I’m reposting some comments at left here:
steve hays April 9, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Brandon Vogt
“This is simply not true. See Acts 15 (St. Peter acting as the first Pope)”
More like James acting as the first Pope.
“From the earliest century Christians turned to the bishop of Rome as the final arbiter of faith.”
That would come as news to St. Paul (e.g. Gal 1-2).
“Through the grace of the Holy Spirit it prevents one from error when teaching ex cathedra about faith or morals.”
That’s your faith-claim, which begs the very issue in dispute.
“After all, the very fact that we’ve had screwed up popes is an argument *for* the divinely-ordained office of Pope. For the only way the papacy could have survived these corrupt pontiffs is if it was protected by the Holy Spirit.”
Do you apply that same logic to the survival (indeed, success) of Islam?
steve hays April 10, 2012 at 8:01 am
Brandon Vogt
“Peter was clearly the leader in the early Church.”
He’s clearly not the leader of the early church in Acts. There are several leading figures, including Stephen, Philip, and Barnabas. Peter is more prominent in the first part of Acts, but then the center of gravity shifts to Paul in the second part of Acts.
“He spoke authoritatively at the Council of Jerusalem.”
i) He didn’t convene the “council” and he didn’t preside at the “council.”
ii) He’s one of three delegates to the “council.” He speaks with no more or less authority at the “council” than Paul and Barnabas.
iii) Indeed, he’s a defendant. He must explain and defend his actions before the assembly of apostles and elders. They sit in judgment of his actions. It’s more like a trial than a council.
iv) Finally, it is James who hands down the verdict.
None of this is consistent with Peter as the head of the Christian church.
“…and only when he spoke did ‘the whole assembly all silent.’”
Umm, no. It became silent when Paul and Barnabas spoke (15:12), not Peter. When was the last time you actually read Acts 15? Your version bears no resemblance to the text.
“Since James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, it made sense that he would have the last word.”
No, that doesn’t make sense if, according to you, Peter is the head of the Christian church.
“If you read Acts 15 in the context of the rest of the NT, however, it’s clear that Peter is the leader of the early Church…”
How is that clear? At most, he wrote 2 out of the 27 books of the NT. And contemporary Catholic Bible scholars don’t even think he wrote the two letters attributed to him. He’s not the leader in the letters of Paul, Hebrews, James, John, or Jude.
“…every other apostle defers to him, even Paul.”
That’s your assertion, for which you provide no corresponding evidence.
“I’m not sure what you mean by your wispy reference. In fact Galatians 1 shows proof of Paul’s deferment to Peter. After being converted baptized, Paul contemplated these events for three years, but then the *very first thing* he did was to ‘go to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remain with him for fifteen days’. Paul clearly knew who led the early Church.”
i) In Gal 1, Paul goes out of his way to stress his independence. He received his revelation direct from God. He received his commission direct from God 1:11-12,15-16.
ii) He went to see Peter and James, not just Peter (1:18-19).
iii) They didn’t authorize his ministry. Rather, they acknowledged his ministry.
iv) Later he goes to meet with Peter, James, and John. Three pillars of the church (2:9). Not just Peter.
v) Peter doesn’t have jurisdiction over Paul’s ministry. Rather, they have separate jurisdictions (2:8-9). Peter is not Paul’s religious superior.
vi) Far from deferring to Peter, Paul later opposes Peter (Gal 2), which would be insubordinate if Peter is Paul’s religious superior.
“It’s the claim of Scripture (John 16:14)…”
i) That says, “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you,” not, “the grace of the Holy Spirit prevents one from error when teaching ex cathedra about faith or morals.”
ii) Moreover, the promise in Jn 16:14 isn’t made to Peter, much less the pope, but to the 11 remaining disciples in the upper room. Peter isn’t singled out. And the papacy is nowhere in sight.
“…as interpreted by the authoritative Church Christ established.”
What a lovely vicious circle. You appeal to your interpretation of Scripture to prove the papacy, then you turn right around and appeal to the papacy to prove your interpretation of Scripture. Of course, any cult leader could use that tactic–and many do.
“You put your faith in your personal interpretation of Scripture…”
Just like everyone else has to do.
“I trust Jesus’ divinely guided Church, which is ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).”
i) In context, that has reference to the church of Ephesus, not the church of Rome.
ii) You need to justify your rendering of 1 Tim 3:15. There’s more than one way to construe the syntax. Is the church the pillar and foundation of truth? Or is it the faithful who support the church? For analysis, see Catholic NT scholar Luke Timothy Johnson in The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Doubleday 2001), 231-232,237.
iii) Your attempt to prooftext the Magisterium traps you in a dilemma: either you can interpret the Bible for yourself, or you can’t. If the former, then the Magisterium is superfluous. If the latter, then you don’t know from Scripture that Scripture authorizes the Magisterium. If you can’t interpret Scripture apart from your denomination, then you don’t know that your denomination is Scriptural.
You’d have to know in advance if Scripture attests the claims of Rome before you could trust Rome to interpret Scripture.
“No, because Islamic teaching has radically changed down through the centuries. The Catholic Church is different. Despite the corrupt popes, despite the at times idiotic leadership, no pope ever used his office to pronounce heresy or contradict the deposit of faith. Islam has seen plenty of corrupt leaders who have in turn warped Islamic teaching. Not so with Catholicism which is a strong argument for its divine protection.”
i) Now you’ve changed your argument. Your original argument was based on survival. Under pressure, you ditched that argument in favor of a new argument based on (alleged) continuity.
ii) You’d need to show that Islam has changed in a way that Roman Catholicism has not.
iii) To say that “no pope ever used his office to pronounce heresy or contradict the deposit of faith” begs the very question at issue.
iv) Your denomination has done an about face on a number of issues, viz. evolution, higher criticism, Biblical inerrancy, capital punishment, salvation outside the church. For instance:
steve hays April 10, 2012 at 8:21 am
i) There was great diversity in 2nd Temple Judaism. Various competing sects and schools of Judaism. God didn’t institute a pope in 2nd Temple Judaism.
Why is diversity a problem for Protestantism if it’s not a problem for 2nd Temple Judaism?
ii) Protestants don’t claim to be vicars of Christ.
iii) But even if, for the sake of argument, every Protestant were his own pope, so what? If Ratzinger can be his own pope, why can’t I? Ratzinger has no more (or less) right to be his own pope than I do. Much less does he have the right to be my pope. I wasn’t a signatory to that contract.
iv) One doesn’t have to be an authority to be right. In Jn 9, the religious authorities were wrong whereas the blind man, who had no authority, was right.
Brandon Vogt April 11, 2012 at 9:07 am
Russ, good point. I should have qualified that by saying Protestants *unintenionally and, usually, unobservedly* make themselves Pope, but the statement holds true. When you boil it down, Protestantism is a subjective turning away from the Pope of the Catholic Church to the Pope of Me–it says “I don’t submit to the authority of the apostles, as Christ established his Church. Instead, I trust my own interpretations.”
Again, most Protestants don’t recognize they do this, and veil their subjectivisms with phrases like “I put my authority in Scripture!” or “I trust the Lord alone!”. But in practice, that means “I trust my interpretation of Scripture” or “I trust the Lord as defined by Protestantism.”
steve hays April 11, 2012 at 10:07 am
Catholics like Brandon Vogt unintenionally and, usually, unobservedly make themselves Pope. When you boil it down, Brandon is his own Pope when he relies on his private judgement to evaluate the claims of Rome.
Catholicism is a subjective turning away from the word of God to the Pope of Me–it says “I don’t submit to the authority of the apostles, as recorded in the Bible. Instead, I trust my own interpretations of the Bible and the church fathers to attest the church of Rome.”
Again, most Catholics don’t recognize they do this, and veil their subjectivisms with phrases like “I put my authority in the Pope!” or “I trust the church of Rome!”. But in practice, that means “I trust my interpretation of church history” or “I trust the Lord as defined by a man in Vatican City.”
steve hays April 10, 2012 at 8:09 am
Brandon Vogt
“But how can you be sure that the Jesus you claim allegiance to is the true Jesus?”
The true Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible.
“Is he a Jesus who instituted the sacraments?”
Since the true Jesus didn’t institute 7 sacraments, that must mean the Jesus of Rome is not the true Jesus.
“Does he support abortion or embryonic stem cell research?”
Does Brandon believe in continuous public revelation? Does he think Jesus appears to the pope and gives the pope revelations on current developments in bioethics?
“Did he establish a Church with a visible head?”
He established church officers (elders/deacons) in local churches.
Dozie April 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“The true Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible.”
I am sure you must have anticipated the follow up question – what is the bible? Do you know how to answer that question? Do you have the authority to answer that question such that your hearer can make use of your answer?
steve hays April 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Your objection illustrates the fallacy of question-framing. You build a false premise into the question. One doesn’t need authority to answer a question correctly. But you can’t break free of your Pavlovian Catholic conditioning to appreciate that elementary distinction.
steve hays April 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Brock
“After reading many of your remarks, I am still unsure as to whether you are truly not understanding Brandon’s argument of the infallibility of the Church vs. your individual interpretation of Scripture, OR you are intentionally trying to be complicated :)”
You’re not reproducing Brandon’s argument. Rather, you’re substituting your own argument in place of Brandon’s. Even if that’s the argument Brandon intended to make, that’s not the argument he actually made. So you can spare me the duplicity of castigating me for failing to respond to your argument before you made it.
“The anti-Catholic Protestant claim…”
In contrast to your anti-Protestant Catholic claim.
“When a Catholic (subjectively) chooses to believe in the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, he is choosing to believe in something that he himself recognizes to be infallible. …And not only infallible, but an objective authority which is clearly outside of himself, and which he must obey, even if or when he personally disagrees with it.”
He subjectively believes it to be objectively authoritative.
And when a Protestant (subjectively) chooses to believe in the authoritative teaching of the Bible, he is choosing to believe in something that he himself recognizes to be infallible. And not only infallible, but an objective authority which is clearly outside of himself, and which he must obey, even if or when he personally disagrees with it.
(Actually, I don’t subscribe to your voluntaristic model of belief, but for the sake of argument I’ll play along with your framework.)
“But, when a Protestant (subjectively) chooses to believe in his own, personal interpretation of Scripture, he is choosing to believe in something that he himself does not recognize to be infallible (for while Scripture itself is recognized to be inerrant [without mistakes], only an interpreter can be infallible [unable to err], and most Protestants do not claim to be infallible interpreters). And, on top of this, a Protestant’s personal interpretation of Scripture is clearly not an objective authority that is outside of himself, but dependent entirely on this Protestant’s subjective opinion and/or powers of discernment. And thus, there is no dimension of obedience, since the Protestant is his own (totally subjective) final authority, and a final authority that is not recognized to be infallible.”
i) You’re the one who’s guilty of a logical fallacy: equivocation. Your comparison commits a level-confusion.
