Authority of the Church

In a recent post from Alan/Rhology on Beggars All, he said:

>> sw: So you're confirming (again) that your local
>> church is acting like a "little magisterium" again.
>
> AR: Well, I'd agree that in this case it was a little
> magisterium,

sw: Thank you.

> AR: except my church actually practices biblical excommunication.
> When was the last time yours did?

sw: All the time. Some excommunications are automatic, like if one
participates in or assists in procuring an abortion, the excommunication
is automatic.

> AR: And of course, I'm not claiming Rome is totally wrong in
> EVERYthing, so in this case my church and yours coincide.

sw: So you twice concede that your church acts as it's own
"little magisterium" and then next you say...

> AR: (That) Doesn't make my church a little magisterium.

sw: Wait! You just said TWICE that it DID!

>> sw: So, in YOUR concept of "church" it happens at YOUR
>> church, but not in other churches, like MY church. I see.
>> How consistent is that?
>
> AR: This makes no sense. It happens in mine. It happens
> rarely if ever in yours. How is that a question of consistency
> on my part?

sw: Well, 1) "I'd agree that in this case it was a little magisterium."
Then 2) "...so in this case my church and yours coincide."
Then 3) "(That) doesn't make my church a little magisterium.
Then 4) "It happens in mine... rarely if ever in yours..." (but you
concede it does happen, even if you don't realize how often).
You're bouncing all over this one! Perhaps you want to take
back some of what you said so that you can be consistent?

>> sw: The authority was clearly given to the Apostles in
>> Matthew 18, and that authority lies with their successors.
>
> AR: Where does Matt 18 say that about their successors?

sw: This has been documented many, many times, but I will
do so again. First off, NO passage from Scripture is to be
read in a vacuum from the REST of Scripture! Matthew 18
does not mention succession, however succession IS part of
Scripture - and undeniably so.

sw: To begin with, Jesus said: "¹⁸"As ^(A)You sent Me into
the world, ^(B)I also have sent them into the world."
John 17:18. So, as the Father sent Jesus, He sent His
Apostles. Jesus selected bishops - and thus, so should
they and so DID they.

sw: In Acts 1:20-23 we see the successor to Judas' bishoprick
selected. Some non-Catholics try to say, "but Judas' successor
had to be a witness to the ministry of Jesus," and they cite
verse 21 as their prooftext, which is fine and good. For THIS
successor they wanted one with those qualifications, but
Matthias is NOT the only other one called an Apostle in the
New Testament! St. Paul was not with them throughout Jesus'
ministry, in fact he persecuted the early Catholics! Barnabas
is also called an Apostle (Acts 14:14) as well as Apollos being
included in "us apostles" (1 Cor. 4:6-9) and within that same
context St. Paul "sends out" (literal meaning of "apostle") St.
Timothy in the same way he himself was sent out to teach
(see verse 17). Therefore this imagined condition being put
upon all who would be called "apostle" or "bishop" is simply
ludicrous.

sw: In short, apostolic succession is not an invention of the
Catholic Church, it is quite scripturally sound and scripturally
based. So again we must urge those reading this whose
"teachers" or "leaders" or "elders" are not in valid succession
to the Apostles - flee from them!


In another thread on the same blog, Edward said:

> Ed: Their (Catholics) argument is based on the authority
> of the Majesterium, it becomes an existential problem as
> to whether or not they even have the right authority
> without severely begging the question. Unless they can
> find some irrefutable epistemological formula to prove
> the pope et al. are the true church, they are left with
> that bugaboo, "private interpretation" to determine which
> authority to follow. Thus they are no better than the
> prots, despite the protestations of the RCs.

sw: We see the old, "they're no better than us" argument, as
if that were a valid argument. It's not! If we're both wrong
about this - then we both go to hell! The fact of the matter
though is based in the Scriptures I quoted to Alan above.
There truly IS valid apostolic succession in THE Church which
Jesus Christ built. Outside of communion with that succession
you are following impostors who are there to "fool, even the
elect" and/or have been fooled themselves into believing they
are on the right path. However, if apostolic succession is
real, and I believe I've made a pretty good foundational case
for that, then we must reject any who are not part of that
succession and/or in communion with that succession. These
other teachers/elders are preaching a "different gospel" and
should be avoided at all cost. Even if it means going against
family and friends - you must follow the Truth.

