Justification By Faith Alone

[Spriles]

[quote name='mortify' post='1720514' date='Dec 5 2008, 09:26 PM']Without an infallible Church there is no certainty in Scripture's inspiration.

Martin Luther's criteria for determining inspiration was to see whether a book affirmed his idea of salvation by faith alone. An absurd criteria since I can write such a book and it wouldn't be inspired, it also led him to reject the Epistle of St James.[/quote]

It would be nice to see a meaningful response to my posts rather than just a repetition of the same Catholic rhetoric that has already been discussed.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Spriles

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720354' date='Dec 5 2008, 05:14 PM']The 4th century gives us an example of the same books of the Bible being recognized as canonical (the protestant Bible) by Athanasius as I have today. However this was done without any sort of extra-Biblical infallible authority. We also have examples of fathers ascribing authority to what we know as the New Testament long before the 300s.[/quote]

I disagree. The canon of the bible was closed by the Catholic Church. While some books of the bible were widespread, some such as Hebrews and Revelation was hit and miss as it was debated whether they were in inspired or not.

[quote]As for who has the right interpretation? The answer is the one understands the message that was intended by the author. This argument against sola scriptura is fallacious. [i]The misuse of a [b]sufficient source[/b] is not a legitimate argument against that source.[/i] I also have no problem with rule books and catechisms being made, so long as their teaching is formed and tested by the truth contained in the scripture. Regarding your belief that the Bible is only to be read by those who already believe, I’ll give you time to retract the statement before I comment.[/quote]

The bible is not a sufficient source by itself. Where does the bible say it is? You have no problem with catechism and rule books so as long the truth is contained and tested in scripture. First off, who decides what scripture is? Second, on what authority do you get to decide exactly truth entails? My point about the bible is that it is fairly apparent that the bible is intended mostly for believers.

[quote]Since you are attacking the idea that fallible people have the ability to interpret infallible scripture, I would like for you to tell me how you can believe that fallible people can interpret the infallible interpretation of scripture. I also need you to explain to me what passages of scripture Rome has infallibly interpreted.[/quote]

My point on this was that different people come to different conclusions when looking at the same information. So how do you know what you interpret in the bible is correct?

[quote]The 30,000 + denominations statistic is just completely untrue. The actual number of protestant denominations is around 8,196. Even though I have already demonstrated this statistic to be insignificant to your argument, I think it is interesting to note there are around 240 variations within Roman Catholicism.[/quote]

Source on that 8,196 and 240? Even with that 240, you should remember that there is only one Church Magisterium and not 240 Church Magisteriums.

[quote]The Spiral argument you provided from Catholic Answers doesn’t work in at least two places. The first problem is that you have to account for people knowing what scripture was before Rome dogmatically pronounced what it was in 1546.[/quote]

Not exactly what you mean by this. I mean, you can see that the canon the Church had in the late 300s was the same as the one in 1546. What Rome dogmatically pronounced the Bible to be in 1546 does not mean that before 1546, that the bible was not final. The Church was clarifying a teaching.

[quote]The second problem is that the Bible, as an historic text, does not give the record of an infallible church being established.[/quote]

I disagree heavily with this one.

Matthew 16:18 and the tens of other passages that support a Church being formed. Pretty much all of the NT aside from the gospels is about the early Church, bishops being sent out, decisions being made, baptisms, etc. Acts is about the development of the new Church while the letters of Timothy and other letters concern what is going on in different areas of the Church.

[Spriles]

[quote]I disagree. The canon of the bible was closed by the Catholic Church. While some books of the bible were widespread, some such as Hebrews and Revelation was hit and miss as it was debated whether they were in inspired or not.[/quote]

Could you tell me when and where this closing took place?

[quote]The bible is not a sufficient source by itself. Where does the bible say it is? You have no problem with catechism and rule books so as long the truth is contained and tested in scripture. First off, who decides what scripture is? Second, on what authority do you get to decide exactly truth entails? My point about the bible is that it is fairly apparent that the bible is intended mostly for believers.[/quote]

God decided what scripture was by using fallible people to write it and recognize it. I'm not sure I understand your second question.