Both Catholics and Protestants are interpreting texts (or in some cases, the spoken word, which comes to the same thing), whether Biblical texts, patristic texts, conciliar texts, or papal texts.
In both cases the text is objective, outside the individual. In both cases, interpretation is subjective.
ii) I don’t grant your makeshift disjunction between inerrancy and infallible. A text can be both inerrant and infallible. To be inerrant is to be without error, to be infallible is to be without possibility of error. An inspired text (i.e. Scripture) isn’t merely inerrant, but infallible, for inspiration precludes the possibility (as well as actuality) of error. But in response (see below), I’ll play along with your false dichotomy for the sake of argument.
When a Catholic (subjectively) chooses to believe in his own, personal interpretation of church fathers, conciliar canons, papal encyclicals, &c., he is choosing to believe in something that he himself does not recognize to be infallible (for while some Magisterial pronouncements are themselves recognized to be inerrant [without mistakes], only an interpreter can be infallible [unable to err], and most Catholics do not claim to be infallible interpreters).
“And, on top of this, a Protestant’s personal interpretation of Scripture is clearly not an objective authority that is outside of himself, but dependent entirely on this Protestant’s subjective opinion and/or powers of discernment.”
And, on top of this, a Catholic’s personal interpretation of Magisterial teaching is clearly not an objective authority that is outside of himself, but dependent entirely on this Catholic’s subjective opinion and/or powers of discernment.
“And thus, there is no dimension of obedience, since the Protestant is his own (totally subjective) final authority, and a final authority that is not recognized to be infallible.”
i) Protestants can, and often do, obey the Bible even when they don’t like what it teaches.
ii) There’s no reason to automatically recast the interpretive process as an exercise of authority. That’s something Catholics constantly assume without bothering to defend.
iii) Finally, Catholicism is just a paper theory. Even if we granted the consequences which Catholics impute to Protestants, so what? You had a parallel situation in 2nd Temple Judaism.
“A fallible Catholic (subjectively) chooses to believe in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which is (objectively) recognized to be infallible.”
Wrong! A fallible Catholic (subjectively) chooses to believe in the (alleged) teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which is (subjectively) recognized to be (objectively) infallible.
“A fallible Protestant (subjectively) chooses to believe in his own interpretation of Scripture, which is (objectively) recognized to ALSO be FALLIBLE.”
Recognition is a subjective (i.e. psychological) process, not an objective process.
“But, in choosing to believe in the formal teaching authority of the Catholic Church, a Catholic is believing in something that he (objectively) recognizes to be infallible…”
Wrong again. A Catholic merely believes that the teaching authority of his denomination is infallible. That’s his personal, subjective opinion. In his opinion, the Magisterium is what it claims to be.
“For, in the Catholic (and Biblical) understanding, Christ speaks infallibly through His Church, and we are obligated to obey this.”
In the Biblical understanding, Christ speaks infallibly through his inscripturated word, and we are obligated to obey this.
steve hays April 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Brock
“The thing that must be distinguished here, Steve is that there’s a difference between subjective choice and objective authority…You are confusing these two different things. When obeying the authority of the Church, we are not saying that our subjective wills are not involved. They are involved. But, our subjective wills are not our final authority, and they are not the only authority, as is the case in Protestantism.”
i) In your subjective opinion, the church of Rome has objective authority. But you can’t skip over your subjective opinion and jump straight to the (alleged) fact of objective authority, for whether or not the church of Rome has objective authority is a matter of opinion.
ii) The relevant distinction is not between subjective and objective, but between correct subjective opinions and incorrect subjective opinions.
iii) Likewise, it’s child’s play to construct a parallel argument: When obeying the authority of the Scripture, we are not saying that our subjective wills are not involved. They are involved. But, our subjective wills are not our final authority.
“Catholicism = The teaching authority of an infallible Church (i.e., Objective authority) + a Catholic’s free choice to obey that authority (i.e., Subjective will).”
Your distinction assumes what you need to prove. Whether or not your denomination has infallible/objective authority is the very point in dispute. That’s not something you’re entitled to stipulate when you debate Protestants.
“Protestantism = An individual Protestant’s personal, non-infallible interpretation of Scripture (i.e., Subjective authority) + a Protestant’s choice to obey or rely upon that “authority” (i.e., Subjective will).”
Individual Catholics exercise their personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture, church fathers, and church history when they accept the authoritarian claims of Rome.
“There is a clear and obvious difference here. We have an objective authority, the Protestants do not.”
The assertion that you have objective authority is a faith-claim, not a fact.
“This is not possible. Steve, you are not using correct or sensible terminology. You are not thinking clearly. A book cannot be ‘infallible.’ Infallible means ‘unable to commit error.’ A book cannot “commit” anything; it is merely a record of information. Fallibility or infallibility can only apply to the person reading or interpreting the book, not the book itself. The Bible is inerrant (i.e., containing no errors). The Bible is not infallible. This is made obvious by the fact that people misinterpret the Bible all the time (per 2 Peter 3:15-16). So, you need to distinguish between infallibility and inerrancy. They are not the same thing.”
Your high opinion of your intellectual ability isn’t justified by the actual level of your performance. You act as if your artificial, idiosyncratic concept of infallibility is self-evident, when–in fact–it’s manifestly false.
i) An inspired speaker or writer cannot err in what he says or writes. Inspiration removes the possibility of error when he writes or speaks. So, by logical extension, the writing of an inspired writer is infallible.
ii) It’s completely arbitrary for you to assign infallibility to readers or interpreters rather than writers.
“We all agree that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant.”
Actually, Catholics don’t agree on the inerrancy of Scripture. Many contemporary Catholic Bible scholars reject the inerrancy of Scripture. And that goes back to Vatican II, when your denomination backpedaled on its traditional commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture.
“Now, now, you know as well as I do that you don’t just hand a person the Bible and say, ‘Here is what I believe’. Instead, you will give your personal, fallible interpretation of what you think that the Bible is saying.”
Now, now, Brock, you know as well as I do that you don’t just hand a person a papal encyclical and say, ‘Here is what I believe’. Instead, you will give your personal, fallible interpretation of what you think that the papal encyclical is saying.
“However, it’s not an objective source of authority in the sense that the Catholic Church is an objective source of authority. The Bible does not read itself. The Bible does not interpret itself.”
Actually, the Bible routinely interprets itself. Later OT writers interpret earlier OT writers. NT writers interpret OT writers.
“The Bible does not read itself. The Bible does not interpret itself. Rather, SOMEONE (a PERSON –someone with a human intellect) must do this. The Bible is not able, all on its own, to teach a Christian anything –to give the Christian actual instruction.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not read itself. The Catechism does not interpret itself. Rather, SOMEONE (a PERSON –someone with a human intellect) must do this. The Catechism is not able, all on its own, to teach a Christian anything –to give the Christian actual instruction.
“Rather, this is why we all have pastors and teachers in our respective churches (per 1 Corinth 12:28, etc.).”
i) Catholic polity doesn’t match 1 Cor 12.
ii) Your parish priest is fallible. Your diocesan bishop is fallible. Even the pope is fallible except (ex hypothesi) when he speaks ex cathedra.
ii) It’s ironic that you cite 1 Corinthians. Why do you think Paul wrote letters to churches? To teach them. Even when the teacher (=Paul) was personally unavailable, he made his teaching available through his written correspondence.
“So, you cannot say that the Bible (all on its own) is your ‘teacher’ or ‘pastor.’”
The Psalmist says the Bible is his teacher: “I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.” (Ps 119:112).
“So, you cannot say that the Bible (all on its own) is your ‘teacher’ or ‘pastor.’ For, in reading the Bible privately, we all suddenly bring our subjective perceptions to what we are reading, along with our limited intelligence and our admittedly fallible ability to understand absolutely everything. This is the problem that you are not seeing.”
So, you cannot say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (all on its own) is your ‘teacher’ or ‘pastor.’ For, in reading the Catechism privately, we all suddenly bring our subjective perceptions to what we are reading, along with our limited intelligence and our admittedly fallible ability to understand absolutely everything. This is the problem that you are not seeing.
“If Christian A and Christian B interpret the Scriptures differently, who or what did Jesus establish to settle this dispute –that is, to determine what is true and orthodox doctrine?”
No one above them has to settle this dispute. If they disagree, then one or both are wrong. Every interpretation isn’t equally reasonable. Some arguments are better than others. If you deny that, then you can’t even argue for Catholicism.
“Who has the final word? Can we make the final call or decision??”
Whoever happens to be right, that’s who.
“Well, according to both Scripture and consistent Christian Tradition, the answer is the Church hierarchy (e.g. Acts 15:2, Gal 2:2, etc.). No single Christian’s reading of Scripture is the final authority, nor can it be. You are arguing otherwise, and I don’t think you have thought your position through very well.”
But that controversy involved St. Peter’s missionary practice and message. So you’re saying “Pope Peter” wasn’t the final arbiter in that dispute. Rather, he had to appeal to the church of Jerusalem to adjudicate the dispute. Looks like you haven’t thought through your position very well.
“Who is right? Why can’t you guys agree and come to an objective and infallible decision regarding the nature of Baptism?”
Because God hasn’t chosen to reveal a definitive answer–even assuming there’s just one right way of doing it.
That’s not a problem for Protestant theology. That’s just deferring to divine silence. We’re under no obligation to nail down something that God hasn’t nailed down for us. To the contrary, it would be presumptuous to demand greater precision or certainty than God has given us.
“This is one of many doctrinal disagreements among Protestants by which none of you have any binding authority.”
The same thing could be said for 2nd Temple Judaism. God didn’t see fit to give 2nd Temple Jews a “binding authority” to resolve their disputes. Those are simply consequences of how God has chosen to govern the covenant community. Are you wiser than God?
“…and the official and infallible teaching of the Church –the Catholic Church’s ability to clearly define doctrine and to settle all dispute on a theological matter.”
The official and (allegedly) infallible teaching of your denomination is expressed through Magisterial texts, which must, in turn, be interpreted. Every time Rome issues a new Magisterial text, that restarts the interpretive process.
“There is NOTHING like this in Protestantism. There is no final word –no final and universally binding authority in Protestantism.”
i) There is no final word in Catholicism. There’s always another papal encyclical in the pipeline. No pope has the last word, for his successor will issue his own encyclicals.
ii) You also confuse “binding authority” with submission to binding authority. The Bible has binding authority. Whether or not professing Christians submit to the authority of Scripture doesn’t change the fact that they are duty-bound to do so.
“Such a thing exists only in the Catholic Church, just as it does in the Church described in the Bible (e.g. Acts 15:2, 15:28, and 16:4).”
It’s striking how often Brock presumes to interpret Scripture for himself. He directly cites Scripture rather than quoting infallible Magisterial interpretations of his prooftexts. Nice to seem him tacitly concede the perspicuity of Scripture.
