Justification By Faith Alone

[dairygirl4u2c]

the folks of the new testament didn't need a CC equivalent ot know the old testament was true.
etc etc

it's all somewhat arbitrary. you guys shouldn't act as if you have the for sure only answers.
in some things that kinda faith might be warranted, but this is imho pushing it.
it's just being a hard hat.

if ya wanna argue the necessity of the cc, i'd recommend anothe avenue than this.
(of course, this is an area that needs explored, but you guys are beating it to death and should move on)

Edited December 14, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ziggamafu]

Dairygirl,

The reason I created and posted those charts earlier was precisely because the absurdity of sola scriptura bared illustration. Yes, religious preference is, by definition, a matter of faith. Nevertheless, a given religion should be consistant; certainly not logically absurd.

[b]Summarized History of the Canon:[/b]

Jesus (doesn't write anything or prophecy the canon)

Apostles (write many things, some of which survive and others of which do not; DO NOT ESTABLISH THE CANON)

Others - [i]not Apostles[/i] - in the Apostolic Church (write many things, some of which end up in the canon and others of which do not)

FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY PASS

*Heretical Gnostic Marcion authors first "canon" of the Bible; only includes Luke and edited versions of Paul's Epistles
*Most of the NT canon is recognized as inspired ([i]along with other texts such as the Didache, Hermas, 1 Clement [third pope], and Barnabas[/i])
*Seven NT Deuterocanonicals are still disputed: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (and, apparently, a couple of minor insertions in the Gospel).

MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED ADDITIONAL YEARS PASS

POST-Apostolic Church discerns and declares the canon in a non-dogmatic (yet still authoritative) way in the local councils of Hippo and Carthage

Gradual (but relatively quick) universal acceptance of the canon of these councils; Catholic Old Testament read and quoted as Scripture by vast majority of all Christians for MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

*Protestant rebellion tears seven OT books (and portions of two others) out of the canon; almost tears some of the NT out. Champions sola scriptura (Bible alone; every man his own pope). Immediately begins to divide and multiply itself; dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of times over.
*Catholic Church responds by declaring traditional canon as dogma

PROTESTANT MODEL:

Scripture is its own authority, the only infallible rule of faith for all Christians.

To apply this to the canon means the following logic: This book is biblical because it is compatible with this other biblical book, which is in turn biblical because it is compatible with this other biblical book which is in turn biblical because...ad infinitum. A Circle.

"We know what scripture is because scripture says so."

CATHOLIC MODEL:

Sacred Scripture was divinely inspired to be written from Sacred Tradition and was discerned and declared as such by the Magisterium. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the three infallible authorities of all Christians.

To apply this to the canon means the following logic: The historical Jesus vested his historical Church with his own authority so that its decisions, one of which was the canon, would be protected for the sake of his flock.

"We know what Scripture is because the Church says so and we know what the Church is because Christ says so and we know what / who Christ is because logic and history says so."

See? No circle in the Catholic model.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know it's par for course to say prots believe it's true cause it says it is... but the better answer, is that they say it's true cause the church said it was, at a point in time when it acted infallibly. does this infallibility need to continue, maybe, maybe not.
the OT had many factions, i doube the prots figure they are much different.

the folks of the old testament, did not need a catholic church to have a final canon.
the folks of the new testament don't either necessarily.
if you say the new tstament folks who don't think there was any need for an authority are thinking absurdly, then you'd be thinking the old testament folks were too. like jesus and the aposles, for instance.

the cc approaches objectivity more as a matter of reasoning to faith, but it's not necessarily the only way you can arrive the answer. it could be false, and the bible true cause of the reasons prots say. there's many possibilities here.
do you think the orthodox think the bible is true cause the CC is true? no. they'd think it true cause the unity of the church, which isn't what prots have, but at least this more plausible situation shows that it's not necessarily cause of the CC. are the orthodox being absurd? no, not them either.

Edited December 14, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1727617' date='Dec 14 2008, 10:41 AM'][color="#0000FF"]You wanted a reason to believe in the historical Christ. I gave it to you. Multiple times.[/color]
Any scriptures you cite beg the question regarding my point; you cannot know what scripture is apart from the authority of the Catholic Church. In quoting scripture as authoritative, you presume the authority of the Church away from which you are so desparately running.