> Ed continues: Also, once they start arguing over history,
> what the Scriptures or the Fathers say about the pope,
> they are behaving just like those "chaotic" prots who
> supposedly lean on their own understanding. They are, in
> so borrow a phrase, starting with orthodoxy and
> establishing authority. If their interlocutor is a prot, they
> just keep waving the authority card in his face because
> they can say their church is the real deal (which I do not
> believe, of course) because it is "older", but when the
> opponent is EO (Eastern Orthodox), their situation is
> different because they make similar claims based on
> similar arguments, but the EOs have a different outcome.
>
> Just watch a discussion between an EO and RC about
> e.g. papal infallibility or divine simplicity vs. essence/energies,
> and you will see that when they cannot just wave the
> authority card to stop discussion, they have a hard slog
> justifying their beliefs on purely rational grounds.

sw: Well, for one thing when the discussion is with someone
from Eastern Orthodoxy, yes - the discussion IS different
because they too have valid apostolic succession. What
they lack is communion with the See of Peter. You are
not from Eastern Orthodoxy, so I'll save that discussion
for one who is (and I am in a paused debate at the time
of this writing with someone from Orthodoxy). The point
is, what we may say to Orthodoxy is different from what
we'd say to Protestants - that's a given - but the position
of Protestantism is EVEN LESS than that of Orthodoxy, so this line of argument does not help Edward's cause. I am
also in a private discussion currently with a friend of mine
who is seriously considering the move to Orthodoxy, I
only bring this up to let you know, I am quite familiar with
dealing with discussions and apologetics with Orthodoxy.
I may share some of those discussions on my blog after
making anonymous my friend's name, or at least my
responses to him. But back to the point, you're not of
the Orthodox persuasion, so to throw that into the mix
at this point is nothing short of a distraction tactic. As
I deal with you, I will be dealing with a Protestant and
will draw upon my own experiences and insights from
when I too was a Protestant. THIS discussion is about
authority and distinguishing the differences between
Catholic and Protestant authority - let's stick to that,
shall we? That being said, you appear to be conceding
the Catholic position to a point when you say we wave
the authority card because we're older. That argument
does indeed have merit, but it is not our only argument.

> Ed continues: I think this is usually a problem with

> arguments from authority--unless everyone accepts

> the authority they are pretty useless. Hence the

> constant skirmishing with RCs stating that prots are

> bound by "private interpretation" while they are only

> following a God-ordained authority. Well, what if it

> isn;t a God-ordained authority, and what if there are

> other choices we can base om the same criteria?

sw: Well, therein lies your burden of proof! Prove to us that God didn't ordain the first Catholic bishops and then they, through the Holy Ghost, ordained the succession of bishops throughout history to this day. There are other points for me to raise, but for now this one should suffice.

>> Ed concludes: If they were consistent, they would say
>> that there is chaos among those who claim an infallible
>> authority.

sw: First off, don't you claim to cling to an infallible authority?

sw: Second, the "you're as bad as we are" argument is not a valid one.

"EA" wrote:
> Lay Catholics (as well as others) are divided over

> issues like abortion, where is the INFALLIBLE teaching

> on that? There are encyclicals and various other

> writings from individual theologians which are not

> infallible, but there is no ex cathedra teaching on it,

> yet there is controversy on an issue of faith and morals.

sw: Let me just say, there's not an infallible ruling on absolutely every matter of faith and morals. As legalistic as the Catholic Church can be at times, to make such a ruling on absolutely everything which touches upon faith and morals would become so cumbersome and overwhelming. No, such rulings come about when the Church deems it is absolutely necessary. If there are ordinances in place which already cover the ground, then there the need for an infallible ruling is diminished.

sw: In the specific case of abortion, mentioned above, Canon Law is quite clear and specific on the matter, Can. 1398 "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." By "latae sententiae" that means it is automatic. There is no "debate" on this! If you procure (or even particiapate in) an abortion, you are excommunicated and must be reconciled to the God through the means provided by Him in His Church - there's no way around this! Sure one MAY argue, but Canon Law remains in force and once a person has procured an abortion, they are not in communion with the Church and sin even greater if they ignore this fact and continue on without proper reconciliation, as if this great chasm of faith has not occurred in their life.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

http://www.catholicresponse.org

Out of Town

I will be out of town for a few days and without my computer.  I may be able to borrow one where I am, but I will not be around much until Tuesday of next week.

