Yay JEFF! (part 1)
The arguments below, if I may be so bold, demonstrate consistently that, while yours is a faith which cannot be finalized, mine is a faith where God has provided a consistent proof of origin and dogma. It also seems that mine is a more proven more philosophically, theologically, and historically consistent. Now, we must admit that you are a novice at systematic argumentation regarding the faith and that I am a good deal more experienced at right argumentation, but simply because one has less experience does not mean that the truth should suffer.
I therefore maintain that if yours is not the truth, why does it not show itself to be the consistent truth? Should it not be self-evident that I am wrong?
You might counter that the devil is a convincing liar who works consistently, but this is not true. All temptation plays to emotion over logic. The question is not, "Is it logical to steal a bagel?" The question is, "Do I want to steal?" The lies, under the light of right reason will always be exposed. Why then, assuming that we are reasonable men devoted to Christianity, does it seem that Sola Scriptura is such a complete failure in light of logical, philosophical, theological, and historical consistency?
By the way, based upon your pope's new decrees, does this mean that the Catholic Mass will no longer be in English (or whatever the area's language), but instead always in Latin?
Um, no. It means that the way that the Church prayed historically (from around 500 to 1970 or so) is still valid and beneficial and that priests are free to pray that way if they wish and, so long as it is seen as the best interest of their flock, they may make that a parish mass.
Does it also mean that the Catholic Church will again dissuade its members from reading the Bible?
As to no longer reading the Bible, well, I'd like you to show me one time where the Church forbid reading good and approved translations. See, if you actually care to read your history and the Church documents of the times, the only time that any form of Bible reading was suppressed was when some group of morons were adding words to the translation. For example, a translation might read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believeth in him and belongs to the elect shall not perish..." It is like their forbidding people to read the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.
1. Find a writer prior to Wycliffe (15th century British monk) who consistently taught scripture alone and did not oppose Pauline doctrine or the incarnation.
As a bit of a side note, there are quite a few people who believed this position prior to Wycliffe, but they also believed, “Marriage bad adultery good,” or some such nonsense.
Your statement regarding Peter & Paul has been moved to the next question.
I MUST be mis-reading your statement in green above. Are you stating that Pauline doctrine and incarnation are BOTH incorrect? Certainly, incarnation is (no need for the heart attack you might have just had!). But, since Paul's writings are also in the Catholic Bible, how can they not be accepted by the Catholic Church? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Yes, you are. All of the people who claimed that the Bible was the only standard to doctrine prior to Wyclif were decided heretics. Wycliff himself said that the Church and their pastors were to hold no common property (which goes against clear statements in the Bible). Therefore, as the doctrine has no precedence in orthodox thought, it must be at least suspect.
Augustine stated "What scripture says, God says!" Augustine also states "In those teachings which are clearly based on scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of life".
I tried to look for context on these quotes, to that effect I searched NewAdvent.org, the most complete collection of Augustine’s works. I also googled it. There is no citation available. Please provide the writing that Augustine wrote this in or retract statement.
There was one attempt at citation, it referenced On Christian Doctrine 2.20 but I could not find that quote there. I did, however, find in book I of that same work quotes which are very conspicuous. The Church can say that someone’s sins are not forgiven, something a bit more pressing than simple dogmatic definitions, for if the Church were to take an interpretation of scripture and say, “It is not a sin to believe this,” then who could question this? Now, this further implies, at least to me, that Augustine would argue that bishops have the authority to, “[uphold the] testimony of the Catholic Church,” (Augustine, Contra Fausta, book XI).
This means that they are right defenders of the faith and it is their job to prevent heresy. Further, acting corporately, they have the ability to define what orthodoxy is as they, like the Apostles before them, have the authority to bind and loose.
And furthermore, whether you believe this is speaking to the authority of one’s local patriarch or you believe this is speaking to the See of Peter, you have to contest with Augustine’s quote regarding a particular bishop in Rome. “The [bishop of Rome] has decided, thus settles the case” - said to the resolution of a debate over heresy.
I’m sorry, even if Augustine did say what you said he did, he did not say it consistently. This fails the first test.
That's fine...I'll retract the statement from Augustine, if that's what you like. I did find it referenced elsewhere, but I did not find the specific spot where it came from. So, it is retracted.
Thus point is proved. The following is irrelevant to the first challenge (as the challenge was to find someone who might be viewed as Christian who taught sola scriptura prior to Wyclif), but I will speak on it anyway.
