tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116761459386808418..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: By Scripture aloneRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87287954303419512892010-03-30T09:11:12.418-04:002010-03-30T09:11:12.418-04:00"[But...] For more than he [Tolkien] disagree..."[But...] For more than he [Tolkien] disagreed with any particular idea or element in Lewis' writings, he repudiated the very idea of a LAYMAN serving as a popular apologist for the Christian faith. This view stemmed from the insistence of Tolkien's Catholic tradition on the very different roles of clergy and laity. What Lewis took upon himself was, in Tolkien's judgement, none of Lewis' business: the defence of the Christian faith was the province of the ordained priesthood. Though Tolkien himself could perhaps have written a strong and appealing commendation of his own beliefs, he did not think he had the right to do so and in his view, neither did Lewis." <br /><br />- Alan Jacobs, THE NARNIAN: THE LIFE AND IMAGINATION OF CS LEWIS (NY: HarperCollins, 2005), p 199.<br /><br />Ps: regarding the "sexual irregularity of modem [sic] popes"... is that the new term for the e-pologist, updated from Finney's "paper pope"?Tom Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06246157794276270490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38371029868511609212007-03-22T12:06:00.000-04:002007-03-22T12:06:00.000-04:00Good post. Much detail.It's interesting to follow...Good post. Much detail.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to follow a populorization of this argument by Rob Bell. The basic thrust of Bell’s argument seems to be that the Bible can not be the only authority because the Bible does not contain a list of which books belong in the Bible. He uses this (and some other issues) to jump to the conclusion that the church has the authority to “bind and loose,” the authority to “make new interpretations of the Bible” based on what essentially amounts to group consensus. <BR/><BR/>True, there was a clearly-reasoned process by which the books of the New Testament were chosen, but there is another conclusion which can be reached. Dr. R. C. Sproul addresses this issue directly while discussing the selection process:<BR/><BR/>"… Some people take the position that the church is a higher authority than the Bible because the only reason the Bible has any authority is that the church declared what books the Bible would contain. Most Protestants, however, take a different view of the matter and point out that when the decision was made as to what books were canonical, they used the Latin term recipemus, which means “we receive.” What the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and in origin, and therefore we submit to their authority. It’s one thing to make something authoritative, and it’s another thing to recognize something that already is authoritative. Those human decisions did not make something that was not authoritative suddenly authoritative, but rather the church was bowing … to that which they recognized to be sacred Scripture." http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=15<BR/><BR/>There is a place for the secondary authority of the church. <BR/><BR/>Keep posting!<BR/><BR/>J. K.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51246419337309270992007-03-17T06:06:00.000-04:002007-03-17T06:06:00.000-04:00Pertinacious P, I'm not sure if you either missed ...Pertinacious P, I'm not sure if you either missed my irony or doubled it completely, but my list of celebrities was stringing out the joke that "celebs get a fast-track annulment if they share a name with a Pope" (eg, Keith Urban, geddit).<BR/><BR/>More seriously, why is it that Catholics can say with utmost certainity that every Protestant divorce is a black mark against Protestantism (Jesus' words about adultery and St Paul's words about desertion be blowed), but when someone says, "Well, let's examine how many Catholics re-marry in the RCC after an 'annulment' that was _not_ granted because the bride and groom turned out to be half-siblings?", Caths suddenly get very coy, oh no, can't possibly judge, we don't know all the details, we don't want to get legalistic and moralistic about such personal circumstances? One thinks of Mother Theresa, campaigning to keep divorce illegal in Ireland, but fine about her own friend Diana divorcing Prince Charles because she "wasn't happy" in her marriage. You will excuse us sep breths for being less than overwhelmed by Actually Existing Catholicism's degree of devotion to lifelong binding wedding vows, relative to our own side's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168984501302498832007-01-16T16:55:00.000-05:002007-01-16T16:55:00.000-05:00"[*] In the sense of 'Avoid doing it as much as yo...<I>"[*] In the sense of 'Avoid doing it as much as you can', rather than 'You will go to hell for doing it'.</I><BR/><BR/>I appreciate the comments to which this note was appended. However, the note blurs an important issue for Catholics, which is what constitutes a mortal sin. The matter is subtler than your remark would seem to allow. Though killing somebody could be murder, not all killing is murder, obviously. Hence, other factors besides the objective act of killing must be taken into consideration. In moral reasoning, Catholics distinguish (1) motives, (2) the act itself, and (3) circumstances. The act itself could objectively fall under the heading of a mortal sin, but to formally qualify as mortal sin, the other factors have to come into play as well. For example a circumstance might be that one is ignorant that an act is mortally sinful. In that case, even though the act is objectively sinful, you wouldn't be subjectively as culpable as you would be if you knowingly committed the act. Furthermore, motives come into play. Are you willingly turning your back on God and His will for you by committing this act, or are you not? Hence, an act may be a mortal sin, but the Catholic Church isn't going to tell you you're "going to hell" for an act without appraising you of your responsibility of forming your conscience properly in light of all these criteria, starting with the truth about what is and what is not sexually disordered (in this case).Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168983739220754522007-01-16T16:42:00.000-05:002007-01-16T16:42:00.000-05:00"Nicole Kidman . . . Tom Cruise . . . Keith Urban ...<I>"Nicole Kidman . . . Tom Cruise . . . Keith Urban . . . <BR/>John Leo, Dirk Benedict, Innocent Vincent, Linus Torvalds, Dick Gregory, Paias Wingti, or John Paul Young . . ."</I><BR/><BR/>Good gracious, Tom, you're really going for broke here! While I know you guys don't believe for a moment that "the article on which the Church stands or falls" is not to be found in the high moral ground of <I>People Magazine</I>, these tawdry stories surely do need addressing, like all the tawdry things in everybody's closet, including yours and mine. I read with interest Gary North's scathing criticisms of Randall Terry's abandonment of his wife. Certainly, though we do not know the details (neither does North), divorce is a sad commentary on our day and time. Is there any group who is immune to it? I'm talking with a young father now (Baptist by upbringing) who is contemplating leaving his family, trying to persuade him not to do so. Sin and hypocrisy is all around us. But here's the deal: even if the Catholic Church were as guilty as you suggest in "rubber stamping" civil divorces in its annulment tribunals (which I do not believe for a moment), you still have this with which to contend: the Catholic Church has never taught nor does she now teach that a sacramentally valid marriage can be ended or that a person who leaves such a relationship can be "re-married." She has major programs that have proven effective in salvaging marriages in trouble, such as Marriage Renewal and <A HREF="http://www.retrouvaille.org/" REL="nofollow">Retrouvaille</A> -- a Lifeline for married couples (open to non-Catholics). But, of course, you will never read about these in <I>People Magazine</I> or see anything about it on TV.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168982302297772872007-01-16T16:18:00.000-05:002007-01-16T16:18:00.000-05:00Anonymous: You distinguishe a "feud over minor poi...Anonymous: You distinguishe a "feud over minor points" from "the issues which divide Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not trivial." So who decides whether an issue is "trivial" or not? By what criteria? Biblical criteria? Which ones? What if your disagreement with a brother Christian is over which issues are "trivial" and what biblical criteria are relevant? Neither Quakers nor the Salvation Army baptize or commemorate the Lord’s Supper (they have zero sacraments). Is that a “trivial” difference, since they’re not Catholic? <BR/><BR/>You wrote: <I>Even in a perfect world where there was complete doctrinal unity based on Scripture, the existence of numerous "denominations" would not necessarily be a bad thing.</I><BR/><BR/>If what you meant was national and local churches, I would see no problem with that. The Catholic Church is divided up in various ways by geographic region and different rites (Latin and Greek, etc.), and each diocese has a certain measure of autonomy, most certainly, as was the case in the early Church. But what we mean by "denominations" today is independent confessional bodies with nothing tying them together but a nebulous profession of common "Christian" faith; but as soon as they begin articulating what they understand by these faiths, it becomes apparent that they understand quite different and often contradictory things. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists consider an "adult" profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism, while Presbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination of the elect to be an essential doctrine, but Free Methodists do not. Nazarines consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not. Calvinists consider the "irresistability of grace" an essential belief, while Lutherans do not. Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not. Presbyterians regard the belief in the "total depravity" of man essential, but Methodists do not. The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not. Mennonites view nonparticipation in military service as essential, but Baptists do not. Baptists consider "altar calls" essential, but Presbyterians do not.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168705562289753802007-01-13T11:26:00.000-05:002007-01-13T11:26:00.000-05:00Luther's German translation of the Bible does not ...<I>Luther's German translation of the Bible does not exclude James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.</I><BR/><BR/>True. My point is that, although he includes them, he lists them as <I>non-canonical</I> books in the <I>first edition</I> of his <I>Deutsche Bibel</I>. Look and see for yourself.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168705338048492502007-01-13T11:22:00.000-05:002007-01-13T11:22:00.000-05:00I have updated the cross-references to my post, "S...I have updated the cross-references to my post, "<A HREF="http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html#116811942690127319" REL="nofollow"><I>Sola Scriptura</I> revisited: a reply to Steve Hays (in 95 antitheses)</A>" (<I>Scripture and Catholic Tradition</I>, January 6, 2007). My gratitude for your patience while I cleared up the disorder of the earlier numerical sequence.