Replies

We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office...

No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?

It is certainly not necessary to be a Presbyterian in order to invoke Westminster, any more than one must be a Lutheran in order to invoke something Luther said in this context, for the debate as i understood you as framing it has been btwn the Protestant position and that of Rome, and thus it is entirely fitting that i invoke a classic Prot source in that regard. And the issue should be SS versus SE, sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia (that of the infallible church being effectively supreme over Scripture), based on historical teaching.

However, if you wanted to define Protestant belief by what you see certain RCs expressing then you are only arguing against what you wrongly assume i hold to, while in any case you can only argue for the need for the magisterial office, which i affirm, both benefiting from it and in being subject to authority which Scripture says in whatever church i have been part of, as Scripture says, . "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls..." (Hebrews 13:17) Just this Wednesday night i did what the pastor asked me to in giving a message, while i also have stated on FR before that the ideal would be a centralized magisterium, if not being above Scripture as Rome effectively makes herself.

But while you can argue for the validity and viability of the magisterial office, it remains that you cannot provide any example of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome in Scripture, nor of its necessity. But i can show that God did provide manifest men and wholly inspired writings of God, which were discerned and established as being so without a perpetual IM. And that God has left us with a wholly inspired infallible source of Truth, by which Truth claims are tested and established, and that the NT church began with laymen recognizing men of God as being so in the light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium.

Moreover, since you want to go by what laity believe, the problem under sola ecclesia, versus unchanging Scripture being the infallible supreme authoritative source of Truth, is that since it directs souls to directly look to leadership as supreme in providing Truth and interpreting it, versus examining the evidence for warrant, then when the leadership goes south then so do most of the people. SSPX and SSPV RCs who expose the contrasts btwn past historical teaching and modern V2 interpretation of it become like Protestants in principal. For instead of obeying such teaching as "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906) they presume to determine Truth based upon their interpretation of historical teachings, not what the present pastors teach and convey it as being.

In addition to V2, the local level is usually is where most RCs look for the interpretation of what higher magisterial teaching means. And any claim to being more strict or effectual or rigid than in evangelical churches is fantasy, as it is manifest that liberal RCs find a home in Rome far more than in evangelical churches overall, and what one does and effects is what Scripturally constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) Every time Rome even honors a Teddy K, Menino, Chavez with a RC funeral she shows her interpretation of canon law, and examples how fluid and accommodating she can be.

If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".

Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF, as well as using a convenient definition of "Protestant." No, not everyone else around here says "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian." I recently argued against a "don't need the visible church" post. And i am sure the other poster (SR) does not hold to that either. Either argue with me as one who upholds the validity and viability of the teaching and administrative office but who denies as novel and unScriptural the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, or argue with those who deny the former in principal. ,

The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.

Really? Meaning i when i provide Scriptural substantiation as the supreme authoritative source then the weight of that does not count as an authoritative reason, and when i provide such a source as Westminster in upholding magisterial authority then it must be dismissed as not admissible in my case, and deemed as "nothing else!" Either you only see what you want to see or dismiss me as a liar or you simply reject any authoritative reason outside a perpetual IM, the very thing that needs to be proved.

So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.

Actually, what i have argued for is that unlike Rome, i am not my own authority, as the veracity of what i contend for must rest upon the weight of substantiation of the only wholly infallible comprehensive material body of Truth that we have, but which you do not hold as supreme. For in contrast, Rome is indeed her own authority, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

If you mean that i determine what i will hold as my supreme authority, and to varying degrees what it means, then that is what RCs does themselves, making a fallible decision to trust in a (self-declared) infallible authority, and to varying degrees what she means. And while in both cases they hold to their respective infallible sources, yet as Ratzinger states.

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience [which is to be properly formed] confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" [though not necessarily being correct, or having ensured veracity]. - (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1).

I may be configuring another PC for a while and so may not be back for a while.

...hereby you - who before asserted what the Prot position is - example belief in another fav RC propagandist strawman, that SS means only Scripture is to be used in determining what God reveals...
And.. We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office...

No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?

If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".

The problem is with you and everyone else around here, you don't actually follow it in practice. You belong to no denomination and when asked, responses similar to the above are given.