However, if you accept the idea that "sacred tradition" must be used (or Papal infallibility for that matter), then you have some problems of your own. They are as follows:
a) Humans are flawed. This is a problem for both of our sides...but more for so yours. Here's why. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church CANNOT be wrong on the interpretation of the Bible. But, this would mean that God has decided that the Church rules over His teachings. You're okay with that?
Yes. Because, unless I am mistaken, the Church's head is Christ. All thoughts must therefore eminate from him.
b) Papal Infallibility. It was not an article of faith for the Catholic church until the late 1800s. Therefore, prior to that, the Catholics had a more reliable understanding of the fact that the Pope is, can you guess what I'm going to say?
If Papal Infallibility was not thought until the 18th century, why did Luther specifically attack it (at the Diet of Worms he was forced to declare that he did not, in fact, believe in the infallibility of the papacy)? In fact, there are documents which can clearly demonstrate that it was commonly understood that the Pope was the final doctrinal authority (which is what infallibility means) in the second century. That's what, 1600 years earlier?
I believe that you're mistaking the defining of infallibility with the belief. This, unfortunately, is like believing that there was no word for, "Calendar," before Mr. Webster wrote his dictionary.
THE POPE IS HUMAN!!!!
Really? Because I thought he had sprung from the side of Zeus and was given dominion over the world to subjugate it to his pagan ways. Wow, you've really taught me something there.
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings there. You must believe that the Pope is equal to God Himself to believe that the Pope is infallible...in his writings or otherwise.
To this point I must ask, "Are you even reading this?" I have expressed many points several times without your answering them. I explain something and then five minutes later I find that you are attacking your own preconceived and ill-informed prejudices. From your writing style I would suggest that you have little interest in truth and are more concerned with promulgating your own lies.
2. Provide an infallible source which defines what is to be in scripture that does not challenge your assertion that scripture is the ultimate authority.
Some very nice verbal (written?) finagling.
Not finagling. This is a very specific question for a very specific point.
It is POSSIBLE that there are books in scripture that do not belong, or books that are not in scripture which do belong
So how do you know what to believe? So long as the canon is open and there is no final standard, there is there?
I still maintain: Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids! Do you know, 100% W/NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that when you get in your car today that you will not be hit by some maniac driver and possibly perish? You don't know that, do you? Yet, you take the educated risk of driving anyway.
This isn't about doubt. You have not shown that I am wrong in any way with my assertion that without an authoritative definition you do not know that God has told us one thing which is left out of scripture. If there is but one request left out, then your love is defective. I cannot believe that this does not cause you some anxiety.
Same goes for the scriptures. Based upon the evidence that is available, I believe that the correct scriptures are in the Bible.
BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE? SHOW ME!
After all, if a book of the Bible disagrees with the rest of the Bible...IT DOES NOT BELONG!
PROVE IT. YOU HAVE NO PROOF YOU HAVE NO PROOF YOU HAVE NO PROOF!
For me, I'm sticking with Jesus! (is Jesus, in terms of the Old Testament, infallible enough for you?)
No, it isn’t. You don’t know whether he’s including Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, the Deuterocanon, etc. Heck, because he only references the Psalms in the “writings,” we really can’t say that he included anything but them from the books of the Old Testament.
And yes, there are other citations in the New Testament to other writings but Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (and Job, I believe) are not referenced elsewhere. Also, if anything, the Septuagint is cited when the Apostles wish to reference the Old Testament - a collection which included the Deuterocanon…
And, for that manner, you don’t even know if the Gospels are the right ones! Maybe he never did! You have proved only that the canonical Gospels agree that parts of the Old Testament are valid.
Oh, yes, let's start including other "gospels", shall we? How about we start with the "Gospel of Peter", which was written WELL after Peter's death and had Jesus saying that He would turn Mary into a man?
Actually, the Gospel of Thomas is the one that talks about gender confusion. The Gospel of Peter is a combination of a couple of canonical passion narratives plus a couple of irrelevant details (the earthquake knocked over the lamps so that the darkness was complete, etc.) Admittedly, it is something which I cannot say does not belong in the Bible nor does it. It's really nothing special at all. But, you demonstrate that you haven't even bothered reading the source.
Or, how about the "Gospel of Judas" which is certainly historically accurate, since it was written hundreds of years after Judas' death?
I think I can safely say that you have missed the point. The point is that you don't know if you're leaving something out and one of the most reliable sources from the ancient world includes something which you're omitting.