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168003669804879962007-01-05T08:27:00.000-05:002007-01-05T08:27:00.000-05:00Well, while Prots do of course have sex scandals, ...Well, while Prots do of course have sex scandals, they don't show anywhere near the same flair for persuading non-perpetrators to go the extra mile to cover up for the perpetrators so as to protect the good name of the institution. Ted Haggard's wife, for example, seems to have had no idea what her husband was up to in his spare time, and I believe the same went for the various Jimmy televangelists who got caught pants-down in the Eighties. Protestant clerical sex scandals tend to be freelance rather than institutional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167921552806777542007-01-04T09:39:00.000-05:002007-01-04T09:39:00.000-05:00I'm glad to see there is only a "Catholic sex scan...I'm glad to see there is only a "Catholic sex scandal" and that no protestant minister, or public school teacher, or president of the USofA has every engaged in a sex scandal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167773024053508682007-01-02T16:23:00.000-05:002007-01-02T16:23:00.000-05:00I agree with anonymous about masturbation. I wonde...I agree with anonymous about masturbation. I wonder, though, if Steve appears to be taking a soft line on the practice because he is looking at the matter from a Reformed Baptist perspective of public church discipline. You would expel people from your congregation (or at least censure or suspend them first) if they are caught in adultery or come out as gay, or turn up in an "Ask Me About My Abortion" T-shirt. If your congregation agreed with the Pope that contraception was wrong, you would discipline them also for giving out family planning leaflets or condoms in the Marriage Prep classes.<BR/><BR/>Masturbation, however, being private, is not a matter that would ever come before the elders as an issue of church discipline. Not that it isn't sinful,[*] just that it isn't directly the business of your fellow Christians (unless you ask someone individually for help), and anyone who appointed themselves as inquisitor of onanism would be risking falling into a Pharisaism even worse than the problem.<BR/><BR/>In the Catholic system, however, which is based on private confession of sins to a priest, masturbation would crop up frequently. And the priest hasn't appointed himself to grill the penitent on the matter; indeed, he'd no doubt much rather discuss something else, like the weather; but he has to hear it.<BR/><BR/>[*] In the sense of "Avoid doing it as much as you can", rather than "You will go to hell for doing it".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167760670038781422007-01-02T12:57:00.000-05:002007-01-02T12:57:00.000-05:00dear steve, while i think most of the things you w...dear steve, while i think most of the things you write are totally awesome, i am quite troubled by your approval of masturbation. don't you remember that jesus equated lust with adultery??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167706771201159962007-01-01T21:59:00.000-05:002007-01-01T21:59:00.000-05:00I'd seen Blosser's article some years ago (possibl...I'd seen Blosser's article some years ago (possibly after Hillaire Belloc and HW Crocker signed a joint communique denouncing it as too triumphalistic and historically revisionist for them to accept...). This (to save me re-typing) is saved from a blog that's now defunct:<BR/><BR/><I>>> [JS] then we've got the whole Catholic loophole system for ending marriages ("Don't worry, Senator Kennedy, God doesn't care that you're ditching your because I have a piece of paper with a stamp on it!")...<BR/><BR/>> [TR] I see that Australia's sweetheart Nicole Kidman has been granted an annulment of her marriage to Tom Cruise, leaving her free to wed new beau Keith Urban in a Catholic church, and even to take communion (when she's not busy filming nude scenes with underage boys): see (http://www.ouroneheart.com/nicole-kidman-and-keith-urban-to-wed/).<BR/><BR/>I'm amazed that it's taken 15 years for anyone to spot the fact that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist. I mean, he concealed that really well during their 1991 wedding and afterwards. Only now does Nicole learn THE TRUTH: that they were never validly married in the first place. By great fortune, it's just in time for her to... well, I nearly said "re-marry,” but of course that would be inaccurate.<BR/><BR/>In the words of Phillip Blosser (http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Sola.htm): "After all, whose voice is it that, as the spiritual leader of nearly one-fifth of the earth’s recalcitrant inhabitants, still dares to condemn as sin the now commonplace practices of contraception, masturbation, abortion, divorce, remarriage...?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not for a moment suggesting that the Vatican tribunals gave Nic any fast-track special consideration just because she's marrying someone named "Urban.” Nor that John Leo, Dirk Benedict, Innocent Vincent, Linus Torvalds, Dick Gregory, Paias Wingti, or John Paul Young would also have their applications rubber-stamped in double-quick time.<BR/><BR/>Gary North recently had some acerbic words about divorcee Randall Terry's recent conversion to Rome: see http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/021202.html. Anybody want to bet money that the Vatican tribunal will refuse RT his retrospective annulment?</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167675248606263632007-01-01T13:14:00.000-05:002007-01-01T13:14:00.000-05:00I was going to question the source behind the list...I was going to question the source behind the list of homosexual popes, but it appears to be from none other than JND Kelly. He may not be Catholic, but he's hard to beat as a historian. Touché.