[quote]My point on this was that different people come to different conclusions when looking at the same information. So how do you know what you interpret in the bible is correct?[/quote]

I use the same God given tools to interpret infallible scripture as you would use to interpret the magisterium's infallible interpretation of it, if it existed. You still haven't provided me with an example of an infallible interpretation of any scripture.


[quote]Source on that 8,196 and 240? Even with that 240, you should remember that there is only one Church Magisterium and not 240 Church Magisteriums.[/quote]

Source: World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).

I accuse Rome of having 240 variations and you are quick to point out there is one magisterium. Wouldn't that be like you accusing me of protestants having 30 000+ variations and me pointing out there is only one Bible? Using you're logic against Sola Scriptura, I could say that apparently having one magisterium isn't good enough because 240 groups have a different understanding of it.

[quote]Not exactly what you mean by this. I mean, you can see that the canon the Church had in the late 300s was the same as the one in 1546. What Rome dogmatically pronounced the Bible to be in 1546 does not mean that before 1546, that the bible was not final. The Church was clarifying a teaching.[/quote]

The Roman Catholic Church at Trent most certainly was not clarifying a teaching and was actually dogmatically proclaiming scripture for the first time in history. Could you please point out in history where the church established a canon the exact same to the one at Trent.

I used Athanasius as an example from the 300s. A problem for you is that he considered the canon closed but didn't include the apocrypha.

[quote]I disagree heavily with this one.

Matthew 16:18 and the tens of other passages that support a Church being formed. Pretty much all of the NT aside from the gospels is about the early Church, bishops being sent out, decisions being made, baptisms, etc. Acts is about the development of the new Church while the letters of Timothy and other letters concern what is going on in different areas of the Church.[/quote]

I think you have misunderstood me. Of course the scripture records the Church being established, it just doesn't record an [i]infallible[/i] church being established.

[mortify]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720617' date='Dec 5 2008, 11:52 PM']It would be nice to see a meaningful response to my posts rather than just a repetition of the same Catholic rhetoric that has already been discussed.[/quote]

Why respond to what any honest Protestant scholar already admits, there is no such certainty without hypothesizing some infallible authority.

The Bible is a collection of books, no single book defines what books are inspired, therefore we must rely on EXTRA-BIBLICAL sources. You yourself point to a [b]tradition[/b] of the fourth century, whether true or not is insignificant, the fact is there were *several* traditions about what books were inspired. Even a course glimpse of the Bible Canon's history reveals that the East recognized certain books as inspired while the West did not, and vice versa. Ultimately the fathers of East and West came together in a council, invoked the Holy Spirit, and came to an agreement on what the Canon consists.

Today textual scholars question whether Paul composed Hebrews, whether the Second Epistle of Peter is Peter's, whether St John ever wrote the book of Revelation, etc. Your certainty of the Bible is founded on a decision of the Catholic Church! If the Church is not infallible, then perhaps her decision was wrong, and now the whole Bible falls apart.

As for Protestant Bible Canon... The Evangelists quoted from the Septuagint, which contains the very books the Protestants reject.

[mortify]

Peace Spriles

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720757' date='Dec 6 2008, 06:25 AM']The Roman Catholic Church at Trent most certainly was not clarifying a teaching and was actually dogmatically proclaiming scripture for the first time in history. Could you please point out in history where the church established a canon the exact same to the one at Trent.[/quote]
[i]
This is what I picked out from an Catholic Encyclopedia article, by no means a comprehensive list:[/i]

[color="#FF0000"]The Council of Florence (1442)

Synod of Hippo (393)

The Three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, and 419)

[i]"Decretal of Gelasius"[/i], a document from a synod convoked by Pope Damasus (382 AD)

The Canon of Pope Innocent I, sent in 405 AD to a Gallican bishop

The African Church's Canon, [i]Vetus Latina[/i], which predates that of the Vulgate
[/color]
St Ireneus affirms the inspiration of Baruch, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

[quote]I used Athanasius as an example from the 300s. A problem for you is that he considered the canon closed but didn't include the apocrypha.[/quote]

It's not a problem for us because St Athanasius is not an infallible authority. He represents an opinion which was common in the Alexandrian school of thought at the time. This opinion was one among many, and outside of an infallible authority there is no way to know which is right, which presents a problem for you.