I'm fairly certain that we've got the right Gospels. And, based upon the incredible documentary evidence we have, I am also fairly certain that the Gospels are historically accurate. Do we need to get into a debate about the historical accuracy of the Gospels? I certainly hope not, since you are Catholic.
You don't know if one was left out though... do you? You still
1b) [this is included from above] 2 Peter 3:15...Peter clearly endorses Paul
But who has endorsed Peter? And then who endorsed the Gospel writers? And who included James and John? Should we then only include Peter and Paul?
Who endorsed Peter!? Well, let's see about that...perhaps JESUS Himself!
Do you know that? Peter was (in the Bible) never instructed to write scriptures. No one ever says that Peter's writings are scripture anywhere in the Bible.
Huh? Wasn't going here at all.
The Gospel writers are endorsed by the veracity of their testimony.
How so?
James is not a Gospel that I recognize.
James was a NT writer.
John is Jesus' beloved desciple, and one of the inner circle.
Does the Gospel of John claim to be written by John? What about the Epistles? I don't see it there.
But I thought the Catholic Church was infallible? How could it have EVER been wrong? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Either the Church is infallible, or it isn't.
Simple, that which has not been shown to be true or false through the work of the Church is outside of the domain of Church doctrine. For example, aliens may or may not exist, so they may or may not have mortal souls. This is all speculation. If we do find that God has separated some humans onto another planet (much like he separated Native Americans) then we will know that they have mortal souls. Before Isaac Newton wrote his laws, it was acceptable to believe that magnets pulled everything to earth. But when the objective truth was discovered, there was a defined "right" and "wrong."
Infallibility holds a responsibility with it; it is not a toy. The Church measures the evidence and says, "this doctrine is consistent with the teachings of Christ we hold that it is true." Once this is known, to disagree is worse than saying, "I do not believe in gravity," and throwing yourself off of a cliff.
I have no problem with tradition, in and of itself. My problem is with the belief that tradition can be equal to the Bible. There is nothing that says this is so.
There is also nothing that says it is not. Further, there is evidence, both in the Tradition and Scripture, to hold that certain traditions are inspired.
(Before you wrote the following, the argument proceeded thus: I asked you for an outside source defining scripture which was inerrant or infallible. You produced Athanasius because he was "the most ancient." I said this both 1. fails the test -- Athanasius is neither infallible or inerrant and 2. not the first one to produce a proposed canon. You responded that you don't need someone to be inerrant. I here submit that this means you have failed the test.)
Since we are speaking of the Bible, and we both believe it is inspired by God, then this is the best possible impartial evidence we have. If something agrees with the parts of the Bible that Jesus Himself recognized, then it's good to go. If not, then it's good to go in the trash!
But I believe that there is legitimate and good extra-biblical evidence.
This is sufficient for one email. There will be at least one more coming and possibly two.
I therefore maintain that if yours is not the truth, why does it not show itself to be the consistent truth? Should it not be self-evident that I am wrong?
You might counter that the devil is a convincing liar who works consistently, but this is not true. All temptation plays to emotion over logic. The question is not, "Is it logical to steal a bagel?" The question is, "Do I want to steal?" The lies, under the light of right reason will always be exposed. Why then, assuming that we are reasonable men devoted to Christianity, does it seem that Sola Scriptura is such a complete failure in light of logical, philosophical, theological, and historical consistency?
By the way, based upon your pope's new decrees, does this mean that the Catholic Mass will no longer be in English (or whatever the area's language), but instead always in Latin?
Um, no. It means that the way that the Church prayed historically (from around 500 to 1970 or so) is still valid and beneficial and that priests are free to pray that way if they wish and, so long as it is seen as the best interest of their flock, they may make that a parish mass.
Does it also mean that the Catholic Church will again dissuade its members from reading the Bible?
As to no longer reading the Bible, well, I'd like you to show me one time where the Church forbid reading good and approved translations. See, if you actually care to read your history and the Church documents of the times, the only time that any form of Bible reading was suppressed was when some group of morons were adding words to the translation. For example, a translation might read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believeth in him and belongs to the elect shall not perish..." It is like their forbidding people to read the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.
1. Find a writer prior to Wycliffe (15th century British monk) who consistently taught scripture alone and did not oppose Pauline doctrine or the incarnation.
As a bit of a side note, there are quite a few people who believed this position prior to Wycliffe, but they also believed, “Marriage bad adultery good,” or some such nonsense.
