.
.
.
The Righteous Biblical Truth
is it's own applause
above one's name.
Congrats! Thx.
Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
BB, I’d reply to your points about the author, but if you actually read and comprehend, you’d easily see your conclusions are errors bordering on the facetious.
As for “Holy Scripture IS the infallible authority” that’s been done to death.
Holy Scripture cannot be polled to authorize your interpretation over another. Your statement fails in performance. How is your understanding of scripture “authorized” by scripture? Only according to your opinion.
All that is left is you. Your authority over what is scripture and what scripture means. And you are fallible. This is your belief, this is what the writer is stating as your belief. Correctly.
Sorry.
Stapleton also charges that the Protestant is “an authority unto himself, which authority he does not claim to be infallible, if he is sober and sane,” (cp. XXIII) which is true in that, in keeping with his soberity and sanity, he does not claim assured infallibility (impossible to err) which Rome claims, in which she has infallibly defined herself as being assuredly infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly(?) defined subject and scope-based formula, thus rendering her decree that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as whatever else is may choose to thus teach. According to her decree, only her decree can be correct in any conflict, and her guarantee of infallibility does not necessarily extend to the arguments or reasoning behind such.
However, the evangelical believer may allow that he may speak infallible Scriptural truth, as even affirming there is a Creator must be allowed as being, but his claim to veracity depends upon the weight of its testimony, both in doctrinal conformity and the manner of attestation it affirms being given to truth claims, which Scripture is manifestly the standard for and for obedience. And which is what the Lord and His apostles appealed to in establishing their claims. (Mt. 22:29-46; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:33; 15:7-9,12; 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 16:26; 15:19, etc.)
While the former (Christ) is infallible whatever He speaks on, being Deity and the source of Scripture, the latter did not claim they or the church would perpetually be infallible whenever their successors spoke to the church on faith and morals, and the conclusion that they were requires extrapolated such out of texts based upon a the faulty premise that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation requires or confers such assured infallibility, and that an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessarily to establish Scripture as being such and to preserve Truth, but which would validate the conclusions of those who were these instruments and stewards (Rm. 3:2; 94) and who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) rather than Truth being established according to Scriptural means, and thus Christianity ultimately required rejecting of the authority of those who supposed formal decent assured perpetual supreme spiritual authority, as the kingdom of God is not in word, as in self-proclamation, but in power. (1Cor. 4:20)
In addition, the premise of Stapleton is that Rome's magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations,” and provides the substitute for discerning truth by “discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question” (though Scripture is the standard, and formally or materially being the source of all religious truths), and where he must believe without the immediate help of reason.
However, as Stapleton allows, the decision to submit to Rome is based upon reason, and thus he makes an fallible decision to trust in an asserted assuredly infallible magisterium. And while Stapleton speaks of this as an alternative to reason in determining religious truths, yet the Catholic must engage in reasoning all the time, as even determining that a decree is an infallible one (is all of Trent infallible?) in order to give assent of faith (the highest level of submission) and what it all means requires the use of reason, as there is no infallible list of all such, and how many there are is a matter of varying interpretations, nor does having an infallible magisterium assure the understanding will be. Likewise, reasoning is required in understanding such things as the binding power of encyclicals and what they mean, as well as all non-fallible teachings (rightly understood as such) and the degree of dissent which is allowed for such.
In addition is the vast amount of things in which there is no official teaching, including interpretation of verses in Scripture, few of which are held as infallibly defined.
The living magisterium of the Catholic does help the laity to understand the above, but not comprehensively and often not without ambiguity and sometimes seemingly different interpretations, all of which requires reasoning to determine which is correct or how to reconcile them.
Thus both the Protestant and the Catholic make use of fallible human reasoning in order to place their faith in their respective supreme authorities, neither of which assure that the understanding of the reader will be infallible, although Scripture does provide for “knowing” such things as the certitude that one has eternal life (the present tense not being what Trent opposed) based upon examination of things which accompany salvation. (1Jn. 5:13; cf. Heb. 6:9)
And both classes have living magisteriums which set down core truths which must be believed, while allowing varying degrees of dissent in others, Rome having hers, and individual Protestant denominations typical having theirs. And while the variation of beliefs is greater in the latter class, especially broadly defined, the unity of Rome is not necessarily greater than any individual Protestant denomination, while among those who most strongly affirm the distinctive Protestant position of the supremacy of Scripture, and salvation by grace through faith (that works, versus earned by works), a greater manifest popular unity in fellowship and core truths and moral values may be seen.
Stapleton also states that his faith is based upon the gospel, and that faith in Rome is what is reasonable, based upon the premise that authority and transmission of religious truth requires assured infallibility, and that Rome has the marks of this, and unless we take the gospels from an authority whose infallibility is proven, then that belief is based on an assumption, which is to say the least doubtfully reasonable. (cp. XIX)
However, faith in Rome is based upon an assumption, that she is what she claims she is, and as mentioned before and expanded upon here, the premise that authority and transmission of religious truth requires assured infallibility is faulty, being unScriptural and unreasonably restrictive of the power of God. The teaching magisterium is provided by Scripture, but prior to their being a church of Rome, most of Scripture was already established as such and authoritative (Lk. 24:44) — essentially due to its supernatural qualities, effects and attestation — and Truth was preserved (among a relative remnant as usual). And in so doing God often raised up men from without the formal magisterium to reprove from Scripture those who effectively presumed supreme authority over it and contradicted it. While they could speak Truth on faith and morals, this was not guaranteed everytime they did so to Israel. And the authority of their reprovers was not dependent upon the official sanction of those who sat in the seat of Moses, even though they had a position of authority, but their authority was established by conformity with Scripture and the power of God. Thus the official magisterium killed prophets and the Pharisees had a problem with John the Baptist and the Lord Himself.
The authority of Moses himself was established by almighty God supernaturally affirming his Abrahamic faith in Him, and the Law which expanded upon it, and which became the manifest standard for obedience and testing truth claims and additional revelation. (Sola Scriptura is not opposed to the progressive writing of Scripture in principle, or oral transmission, as Scripture provides for but makes the veracity of all such subject to what is written such, while the formal sufficiency aspect pertains to a manifestly closed canon.)
While Scripture provides for transmission of truth by the magisterium via formal decent, supposing assured infallibility and perpetuity of that office based upon that is presumption, (Jn. 8:39-44) and thus Christ and the New Testament church was founded (or required) rejection of the supreme authority of those who sat in Moses' seat. For God can raise up children from stones, (Mt . 3:9) and make of them stones to build His church, as the real basis for authenticity under the New Covenant is not lineage, but Abrahamic faith in the gospel of grace, (Rm. 2:28,29) by which the church exists and has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) and through whom grace is conveyed and valid pastoral authority passed on. And who realize fellowship of the Spirit with those who likewise are born of Him and walk therein, and so preach Christ and not their church as an object of faith, though it is manifest by the effects of saving faith.
Thank you, Daniel. Very informative post, as usual.
.
.
.
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.