Please refer back to my posts on this irresolvable problem of yours. Also see the two charts I drew up for you.

You have two options:

1. Yield to the authority of the Church (and therefore everything else she teaches)

2. Decide that you have no basis for determining that the books of the Bible are any more authoritative than other texts; no basis by which to decide what does and does not belong in the canon.[/quote]

[indent]Yes, you are correct in your analysis. I am telling you that your Church’s interpretation to the Scripture is wrong. Of course, you will say, I am the one who is wrong then, prove to us the ‘infallibility’ of your Church by explaining the very important doctrine she has – the existence of historical Jesus. What you want from me is simply accept such idea without proper ‘reason’ why I should believe it; that is ‘paganism’ by itself but Catholics are Christians according to them. It is written in 1 Cor 2:16

[indent][color="#FF0000"]For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"

But we have the mind of Christ . [/color][/indent]If you Catholics really have it, being a Christian, will never fail to explain to me the very thing you posses. Although, it is possible that I may not understand someone because of my inadequacy to reach their level of understanding in the scripture but it is not acceptable if that someone give me ‘food from heaven’ which he himself do not know what is it.

You said to me ‘[color="#0000FF"]you cannot know what scripture is apart from the authority of the Catholic Church’ [/color]

Then, try me. I am willing to discuss it with you and prove it.[/indent]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1727821' date='Dec 14 2008, 05:41 PM']i know it's par for course to say prots believe it's true cause it says it is... but the better answer, is that they say it's true cause the church said it was, at a point in time when it acted infallibly. does this infallibility need to continue, maybe, maybe not.
the OT had many factions, i doube the prots figure they are much different.

the folks of the old testament, did not need a catholic church to have a final canon.
the folks of the new testament don't either necessarily.
if you say the new tstament folks who don't think there was any need for an authority are thinking absurdly, then you'd be thinking the old testament folks were too. like jesus and the aposles, for instance.

the cc approaches objectivity more as a matter of reasoning to faith, but it's not necessarily the only way you can arrive the answer. it could be false, and the bible true cause of the reasons prots say. there's many possibilities here.
do you think the orthodox think the bible is true cause the CC is true? no. they'd think it true cause the unity of the church, which isn't what prots have, but at least this more plausible situation shows that it's not necessarily cause of the CC. are the orthodox being absurd? no, not them either.[/quote]

You bring up a couple of interesting points.

1.) If indeed any given Protestant admitted that the discernment of the canon was infallible, I would consider that a major victory; they would be saying that sola scriptura went into effect [i]after[/i] the infallible discernment of the canon. That would be an interesting attempted evasion indeed, because it would beg several questions. First, what is your basis for the infallability of that decision and how, from that basis, do you arrive at the conclusion that this gift of infallability ended? Second, does it make sense for the God who is Truth to protect the discernment of scripture and not the subsequent interpretations of scripture? Third, what of the discernments of the Church prior to the canon? The Church appeared very Catholic from the very beginning as a matter of historic fact. The Protestant is left to conceive of a mysterious universal apostacy that began even while St. John was still living, the veil of which was not noticed for at least twelve hundred years.

2.) You mention the Jews knowledge of the canon. It is important to realize that the Jews [i]did not close their canon[/i] until the Council of Jamnia in AD90. Please see my post about this above. The Jews expected revelation to continue. Allegations of new revelation were treated with skepticism, even if acceptance was gradually increasing. Ultimately, the Jews relied on the Chair of Moses - the teaching authority of the religious leaders - just as we rely on the Chair of Peter.

You simply cannot evade the fact that sola scriptura is false logic and the Catholic Church provides a more reasonable - and ironically more scriptural - alternative.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='reyb' post='1727884' date='Dec 14 2008, 07:23 PM'][indent]Yes, you are correct in your analysis. I am telling you that your Church’s interpretation to the Scripture is wrong. Of course, you will say, I am the one who is wrong then, prove to us the ‘infallibility’ of your Church [b][u][i]by explaining the very important doctrine she has – the existence of historical Jesus. What you want from me is simply accept such idea without proper ‘reason’ why I should believe it;[/i][/u] [/b]that is ‘paganism’ by itself but Catholics are Christians according to them. It is written in 1 Cor 2:16

[indent][color="#FF0000"]For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"

But we have the mind of Christ . [/color][/indent]If you Catholics really have it, being a Christian, will never fail to explain to me the very thing you posses. Although, it is possible that I may not understand someone because of my inadequacy to reach their level of understanding in the scripture but it is not acceptable if that someone give me ‘food from heaven’ which he himself do not know what is it.

