—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?
-—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.
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authority of the Church can be demonstrated with high probability by initially regarding the Scriptures simply as an historical document.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.”
Deuteronomy 18:15-22 15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’
17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
If the test of a true prophet were to be applied to the men in the RCC, how many of them would pass it?
Has the RCC when it has claimed to speak infallibly, ever been wrong, even once? If so, that disqualifies it from being able to claim to be speaking for God.
Isaiah 8:19-20 19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Matthew 7:15-23 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
These words of Christ's should be enough to lay to rest the argument that the personal lives of Catholics priests, or any clergy for that matter, are irrelevant in the performance of their duties. If their lives do not demonstrate the fruit of repentance and a changed life, they can be considered false prophets. That includes not living in the sin of immorality while claiming to be an alter Christus.
-—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.——
Then why does He command us to take our disputes “to the church,” rather than Scripture? And “if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan...”
-—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-—
I’m not designating Scripture. I am designating the doctrine of the Bible ALONE as the sole,rule of faith.
Shouldn’t that doctrine be in the Bible, to be logically coherent?
And of course, the Bible did not determine its own canon. The canon was determined infallibly by Christ’s Church. Luther determined his own. Which canon do you choose to accept? By what Authority?
-—On what basis do you have assurance that the claim of Rome is the true one?-—
Considering the Bible simply as a historical document, we know that Christ claimed to found an eternal Church. He also claimed to be God, Who we know through reason is One/Good/True/Beautiful/Being. Since God is Truth, His Church, His mystical Body, cannot teach error.
Simply by examining history, we see that only one Church has been in continuous existence from Apostolic times, and that this Church possesses a non-contradictory and incontrovertable body of teaching. Such an institution is unparalleled in human history. The fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy gives credibility to His claim of divinity. This reasonable conclusion is confirmed by countless public miracles associated with His Church.
-—How do we know Christ is Truth——
We know from the argument from contingency that God is Being Itself. We also know that Being is convertible with Truth, since truth is the adequation of mind and being/reality. Truth is being as apprehended by the mind. Therefore, God is Truth.
If Christ is God, then He must be Truth.
We can reasonably conclude that He is God based on His prophecy regarding His Church.
-—and that the church cannot teach error, if you are not certain that the Scriptures are Divine and thus authoritative? -—
From above, we know that God is Truth and that Jesus is God. His Church cannot propose error as truth, because of Who He is. This is further confirmed by His command to take disputes “to the church.” If the church was invisible, divided, or erroneous, His divine command would be void.
I do not doubt the inspiration of Scripture. But my arguments do not require divine faith, simply a reasonable initial consideration of the Bible as an historical document.
-—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.-—
Jesus founded His Church during His lifetime. The NT wasn’t completed for another 70 years. And the natural law, which is written on the human heart, is available to all people at all times.
——Nowhere do we see any affirmation that all the church will ever speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible-—
St Paul calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth. If Jesus commands us to take our disputes to the Church, It must be inerranc, undivided and visible, otherwise His command would be void.