“Protestantism, by nature, limits the Faith to the realm of academic study and thus a plurality of (forever unsettled) opinions among otherwise sincere Christians. In other words, it is essentially Relativism, at least as far as a common Faith is concerned; and this is profoundly unBiblical (e.g. 1 Corinth 1:10).”
We judge matters by the best evidence that God has put at our disposal. That’s trusting the wisdom of God’s providence. If God thought we needed more evidence or better evidence, he could always preserve more or better evidence. We go by what he’s given us, not by what he hasn’t given us.
“And 2) When the Catholic Church does interpret something and declare it to be the true and orthodox doctrine of the Church, that ends the matter once and for all, for ALL Catholics.”
When, due to its illusion of infallibility, the Roman church declares to be true what is false, or declares to be false what is true, that once and for all removes all possibility of Catholics arriving at the true and orthodox position.
“This never happens with all Protestants, nor can it happen.”
For which Protestants are properly and eternally grateful.
“The Bible presents us with a Church with final and universally-binding authority.”
That’s just a tendentious assertion. Telling us you believe in the claims of your denomination gives us not reason to believe what you believe. You might as well be a Mormon.
“No Protestant church possesses such authority, or even claims to. What does that tell you about the ‘Biblical’ nature of Protestantism?? :-)”
It tells me that Protestants are Scriptural while Catholics are unscriptural. Next question.
“The text is not a living or rational authority. It cannot interpret or explain itself.”
A papal encyclical is not a living or rational authority. It cannot interpret or explain itself.
“The text is not a living or rational authority. It cannot interpret or explain itself.”
Imagine a heretic at Ephesus using that objection to dismiss 1 John. “Sorry, John, but your letter isn’t a ‘living or rational authority.’ It doesn’t ‘settle the dispute.’ Nice try!”
“It requires SOMEONE (a rational interpreter) to explain it to us. You are ignoring this reality and distracting from the actual subject.”
You’re ignoring the infinite regress which your argument generates.
“:-) Not if one believes that the Church hierarchy is infallibly protected from teaching formal error by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised it would be: John 14:16-17 & 16:13, Matt 16:19, Acts 15:28, etc.”
Of course, that’s only as good as your personal, subjective interpretation of your prooftexts. Your argument always reduces to a bottom-up process, not a top-down top-down process.
“We Catholics believe this about our Church. Ergo, whether we are correct in our belief or not, what cannot be denied is that we DO have an objective standard of authority and orthodoxy.”
If what you believe about your denomination is incorrect, then we can most assuredly deny that you DO have an objective standard of authority. That’s the difference between an oasis and a mirage.
“However …and this is all-important …you Protestants DO NOT believe this about ANY church authority of your own. You do not recognize ANY church authority to be infallible –that is, Divinely protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching formal error.”
For good reason.
“Ergo, any Protestant teacher can be wrong.”
i) Any Protestant teacher can be wrong if it’s God’s will that any Protestant teacher can be wrong. But why think that’s God’s will?
ii) The abstract possibility that we could be wrong is not a rational basis for doubting our beliefs. Otherwise, you might be digital ghost in a computer simulation. Can you prove me wrong?
“No Protestant authority can bind all Protestants to accept his teaching as universally authoritative and orthodox; and each Protestant is basically all on his own and without an objective standard of authority and orthodoxy. This is obvious. Can you see it now?? :-)”
No math teacher can bind all students to accept the multiplication tables. Therefore, the multiplication tables aren’t an objective standard to define a multiplication operation for an algebraic system. This is obvious. Can you see it now?
“Wrong. It is without the possibility of MAKING or COMMITTING an error. Such a concept does not apply to an irrational thing, such as a book. It can only apply to a rational being, such as a human being.”
You’re being simple-minded. If a process is infallible, then the product is infallible–by logical extension. If a writer can’t be wrong, then what he wrote can’t be wrong.
“But, it does illustrate that (quite obviously) that the ‘possibility of error’ applies to the use of Scripture.”
Now you’re equivocating.
“Reading Scripture on one’s own is no guarantee of orthodoxy.”
So what? Following Rome is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Indeed, following Rome guarantees heterodoxy.
“Then why do some people mis-interpret Scripture? How do you explain 2 Peter 3:15-16??? :-) You are talking nonsense.”
I don’t see you quoting an infallible magisterial interpretation of that passage. You just assume you know what it means. Nice to see your confidence in the perspicuity of Scripture.
“Again, the USE of Scripture does not guarantee orthodoxy or correct interpretation. This goes without saying. Ergo, our individual reading of Scripture is NOT infallible or an objective authority. Scripture’s Divine inspiration does NOT preclude the possibility or error.”
Which is a red herring since that’s not what is meant by the infallibility of Scripture.
“I again give you 2 Peter 2:15-16.”
Well, I can certainly see how that applies to the pope, although I doubt the pope would appreciate your comparison.
“The Church’s formal teaching on things is very clear and obvious to all.”
Clearly and obviously wrong.
BTW, has your denomination issued a formal list of formal teachings?
“But, the teaching itself (the authority of the Church) is not something that requires labored subjective interpretation to discern. It is rather a clear and objective reality.”
So you say. But you’re just a layman. You’re hardly an official spokesman for your denomination. So why should anyone take your word for it? You presume to speak for the magisterium, but you’re not a bishop–much less the pope.
“What does the Catholic Church formally teach about Baptism? It’s pretty darn clear.”
Actually, that’s evolved over time.
“What does the Church teach about the Lord’s Supper? Again, pretty clear.”
Transubstantiation is actually quite abstruse.
“What does it teach about the Trinity, and the nature of salvation, and the role of Mary?? Again, all pretty darn clear.”
Not if you bother to read Catholic theologians like Rahner, Lonergan, and Schillebeeckx, or Catholic philosophers like Peter van Inwagen.
“So, what does ‘Protestantism’ teach about these things?”
The issue is not, in the first instance, what “Protestantism” teaches, but what revelation (i.e. Scripture) teaches.
“Does Protestantism provide one, universally-binding and formal teaching on them?? :-) Nope. And therein lies the obvious distinction between having a REAL objective authority and not having one.”
‘Imagine a heretic at Ephesus using that objection to dismiss 1 John. “Sorry, John, but that isn’t formal teaching. So that’s not the final word.”
“Not the same thing. You’re again changing and deflecting the actual issue. Stop doing that. We are not discussing moral fidelity to that which is believed.”
Sorry if I don’t accede to your inflated sense of self-importance, but you don’t get to unilaterally dictate what I’m allowed to discuss.
“Rather, it’s a matter of correctly KNOWING what is believed and supposed to be believed (i.e., Christian orthodoxy).”
That’s why God gave us the Bible. Cf. Lk 1:1-4;
“The Bible itself (all on its own) doesn’t forbid me to. So, what’s stopping me?? :-) In truth, it’s actually the same thing that stops you from doing it, which is the Traditional authority of the Catholic Church; for you happen (without realizing it) to subscribe to Catholic Tradition on this matter.”
Actually, if the Bible doesn’t proscribe it, why not call your bluff?
However, it’s always amusing to see you, a lowly Catholic layman, presume to interpret the Bible all by yourself, while–out of the other side of your mouth–you constantly berate the perspicuity of Scripture and talk up the teaching authority of Rome.
“Just as you do with the Trinity and the number of other non-Biblical doctrines which most Protestants accept via their Catholic heritage.”
So the Trinity is a “non-Biblical doctrine.” Arius would appreciate your concession.
“Judaism in the time of Christ, while it did have a functioning magisterium (see Acts 9:1-2, Acts 28:21, etc.), this magisterium did not have final and universally-binding authority in all matters, as the Church of Christ was given by Jesus (per Matt 16:19, 18:17-18, etc.).”
i) So you’re admitting the absence of a “final and universally-binding authority in all matters” in 2nd Temple Judaism. But in that event, shouldn’t you redeploy all of your anti-Protestant objections against 2nd Judaism? Was 2nd Temple Judaism a false religion? Were 1C Jews justified in rejecting Jesus? If they didn’t have a “formal” and “final” authority to interpret Messianic prophecy, then you’ve exonerated the Sanhedrin for condemning Jesus as a Messianic pretender. Interesting to see you siding with Caiaphas.
ii) BTW, why do you keep quoting Scripture to prooftext your position, rather than quoting magisterial interpretations of your prooftexts?
“Ergo, the Spirit-guided, infallible authority of the Catholic Church is NOT like that of 2nd Temple period Judaism at all. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Your grasp of history and ecclesiology in this area is very poor, 2-dimensional, and immature.”
i) Despite your high opinion of your intellectual aptitude, it doesn’t occur to you that you just played right into my trap. My argument doesn’t require 2nd Temple Judaism to be like the claims of Rome. To the contrary, my argument is predicated on their dissimilarity.
ii) And your notion that Jews weren’t bound by the Prophets and the Writings scarcely represents “mature” scholarship. For one thing, your claim utterly disregards the way in which Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Prophets and the Writings in public debates with the Jews.
“The existence of the Church’s objective authority (as far as Catholics are concerned) is undeniable. The Church IS the final authority for Catholics. And while we arguably may be wrong about that (i.e., the Bible ‘may’ be wrong too; and Jesus ‘may’ not be God, etc.), this doesn’t change the fact that Catholics recognize the Church to be their final authority and their objective standard for orthodoxy.”
Mormons say the same thing about their church.
“And this is the point of the argument: Protestants do not recognize ANYTHING like this for themselves.”
In other words, we don’t suffer from the Pope’s delusions of grandeur. How terrible!
“…nor does the Bible quality as such an objective standard of orthodoxy because a) it is not a rational or capable teacher in and of itself; and b) it is self-evident that different Protestants read and interpret Scripture differently, thus demonstrating that the use of Scripture does not guarantee orthodoxy and is not an infallible dynamic.”
Once again, imagine a 1C heretic at Ephesus using that line in response to 1 John. “Sorry, John, but your letter doesn’t qualify as an objective standard of orthodoxy. It’s not a rational or capable teacher in itself.”
“Again, we are not talking about our subjective choice to recognize the Church’s authoritative teaching.”
Why not? Because it’s inconvenient for you to discuss that distinction?
“We are talking about the fact that the Church’s teaching exists as an objective standard for Catholic orthodoxy FOR CATHOLICS.”
Like Mormons believe about their church.
“True Catholics believe what Rome formally teaches –PERIOD. This is what makes someone a Catholic. Everyone knows this. Ergo, Catholics have an objective standard for orthodoxy –an objective source of authority.”
They only have an objective standard if their denomination is what it claims to be. Therefore, Brock’s distinction does nothing to further his case.