You said to me ‘[color="#0000FF"]you cannot know what scripture is apart from the authority of the Catholic Church’ [/color]

[b][i][u]Then, try me. I am willing to discuss it with you and prove it[/u][/i][/b].[/indent][/quote]

The heart of this post consists of the points I have highlighted.

I have already provided the logic you seek. If you have a problem with it, please do highlight the problems within my previous posts. If you cannot find fault with the logic of the previous posts (which both demonstrate the historicity of Christ as well as the absurdity of sola scriptura) then please, please, get into an RCIA program NOW. You are not stupid, Reyb. Jesus Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, the only Life; the Catholic Church is his only Body. Be Catholic. Quickly!!!

[dairygirl4u2c]

"You simply cannot evade the fact that sola scriptura is false logic and the Catholic Church provides a more reasonable - and ironically more scriptural - alternative."

more reasonable, yes.
necessarily true, not.
the only quelm i have with your last post, is the "is false logic". if you meant, necessarily truly false, i disagree. if you emant, in our opinion, then sure, whatever.

the orthodox, etc,believe in the chair of peter. that doesn't mean they think the the CC is infallible. notice, even you said "leaders" as per the chair of moses. there was no one leader, there were many people.
that the canon wasn't settled i don't see what it has to do with anything. there were people who believed some things as per it as final, and ohters different. i don't see that they thought "we're not sure if it's open or closed" if that's what you're hinting at, nd it's the only thing that could make sense given your argumetns of necessary logic.

what if there were a flase leader back in the OT times? he said, "the books are true cause i say they are" "i'm a leader of of the chair of moses" "there can't be all these factions". you'd say that that's not necessarily true.
of course, on faith, you'd say it's not true.
but, my point, is that it may be more "reasonable" ot have some leader say it's true or not, but it'sn ot necessaril teh way things are.

Edited December 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do think they think it was acting infallibly at one point in time.
i mean, there's no uniform "they" so it's hard to say.
but that would be the most reasonabel, and i'm sure most would agree that that's the case. they wouldn' say "it's true cause it says it is".
if you meant that logic is false, i guess i can agree with that, too.

i think most who say that, or insinuate it, are just newbies to christianity. even if they're big and rising in their circules. i wouldn't base what a few nutjobs say. i'd give the opponent, the benefit of hte doubt, their best possible argument.

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1728054' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:44 AM']The heart of this post consists of the points I have highlighted.

I have already provided the logic you seek. If you have a problem with it, please do highlight the problems within my previous posts. If you cannot find fault with the logic of the previous posts (which both demonstrate the historicity of Christ as well as the absurdity of sola scriptura) then please, please, get into an RCIA program NOW. You are not stupid, Reyb. Jesus Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, the only Life; the Catholic Church is his only Body. Be Catholic. Quickly!!![/quote]
[indent]okay. what post number you want me to discuss with you? [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1728054' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:44 AM']The heart of this post consists of the points I have highlighted.

I have already provided the logic you seek. If you have a problem with it, please do highlight the problems within my previous posts. If you cannot find fault with the logic of the previous posts (which both demonstrate the historicity of Christ as well as the absurdity of sola scriptura) then please, please, get into an RCIA program NOW. [color="#0000FF"]You are not stupid, Reyb. Jesus Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, the only Life; the Catholic Church is his only Body. Be Catholic. [color="#0000FF"]Quickly!!![/color][/quote][/color]
[indent]Yes I will go to your priest[/indent][indent] [/indent]
[indent]I will ask them the same question I posted here.[/indent]

Edited December 15, 2008 by reyb

[Ziggamafu]

Post #86 demonstrates the historicity of Christ

Post #167, in conjunction with my two charts, demonstrates the logical impossibility of sola scriptura.