Your statement regarding Peter & Paul has been moved to the next question.
I MUST be mis-reading your statement in green above. Are you stating that Pauline doctrine and incarnation are BOTH incorrect? Certainly, incarnation is (no need for the heart attack you might have just had!). But, since Paul's writings are also in the Catholic Bible, how can they not be accepted by the Catholic Church? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Yes, you are. All of the people who claimed that the Bible was the only standard to doctrine prior to Wyclif were decided heretics. Wycliff himself said that the Church and their pastors were to hold no common property (which goes against clear statements in the Bible). Therefore, as the doctrine has no precedence in orthodox thought, it must be at least suspect.
Augustine stated "What scripture says, God says!" Augustine also states "In those teachings which are clearly based on scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of life".
I tried to look for context on these quotes, to that effect I searched NewAdvent.org, the most complete collection of Augustine’s works. I also googled it. There is no citation available. Please provide the writing that Augustine wrote this in or retract statement.
There was one attempt at citation, it referenced On Christian Doctrine 2.20 but I could not find that quote there. I did, however, find in book I of that same work quotes which are very conspicuous. The Church can say that someone’s sins are not forgiven, something a bit more pressing than simple dogmatic definitions, for if the Church were to take an interpretation of scripture and say, “It is not a sin to believe this,” then who could question this? Now, this further implies, at least to me, that Augustine would argue that bishops have the authority to, “[uphold the] testimony of the Catholic Church,” (Augustine, Contra Fausta, book XI).
This means that they are right defenders of the faith and it is their job to prevent heresy. Further, acting corporately, they have the ability to define what orthodoxy is as they, like the Apostles before them, have the authority to bind and loose.
And furthermore, whether you believe this is speaking to the authority of one’s local patriarch or you believe this is speaking to the See of Peter, you have to contest with Augustine’s quote regarding a particular bishop in Rome. “The [bishop of Rome] has decided, thus settles the case” - said to the resolution of a debate over heresy.
I’m sorry, even if Augustine did say what you said he did, he did not say it consistently. This fails the first test.
That's fine...I'll retract the statement from Augustine, if that's what you like. I did find it referenced elsewhere, but I did not find the specific spot where it came from. So, it is retracted.
Thus point is proved. The following is irrelevant to the first challenge (as the challenge was to find someone who might be viewed as Christian who taught sola scriptura prior to Wyclif), but I will speak on it anyway.
However, if you accept the idea that "sacred tradition" must be used (or Papal infallibility for that matter), then you have some problems of your own. They are as follows:
a) Humans are flawed. This is a problem for both of our sides...but more for so yours. Here's why. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church CANNOT be wrong on the interpretation of the Bible. But, this would mean that God has decided that the Church rules over His teachings. You're okay with that?
Yes. Because, unless I am mistaken, the Church's head is Christ. All thoughts must therefore eminate from him.
b) Papal Infallibility. It was not an article of faith for the Catholic church until the late 1800s. Therefore, prior to that, the Catholics had a more reliable understanding of the fact that the Pope is, can you guess what I'm going to say?
If Papal Infallibility was not thought until the 18th century, why did Luther specifically attack it (at the Diet of Worms he was forced to declare that he did not, in fact, believe in the infallibility of the papacy)? In fact, there are documents which can clearly demonstrate that it was commonly understood that the Pope was the final doctrinal authority (which is what infallibility means) in the second century. That's what, 1600 years earlier?
I believe that you're mistaking the defining of infallibility with the belief. This, unfortunately, is like believing that there was no word for, "Calendar," before Mr. Webster wrote his dictionary.
THE POPE IS HUMAN!!!!
Really? Because I thought he had sprung from the side of Zeus and was given dominion over the world to subjugate it to his pagan ways. Wow, you've really taught me something there.
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings there. You must believe that the Pope is equal to God Himself to believe that the Pope is infallible...in his writings or otherwise.
To this point I must ask, "Are you even reading this?" I have expressed many points several times without your answering them. I explain something and then five minutes later I find that you are attacking your own preconceived and ill-informed prejudices. From your writing style I would suggest that you have little interest in truth and are more concerned with promulgating your own lies.
2. Provide an infallible source which defines what is to be in scripture that does not challenge your assertion that scripture is the ultimate authority.
Some very nice verbal (written?) finagling.
Not finagling. This is a very specific question for a very specific point.