“However, since different Protestants believe different things, it therefore follows that their reading of the Bible does not amount to an objective standard for orthodoxy (even though Protestants like to call the Bible that, or pretend that the Bible is their objective standard)…”
i) Notice his little bait-n-switch where he oscillates between the Bible as an objective standard and “their reading” of the Bible as an objective standard. But these are not interchangeable concepts.
ii) Moreover, if a particular reading is correct, then that reading is an objective standard, for it reproduces the sense of Scripture.
“…because the Bible cannot speak for itself; it must have someone to interpret it.”
Because a papal encyclical cannot speak for itself; it must have someone to interpret it. Hence, a papal encyclical will never qualify as an objective standard.
“And it is the Protestant interpreter (a purely subjective and admittedly fallible person) who is the final (subjective) authority for any given Protestant.”
i) Interpreters needn’t be authority-figures. They only need to be right.
ii) Moreover, interpretation isn’t “purely subjective.” Read a good Bible commentary and notice how the commentator reasons for his interpretation. He cites evidence. He marshals evidence into an exegetical argument.
“Catholics, however, believe that their Church hierarchy is infallible and protected from formally teaching error by the Holy Spirit (per John 14:16-17 & 16:13). This is why our standard of orthodoxy is an objective one. …whether you, as a Protestant, wish to agree with what we believe about our magisterium or not. You STILL, even as a Protestant, have to recognize and admit that we have an objective standard –an objective authority (as per our ‘system’ of belief), whereas you have no such thing. This is the point that you’re desperately trying to avoid.”
Acidheads, however, believe that there are 10-foot tall talking bunny rabbits in the attic. This is why our hallucination is an objective one. …whether you, as a sober observer, wish to agree with what we believe about our hallucinatory rabbits or not. You STILL, even as somebody who’s not high on LSD, have to recognize and admit that we have an objective hallucination –an objective 10-foot tall talking bunny rabbit in the attic (as per our ‘system’ of belief), whereas you have no such thing. This is the point that you’re desperately trying to avoid.
“The difference between us (and even an atheist would have to recognize this) is that your ‘system’ does not produce unity of doctrine (i.e., objectivity for all Protestants), whereas our Catholic ‘system’ does (for Catholics); and the reason for this is because our acceptance of what the Catholic Magisterium formally teaches is an objectively recognized standard of orthodoxy (which Catholics believe is infallible)…”
Cults typically produce unity of doctrine. Their “system” does (for cult members); and the reason for this is because their acceptance of whatever the cult leader teaches is an objectively recognized standard of orthodoxy (which cult-members believe is infallible)…”
“...whereas each Protestant reserves the right to follow his own, SUBJECTIVE reading of Scripture…”
Catholicism doesn’t avoid subjectivity. It simply elevates one subjective opinion above others. It isolates and canonizes the subjective opinion of the reigning pope.
“Whereas each Protestant reserves the right to follow his own, SUBJECTIVE reading of Scripture, which he DOES NOT claim to be infallible, thus admitting that it is merely subjective! What about this do you find so hard to understand??!! :-) The distinction is obvious to anyone.”
To suggest that whatever isn’t infallible is ipso facto subjective is a complete non sequitur. We have many fallible beliefs. Does that make them subjective? Many of our fallible beliefs are true. What’s so bad about a subjective belief that’s true?
“You again are confusing two different things. It is not my subjective opinion that the Catholic Magisterium EXISTS as the recognized standard of orthodoxy for Catholics. This (i.e., its EXISTENCE) is a FACT. …as is what it formally teaches. And all rational people (Catholics, Protestants, and atheists) must recognize it. Whether I choose (subjectively) to believe in this objective standard of Catholic orthodoxy is another matter all together. So, PLEASE stop confusing the two things. We are talking about the existence of an objective standard for orthodoxy. We have one; you don’t. This is obvious for any honest person. End of argument.”
You again are confusing two different things. It is not my subjective opinion that the Catholic mirage EXISTS as the recognized standard of drinking water for Catholics. This (i.e., its EXISTENCE) is a FACT. …as is what it formally teaches. And all rational people (Catholics, Protestants, and atheists) must recognize it. Whether I choose (subjectively) to believe that this mirage has anything to do with an actual oasis is another matter altogether. So, PLEASE stop confusing our Catholic mirage with real water. We are talking about the existence of an objective mirage. We have one; you don’t. This is obvious for any honest person. End of argument.
“Christ did speak infallible, that is true. And He had intent and purpose behind what He said, as I’m sure you will agree. But, the issue here is not what He said or what He intended, but whether or not YOU are PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING what He said and intended when you READ it in WRITTEN FORM. The fact that a) you do not claim to be an infallible interpreter of this written document of what Christ said and b) that different Protestants follow various, contradictory interpretations of this written document of what Christ said shows that your Scripture-alone methodology doesn’t guarantee you anything –that is, it is clearly NOT an objective standard of orthodoxy or a guarantee of understanding what Christ infallibly said and really meant.”
It guarantees whatever God intended for his word to achieve. And that’s more than sufficient for me.
“If you are an honest person, you simply cannot deny this. We Catholics, on the other hand, happen to believe that Christ continues to speak infallibly through the formal teaching of His Church (which we believe is the Catholic Church).”
And Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is an emanation of the bodhisattva–as well as the reincarnation of the Lama Thubten Gyatso. Can the pope top that?
“Call us crazy all you like…”
If you insist.
“But this is what we believe.”
And devout Hindus believe in a god with elephant ears and a long sinuous trunk.
“Ergo, we can claim to have infallible (i.e., sure and objective) understanding in regard to our Christian Faith, but you cannot. Your final foundation is, and always will be, your own, purely subjective (admittedly FALLIBLE) interpretation of Scripture. This is the problem with Protestantism, and why you follow a man-made faith.”
Yes, it’s a problem when we follow a man-made faith rather than believing in 10-foot tall talking bunny rabbits in the attic.
“I'm sorry, but this is an unrealistic statement. It is not merely my subjective opinion that the Catholic Church (we are not merely the church of Rome.”
You’re a local church with delusions of grandeur.
“Btw nor are we a denomination...All of you Protestants have broken off of us, thus making you the denomination)”
You broke with the NT church.
“ …has objective authority. Rather, it is the common belief of all true Catholics (of Catholicism itself) that the Catholic Church has objective authority (i.e., the Magisterium of the Catholic Church). This makes it more than a ‘subjective opinion.’ Rather, it makes it the common, objective belief of all Catholics.”
In other words, it makes it a collective subjective opinion. But added subjective opinions end-to-end doesn’t make them objective. Rather, it simply multiplies the subjectivity.
“And while you may not belief it, this doesn't change the fact that such an objective authority DOES exist FOR CATHOLICS.”
You could say the same thing about Muslims, Mormons, and Scientologists. Or devotees of Ramtha. Or the Bhagwan Rajneesh.
“Protestants, however, do not have such an objective authority.”
Sure we do. It’s the Bible.
“This is because you have no single, ultimate and universally-recognized authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Yet, we do! This is the difference between us.”
The pope isn’t a universally-recognized authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Rather, recognition of the pope is purely sectarian.
“No. You are changing the argument and confusing apples and oranges. I fully grant that you, as a Protestant, do not accept or believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is an objective source of authority for all Christians.
Obviously, the authority of the Catholic Church is not recognized by Protestants, or Jews, or Muslims, and other non-Catholics, who simply do not accept it. This goes without saying. However, what you cannot deny (and you are simply not admitting it or addressing it) is the fact that, FOR CATHOLICS, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is an objectively recognized authority. When one Catholic has a subjective opinion about something, and another Catholic has a contradictory subjective opinion about the same thing, it is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that can settle the dispute between them. Ergo, the Magisterium is clearly an OBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVELY RECOGNIZED authority FOR CATHOLICS.”
You project authority onto the Magisterium. The pope has the imaginary authority to settle disputes.
“There is nothing like this in Protestantism, however. If two Protestants disagree about the contents of what they are reading in Scripture, there is no objective standard --that is, no
objectively-recognized and binding interpreter (FOR PROTESTANTS) who can settle the dispute, and to whom all Protestants MUST give assent (per Heb 13:17).”
i) Heb 13:17 doesn’t make the pope the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
ii) Moreover, you have no authority to interpret Heb 13:17. Why do you try to prooftext your position from Scripture if Scripture has no objective binding authority?
“The argument is that ALL CATHOLICS do. And that which is commonly recognized (by all members of a given faith) cannot be called a mere ‘subjective opinion.’”
Of course it can. You’re appealing to a collective sectarian subjective opinion.
“…but is rather an objective and objectively held belief (for the members of that given faith). This cannot be denied. So, we are not "skipping over" anything. Rather, you are diverting and distorting the argument. You need to focus on the actual point. You are violating Logic 101.”
Beliefs are inherently subjective. You’re confusing the subject of belief with the object of belief. Try to learn how to think straight.
“Again, you are distorting the argument and failing to see the forest for the trees. For, without a recognized objective standard of orthodoxy (which we Catholics have and you Protestants lack), who gets to say what is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’??”
It’s enough to be right. I’m ultimately right or wrong. That’s bedrock.
If I’m right, I don’t need someone else to tell me I’m right. His telling me I’m right doesn’t make me right. If I’m right, then I’m right apart from somebody telling me I’m right.
Who gets to say if the pope is right? Your argument is self-defeating.
“Who is making that decision for you?? “
Who is making that decision for the pope?
“Clearly, truth is not a subjective thing. Truth, by its very nature, is something objective and universal. And, if this is the case, then the Truth of the Apostolic Faith must likewise be objective and universal.”
The truth of the Bible is objective and universal.
“Yet, if this is really so, how is it that Protestantism is composed of thousands of heterodox sects --all with THE SAME Bible, yet all INTERPRETING it differently???”
The church of Rome is, itself, just one more heterodox sect, interpreting the same Bible differently.
“For, all of these sects claim to have the ‘correct’ belief based on their ‘correct’ (subjective and admittedly fallible) reading of Scripture. They can't all be ‘correct.’ :-)”
i) You could say the same thing about 2nd Temple Judaism.
ii) I’ll also take an admittedly fallible, but correct interpretation over a delusively “infallible,” but incorrect interpretation.
“And, even if you wish to believe (as you obviously do) that your particular sect ‘has it right’ –that you read the Bible ‘correctly,’ whereas other Protestants (along with us ‘godless Catholics’ ;-)) do not, HOW DO YOU KNOW (unquestionably and objectively) that your reading of the Bible is REALLY ‘correct,’ since you do not claim to have any kind of infallible charism or any kind of exclusive, Christ-protected and objective teaching authority??? This is the issue.”
How do you really know that you’re correct in believing the pope has some kind of infallible charism or exclusive, Christ-protected and objective teaching authority??? You just push the same question back one step. That’s not an answer. That’s a relocated question.
You have to know that before you put your faith in the pope. For unless you already know, apart from his claims, that the pope is what he claims to be, you can’t take refuge in the pope to authorize your belief in papal authority. That would be viciously circular.