Sola Scriptura and RC Sproul

I actually started this article a bit ago, but when the "Protestant Canon of Scripture" discussion started leaning toward a sola scriptura discussion, I held off a bit before posting it.  I post it now:

(Source - if this changes, I'll update the link)

My Response:

Sproul writes: "The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."  There are others, in fact a non-Catholic friend of mine on the Locutus Webboard asked about sola scriptura at NTRMin and "DTK" openly stated "no where in the Bible are these answers stated as posed," but it is rare to see a proponent of sola scriptura, in so many words flat out admit there is no specific text which suggests the Bible alone is (their) final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Kudos for RC Sproul on that.  He goes on to say, "Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura."  First off, let me say I do not delight in this for it is a sad truth he speaks here.  How many millions have been bamboosled by the lie of sola scriptura?  There can be no joy in knowing how many souls have been taken down this false path. 

The next point I'd make is "sola" and "solo" are really two conjugations of the same word in Latin, one has masculine form the other has feminine form.  When put with the feminine noun of "scriptura" - only "sola" is appropriate.  Secondly, being Latin, "scriptura" would not be capitalized.  This isn't really against what RC Sproul is saying, just how he's saying it - and I can accept what he's saying, these are just a couple pet peeves of mine.  For the sake of the argument, I'll "make no more hay" over the use of "solo scriptura" in this response.  Sproul uses this differentiation between those who use Scripture as their final authority and those who would essentially use Scripture as the only authority.  In actuality, those whom he would say adhere to the Anabaptist error are indeed adherents to sola scriptura - whereas a more accurate term for folks like Sproul would be fina scriptura since Scripture is not the only authority but it is the final authority.  In that respect whether you're calling it sola or solo scriptura - it is a-historical as well as reprehensible and ignorant to cling to the "sole" authority concept.

RC Sproul goes on to say:

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura.

I missed something there...  where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?  Let's try to get this straight, the Bible allegedly affirms "these giants have feet of clay," and supposedly from that "this is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura (sic)."  This is a complete non-sequitur.  Just because an authority has "feet of clay" (man), that is not an affirmation of anything being a sole or even final authority.

Next:

Sola Scriptura (sic) is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).

Let us first ask how finding the explicit teaching that Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice is a tautology.  A tautology is a needlessly repeated statement which does not provide additional force to the comment (eg. "a necessary requirement" or "one after the other in succession" or "to reiterate again" how about "joint cooperation?").   If there were a passage in Scripture which said, "Scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice" where's the tautology?  The point is, whether it is a tautology or not, it is not recorded in Scripture, period.

I'll leave the accusation upon the Book of Mormon alone for now not that I disagree, just that it seems an emotional and unsupported appeal to stir up anti-Mormonism.  The appeal would have substance if he gave us a couple of examples of these lies.  Unsubstantiated claims (whether I agree with them or not) should be avoided - so I am.

This brings us to the statement, "the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God."  And we must ask, where does the Bible itself teach that the Bible alone is the Word of God?  God spoke through the Prophets, was every word they spoke inscripturated?  Scripture itself also promises that the Holy Ghost would be with His Church, guiding the Church to all truth until Jesus returns again in glory - is the Holy Ghost mute?   Sproul uses Nicodemus as an example of Scripture teaching that Jesus is of God based upon the miracles Jesus did, "for no man can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."  Again with the non sequitur!  The fact that one does signs and wonders does not automatically equate to God being with him or the voice of God speaking through him!  Scripture even tells us that Pharoah's magicians performed signs and wonders matching Moses up to the final plague, does that mean Pharoah's magicians were with God because they performed signs?  The Beast/AntiChrist of Revelation 13 is mortally wounded and heals itself! 

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." [2 Thes. 2:9-10]

So signs and wonders are not the true sign that someone is with God or not!  They could be, but based on that alone you have a 50/50 chance.

Sproul goes on to say:

I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10. 

Sproul continues:

Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?

Why must these be added to the Bible?  Sproul already concedes there is no Scripture which states or even suggests that the Bible alone is the final authority on matter of faith or practice, so why insist upon this "solo" mentality? 

Sproul even states:

In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10 again.  Signs and wonders do not a prophet make!  Signs and wonders do not equivocate to one who speaks for God.

Next Sproul echos the same tome which anyone who has been around apologetics at all has seen:

But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.

Now, whereas we do have lists - no pope or council has seen it necessary to have an infallible list of dogmatic teachings.  You can turn to Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Sources of Catholic Dogma) or Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as rather exhaustive lists; but let us ask RC Sproul to provide us with the authoritative list of books which should be compiled into what he now calls The Bible!  In asking us to provide such lists, he defeats his own position because Scripture alone does not provide us with the authoritative list of what IS Scripture!  In fact, when on the subject of sola scriptura, as the Protestant final authority, it is a bit of a diversion to throw out a table-turning question to Catholics, or a red herring tactic to divert attention from where sola scriptura lacks even the capability to declare what necessarily comprises the Canon of Sacred Scripture.  On the other hand, Catholicism does not declare a single final authority in all matters.  For some matters, even most, Scripture is sufficient; however Scripture is silent on many matters, especially those involving moral decisions with modern technology, such as cloning and in vitro fertilization.
 
