-—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Considering the Bible simply as a historical document, we know that Christ claimed to found an eternal Church.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.
You seem to be putting a lot of weight upon Jesus speaking about taking "disputes" to the church. You mentioned that part three or four times in this comment alone. I went to the place in Scripture where Jesus spoke about this and here is the context:
And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Rather than saying we should take all our disputes to the "church", Jesus very clearly is talking about when a brother does something wrong, either personally to you or when he is sinning in such a way that the "world" is noticing. As should be the case, you must go to the brother at fault and take it up with him, one on one. But if he refuses to hear you and repent of the sin, you should then return with one or two others and confront him. If he still refuses to repent, then you should tell the "church" - your local assembly of believers where the offending brother also attends. If after he continues in the sin and doesn't listen to his fellowship of believers, then the local assembly should expel him from their fellowship.
Now, Jesus seems to be speaking about individual behavior of each member of the church and how overt wrong behavior is to be dealt with, NOT, as you seem to infer, that one, global "church" organization is to be an arbiter of what is and isn't truth. That is why God gave us the Holy Scriptures - so that it is the authority by which truth can be determined for the faith. What Jesus taught, the Apostles taught and what they taught they wrote down for all time through the leading and inspiration of God. The entire "church" - the body of Christ - is to be held to that same standard of truth. The leaders of the local assemblies have no more authority to determine what is truth than some global hierarchy does because God has already told us what is truth and what is false. This revelation is complete and ALL truth claims must be measured by the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.
No man or organization can circumvent nor contradict what God has set forth no matter what "history" he clings to. When Paul said the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15), he most certainly meant that the believers who make up the church, the body of Christ, must support and uphold the truth as God has revealed it to us. Barne's Notes on the Bible explains this well:
Which is the church of the living God - This seems to have been added to impress the mind of Timothy with the solemn nature of the duty which he was to perform. What he did pertained to the honor and welfare of the church of the living God, and hence he should feet the importance of a correct deportment, and of a right administration of its affairs.
The pillar and ground of the truth - There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh. Bloomfield remarks on this: "It is surprising that any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the latter method." The more natural interpretation certainly is, to refer it to the former; and this is supported by the consideration that it would then fall in with the object of the apostle. His design here seems to be, to impress Timothy with a deep sense of the importance of correct conduct in relation to the church; of the responsibility of those who presided over it; and of the necessity of care and caution in the selection of proper officers.
To do this, he reminded him that the truth of God - that revealed truth which he had given to save the world - was entrusted to the church; that it was designed to preserve it pure, to defend it, and to transmit it to future times; and that, therefore, every one to whom the administration of the affairs of the church was entrusted, should engage in this duty with a deep conviction of his responsibility. On the construction of the passage, Bloomfield Rosenmuller, and Clarke, may be consulted. The word "pillar" means a column, such as that by which a building is supported, and then any firm prop or support; Galatians 2:9; Revelation 3:12. If it refers to the church here, it means that that is the support of the truth, as a pillar is of a building. It sustains it amidst the war of elements, the natural tendency to fall, and the assaults which may be made on it, and preserves it when it would otherwise tumble into ruin.
Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the church of Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age. The word rendered "ground" - ἑδραίωμα hedraioÌ„ma - means, properly, a basis, or foundation. The figure here is evidently taken from architecture, as the use of the word pillar is. The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests "on" the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.
The meaning then is, that the stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. It is owing to the fact that the church is itself founded on a rock, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, that no storms of persecution can overthrow it, that the truth is preserved from age to age. Other systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved, and because its foundations cannot be moved. This does not refer, I suppose, to creeds and confessions, or to the decisions of synods and councils; but to the living spirit of truth and piety "in" the church itself. As certainly as the church continues to live, so certain it will be that the truth of God will be perpetuated among people.
We all then, as members of this one body, are commanded to be the salt and light to the world and the upholder of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as God has revealed to us through His word and through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Not, as you seem to suggest, some governing hierarchy seated in one special place deciding what is and is not the truth. Christ most certainly DID establish his church and it most certainly IS guided by the Holy Spirit but it is a universal called-out assembly of individual believers who make up that body - the Bride of Christ - and we are guided by the Holy Scriptures which contain all the truth God has chosen to reveal to us and it is His word which is inerrant. The church rests on the truth, the truth does not rest on the church.
-—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...”