“While (generally speaking) we Catholics may be wrong and ‘full of beans,’ how do you know (OBJECTIVELY) that you are right??? This is the question. We Catholics believe that we are right because we believe (collectively and objectively) that Christ gave us an infallible Magisterium…”
Yes, you unquestioningly believe that you’re right in believing in the Magisterium, but how do you know that you rightly believe that you are right in what you believe about the Magisterium? You keep reasoning in circles.
“…and Christ will not allow this Magisterium of the Church to lead us into formal error (e.g. Matt 16:18-19, John 14:16-17 & 16:13).”
Do you interpret your prooftexts with or without the Magisterium? You can’t use your prooftexts to prove the Magisterium if you rely on the Magisterium to prove your interpretation. Unless you can know, apart from the Magisterium, that your interpretation is correct, unless you can know, apart from the Magisterium, that your prooftexts attest the Magisterium, you can’t rely on the Magisterium to interpret them for you. Unless the Magisterium is what it claims to be, the Magisterium is in no position to interpret your prooftexts. You can’t use your interpretation of your prooftexts to validate the Magisterium, then turn right around and use the Magisterium to validate your interpretation. If your interpretation is dependant on the Magisterium, before you verify the claims of the Magisterium, then you assume what you need to prove.
So is your interpretation independent of the Magisterium? Can you interpret your prooftexts on your own? Can you be right apart from the Magisterium? Can you know what you’re right apart from the Magisterium?
If so, then you don’t need the Magisterium to function as an (allegedly) objective, binding standard. If not, then your prooftexts don’t prove anything.
That’s your hopeless dilemma.
“Whether we're right or wrong about this (viz. our Magisterium), this is our objective standard for Christian orthodoxy…”
Mormons say the same thing about the LDS hierarchy.
“…and it most certainly doesn't depend on the individual, subjective discernment of any one, single Catholic.”
It depends on Catholic groupthink. Cult members think alike, too. Ramtha is their binding, objective standard.
“Now, ... With that established, why do YOU believe that YOU have it right??? What is your OBJECTIVE reason for believing that you are orthodox???”
By giving good reasons for what I believe.
“Do your beliefs line up with historical Christianity? See the distinction and the difference between us now???”
Church history doesn’t single out any one viewpoint in particular. Church history is a record of what different groups and individuals believed at different times.
“:-) I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. And it is easily demonstrated, when it comes to Protestantism, that your statement is incorrect. For, if a Protestant pastor or individual reader of Scripture is not believed to be infallible (i.e., a final, Christ-protected interpreter and discerner of Apostolic Truth), it is therefore a given that this pastor or individual reader of Scripture may mis-interpret the Scriptures and formally teach an error.”
And the fact that the pope is merely believed to be infallible (i.e., a final, Christ-protected interpreter and discerner of Apostolic Truth) means the pope may misinterpret the Scriptures and formally teach an error. Believing it doesn’t make it so.
“Ergo, this pastor or individual reader of Scripture is NOT an objective standard of orthodoxy for Protestants; and his interpretation is most certainly not binding on all Protestants. Rather, it is only a subjective opinion and can never be more than that.”
Sure it can be more than that. It can be right. As I said before, the relevant distinction is not between subjective and objective, but right and wrong.
A correct interpretation is binding. A correct interpretation is objectively true.
“This is your problem. You don't have an objective standard of orthodoxy in Protestantism; you don't have a universally and objectively-recognized final authority. To have this, you MUST have a belief in a universally-binding and infallible interpreter of Scripture (a Protestant magisterium), and you simply do not have that. What more needs to be said??”
What more needs to be said is the way you keep resorting to this bait-n-switch scam. Having a belief in a universally-binding and infallible interpreter of Scripture is not the same thing has actually having a universally-binding and infallible interpreter of Scripture. You’re stuck on the wrong side of your own bridge. You need to bridge the chasm between your credulous make-belief in papal infallibility and the real McCoy. Your faith is not a fact. That doesn’t cross the bridge.
“No. That is an entirely different argument. I will be happy to argue that subject with you if and when you properly address this one. But, as I keep saying, the fact that all Christians (i.e., the Protestants, in particular) do not accept or believe in the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church DOES NOT effect or take away from the fact that the Catholic Magisterium IS an objective and objectively-recognized authority FOR CATHOLICS.”
Like the relationship between the cult leader and the cult members.
“When there is a serious, doctrinal dispute among Catholics, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can and does settle it (per Acts 15:2, 15:28, 16:4). This is obvious.”
i) The Roman Magisterium didn’t settle that dispute.
ii) I also don’t see you quoting any magisterial interpretations of your prooftext.
“So, WE have an objective authority (and objectively recognized standard of orthodoxy) FOR US. What the Catholic Magisterium formally teaches IS the doctrine of the Catholic Church --PERIOD.”
Definitive error. Just like a cult.
“Now, look at Protestantism. :-) You have NOTHING like this. You have no objectively-recognized authority which ALL PROTESTANTS must give assent to.”
Unlike Catholics, we don’t have a cult-leader to whom we must all give assent. What a loss.
“Rather, Protestantism is an disunified and heterodox collection of subjective beliefs based on various different (subjective and ADMITTEDLY FALLIBLE --i.e., potentially fallible) readings of Scripture. There is nothing ‘objective’ or ‘assuredly correct’ about this. And that's the problem.”
i) There’s nothing wrong with admitting one’s fallibility. What’s wrong is not admitting one’s fallibility. A fallible affectation of infallibility is not only wrong, but impervious to correction.
ii) You have subjective, fallible belief in the pope. You also rely on your fallible readings of Scripture to prooftext your credulous faith in the papacy.
“If, in accepting the authority of Rome, I (as a Catholic) merely decided (all on my own) that what Rome teaches is what God wants me to believe, THEN I would be merely exercising my personal and subjective opinion and belief. HOWEVER, ... The fact that the authority of the Roman Magisterium is (and always has been) recognized by ALL CATHOLICS (collectively) as a central tenet of our commonly-held Catholic Faith, this means that we're dealing with an OBJECTIVE phenomenon, not a subjective one.”
i) That’s highly equivocal. Collecting and collating subjective opinions doesn’t make them objective. Adding one subjective opinion to another subjective opinions yields two subjective opinions.
ii) If two people perceive the same mirage, you could try to classify their shared misperception as an “objective phenomenon.” If you wish to reduce the Magisterium to an optical illusion, that’s fine with me.
iii) Likewise, if members of the Heaven’s Gate cult commit mass suicide due to their common belief that the Mother Ship is hiding behind the Hale Bopp comet, you could try to classify that as an “objective phenomenon.” And if you wish to equate Roman Catholicism with the group psychology of a suicide cult, that’s fine with me.
“Granted, it does not apply objectively to those outside of Catholicism. Yet, neither does the objectivity of the Bible's identity as the Scriptural Word of God apply to Hindus and Buddhists.”
Which fails to distinguish between the objective authority of Scripture and subjective submission to the objective authority of Scripture.
“This is perfectly reasonable and obviously to anyone who considers the subject logically and honestly. Catholics do have an objective authority and objective standard of orthodoxy. Protestants do not.”
It’s perfectly obvious to cult members.
“I am distinguishing between what we Catholics believe about our Christian Faith and what you Protestants believe about yours; and I am illustrating the difference.”
You illustrate your gullibility. That certainly distinguishes your position from mine.
“Again, if we take things out of such a context, and look at them (for example) in a pan-religious context (in which Hindus and Buddhists are included), then obviously even the Deity of Jesus Christ is merely a ‘faith-claim,’ and ‘not a fact,’ sinceHindus and Buddhists remain unconvinced in regard to Christ's Divinity. Correct?? :-)”
You never get beyond your Catholic faith-claim. You never reason for your faith-claim.
“:-) Curious: By what authority do you claim that it is false?”
You build a false premise into your question. I don’t need authority to be right. The argument speaks for itself.
“And, even granting that it may be false (since, obviously, you do not believe in it), this has nothing to do with the argument we are having.”
Argument is a two-way street. You don’t get to unilaterally frame the debate, and thereby evade your burden of proof.
“The fact remains that WE CATHOLICS believe in it.”
And Haitians believe in voodoo.
“WE CATHOLICS believe that our Magisterium is Christ-guided and infallible; and thus, FOR US, it is a final and OBJECTIVE authority. But, you Protestants don't have anything like this FOR YOURSELVES. This is the point. There is no OBJECTIVE authority which binds and settles disputes for ALL PROTESTANTS. And this is why Protestantism is disunited and heterodoxy, and thus contrary to the Church that we see in the Bible (e.g. 1 Cornith 1:10, etc.).”
Actually, the church of Corinth was quite disunited. So you just shot yourself in the foot.
“This is why we Catholics think that Protestantism is a false, man-made faith and that you guys have a big problem. But, indeed, if you think that we have it wrong, and if you want to convert us to believe what you believe, then you must account for this problem or show us that it is not the case. :-) So, please, go ahead: I'm all-ears. :-)”
More like you’re all mouth.
To call it a problem doesn’t make it a problem. If you think that’s a problem, the onus is on you to show why that’s a problem. You don’t get to stipulate what the problem is, then demand a solution.
What you call a problem is the way it’s supposed to be. That’s how God arranged things.
[I said] “An inspired speaker or writer cannot err in what he says or writes.”
[He said] “Agreed.”
In which case you’re shifting gears from your original definition of infallibility.
“But, a non-inspired or non-infallible reader of Scripture (which is what you claim to be, right???) CAN mis-interpret what the inspired writer wrote. Is this not correct??? :-) The Bible presents this likely possibility: 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.”
You’re a fallible, uninspired reader of 2 Peter 3:15-16. So you may be misinterpreting your prooftext.
But if you are possibly misinterpreting your prooftext for the possibility of misinterpreting Scripture, then you just shot yourself in the other foot. Should I bring you a wheelchair?
[I said] “Inspiration removes the possibility of error when he writes or speaks.”
[He said] “Yep. Agreed.”
Once again, you’re shifting gears from your original definition of infallibility.
“But, it does not remove the possibility of a non-infallible person mis-reading or mis-interpreting what the inspired person wrote. Therein lies the rub. ;-)”
To say that’s the rub doesn’t make it so. You continually shirk your burden of proof.
You might as well say it’s a problem when a man marries the wrong woman–or vice versa. An unhappy marriage is a problem for one or both spouses.
But this doesn’t mean there’s a solution to that problem. We don’t have infallible foresight into how a marriage will turn out. That would be convenient, but it’s not available to us.
[I said] “So, by logical extension, the writing of an inspired writer is infallible.”
[He said] “I'm sorry, but your logic is very bad and fundamentally flawed. I seriously urge you to take an elementary Logic course. For, what you just said is totally non sequitur --that is, it does not logically follow at all. Allow me to illustrate why: If you are an inspired writer, then you obviously are infallible (that is, unable to err) when producing your writing. In other words, if God inspires you to write something down, you will not make any mistakes or use wrong words, etc. Rather, you will use the words that God is inspiring you to use. And thus, because of this, you (as an inspired writer) will infallibly produce a work that is inerrant (i.e., without errors in it).”