I will add, whether or not the Catholic Church has an infallible list of infallible documents has no bearing on the sola scriptura debate.  I maintain that the Scriptures are inerrant, however I would not say they are infallible.   People come up with fallible interpretations of Scripture all the time - which does not affect the inerrancy of Scripture - but Scripture does not interpret itself and even warns us that Scripture is hard to understand and can be interpreted to ones own destruction (St. Peter speaking of St. Paul's Epistles, 2 Peter 3:16).

Sproul begins to wrap it up here:

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

All Sproul provides here is a slippery slope argument.  The fact of the matter is, Scripture itself tells us that the Holy Ghost would be with Jesus' Church until the end of the age.  Did "the age" begin or end in 1517?  No, and if we were to accept it "began" there - then we'd have to also accept that for nearly 1500 years the Holy Ghost was not with His Church - or that His Church did not exist for that period of time.  Either way, it would make the promise of Scripture to be false for "until He returns again" does not exclude that 1500 year period.

And Sproul concludes this article with:

No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.

Again, we must remind Sproul of his concession - The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Nowhere does it teach that it (the Bible) alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Miracles alone are not absolute evidence something comes from God.

In short, not only does Sproul concede this debate from the onset - his rationalizations are proven to be illogical and not competent to stand under criticism.  Anyone who has believed what RC Sproul teaches on this subject should flee from him.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

What the

All I can say is "what the heck" is this all about?! Former New Jersey Governor McGreevey (you remember him, the one from the truck-stop gay encounters, who left his wife, two kids and the Catholic Faith to be with is gay "lover") is in training to be an Anglican "priest."


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_nj_gov_mcgreevey_training_to_1ysw6rCLvBGMPBJFGGyGRI

Protestant Canon of Sacred Scripture

This entry is a continuation from here. The previous discussion was really about another topic initially and drifted to one about the Canon of Scripture - so rather than continue under the "Works and Grace" series, I am starting this new thread which better entitles the canon discussion.

Alan,
Why are you so reluctant to just present this allegedly overlooked Deuterocanonical book? I DID go through that series of posts, and did not see what you're referring to. I DID present you with the decree from Trent defining the canon to be according to the old Latin Vulgate. What's missing? All you did was point us down another rabbit hole of a two year old conversation. If I missed this elusive Deuterocanonical book, enlighten me. I have respectfully asked you now a number of times to just provide the name of this book.

Alan, you were asked to provide us with the canon God allegedly provides you defining the Canon of Sacred Scripture - you're evading your responsibility to present this canon - which somehow you have straight from God, assuming you're not willing to give credit where credit is due, namely that God used the Catholic Church to provide you with this canon.

Comparing apples to apples, I can show and HAVE SHOWN you the Canon of Sacred Scripture as defined by the Holy Ghost through the Catholic Church - your challenge is to demonstrate you arrive at YOUR canon outside the Catholic Church.

Your attempt to distract this challenge and "table turn" has not and will not work. You resort to vulgarity and have clearly demonstrated you have lost another round in our debates in doing so.

That being said, your challenge to me regarding a canon of infallible teachings HAS BEEN ANSWERED! I do not deny we do not have such a list. I have explained to you that the Church has not seen the need for such an infallible list. We have the definitions available to us in several sources, a couple of which have been brought to your attention (Denzinger's and Ott's compilations).

So no, we're NOT "as bad" as you are! We HAVE a defined Canon of Sacred Scripture - infallibly declared so at Trent. You have only that what you have received FROM US (minus a few books which Luther chose not to include). You might argue that St. Jerome expressed reservations regarding the Deuterocanonical books - and you'll get no argument from me there - I agree, he DID express concerns, but the book in question ARE part of the canon he ultimately published and ARE what make up what was defined by the Church and were included in the decrees at the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo prior to his publishing of the old Latin Vulgate.

In summary, you are still left with the open challenge to document the Canon of Sacred Scripture as something other than what you have received through the Holy Ghost's working in the Catholic Church. You are still left with the challenge to document this alleged Deuterocanonical book which was "passed over in silence" by the Council of Trent.

Yours truly in JMJ,

Scott<<<

Decree from Trent regarding the Canon of Sacred Scripture:
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema. Source.