Again, under SS we affirm the magisterium, but by Scripture we also see that the Lord's instructions to appeal to the church as magistrate does not make it the supreme authority anymore than His command to be subject to those who sat in the seat of Moses did. (Mt. 23:2) Like Rome, they effectively presumed a level of authority by which they could enjoin obedience to “the tradition of the elders” that was not warranted by Scripture, and in reproving them by Scripture the Lord, once again, upholds Scripture as the supreme transcendent authority.
The Old Testament magisterium was to be obeyed, “According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:11), and thus yet they judged men of God as worthy of death.
What you have done is confuse being the instrument of Scripture with supremacy over it. The fact is that the church may err in such disciplinary judgment, as Rome has.
-—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?
Scripture is the assured word of God thus it is supreme, and it materially provides for all that a believer needs for faith and Godliness, (2Tim. 3:16) including the magisterium which is subject to it, as even the instruments of revelation are, as Scripture is God-breathed. And this is what is logical and Scripturally substantiated, versus the perpetual assured formulaic infallibility of an autocratic church.
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?
You mean that Rome infallibly determined it was infallible, and infallibly decreed what was Scripture, even though all her teachings ares not dependent upon the weight of scriptural warrant (nor are the reasons or arguments behind an infallible decree necessarily infallible themselves).
However, writing were established as being Scripture before Rome, and reveals the means by which Truth and authority is established, that being by its supernatural heavenly qualities and attestation, including its conformity and complementarity, and reveals that once the Word of God was written (first by a man whose authority itself was established by supernatural means), it became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.
Thus most of Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ as shown by the multitude of references to it, and upon which principle more would become manifest as such, and so overall unique were these qualities that progressively it became apparent which ones belonged to it, and also that there was no more like unto this collection of assured word of God. Councils could affirm that, but that is not how Scripture has authority nor the canon.
Thus rather than holding to the same “infallible” indisputable canon by an effectively autocratic Rome, which came over 1400 years after the last book was written (Luther was not historically or contemporaneously alone in his rejection of some books), and which differs from your EOs brothers, Protestantism overall came rather quickly to rest upon its established 66 book canon. And upon that basis, thus this canon has been established from generation to generation — without a binding decree.
And it is also upon this basis of establishment that souls believed on the Lord Jesus, and true men of God essentially are established as being so, and that the church began.
Like as Rome would do to an itinerant preacher that had not its sanction, the Lord Jesus was asked, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk., 11:27-33) What could He or the Baptist or any of the prophets who contradicted the magisterium say? What they depended upon was the witness of Scripture and the power of God (not that ordination is superfluous, but that is not what actually establishes authenticity).
Therefore the church was founded in dissent from those who could claim authority based upon Divine precepts and promises (Dt. 17:8-13; Neh. 8:5-9; Jer 14:21; 33:20-26 ; Lv 26:44; 2Sa 7:13,15; 1Ki 11:13,32,36) and historical decent, (Mt. 23:2) as the church rested upon the aforementioned conformity to Scripture, in text and in power. (Jn. 5:36,39; Lk. 24:27,44: Acts 4:33; 5:12; 6:8; 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 2:13; Heb. 2:3,4) And which the evangelical gospel with its manifest regeneration testifies to, by which the church has its members. (1Cor. 12:13)
As a consequence, the evangelical can have at least the amount of assurance as to the complete canon of his supreme authority as a Roman Catholic has as to the present canon of all the decrees of his supreme 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.
That is not the basis for your assurance if you are a Catholic, as if it were then you would not need the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, and would not criticize the evangelicals for their confidence in the assured word of God (not simply an historical document), for doctrine. Instead the assurance you have is based upon the premise that Rome is assuredly infallible, which she has infallibly declared herself to be, and which you have made a fallible faith decision to to submit to.
Who we know through reason is One/Good/True/Beautiful/Being. Since God is Truth, His Church, His mystical Body, cannot teach error.
Upon which reasoning there must have always been an assuredly infallible magisterium for God's people, as per Rome, but by going to the established assured Word of God we see that God did preserve Truth, but not as per the premise of Rome, but oftentimes by raising up men from without the magisterium (usually prophets, whose authority did not need formal transference of office) to reprove it for teaching error, and upon such means the church began and has often been preserved (and as one becomes part of the church by faith, it is not one particular body, and which can vary, as Rv. 2,3 testifies to) in faith in Christ, to whom “all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43).
For truth has and is often preserved by God raising up from stones children of Abraham, who are rejected by those who presume more than what is written, to reprove them and continue to build his church, which has many members.
