I have also color coded the response here to make it clearer who said what and when.
In 170 Ron said:
The citation of Matthew 16 and 18 was not to show "perpetual, infallible magisterium" - only that MEN were given infallible authority. You're getting ahead of yourself. First acknowledge the premise before moving on to things built upon the premise. If you do not accept the premise, there's no sense in moving on to "perpetual..."(sw) Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18 – MEN are given infallible authority.Scott, Please provide a series of premises strung together in a valid form of argumentation that leads to the grand conclusion of a perpetual, infallible magisterium located in Rome.
Agreed! His Church, ONE Church - not thousands of churches, but that is a digression into yet another topic (one I sufficiently cover in several articles on the CathApol Blog, http://cathapol.blogspot.com/search/label/33000%20Denominations ).(sw)1 Timothy 3:15 – It is the Church which is declared to be the “pillar and bulwark/foundation of truth” – not a collection of books which nearly 400 years after St. Paul wrote that to St. Timothy would be assembled into the canon of the Vulgate and eventually be dogmatically declared as THE Canon of Sacred Scripture.Jesus promised to build his church. (Matt. 16:18)
Jesus also told his apostles that those who received them received Him. (Matt. 10:40) The implication is that the building project of the Lord was to be founded upon the words of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. (The reason being, Jesus and the apostles are no longer here, but their words are.) (Eph. 2:20)As Jesus was set, so also He sent His Apostles - which means that they too were to continue to "send out" others, just as they had been sent by Jesus. (This also answers your anachronistic request from your first comment in this posting).
The apostolic tradition was both oral and written (II Thess. 2:15) but only the written apostolic tradition has been providentially preserved. Accordingly, Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which must have been God’s intention since Scripture alone is all he left us in keeping with Christ Jesus’ promise to build his church.And where does Scripture tell you that the apostolic office (bishop) would cease with the death of the last Apostle?
So, in keeping with the analogy of Scripture, whatever it means to you that the church is the foundation of the truth it must harmonize with the premise that Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which is to say her sure foundation. Please just don’t provide a Scripture reference as your rejoinder, provide an argument to defend Roman Catholic tradition.Yet again, no where does Scripture say that Scripture alone is what the Church is built upon. Scripture, in fact, says the Church is built upon St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) and upon The Twelve Apostles (Rev. 21:14), but never says the Church is built upon a book which did not even exist as such for some 400 years, certainly not even close to the form/format we call "The Bible" today.
That would be your question to answer. I've presented the negative assertion, prove me wrong in presenting the positive. Silence on this matter lends itself to concession.(sw) No where does Scripture say it is or is to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church – no where.Does the Old Testament uphold this principle you assert?
Didn’t Jesus blister the religious leaders of his day for operating according this Roman Catholic premise, that Scripture alone does not provide the only infallible rule of faith and practice?Actually, Jesus - several times - broke with "what was written" to demonstrate their fallacy of adhering so firmly to "The Law" saying, "you say 'it is written, but I say...'" Do you need me to list out those examples to you?
While we’re at it, didn’t Satan try to tempt Adam and Eve and even Jesus with this Roman Catholic axiom?It is, yet another, pure anachronism to attempt to apply sola scriptura to Adam and Eve! As for applying it to Satan tempting Jesus, Satan attempted to use Scripture to tempt Jesus, so Jesus used Scripture to answer him. The irony here is that I'm trying to get you (or anyone else) to defend sola scriptura, not satis scriptura, with Scripture - and no one can (because no such support/defense exists).
Is it not an unworkable principle (not to mention unwise) to act contrary to divine precedent, in this case OT precedent, without explicit divine instruction or good and necessary inference?The OT was a time of the Prophets - and clear was NOT based AT ALL in sola scriptura. You gain no points for attempting to say the oT supports your case.
What NT argument have you offered to abandon the consistent testimony of redemptive history on this matter?You're "bobbing and weaving" here, or in logical rhetoric terminology, a "red herring." I challenged that there is no "no where" any support in Scripture for sola scriptura, so to try the "table turning/red herring" tactic here is simply, in your terms, bobbing and weaving. That you claim it is 'the consistent testimony of redemptive history' is simply "begging the question" (another common fallacy of rhetoric).
Thank you for conceding that sola scriptura is NOT the premise of the existence of apologetics organizations! Rather, according to your testimony, it is partim scriptura/partim verbum Dei. Yes, yes, yes - I know you will equivocate "Scripture" with "Word of God" but "verbum" means "spoken" while "scriptus/scriptura" means "written." Words mean things.(sw)If Scripture is sufficient, then why do we need “apologetics” of ANY sort?We are to engage in apologetics because God says so. Secondly, unbelievers don’t submit to Scripture so we “do” apologetics in the hope that men might be saved. The same principle applies to why we should engage in polemics, for God’s glory.
All I am saying is they are not necessary according to the unscriptural premise of sola scriptura. Let us add to the description: partim scriptura/partim verbum Dei/partim apologeticus.(sw)Why do we need Green Baggins, Beggars All, Triablogue, AOMin, etc. to tell us what Scripture means?That Scripture must be interpreted according to sound hermeneutical principles is not at odds with the sufficiency of Scripture. Moreover, that God gives the church teachers does not undermine, at least in any logical sense, the doctrine of sufficiency. You might wish to argue that if Scripture is perspicuous then we don’t need teachers, but that too would prove to be a baseless argument.
Ron also said, in #180 on Green Baggins:
The bobbing and weaving remark was intended to refer to your actual responses (to the others). You hadn’t responded to me.
I actually reserved judgment on why you hadn’t responded to my comments. Had I assumed the worse, which I didn’t, I would have called your non-responses to me a complete hit-the-canvas duck rather than a dodge. Glad to see it was just an oversight on your part.
I’m glad to let the others deal with your responses to me as I’ll be tied up for quite some time. They’re all more than capable.
I'll respond here... Does that mean you're "ducking" out?