The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.

So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.

??

These conversations are most profitable and enjoyable when we do not presume to know internal motivation in disregard of presented testimony. Our testimony is that we do regard Scripture as the supreme authority, and that we do have regard for those God give us as teachers to the body of Christ, as there are Scriptural accounts for all of that. Where it goes off the rails is when one party or the other gets frustrated with the logical and Scriptural arguments and starts seeking a means of closure without getting an agreement on the points being contested. The temptation, and I maintain we all feel it occasionally, is to drop down into sweeping generalizations that express our own beliefs much more than they express the other party's beliefs.

(Sidebar: Oddly, this reminds me of an experience I had when I was in grade school. I am an attorney now, but back then I was just a kid who liked watching Perry Mason at Grandma's house every Sunday evening. It happened that in one of my classes at school we were given a chance to play attorney in a criminal case. I was cast as the prosecutor, and I had read the workbook and absolutely knew who the guilty party was. But when I got him on the stand, and I had gone through a few poor, simplistic efforts to get him to fess up, just like Perry Mason, he wouldn't cooperate! The nerve of him! It really got me frustrated, and I fell into just berating him, which also did nothing to get at the truth. I've reflected a lot on that since then, and it is a factor in how I work now. Glad it wasn't on tape. But then this all happened before the invention of either fire or the wheel, so I guess I'm safe. :) )

Anyway, I have a proposal, part of a hypothetical civility code some of us are thinking about, that would be a voluntary set of rules we could keep in addition to the regular RF forum rules. My proposal is that when one or the other side realizes they have not moved the other party and have essentially nothing else they can do in terms of adding new information or new analysis, just admit the impasse openly and cordially. I've actually seen others do this, and I've tried it myself a few times. Rather than accusing the other party of not admitting something which they have testified they do not believe, try taking them at their word and admit the dead end.

BTW, this doesn't mean we have to accept false statements of objective fact. If someone claims there's a secret Hebrew original NT known only to certain initiates that invalidates the Greek NT, and they can't pony up the proof, they are stuck with the facts being against them. They lose, we win, at least until someone comes up with real, new facts that change the equation.

But if we testify to you we honor Scripture as our supreme objective authority on matters of Christian faith and practice, then it will do no good to accuse us of some hidden alternative spiritual reality to which none but God has access. That's what we really believe, and we have resolved the subsidiary issues accordingly. We aren't all Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists or Lutherans, etc. But on a point by point basis, any one of us might find the Westminster or the London Baptist or the Augsburg confessions useful and instructive and beneficial to know and learn. The fact that we don't share your exact model of how the magisterium should work does not mean we reject the concept altogether. That's a fallacy of false dilemma. It only means we have a different working model than you do, one that can actually work across a multiplicity of denominational histories to forge real unity on key issues.

But when these objections are met with accusations rather than analysis, you know what that means to us? It means you have run out of serious analytical ammunition and are resorting to nerf darts. This is very easy to do. I'd bet a thorough review of my own posts would turn up more of that than I'd like. But is it good? Does it help move the other party in your direction? Doubtful. When is the last time you bought a product from someone who accused you to your face of not really believing in your own objections to the product? It doesn't work.

And our objections to the Roman "product" are quite real to us. In the present discussion, for example, we see that the logic of papal infallibility runs in an infinite loop, which is the main point of the OP, and offers a worse solution rather than a better to a significant epistemological problem. In computer terminology, we might call it the bootstrap problem. How does one get from being a fallible private self with inescapably personal sensory and interpretive processes to a place where they know divine truth in an objective way? If you think this is easy or trivial, I can't go there with you. I think it takes a miracle:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(John 6:44-45)

... which miracle of divine, personal revelation is exampled by Peter himself:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:16-17)

There is much more that could be said here, but I am already going on too long. The short of it is that the analysis phase of our present discussion is still rich with unexplored veins, and does not have to be cluttered up with comments that are sure to produce a defensive response but have little to no analytical value. When any of us does get to that place of going in unproductive circles, why can't we just say, OK, this is where we're at for now, and just leave it there? Anyway, just my two cents ....

Peace,

SR