If you read a little more on the blog, you’ll see that at one time I had a sola scriptura philosophy. Then I realized such a philosophy is unbiblical. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters related to faith. Rather I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority. History shows that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is (by virtue of the fact that the Canon was determined by the Church) and not the other way around. But, you’ve heard that argument before and have closed your eyes to it.
I don't know how many times this has been said to me by RCs over the years. Even on Crossed the Tiber's Blog I was told that this argument is not circular. Yet how do they know the church has authority? Well, the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is able to tell us who has authority? Well, the church says so? If this doesn't pit Scripture as an ultimate authority against the church's ultimate authority, I do not know what does?
In other words, how can there be two ultimate authorities? Either God speaks and that is ultimate, or the church speaks and that is ultimate. For those who wish to trump God's Word with their Traditions, the choice is obvious. Sola Ecclesia!
So those of you who are RC and are always asking the question "How do you Protestants know what is in the Canon without the church?", I ask is there an infallible list of infallible Traditions please. If it is demanded of me, then turn-about is fair play. I have only been waiting for close to 13 years or more.
2 comments:
They (Catholic Encyclopedia and others) try to get around this by appealing to the Bible merely as an historical document that supports her claim to assured infallibility.
And which is how they claim you obtain real assurance that Scripture is the Word of God, as even the above is an interpretation, which only has authority because the RC has infallibly defined that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) criteria, thus rendering her teaching that she is infallible, to be infallible. And thus she can claim all whatever is needed as supporting her.
Since according to her interpretation (or decree), only her interpretation can be right in any conflict, how dare you argue with her.
As one Catholic said, the Catholic church cannot be wrong because she defines what is right.
However, at most of the Divine writings we hold as Scripture were established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and with an assuredly infallible magisterium, else the N.T. would have not have its 275 direct quotes from and approx 370 allusions (one estimate), and it abundantly substantiates that as written and recognized, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for testing truth claims. (see many refs here).
And as providing for establishment of further additions as being such by supernatural means, based upon their Heavenly qualities, like as true men of God are (though others should confirm such), and thus for a canon when it became apparent there were no more like unto it.
"They (Catholic Encyclopedia and others) try to get around this by appealing to the Bible merely as an historical document that supports her claim to assured infallibility."
I fully realize they do this. They have made the argument on other blog posts. Of course many Protestants have started with the exact same argument to defend the Bible against atheists, among other kinds of non-Christians, which is why I am a Presuppositionalist.
Post a Comment