Which is a convoluted admission that I was right.
“However, this does not mean that this inerrant document will have the innate power or ability to make everyone who reads it infallible. This is what you'd like to imply, but it is clearly and demonstrably not the case.”
No, that’s not what I implied. Infallible readers is your hobbyhorse, not mine. You’re imputing your obsession to me. I'm sorry, but your logic is very bad and fundamentally flawed. I seriously urge you to take an elementary Logic course. For, what you just said is totally non sequitur --that is, it does not logically follow at all.
“For, the mere fact that you believe that we Catholics read inspired and inerrant Scripture wrongly ILLUSTRATES that you do not believe that a Scripture's inspired and inerrant nature makes the reader automatically infallible. Ergo, your argument does not follow. I hope you can see and admit this.”
It’s hard for me to see through the smoke of the straw man you’re burning. Try putting out the fire.
[I said] “It's completely arbitrary for you to assign infallibility to readers or interpreters rather than writers.”
[He said] “:-) Not if you believe that Christ gave us an infallible, Spirit-guided Church authority.”
A false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but your logic is very bad and fundamentally flawed. I seriously urge you to take an elementary Logic course. For, what you just said is
totally non sequitur --that is, it does not logically follow at all.
“Also, no one is denying that the inspired authors of Scripture were infallible when they wrote. Of course we believe that the Apostles, for example, were all infallible. This goes without saying.”
That’s what you’ve denied all along, until I forced you to recant.
“And while the Apostles and other apostolic men were both infallible and inspired, we believe that the Church retains its infallible understanding to this very day, even after
publicly-binding inspiration ceased.”
Telling us what Catholics believe is no reason to believe it. You’re just listening to your own voice in the shower.
“For, we Catholics do not believe that our Pope or our bishops are inspired. We merely believe that, when acting in formal magisterium, they are infallible. In other words (and this is all-important) what we believe is that Christ is faithful to the Church He established and that Christ Himself (in and through His Holy Spirit) WILL NOT ALLOW the Pope of Rome and the bishops in communion with him to teach any formal error or to impose such an error on His (Christ's) Church. And why do we believe this???? Well, not only is it the consistent, Apostolic Tradition of universal and historical Christianity…”
The Donatists demure. The Novatianists demure. The Eastern Orthodox demure. The Oriental Orthodox demure. Protestants demure.
So your claim is blatantly unhistorical, and the antithesis of universality.
“…but it is also pretty darn clear in Scripture that this is what Jesus promised. He NEVER said His Church would be free of sin or sinners. But, He did say that He would send the "Spirit of Truth" (the Holy Spirit) Who would "REMAIN" with His Church "ALWAYS," "GUIDING" it "in ALL TRUTH" (John 14:16-17 & 16:13).”
i) Are you interpreting your prooftexts with or without the guidance of the Roman Magisterium? If you did so without the Magisterium, then the Magisterium is superfluous.
But if you did so with the Magisterium, then you don’t know that those passages actually denote the Magisterium. For unless they denote the Magisterium, the Magisterium isn’t divinely-guided into all truth–in which case it can’t refer those passages to itself. Back to your hopeless dilemma.
“And this Church received this ever-present Spirit of Truth on Pentecost…”
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit didn’t descend on Roman bishops. Rather, he descended on the 120 believers in the Upper Room.
“…and He is with us (protecting us from error and guiding us in Truth) to this very day. And this is why 1 Tim 3:15 calls the Church (not the Bible apart from the Church) the ‘pillar and foundation of Truth.’”
i) That’s just your subjective, fallible interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15. How do you really know that your interpretation is correct?
You can’t appeal to the church of Rome, for unless you already know that it’s describing the church of Rome, the church of Rome can’t infallibly interpret that passage.
ii) In context, it has reference to the church of Ephesus, not the church of Rome.
“For it is the Church (the Church that Christ founded) that has received the ever-present and remaining and guiding Spirit of Truth. This is our Catholic belief. Deny it all you want.”
Just like I deny Mormon belief.
“But, be careful if you deny it, because, if you do that, you essentially call Jesus Christ a ‘liar’ and present Him as someone Who does not keep His promises. :-)”
To assume he made that promise to the church of Rome begs the question. You make Christ a liar by putting words in his mouth.
“For, if the Catholic Church really committed apostasy at some point in its history, as you Protestants believe --that is, if we succumbed, not merely to sinful corruption, but to actual error; to an actual corruption of the Apostolic Faith itself (thus requiring the advent of Protestantism), then it therefore
follows (logically and unavoidably) that Jesus was lying and unfaithful to His Word when He said what He is recorded as saying in John 14:16-17 and 16:13. So, do you Protestants really believe in the promises of Christ in the Bible or not?? :-) We do.”
Jesus didn’t promise anything to the church of Rome in Jn 14:16-17 and 16:13. You’re reading the passage with tinted glasses. What you see isn’t what’s in the text, but what’s projected onto the text through your tinted glasses.
“Let me educate you a little bit about Catholicism: As I have consistently pointed out in this very discussion, Catholicism is defined by what our Magisterium formally teaches. Unlike academic-based Protestantism, it is not defined by what some Catholic or nominally-Catholic theologian or academic may
say. And the obvious reality is that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches (and has always taught) that the Bible is inerrant --that it contains no errors. Go read our Catechism and you will see this. Also, and perhaps you are not mature enough to understand this.”
It’s always funny to encounter someone like you, who’s too conceited to know his own limitations. My information is based on Catholic sources. Cf. H. Vorgrimler, ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (Herder & Herder, 1969), 3:204-207.
You are obviously unaware of this.
“This may be so with certain more-complicated issues. Disputes and confusions may arise over something the Magisterium has taught, and it has happened. However, if such a dispute or misunderstanding arises, we can always appeal to the Magisterium to clarify certain points and to eliminate any confusion. The final interpretation, even of a Magisterial teaching, does not reside with the individual Catholic.”
There is no final interpretation in Catholicism. Every pope (unless he dies a month later) issues a new set of encyclicals. So the reintepretive process is never-ending.
“Does it? :-) Come now. Leave your Bible on a shelf and let me see it ‘interpret itself.’ You are playing semantic games, and you know it. What you mean is that you use various Scripture verses to support other Scripture verses.”
No, that’s not what I mean. Later OT writers interpret earlier OT writers. NT writers interpret OT writers.
“And while this has value when one has a sound understanding of the Apostolic Faith, it depends entirely on which Scripture verses one CHOOSES and WHY ONE CHOOSES those Scripture verses and not other ones. In other words,subjectivity is at play BIG TIME…”
You mean, the way you cherry-pick verses out of context to prooftext Catholicism? Nice to see you admit your subjective, arbitrary methodology.
“…and IF subjectivity is all one brings to this process (not the historical, Apostolic Faith), one can end up using Scripture to establish errors rather than orthodoxy. It happens in Protestantism all the time.”
It happens in Catholicism all the time.
“This is why you (for example) disagree with the doctrines of other Protestants --because they "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" differently than you do.”
And the church of Rome is yet another denomination that uses Scripture differently.
“So, again, how does one solve such a predicament?”
What predicament?
“Who decides who's right??? Please answer this, Steve!”
i) If I’m right, no one has to decide that I’m right. Being right is not contingent on someone deciding that I’m right.
ii) Who decides if the pope is right? If you say the pope can decide that for himself, then you’ve jettisoned your argument. If one man can decide for himself that he’s right, then there’s no principled objection against others doing so.
iii) It’s not a question of who decides, but the basis of deciding. Whoever has the better argument.
iv) Who decided that you were right? The pope? But unless you’re right about the pope, he can’t decide that you’re right. In that case, he can’t decide for you. Rather, you have to decide for yourself that the pope is right before you can rely on the pope.
[I said] “Later OT writers interpret earlier OT writers. NT writers interpret OT writers.”
[He said] “Amen.”
A belated concession on your part.
“But, need I point out that these ‘later’ writers were not ‘Scripture.’ Rather, they were PERSONS (and Divinely inspired and infallible PERSONS) who infallibly interpreted the earlier Scriptures. So, ‘Scripture’ DID NOT ‘interpret Scripture.’”
A false dichotomy. Bible writers interpret the Bible in their writings. Bible writers pen the scriptures. So later scriptures often interpret earlier scriptures.
“...nor does that process continue with you…”
Now you’re changing the subject.
“However, we believe that our Magisterium is infallible. This is the difference b/t us”.
And little kids believe in the Tooth Fairy.
“No. But, it does clearly explain the Catholic Faith in fundamental, direct, and comprehensively clear ways, WHICH SCRIPTURE IS NOT (typically) DESIGNED TO DO.”
Now you’re backpedaling on what a text can do.
“And, on top of this, if a Catholic doesn't understand something in the Catechism, we have approved pastors and teachers in the Church who can explain it to him, leading all the way up to the Roman Magisterium, if necessary.”
Now you’re dissembling. Your “approved pastors and teachers” are fallible. Bishops are ordinarily fallible. Indeed, the pope is ordinarily fallible.
“But, again, you Protestants have nothing like this to unite all Protestants in ‘orthodoxy.’ Why not?? :-)”
Catholics are united in error.
“Correct. But, then again, it's a catechism. Catechisms, by the nature of the type of literature that they are, don't need much ‘interpretation.’”
Once again, you’re backpedaling on what a text can do.
“They are a list and detailed explanation of specific doctrines. But, as I said, Scripture does not typically read like this. If it did, there would be far less dispute over Christian doctrines.”
In that case you forfeit the right to prooftext Catholicism from Scripture. Can’t have it both ways.
“Right. :-) But, so what? We don't claim to base our faith on what is written in our Catechism ALONE.”
You’re confusing perspicuity with sufficiency. You’ve done that before.
“We still retain our pastors and teachers and, above all, our Magisterium. Our Catechism is not designed to replace these things. :-) Rather, you are the one advocating Scripture ALONE. And this is the source of your problem. Scripture was never intended to be used that way. It was never intended to replace living oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15) or Church Magisterium (Acts 15:2, Heb 13:17, Matt 16:18-19, etc.). The Bible is actually pretty clear about that issue. :-) It's actually quite amazing to me that you Protestants continue to ignore this Biblical truth.”
i) You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Out of one side of your mouth you tell us that Scripture is unclear, while–out of the other side of your mouth you keep quoting Scripture to prove your point.
ii) You’re not quoting “living oral tradition.” Rather, you’re quoting Scripture.
“:-) With all respect, you don't understand what you are reading in 1 Corinth 12. If you understand the historical terminology, it actually matches up with Catholic ecclesiology exactly. ;-) I'd be happy to explain this to you in a later discussion (You can email me if you wish at: brock@catholicbiblenetwork.com).”