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167664494513747422007-01-01T10:14:00.000-05:002007-01-01T10:14:00.000-05:001. Blosser probably did not intend any irony in hi...1. Blosser probably did not intend any irony in his appeal to 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. Nevertheless, Rome's claim to special authority boils down to "We belong to Cephas." Even so,the passage does not have the direct application to the situation in question that Blosser wants it to have. Paul is addressing factionalism apart from doctrinal disagreements. The Corinthians were fighting over their favorite preachers. When he returns to this point in the third chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul emphasizes that he, Peter and Apollos are all on the same team and preaching the same Gospel. For those who call themselves Christians to feud over minor points is indeed a sin and a disgrace. But the issues which divide Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not trivial.<BR/><BR/>2. The Oxford Encyclopedia of World Christianity is a catalog of all known subsets of Christianity throughout the world. That includes subsets which recognize the authority of the Pope, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Uniate churches. More to the point, many of these thousands of subsets are not in conflict with each other, doctrinally or otherwise. For example, Lutheran or Reformed church bodies in different nations may be organized independently of each other, with different leaders, yet share adherence to a common confession of faith. Even in a perfect world where there was complete doctrinal unity based on Scripture, the existence of numerous "denominations" would not necessarily be a bad thing. The idea that Christendom must have one worldwide hierarchy with a supreme bishop at the top is a pèculiarly Roman idea,<BR/><BR/>3.Luther's German translation of the Bible does not exclude James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. In fact, it does not exclude the "deutero-canonical" writings, although Luther began the practice of extracting these books from the Old Testament and placing them in a section of their own in between the Old and New Testaments (early versions of the King James Bible did the same thing), This reflected the idea, held by Luther and others, that while the books of the Apocrypha were not part of the original, divinely inspired OT canon, they provide valuable historical and cultural background for understanding the New Testament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167651538712733012007-01-01T06:38:00.000-05:002007-01-01T06:38:00.000-05:00One of the deepest roots in the Protestant/Catholi...One of the deepest roots in the Protestant/Catholic conflict is that of authority. Steve makes an excellent defense of the authority of Scripture. However, Catholics are generally not very knowledgeable about the sources of authority in their own church.<BR/><BR/>The historical rationale for the papacy is in strong retreat. Even orthodox Catholics and official Catholic documents are retreating from what we “cradle Catholics” were taught.<BR/><BR/>Catholicism rests on “apostolic succession” for its authority – throughout the places to which it had expanded, but especially the popes of Rome. Paul Johnson, the Catholic historian, relates the difficulties that Catholics simply gloss over in citing this “authority": <BR/><BR/>“By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…<BR/><BR/>“Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>“Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.<BR/><BR/>“In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus. <BR/><BR/>“Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.” (History of Christianity,” pgs 52-53.)<BR/><BR/>The early history of the papacy has been more clearly studied, and the retreat is even more dramatic. Peter Lampe, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries”, in a work which Catholic historian Eamon Duffy says that “all modern discussion of the issues must now start with Lampe’s exhaustive and persuasive analysis.” Lampe clearly states that “The list of Irenaeus" (the earliest list of Bishops of Rome) "is with highest probably a historical construction..."<BR/><BR/>The Catholic historian Klaus Schatz, in his work on papal primacy, seems to have done so. He affirms that Catholic and non-Catholic Scholars agree that: <BR/><BR/>“The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter's lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter's death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably "no."...<BR/><BR/>“If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter's death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church's rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer....<BR/><BR/>“If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” Klaus Schatz “Papal Primacy,” pgs 1-2<BR/><BR/>The reason this is important is because of the historical claims of the papacy. In the document Dominus Iesus, issued in 2000, Joseph Ratzinger, the present pope, wrote this: “The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15).”<BR/><BR/>Now, if we are talking about “all ages,” then this early age, from say, 60-180 ad, there was no “monarchical bishop” in Rome. There was no "bishop" in Rome for nearly the first 200 years of the church’s existence. There is no “historical continuity” and yet “the Catholic faithful are required to profess” that there is historical continuity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167624151868464652006-12-31T23:02:00.000-05:002006-12-31T23:02:00.000-05:00“In fact, Krehbiel offers an interesting biblical ...