Replies

-—1. SS means that only the Bible can be used in determining faith and practice, and,-—

Yes. It’s the final authority in matters of faith.

-—2. that because Rome is the instrument and stewards of Holy Writ (which promises guidance to the church) then the Roman Catholic church is uniquely the assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and supreme authority on Truth (versus the Scriptures) and that,-—

This is a somewhat circular argument, and not my position.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

This proof uses the Bible (as an historical document) to show that Christ claimed to found a Church that would last forever. History demonstrates the existence of a unique earthly organization, possessing a non-contradictory body of teaching, existing from the time of Christ. Christ’s astounding, unprecedented prophecy regarding His Church was true.

One can then assume with reasonable certainty that Christ is Who He claimed to be, and that His Church exists on earth. Since Christ is Truth, His Church cannot teach error. His Church proposes the Bible as inspired. Therefore, we can trust the Bible to be inspired.

3. she is necessary for assurance of truth?

Yes, with respect to the truths of faith and morals, granting that moral truths can also be known with certainty through the natural law.

Thank you for charitable taking the time to understand my position!

—1. SS means that only the Bible can be used in determining faith and practice, and,-—

Yes. It’s the final authority in matters of faith.

That did not seem to be the extent of your objection before, but this makes your argument to be one that denies that Scripture shows that it is the final authority authority on earth (under Christ) in matters of faith, yet it was upon Scripture, and conformity to the manner in which it shows truth being established, that the Lord Himself established His authority, as did the apostles.

If you deny this then upon what basis are we to ascertain that Rome is the OTC?

This is a somewhat circular argument, and not my position.

Therefore it seems that your statement that the Church preceded the writing of the wholly inspired NT only means that SS could not work because of the lack of a finished canon, yet that does not impugn it, as it is abundantly substantiated even by the Scriptures that already were established (without an assuredly infallible magisterium) that it was the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and by which additional writings became established as being the Word of God.

The restricted formal sufficiency aspect of SS does pertain to a finished canon, but it is upheld in principle, as the word of God always provided for what God wanted men to know to that time, and Scripture is the assured, established Word of God, and it is by Scripture that we also understand that that some of Scripture first existed as oral before being written down, which (as a study of the phrase “the word of the Lord/God” will show) was normatively the case.

The divinely inspired nature of Scripture and the divinely protected teaching authority of the Church can be demonstrated with high probability by initially regarding the Scriptures simply as an historical document. One can then assume with reasonable certainty that Christ is Who He claimed to be, and that His Church exists on earth.

You mean that the RCC is that church, and possesses assured infallibility, yet this is a matter of interpretation, and one in which the EOs and others disagree. One what basis do you have assurance that the claim of Rome is the true one?

Since Christ is Truth, His Church cannot teach error. His Church proposes the Bible as inspired. Therefore, we can trust the Bible to be inspired.

How do we know Christ is Truth, and that the church cannot teach error, if you are not certain that the Scriptures are Divine and thus authoritative?

3. she is necessary for assurance of truth?

Yes, with respect to the truths of faith and morals, granting that moral truths can also be known with certainty through the natural law.

So while one may not need the assuredly infallible magisterium in order to be certain of moral truths, yet one must submit to Rome in order to be certain in issues of faith, and thus an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to know such, including that writings are wholly inspired of God, and that Christ is Truth. And thus before there was a church in Rome no one could have assurance of Truth as regards faith, and one cannot be sure that Rome is the OTC except by faith that the supreme magisterium of Rome is assured infallible.

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

Since we can only assuredly know (what the Bible says) that Jesus is truth by the RCC, and as only she can assured infallibly define Truth, whatever she says is Truth must be Truth, including that she is assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly define scope and subject-based criteria.

And your premise presupposes that the church must be perfectly like Christ as in never teaching an error, or at least whenever she speaks according to her infallibly declared assured infallibility.

Nowhere do we see any affirmation that all the church will ever speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible, which premise is not even presumed of the writers of Holy Writ, but we see the Holy Spirit uniquely affirming that all Scripture is wholly breathed of God, it being the only transcendent material source to be so, which judges amorphous tradition, which by nature is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption.

We also see men who presumed veracity based on Divine promises and historical decent being reproved by an “itinerant” preacher on the basis of being unScriptural. (Mk. 7:3-16)

In addition. Scripture does not owe its inspiration or its establishment to the church of Rome, most of it being established as being Scripture before there ever was one. Scripture itself was established as being from God like as true men of God are, that being by manifestly supernatural qualities and attestation, which Scripture transcendentally defines.

God affirmed the faith of Abraham and Moses, and the latter gave the Law, which became (and by principle further established revelation) the standard for obedience and testing truth claims. Both are of God regardless of whether men affirm them by decree, though they should. “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” (1 Cor 4:20)

Jesus COMMANDS his followers to take their disputes “to THE Church,” not A church,or to Scripture (!)./i>

And we know this by Scripture, and SS affirms the magisterium as Scripture provides for it, and for its decrees, subject to conformity with Scripture is precept or principle.

“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. (Westminster, Cps 1, 31)

"...there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Thank you for charitable taking the time to understand my position!

Well, i hope i am, and that you understand my position better as well, and that we have a heart that is willing to objectively examine the issue and “follow the Lamb withersover He goeth.”