You’re not a licensed Catholic theologian. You have no institutional standing. You’re not an official spokesman for Rome. You’re just a lay Catholic on an ego trip.
“As for right now, I think you miss my point: The point is that Scripture is not a substitute for an authoritative Christian teacher. Christ established them, and we are supposed to have them (e.g. 2 Tim 2:2) and obey them (Heb 13:17). Again, when push comes to shove, there is NOTHING like this in
Protestantism. I have never met a Protestant who truly accepts and believes in Heb 13:17.”
i) You’re equivocating. The leaders in Heb 13:17 weren’t infallible.
ii) Moreover, the NT doesn’t command blind submission to church leaders. After all, some church leaders were false teachers. The NT warns Christians to be on the lookout for false teachers. That means Christians have to exercise some degree of independent judgment, using the Bible as their standard.
iii) I never met a Catholic who truly believes Heb 13:17. You pick and choose which Christian leaders you obey. You don’t obey Eastern Orthodox bishops, or Oriental orthodox bishops, or Lutheran bishops, or Anglican bishops, or Presbyterian elders, or Baptist pastors.
“Well, yes and no. He is fallible in a canonical sense, yes. ...that is to say, he is clearly not the final word on doctrine for the universal Church, and he is subject to higher authority in the Church (as was St. Paul himself: Gal 2:2). But, in an organic sense, if my priest is faithful and orthodox, then he
may be said to be ‘infallible’ (i.e., trustworthy and not prone to error) in an organic sense.”
Of course, a Protestant can add similar caveats. If a Protestant pastor is faithful to the word of God, then he may be said to be “infallible” in an “organic” sense.
“You are, however, speaking canonically; and so, viewed from that perspective, what you say above is of course true. But, our faith is not in the parish priest, but in the heritage and the formal teaching of the Church that he serves. If he is faithful to this heritage and formal teaching, then he is to be regarded as a trustworthy and reliable teacher ...at least as far as ordinary circumstances are concerned.”
Once again, a Protestant could add similar caveats. If a Protestant pastor is faithful to the word of God, then he is to be regarded as a trustworthy and reliable teacher.
“Most Evangelical Protestant pastors have no such ties to an established, historical (to say nothing of magisterial!) heritage. This makes them pretty much ‘freelancers’ as far as their ‘authority’ is concerned. And this is of course a big problem.”
Calling it a “problem” doesn’t make it a problem. They don’t have to have ties to an established, historical heritage. They have to have ties to divine revelation (i.e. the Bible).
They don’t need “authority.” They only need to be right. And you don’t need authority to be right.
Consider all the Arian bishops in the early church. They had authority, but they were dead wrong. Conversely, orthodox laymen were right.
The Sanhedrin had authority to condemn Jesus. But it was fatally wrong. By contrast, the women at the tomb, who had no authority, were right.
“For, if one subscribes to the preaching of ‘Pastor Bob,’ one needs to ask from whom or from what does ‘Pastor Bob’ receive his authority??”
The way you frame the question begs the question.
“I give you the Biblical principal of Romans 10:14-16. Who ‘sent’ Pastor Bob? :-) From what Apostle of Christ does he derive his ministry????”
i) By what authority to do you presume to interpret Rom 10:14-16? Who sent you? Are you a papal nuncio?
ii) You miss the point of Rom 10:14-16. A Christian evangelist is not the source of his own message. He doesn’t speak for himself. He speaks for another. He’s transmitting the revelation of the gospel. A spokesman for God.
“That's actually not true. Our belief is that a Pope is potentially infallible in his "ordinary Magisterium" as well --that is, in all his formal pronouncements, to which we must give our willing assent (see Vatican I in 1871).”
You equivocate. Submission to all his pronouncements doesn’t assume that all his pronouncements are infallible.
“It is a common misconception that infallibility is limited to an ex cathedra statement. Through an ex cathedra statement, it is made clear and unmistakable that a Pope is speaking infallibly. But, a Pope can teach infallibly apart from an ex cathedra statement. Again, I would be happy to explain this in detail to you in a future discussion, if you like.”
By what authority do you presume to interpret Vatican I?
“My friend, ... :-) No one is saying that teaching cannot be conveyed through the written word. It obviously can be.”
Another belated concession on your part.
“BUT, ... And this is our point ... To rely on the written word (or Word) ALONE is a big mistake, and not the Apostolic intention. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul says: ‘Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the Traditions, even as I delivered them to you.’”
i) You constantly quote Scripture as if the meaning of Scripture is transparently obvious. As if your own interpretations are unquestionably true. Your method sabotages your attack on the perspicuity of Scripture.
ii) You’re shifting the issue from whether we can interpret Scripture on our own to whether reliance on Scripture alone is a “big mistake.”
iii) Paul isn’t coming to our church to teach us in person. All we have from Paul is the written legacy he left us.
iv) Paul penned 1 Cor 11:2 before the NT was complete. He’s not discussing the sufficiency of the entire Bible.
“He also speaks in many of this letters how he will set things right (viz. many issues) when he arrives. :-)”
I haven’t seen St. Paul visit the Vatican lately. Does St. Paul instruct the faithful every week at St. Peter’s basilica?
“So, Paul CLEARLY did not intend his teaching to be limited to Scripture alone. Learn to read God's Word comprehensively, and you will see this and many other Apostolic truths.”
i) His written teaching wasn’t the totality of Scripture. It was just a part of Scripture.
ii) Funny how you direct me back to Scripture. “Reading God’s Word comprehensivenly [sic]” isn’t oral tradition. So your advice is schizophrenic.
“:-) And was there ‘a Bible’ when the Psalmist was writing??? Sorry to break it to you, but there wasn't. The Bible has not been canonized yet. ...not even the entire OT.”
Irrelevant. There was Scripture. The Psalmist is alluding to earlier Scriptures. That was his teacher.
“Nor did ancient Judaism subscribe to Scripture alone, nor were ‘the rules’ of God limited to what was written, even in regard to the Torah. Ever hear of the Mishna (the oral Torah)?? :-) Go ask an Orthodox Jew about it sometime.”
Jesus rejected the authority of the oral Torah. You’re siding with the enemies of Christ.
“You are reading your own meaning into the Psalm, and this illustrates EXACTLY the problem that we're discussing. With respect, you are imposing your historical and theological ignorance on the Sacred Word, and thus interpreting it (wrongly) to mean what you wish it to mean, rather than what it is truly (historically, theologically, and actually) referring to. Ps 119 is not referring to the Bible. It is referring to God and to His Word, which is NOT the Scriptures, but the eternal Person of Christ! :-) Your mistake is rooted in your modern, Protestant assumption (misconception) that the ‘Word of God’ refers exclusively to the Scriptures --that is, the Scriptural Word of God. But, in most of Scripture, the ‘Word of God’ refers to the Logos or to the oral Tradition of the Gospel --that is, the Gospel in all of its comprehensive FULLNESS, as it was preached ORALLY or understood comprehensively by the Church --see 1 Thess 2:13.”
i) Throughout this entire thread you act like your own pope. You never quote any Magisterial interpretations of your prooftexts. Rather, you exhibit unbridled confidence in your ability to interpret any verse of Scripture on your own.
ii) In context, Ps 119 is an extended meditation on the Deuteronomy and Proverbs.
iii) You don’t have any extant oral traditions of St. Paul’s teaching.
“On the contrary. :-) I have no problem admitting that I can bring my subjective perceptions to what I read, etc.. However, as I pointed out above, reading the Catechism is not the same thing as reading Scripture. Scripture is not written like a Catechism.”
True. The Bible is infinitely superior to the Catechism of the Catholic church.
“A Catechism is a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the doctrines of a particular faith --carefully describing what a particular faith believes. Scripture doesn't do this, for the most part. When one reads Scripture, one must glean the meaning out of it, and this involves a great deal of interpretation. For example, while Scripture may speak of Father, Son, and Spirit, it NEVER gives us a direct or comprehensive definition of the Trinity. Scripture NEVER tells us specifically that God is ‘only One God in three con substantial, co-eternal Divine Persons.’ You, even as a Protestant, believe this BECAUSE the Catholic Church carefully defined the Trinity for you (in the 4th Century). If you read Scripture apart from this Catholic understanding (this clarification of Apostolic Tradition), it is quite possible to come up with all sorts of alternate explanations of how Father, Son, and Spirit (supposedly) relate to each other. Do you realize this??”
I realize that you’re using the same argument as the Arians. Nice to see you show your true colors.
“Huh? :-) Your statement makes no sense. Read the New Testament. Read Acts 15. When there was a dispute among Christians, CHURCH AUTHORITY was called upon to settle the dispute.”
No, church authority didn’t resolve that dispute. For instance, as Paul makes abundantly clear in Galatians, he has direct authority from God. He can’t be overruled by another apostle.
What we have in Acts 15 is a get-together in which leaders in the early church came to a mutual agreement. They discussed the issue as equals. Very collegial. They talked the issue over with one another and came to a meeting of minds.
“Things were not left as they were. This is because unity of doctrine is essential to the Apostolic Faith (1 Corinth 1:10). It is apparently (though sadly and VERY unBiblically) not important to you!”
Actually, the policy hammered out in Acts 15 was a pragmatic compromise.
“Also, you say ‘some arguments are better than others.’ :-) Okay. That being the case, who gets to decide this?? Your statement presupposes the existence of a ‘judge’ to determine which argument is better.”
i) No, it doesn’t presuppose that. Some arguments are intrinsically better than others. Whether or not that’s recognized is a different issue.
Some arguments are logically valid while other arguments are logically invalid. That’s intrinsic to the argument.
Some arguments have true premises while other arguments have false premises. That’s intrinsic to the argument.
Some arguments have good evidence while other arguments have poor evidence. That’s intrinsic to the argument.
Everyone could reject a sound argument, but the argument would still be sound.
“Who decides” doesn’t make one argument better than another.
ii) No one person “gets to decide” for everyone else. If you think one person is entitled to decide for others, that, itself, is something requiring an argument.
If you think the pope gets to decide, then you need to present an argument for why the pope gets to decide. If you don’t have an argument for why the pope gets to decide, then what reason is there to believe the pope gets to decide?
If, on the other hand, you do have an argument for why the pope gets to decide, then it’s up to the person you’re arguing with to decide if the Catholic argument is better than the Protestant argument.
The pope can’t decide that for us when the very question at issue is whether the pope has the right to make those decisions for us.
“So, how, in your imagination, is such a phenomenon judged?? By ‘democratic vote’ / ‘majority rule’?? By you alone? ;-) How??
Arguments should be judged by the intrinsic merits of the argument. The process is a red herring.
“Sigh! And who determines who is right?? :-) Are you being deliberately evasive or do you genuinely not see reality??”