“In fact, Krehbiel offers an interesting biblical refutation of this supposition from 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4, where both Hezekiah and Josiah used extrabiblical teachings in their reforms, from prophets who had been dead for hundreds of years, in violation of the assumption that only those teachings preserved in canonical Scriptures are authoritative.[34] What is interesting about the first verse (29:25) is that the instructions of David, Gad and Nathan followed by Hezekiah are described as being the command of the Lord through His prophets, even though (1) they were long dead by the time of Hezekiah and (2) there is no record in canonical Scripture that serves as a basis for Hezekiah’s actions. The same is true of the writings of Solomon whose instructions Josiah is cited as following in the second verse (35:4). What is also remarkable is the altogether unexceptional manner in which these actions are described. As Krehbiel observes, ‘In no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God’s prophets, had been preserved for the church’s use for hundreds of years apart from Scripture.’[35]”<BR/><BR/>i) This reiterates Krehbiel and Blosser’s anachronistic definition of sola Scripture (see above).<BR/><BR/>ii) It also equivocates over the meaning of “tradition.” Blosser knows perfectly well that not all tradition ranks as sacred tradition.<BR/><BR/>The fact, which no one denies, that court historians as well as the ancient kings of Israel under whom they served had access to historical, non-canonical sources of information which were sometimes incorporated into the canonical history of Israel is irrelevant to our situation, since we don’t have access to the royal archives. What we have is access to what was preserved in the course of inscripturation.<BR/><BR/>iii) We also make use of Biblical archeology. But that that is not a source of dogma.<BR/><BR/>I'd add iv) Sola Scriptura as a dogmatic category applies when the Church is in its normative state. That excludes the period of enscripturation. Once again, these are basic issues that make one wonder if Mr. Blosser pays any attention to the Protestant he cites.<BR/><BR/>As to the comments about Wycliff, I will also look forward to Mr. Blosser's detailed analysis of the list of quotes from the Early Church Fathers in Volume 3 of Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of our Faith and/or William Whitaker's work in Disputations on Holy Scripture or William Goode's The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167623295503028512006-12-31T22:48:00.000-05:002006-12-31T22:48:00.000-05:00In addition to the many good points Steve has made...In addition to the many good points Steve has made, it should be noted that some of the extra-Biblical traditions for which we have the best evidence either contradict Roman Catholic teaching or are widely rejected by Roman Catholics. Papias was interested in the oral testimony of people who knew Jesus and the apostles, and he probably was a disciple of the apostle John, yet he reports multiple extra-Biblical traditions that Roman Catholics reject (http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html). Irenaeus held a view of the afterlife that was inconsistent with Purgatory, and he attributed that view to church leaders who had been disciples of the apostles (http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/no-purgatory-patristic-tradition.html).<BR/><BR/>The church fathers do often refer to tradition and church authority, but they define such concepts in a variety of ways, often contradicting each other and contradicting Roman Catholicism. And it can't be argued that the patristic concepts of tradition and the church would inevitably develop into the Roman Catholic concepts of tradition and the church. Nobody reading Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Cyprian could reasonably come to the conclusion that these men's beliefs about tradition, the church, and related concepts would logically lead to the modern system of Roman Catholicism.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167622447086178392006-12-31T22:34:00.000-05:002006-12-31T22:34:00.000-05:00“The tragedy of sola scriptura is that it cuts off...“The tragedy of sola scriptura is that it cuts off Protestants from sacred history after New Testament times—from the living, sacred memory of the Church.”<BR/><BR/>Once again we have a misconstrual of the priniciple. This would only be true if (a) the principle was construed such that no tradition at all is allowed, and/or (b) historically the Reformers and their successors demonstrated no continuity with "tradition."<BR/><BR/>By way of response:<BR/><BR/>A. Sola Scriptura is construed this way:the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. <BR/><BR/>How does this "cut Protestants off" from sacred tradition?<BR/><BR/>B. I look forward to Mr. Blosser's detailed analysis of Richard Muller's body of work including Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, as well as responses to the variety of essays by a variety of individuals found in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Blosser acts as if Protestant Scholasticism never happened.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167620383113944682006-12-31T21:59:00.000-05:002006-12-31T21:59:00.000-05:00ii) We also know that some letters were always mea...ii) We also know that some letters were always meant to widely circulate (e.g. Gal 1:3; Col 1:16; 1 Pet 1:1).<BR/><BR/>should be Col. 4:16<BR/><BR/>Great post -- thanks for providing good analysis of attacks on Sola Scriptura.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com