Luther rejected certain books simply because they went against the heresies he espoused. So when someone supported purgatory by quoting Maccabees, Luther said it bears no weight because it's not canonical!

Of course, Luther also rejected the inspiration of St James' Epistle along the same lines.

Edited December 6, 2008 by mortify

[Spriles]

[quote]Why respond to what any honest Protestant scholar already admits, there is no such certainty without hypothesizing some infallible authority.

The Bible is a collection of books, no single book defines what books are inspired, therefore we must rely on EXTRA-BIBLICAL sources. You yourself point to a tradition of the fourth century, whether true or not is insignificant, the fact is there were *several* traditions about what books were inspired. Even a course glimpse of the Bible Canon's history reveals that the East recognized certain books as inspired while the West did not, and vice versa. Ultimately the fathers of East and West came together in a council, invoked the Holy Spirit, and came to an agreement on what the Canon consists.

Today textual scholars question whether Paul composed Hebrews, whether the Second Epistle of Peter is Peter's, whether St John ever wrote the book of Revelation, etc. Your certainty of the Bible is founded on a decision of the Catholic Church! If the Church is not infallible, then perhaps her decision was wrong, and now the whole Bible falls apart.

As for Protestant Bible Canon... The Evangelists quoted from the Septuagint, which contains the very books the Protestants reject.[/quote]

My certainty of the Bible does not rest on the infallibility of men, but the sovereignty of God.
It's very interesting to see how comfortable you people are in resting in the idea of having an infallible church when this belief historically raises more questions than it answers. Why are you so comfortable in ignoring the glaring problems of your position?

Edited December 6, 2008 by Spriles

[Spriles]

[quote]The Council of Florence (1442)

Synod of Hippo (393)

The Three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, and 419)

"Decretal of Gelasius", a document from a synod convoked by Pope Damasus (382 AD)

The Canon of Pope Innocent I, sent in 405 AD to a Gallican bishop

The African Church's Canon, Vetus Latina, which predates that of the Vulgate

St Ireneus affirms the inspiration of Baruch, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.[/quote]

I maintain my claim that only until after Trent Roman Catholics were able to know with certainty the canon of scripture, for a few reasons.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage and all the historical affirmations given to them actually agree upon a different canon than the one at Trent.

After the Vulgate was translated much of the church followed Jerome's lead in not accepting the Apocrypha as canonical.

It's an historic fact that the first time the church made an infallible decision regarding the Canon was at Trent.

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

[mortify]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720970' date='Dec 6 2008, 04:59 PM']My certainty of the Bible does not rest on the infallibility of men, but the sovereignty of God.[/quote]

Your faith unconsciously rests on the decision of the Catholic Church!

[quote]It's very interesting to see how comfortable you people are in resting in the idea of having an infallible church when this belief historically raises more questions than it answers. Why are you so comfortable in ignoring the glaring problems of your position?[/quote]

You probably don't understand what we mean by infallibility.

[b]"He who hears you, hears Me"[/b]

[mortify]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720987' date='Dec 6 2008, 06:07 PM']I maintain my claim that only until after Trent Roman Catholics were able to know with certainty the canon of scripture, for a few reasons.[/quote]
You can believe whatever you want.

The fact is the Council of Trent did not invent anything new, the same OT books it lists were listed a [b]thousand[/b] years earlier by Synods and Popes.

St Jerome is not an infallible authority. He spent many years in Palestine and was influenced by the Hebrew Masoretic text. Christendom was simply in disagreement over the OT, and if you want to use this against the Catholic Church you better be prepared to have the same argument leveled against the Trinity! At one point the majority of Bishops in the world supported Arius, and even after the Council of Nicea Arianism was powerful. Should we rethink the Trinity? Absolutely not, the declaration of the Church is binding forever, no matter how many [i]protest[/i] against it.

So far what you have proved is that [i]sola scriptura[/i] is futile, that an appeal to some [b]tradition[/b] is inevitable, and since protestants reject an infallible authority outside of the bible, they are left in hopeless contradiction!