Really though, I would appreciate at least some attempt to address my posts as I write them, on a point by point basis. Otherwise I feel as if I am wasting my time. I refuse to let you send the conversation off on wild goose chases all over the place. Stay focused on the points as they come up.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Ziggamafu

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1728339' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:31 PM']Post #86 demonstrates the historicity of Christ

Post #167, in conjunction with my two charts, demonstrates the logical impossibility of sola scriptura.

Really though, I would appreciate at least some attempt to address my posts as I write them, on a point by point basis. Otherwise I feel as if I am wasting my time. I refuse to let you send the conversation off on wild goose chases all over the place. Stay focused on the points as they come up.[/quote]
[indent]Let us start from here (again) And pardon me for being stupid.
You said in post #86

[color="#0000FF"]At this point then, I would like to paste in another post of mine from another thread. The intent of the post is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one and only source and standard of all religious truth; that is, Catholicism is the only absolutely true religion and Catholicism alone represents the revelation and intentions of the true God. Yes, truth is found in other religions. No, that does not make them true. Yes, God reaches people in other religions. No, that does not mean that he is okay with them staying those[b] false religions[/b].[/color]
--------------------
What is that false religion you are saying? Just give me an example.[/indent]

[Guest]

religions who say Christ isnt who he said he was.

[reyb]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1728414' date='Dec 15 2008, 02:44 PM']religions who say Christ isnt who he said he was.[/quote]
[indent]for example? Islam or buddhist? How about Protestant Churches?[/indent]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1728079' date='Dec 15 2008, 02:23 AM']more reasonable, yes.
necessarily true, not.[/quote]

Why not? And if you concede that the Catholic Church is more reasonable, why aren't you Catholic? God is Truth; the Author of Reason; the Logos. What is truly more reasonable is therefore more godly.

[quote]the only quelm i have with your last post, is the "is false logic". if you meant, necessarily truly false, i disagree. if you emant, in our opinion, then sure, whatever.[/quote]

The laws of logic are not opinion. Adherance to them is what separates the man who thinks he is a human from the man who thinks he is a poached egg.

[quote]the orthodox, etc,believe in the chair of peter. that doesn't mean they think the the CC is infallible.[/quote]

Actually, yes they do; they do indeed believe in the infallibility of the ecumenical councils (up to a certain point, at least; they stopped recognizing the councils when they stopped submitting to the pope who ratified them). They merely do not believe in the infallibility of the pope in isolation from those councils. The Orthodox Church is not guilty of absurdity; far from it, they at least have the right to be called "Church"; they have the apostolic succession and they have the sacraments. They, at least, are a true Communion.

A room full of invidualists is not one communion. It is one room full of individualists. Sola scriptura = Individualistic subjectivism. Imagine the U.S. with a Constitution but no authoritative government by which it may be interpreted and applied. This is not apples & oranges; the proof is in the thousands of variaties of Protestant pudding.

[quote]notice, even you said "leaders" as per the chair of moses. there was no one leader, there were many people.[/quote]

Wrong again; what do you think the office of high priest was? The Jews had a very organized, very visible, very authoritative government. So does the Church.


[quote]that the canon wasn't settled i don't see what it has to do with anything. there were people who believed some things as per it as final, and ohters different. i don't see that they thought "we're not sure if it's open or closed" if that's what you're hinting at, nd it's the only thing that could make sense given your argumetns of necessary logic.

what if there were a flase leader back in the OT times? he said, "the books are true cause i say they are" "i'm a leader of of the chair of moses" "there can't be all these factions". you'd say that that's not necessarily true.
of course, on faith, you'd say it's not true.
but, my point, is that it may be more "reasonable" ot have some leader say it's true or not, but it'sn ot necessaril teh way things are.[/quote]

I don't know if I follow you in this section. The point is that for the Protestant, the canon is not closed; it is still open for debate and thus so too are its contents. Protestant conceptions of "authority" are therefore smoke and mirrors.
However, I refer you to my earlier post regarding subsequent questions for those (such as yourself, apparently) who hold an initial infallibility of the post-Apostolic Church.