Though the kingdom is sadly formally divided on earth amidst those who hold to core salvific truths, Rome is as one denomination at best, and the fully true church is not that which is called to look to a perpetuated supreme magistrate ruling from Rome over all, which is not seen in Scripture (holy Peter's leadership and general pastoral role notwithstanding), and praying to saints, and gaining members by regeneration through infant sprinkling based on proxy faith and which largely preaches itself (even though some within may belong to the body of Christ, as even the church in Laodicea was), but as it always was, the true church consists of the remnant who are of a poor and contrite spirit, and come to God as damned sinners and destitute of any means by which they may escape Hell or gain heaven by their own moral merit or the power of the church, but who out of a contrite heart trust the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, and thus overall follow Him, to the glory of God.
And the authenticity of its bodies is not based on visible structure, which they have, but in their demonstration of the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, which results in the need for structure. But in which no separate class of sacerdotal men called priests were ever ordained, nor a class that presumed its head clergy (almost exclusively) had the gift of celibacy, but were (typically) married elders/bishops, that denoting one office. (Titus 1:5-7)
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.
You are ignoring what i said, which is that this is an interpretation (of history, etc.), which the others who also hold to sola ecclesia see differently, including the EOs, which “opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
“Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church... — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
and that this Church possesses a non-contradictory and incontrovertable body of teaching.
This sweeping statement rests upon the premise that Rome defines error, including upon what magisterial level this pertains to, and to whether such things as papal advocation of torture, or disallowance of salvation outside formal submission to Rome, contradict later positions, thus resulting in more division within Catholicism.
Such an institution is unparalleled in human history.
Despite gaps in popes and rival claims and confusion, and manifest immoral ones who would not even be allowed to be church members under the N. covenant, (1Cor. 5:11-13) and who were elected contrary to the non-political method Peter used. (Acts 1:26)
Regardless, your argument of validity based upon Divine promises and historical decent effectively nukes the church, as the Jews also claimed both, and who, unlike Rome, had actual precise affirmation of authority, yet like Rome, likewise presumed more than what is written, and likewise they claimed supreme authority of interpretation by which they could assert Scripture supported their excesses claims.
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.
And again we know the former from Scripture, as well as that the Lord confirms His word with signs following, (Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36,39; Heb. 2:3,4; Rm. 15:19) and evangelical faith testifies to far greater attestation of such in relation to their number, including in manifest regeneration of former Catholics, etc,. as well as consistency in Biblical moral views and tested core truths.
-—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.
All you are arguing is how one may make a fallible decision, which one can use to come to a conclusion different than your goal of bringing souls to submit to an assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, faith that it is so being the answer to my question as to the basis for your assurance of Truth.
-—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.
The issue is not that of authority per se, but that of supreme, perpetual assured infallible authority, but as shown, your conclusion is not established by your premise, as again, the Lord preserved Truth, and men where redeemed (looking forward to Christ), without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.
We know Jesus is God by Scripture and its means of establishment of truth, and that God preserved and revealed Truth without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Yet we can argue along the same line of reasoning for warrant to believe in Scripture as a supernaturally inspired and established body of writings, as described, but which supremacy you effectively give to a assured infallible Roman body of men, which premise is the real basis source of your assurance that this interpret is correct, having made a fallible decision to assent to it.
-—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.
But the church was not founded upon natural law, though reason was appealed to, but upon appeal to Scripture and Scriptural means of establishing truth, all without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.
——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.
Your premise that the church (small “c”) is the pillar and foundation of truth does not establish your conclusion that all the church ever universally speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible, which extrapolation,is not sound exegesis.
Linguistically you cannot establish that “pillar and foundation” means anything more than support, or being grounded and supporting the truth, while going back to scriptural principle and precedent again, we see (in review) that those to whom God were “committed the oracles of God” and the promises, etc. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and whom God used in establishment of His truth, were not assuredly infallible, and yet God was still Truth, and His Truth was preserved and conveyed and more revealed, as God knows how to raise up men to do so, even when those who sit in the formal office fail. And thus Christianity began with an itinerant preacher as far as those who claimed historical decent was concerned, and salvific truth and thus the church is preserved by God raising reformers, as needed.
In addition, it is not clear how many of the plethora of Rome's teachings (which of thousands) belong to the magisterial level for which preservation from error, while the church you have fallibly determined to be the OTC autocratically determines what is a contradiction versus a “clarification” (so that Protestants may be saved, etc.).
Sorry for the length and reiteration, but i keep seeing much the same in assertions for Rome.