Who determines if the pope is right? If you think the pope is right, who determines if you rightly think the pope is right? What if you wrongly think the pope is right?
Your procedure is self-refuting. A Catholic apologist can’t very well argue for the papacy if, in the next breath, he tells us that we can’t judge whether his argument is any good.
“To you?? :-) Ergo, you are judging and deciding, correct?”
Of course I’m judging and deciding. When a Catholic tries to convince a Protestant that Catholicism is true, then the Protestant must judge whether or not the argument is convincing.
What’s the point of trying to persuade a Protestant if you turn around and tell him that he’s not entitled to find your argument persuasive?
You can’t begin by telling him that the pope decides, for that’s the very issue in dispute. You have to make a case for papal claims, in which event, it’s up to your Protestant interlocutor to evaluate your case.
“Uh, .... Go read Acts 15 and Galations 2:2-10. :-) You are confusing this with Gal 2:11-14, where Paul conflicts with Peter about another matter afterward, and it has nothing to do with doctrine.”
No, I wasn’t referring to that.
“The section that I'm referring to involves the disagreement between Paul/Barnabas and the Judaizers at Antioch. Paul/Barnabas were teaching that Gentile Christians were full members of the Church and did not need to be circumcised (to become Jews) in order to be saved. The Judaizers were saying that one must become a Jew in order to be saved by Christ. So, all of them went up to Jerusalem to appeal TO PETER and the other Apostles about this issue, and to receive an AUTHORITATIVE decision from them about it (see Gal 2:2).”
No, Paul didn’t appeal to Peter. Both Peter and Paul went up to Jerusalem. Both of them explained their actions. Both of them made their case.
“Looks like you don't know the Scriptures --see Acts 15:7-11. Peter gives the definitive teaching for the council. :-)
i) By your own admission, you don’t get to decide what Acts 15 means. You forfeited the right to prooftext Scripture.
ii) No, Peter doesn’t give the definitive teaching for the council. He speaks, then Paul and Barnabas speak, then James speaks.
In the text, Peter’s presentation isn’t more or less “definitive” than Paul’s.
And Peter isn’t speaking for the council. He is speaking to the council. Speaking before the council. Not speaking on behalf of the council. Indeed, he’s defending his actions.
“So, your faith is a heterodox faith?? Okay. Gotcha.”
To defer to divine silence is hardly equivalent to heterodoxy. What’s heterodox is for Catholic ecclesiolaters to invent dogmas that lack revelatory support.
“So much for 1 Corinth 1:10. And so much for John 14:16-17 & 16:13. The Spirit has supposedly left us in confusion, according to your belief. A little word of advice, my friend: ‘God is not the author of confusion’ (1 Cor 14:33). Christ unites. It is the devil who scatters.”
I notice that you’re not quoting a magisterial interpretation of 1 Cor 1:10 or 14:33. Lay Catholic epologists are little popes who decide for themselves what the Bible means.
“:-) The heck it's not.”
That’s not an argument.
“I see. And what makes you so sure He's been ‘silent’ on this matter?? :-) That's a pretty big (and immature) assumption on your part. ...especially given that, for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, all Christians believed about Baptism what modern Catholics and more conservative Protestants currently believe about it.”
i) For the first 1500 years, all Christians didn’t believe the same thing about the sacraments.
ii) Moreover, you don’t care what all Christians believe. You only care what the Magisterium believes.
“But, let me make sure I understand you: You're saying that Christ commanded His Apostles to do something but never explained to them what it was or how it works --that the Apostles had no understanding of the nature of Baptism??? This is your contention?? :-) Amazing. And, again, need I point out that the overwhelming majority of Protestants (who subscribe to sola Scriptura just as you do) don't agree with you about God being "silent" regarding the nature of Baptism.”
i) It’s just a fact that Christ and the apostles left many things unstated. That’s the reality.
Catholics are offended by reality. They base their theology, not on what God has actually said and done, but on their preconception of what God ought to say and do.
ii) I didn’t say God was silent on baptism. That’s a simplistic all-or-nothing proposition.
iii) There can be more than one permissible way to do something. Not every detail is equally important or obligatory. God leaves some details to the discretion of Christians.
iv) Catholic sacramentology has evolved over the centuries. So by your own yardstick, the early church must have been doing it wrong.
iv) Ultimately, everything happens according to God’s plan and providence. Everything serves a purpose in God’s master plan for the world. If some Christians baptize babies while other Christians don’t, God willed that diversity.
“Understood. And you would apply this same principal to monogamous marriage, correct? For Scripture does not maintain that marriage must be monogamous or that polygamy is wrong. So, is it okay for a Christian to have multiple wives, even as did King David, ‘a man after God's own heart’?? You agree with this, yes??”
i) You have a habit of posing loaded questions which build your own tendentious assumptions into the premises. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the data.
ii) That said, Christians are under no obligation to be more pious than the word of God.
“Likewise, since Scripture doesn't clearly define the Trinity as the (Catholic) Council of Nicaea did, we should therefore conclude that Trinitarian doctrine is not ‘nailed down’ or mandatory for Christians, and so Arianism and Sabellianism are not heresies, but equally orthodox with Trinitatian Christianity. This is correct?”
i) You’re the one, not me, who imagines that the witness of Scripture is equally compatible with Arianism and Sebellianism. Your challenge is self-condemnatory.
ii) And it’s Protestant Bible scholars who are doing the spadework defending the Trinity and high Christology from Scripture.
“Likewise, since no verse of Scripture gives us the list of books which supposedly make up the Bible (since the list of books which make up the Bible were chosen by Catholic councils), it therefore follows that we ourselves may pick and choose which present books of the Bible we wish to believe in and recognize as God's Word, and we can rip other books out of our Bibles if we find them unconvincing or objectionable. After all, if God really wanted to ‘nail down’ which books make up the Bible, He would have included a detailed list in Scripture itself, correct? So, let's not feel bound by what a lot of ancient guys in ‘pointy hats’ decided at some Catholic council in the 4th Century, right? Seriously, my friend ... Do you agree with all of this??”
You dust off all these old chestnuts as if I hadn’t refuted them on multiple occasions. I’m not coming to these issues as a novice.
“I explained this in my earlier exchange with you. Go back and read what I wrote. The magisterium of ancient Judaism was limited to the Torah (the Law), which was binding on ALL Jews. The Sanhedrin had no authority to bind any Jew regarding issues which were ancillary to the Torah, and this is why different sects believed different things; and such things remained unresolved for that reason.”
All you’ve done is to repeat your undocumented claim. You present no evidence for your assertion. You seem to be basing your claim on the antiquated notion that the Sadducean canon was confined to the Pentateuch. But that exploded theory has been refuted by better scholarship. Cf. R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 86-91.
“But, the New Covenant enacted a new Magisterium with far greater and more far reaching authority --i.e., Matt 16:19, 18:18, etc.”
Aside from the fact that you’re substituting assertions in lieu of arguments, your contrast tacitly concedes the irrelevance of a Magisterium. If 2nd temple Jews could get along without the papacy, then it’s inessential to orthodoxy or the interpretation of Scripture. The people of God don’t require the Roman Magisterium.
“This may sound clever to you (or to some other ignorant person), but it is simply not the reality. Rome does settle issues, just as Jerusalem did before it.”
That’s not responsive to what I said. Whenever Rome speaks, that just opens up a new can of worms. For instance:
“But, Protestantism is incapable of doing so. Ergo, my point. Ergo, end of argument.”
Except that many NT letters, like 1 John, were written to settle disputes. Imagine John’s opponents using your Catholic argument: “Well, 1 John doesn’t settle anything!”
“:-) Ha! I'm sorry, but it's really pointless to debate with someone if you are going to be this unrealistic and irrational.”
I appreciate your candid self-assessment.
“You are speaking out of sheer ignorance. You may like this to be the case, but it simply isn't. No rational student of Catholicism would ever say such a thing. You clearly have no consideration for the realities of the Catholic experience. Thankfully, not all Protestants are as divorced from reality as
you; and they are happy to admit (even though they disagree with Catholicism) that what you are saying above is demonstrably untrue.”
You say it’s demonstrably untrue, but you don’t demonstrate its untruth.
“Does it? And how does it express it on its own??”
Again, one function of apostolic letters was to settle disputes at a distance. But that doesn’t comport with your preconceived theory, so you snub the apostles.
“What about non-Christians? If the Bible is God's Truth, aren't even non-Christians bound by what it contains??? :-) Yet, this of course presupposes that someone is reading it AND reading it correctly, right???”
Unbelievers are capable of understanding the Bible.
“You are an intellectual sophomore who thinks he's clever, but who knows nothing about the Catholic Faith. Being a Catholic does not mean that I cannot interpret Scripture. Rather, it means that I am not my own FINAL interpreter of Scripture --my own FINAL authority. This is the difference between you and me. You ARE your OWN final interpreter of Scripture. ...even despite the fact that you are not educated or mature enough to read the Holy Word correctly or consistently.”
You haven’t quoted magisterial interpretations for any of your prooftexts. You've been flying by the seat of your pants from start to finish. In practice, you’ve made yourself the final interpreter of Scripture.
“Which settles nothing in any binding or authoritative way! You are not trusting in God's providence, my friend. You are trusting in your ability to interpret God's Word. You go by your own interpretation alone by which the Scriptures thoroughly speak against (Prov 3:5, 2 Pet 1:20-21). But I digress.”
i) God intends for his people to interpret the Bible. That’s not a problem. That’s how he designed it.
ii) And you contradict yourself by citing Scripture. That’s only as good as your interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20-21. You haven’t cited any infallible magisterial interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20-21.
iii) In context, 2 Pet 1:20-21 concerns the inspiration of prophecy rather than the interpretation of prophecy. It stands in contrast to false prophecy.
In that regard, the papacy is a fine example of the very thing 2 Pet 1:20-21 admonishes. Popes are like false prophets who presume to speak in God’s name when God hasn’t spoken to them or given them words to speak.
iv) You’re citation of Prov 3:5 is counterproductive since the point of the admonition is to rely on God’s revealed wisdom in Proverbs rather than unaided observation.
But that’s the problem with your rote prooftexting. You thoughtlessly rattle off conventional Catholic prooftexts
That's funny, him calling you an intellectual sophomore who knows nothing about the Catholi faith.
ReplyDeleteHe is really confused.
TL: DR
ReplyDeleteMorrison said:
ReplyDelete"TL: DR"
WRT Morrison: PEBKAC.
Thanks for your hard work and insight as always Steve
ReplyDeleteAny chance you'll add a print friendly button to your blogger setup that eliminates the sidebar when printing?
ReplyDeleteThank you for adding the print feature. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a pest, but any chance you can find a print feature that includes the comments as well. They often add value to the post.
I think the following link may provide assistance:
http://www.bloggerbuster.com/2008/05/how-to-print-your-blogger-posts.html