believe.” Sorry, I want to do more than avoid hell. I want to know God as completely as possible in this life, and without fear of being deceived. Which looks like the divine methodology to me? Which looks like the response of a loving God to my noble aspirations that He Himself put in me, aspirations to know Him personally as best I can? Evidently, the Catholic one looks more like divine methodology than the highly overconfident, human methods of Protestantism. With the addition of a couple of other impressive attributes the Church has, the Holy Spirit has thus convinced me to give my assent to the Catholic Story as God’s own word. Unlike the Protestant Story, which is evidently a human myth whose origins we can trace to Western Europe about four hundred years ago (as Godfrey himself effectively admits), Catholic truth is evidently divine. I am done with Godfrey, same old thing.
Amen!
God bless.
I think the Catholic Story issues from God himself, and our dispute is over the method by which to verify it. Gophack is right in saying that the Story is based on Scripture, in the sense that Scripture is one of the several media by way of which the divine testimony is transmitted. My contention is that no Protestant employs a method that is reliable enough to verify the following proposition "The Catholic Story is not from God".
If you want to know how I arrive at the position that the Catholic Story is from God, look at Acts ch. 17, look at the way Dionysius converted at the preaching of Paul. Did Dionysius verify Paul's word's against a text? Of course not, Dionysius was a Gentile, and the Scriptures were not even on his mental horizon before he heard Paul. Did Dionysius begin to invoke the Old Testament against Paul? Of course not, he still had to learn the meaning of the Old Testament. How did Dionysius convert? Simple. He heard Paul's testimony, became convinced that Paul's testimony did not originate with Paul, but was in fact the word of God, and so believed it. In short, the word of God was communicated orally to Dionysius, and Dionysius was able to recognize Paul's word as being of divine origin without making reference to a text. The spoken procalmation alone was recognizably divine for Dionysius.
Now, Paul:Dionysius::Catholic Church:me
The Catholic Church is the historical prolongation of the Pauline mission, and ultimately, of Christ's mission. If the Church proclaims a story orally to me, why is it impossible to recognize the oral story as being of divine origin?
Now, IF, IF one and the same divine story comes through multiple media --written and oral-- then I would only be causing confusion and creating difficulties where there need not be any should I invoke the written medium against the speakers of the oral story. Since there is no prior constraint on the possibility that one and the same story can come through the two media -- oral and written--and if the Holy Spirit is testifying to me that the Catholic Story, as spoken by the Church, comes from God, then why not accept it as God's own word?
By the way, my faith is in God first, and in the story on account of God.
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.