Friend, how do you maintain your position ignoring the questions it raises?

Edited December 6, 2008 by mortify

[Spriles]

[quote]The fact is the Council of Trent did not invent anything new, the same OT books it lists were listed a thousand years earlier by Synods and Popes.[/quote]

This statement is simply not true. The old testament canon given at Hippo and Carthage was different than the one given at Trent.

[quote]St Jerome is not an infallible authority. He spent many years in Palestine and was influenced by the Hebrew Masoretic text. Christendom was simply in disagreement over the OT, and if you want to use this against the Catholic Church you better be prepared to have the same argument leveled against the Trinity! At one point the majority of Bishops in the world supported Arius, and even after the Council of Nicea Arianism was powerful. Should we rethink the Trinity? Absolutely not, the declaration of the Church is binding forever, no matter how many protest against it.[/quote]

Christendom being in disagreement over things is not problematic to my view point because I am able to appeal to scripture to settle doctrinal disagreements. Infact the historical argument you bring up exposes a glaring weakness to your view point. When the the majority of Bishops (including the bishop of Rome) supported Arianism, Athanasius stood against them by appealing to what? An infallible tradition or magisterium? No. The holy and inspired scriptures!
Writing against arianism, Athanasius wrote...

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth."

[quote]Friend, how do you maintain your position ignoring the questions it raises?[/quote]

I have been arguing that my position is the more logical one, and it raises less questions than your own. I provided 6 question for those who believe in the necessity of an infallible authority outside the scripture, in post #100. Most of which no one has even attempted to answer. If you would like me to address the questions my view point raises, please point them out clearly and I would be glad to discuss them.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1721008' date='Dec 6 2008, 06:00 PM']I have been arguing that my position is the more logical one, and it raises less questions than your own. I provided 6 question for those who believe in the necessity of an infallible authority outside the scripture, in post #100. Most of which no one has even attempted to answer. If you would like me to address the questions my view point raises, please point them out clearly and I would be glad to discuss them.[/quote]

And we want to answer them! However to keep clarity, you can not ramble off 6 questions and expect us to answer them all at once! I have been very busy this past week though I would be more than happy to start answering your questions with in the next oppurtunity I get!

Thanks & God Bless!
Pax~
~*~princessgianna~*~

[mortify]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1720987' date='Dec 6 2008, 06:07 PM']The councils of Hippo and Carthage and all the historical affirmations given to them actually agree upon a different canon than the one at Trent.[/quote]
[b]36th Canon of the Council of Hippo (393 AD)[/b]

"It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."

[Spriles]

[quote]"It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."[/quote]

Hippo & Carthage included 1 and 2 Esdras. Trent only included 2 Esdras. Who was right?

[Spriles]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1721011' date='Dec 6 2008, 06:26 PM']And we want to answer them! However to keep clarity, you can not ramble off 6 questions and expect us to answer them all at once! I have been very busy this past week though I would be more than happy to start answering your questions with in the next oppurtunity I get!

Thanks & God Bless!
Pax~
~*~princessgianna~*~[/quote]

I understand that expecting immediate answers to complicated questions is unreasonable. Sorry for coming across as impatient. It's just that in most of the responses since that post, people were continuing to respond to my view point with the same argumentation that ignores the problems posed by my questions.

Thanks for the heads up Princessgianna.

[mortify]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1721017' date='Dec 6 2008, 07:51 PM']Hippo & Carthage included 1 and 2 Esdras. Trent only included 2 Esdras. Who was right?[/quote]

Both were.

Ezra-Nehemiah is a single book in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

In many early Christian Bibles, Ezra-Nehemiah is separated into two texts.

For this reason, Origen, Eusebius, Sts Athanasius and Jerome, refer to Ezra as two books.

This is why the Council of Hippo says Ezra is two books.

In the Council of Trent, the "two books of Ezra" are “the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias.”

Bother councils referred to the same two books.


A very detailed analysis of this objection can be found here: [url="http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras.html"][u]Esdras & The Early Church: A Response to William Webster[/u][/url]