It is POSSIBLE that there are books in scripture that do not belong, or books that are not in scripture which do belong
So how do you know what to believe? So long as the canon is open and there is no final standard, there is there?
I still maintain: Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids! Do you know, 100% W/NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that when you get in your car today that you will not be hit by some maniac driver and possibly perish? You don't know that, do you? Yet, you take the educated risk of driving anyway.
This isn't about doubt. You have not shown that I am wrong in any way with my assertion that without an authoritative definition you do not know that God has told us one thing which is left out of scripture. If there is but one request left out, then your love is defective. I cannot believe that this does not cause you some anxiety.
Same goes for the scriptures. Based upon the evidence that is available, I believe that the correct scriptures are in the Bible.
BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE? SHOW ME!
After all, if a book of the Bible disagrees with the rest of the Bible...IT DOES NOT BELONG!
PROVE IT. YOU HAVE NO PROOF YOU HAVE NO PROOF YOU HAVE NO PROOF!
For me, I'm sticking with Jesus! (is Jesus, in terms of the Old Testament, infallible enough for you?)
No, it isn’t. You don’t know whether he’s including Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, the Deuterocanon, etc. Heck, because he only references the Psalms in the “writings,” we really can’t say that he included anything but them from the books of the Old Testament.
And yes, there are other citations in the New Testament to other writings but Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (and Job, I believe) are not referenced elsewhere. Also, if anything, the Septuagint is cited when the Apostles wish to reference the Old Testament - a collection which included the Deuterocanon…
And, for that manner, you don’t even know if the Gospels are the right ones! Maybe he never did! You have proved only that the canonical Gospels agree that parts of the Old Testament are valid.
Oh, yes, let's start including other "gospels", shall we? How about we start with the "Gospel of Peter", which was written WELL after Peter's death and had Jesus saying that He would turn Mary into a man?
Actually, the Gospel of Thomas is the one that talks about gender confusion. The Gospel of Peter is a combination of a couple of canonical passion narratives plus a couple of irrelevant details (the earthquake knocked over the lamps so that the darkness was complete, etc.) Admittedly, it is something which I cannot say does not belong in the Bible nor does it. It's really nothing special at all. But, you demonstrate that you haven't even bothered reading the source.
Or, how about the "Gospel of Judas" which is certainly historically accurate, since it was written hundreds of years after Judas' death?
I think I can safely say that you have missed the point. The point is that you don't know if you're leaving something out and one of the most reliable sources from the ancient world includes something which you're omitting.
I'm fairly certain that we've got the right Gospels. And, based upon the incredible documentary evidence we have, I am also fairly certain that the Gospels are historically accurate. Do we need to get into a debate about the historical accuracy of the Gospels? I certainly hope not, since you are Catholic.
You don't know if one was left out though... do you? You still
1b) [this is included from above] 2 Peter 3:15...Peter clearly endorses Paul
But who has endorsed Peter? And then who endorsed the Gospel writers? And who included James and John? Should we then only include Peter and Paul?
Who endorsed Peter!? Well, let's see about that...perhaps JESUS Himself!
Do you know that? Peter was (in the Bible) never instructed to write scriptures. No one ever says that Peter's writings are scripture anywhere in the Bible.
Huh? Wasn't going here at all.
The Gospel writers are endorsed by the veracity of their testimony.
How so?
James is not a Gospel that I recognize.
James was a NT writer.
John is Jesus' beloved desciple, and one of the inner circle.
Does the Gospel of John claim to be written by John? What about the Epistles? I don't see it there.
But I thought the Catholic Church was infallible? How could it have EVER been wrong? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Either the Church is infallible, or it isn't.
Simple, that which has not been shown to be true or false through the work of the Church is outside of the domain of Church doctrine. For example, aliens may or may not exist, so they may or may not have mortal souls. This is all speculation. If we do find that God has separated some humans onto another planet (much like he separated Native Americans) then we will know that they have mortal souls. Before Isaac Newton wrote his laws, it was acceptable to believe that magnets pulled everything to earth. But when the objective truth was discovered, there was a defined "right" and "wrong."
Infallibility holds a responsibility with it; it is not a toy. The Church measures the evidence and says, "this doctrine is consistent with the teachings of Christ we hold that it is true." Once this is known, to disagree is worse than saying, "I do not believe in gravity," and throwing yourself off of a cliff.
I have no problem with tradition, in and of itself. My problem is with the belief that tradition can be equal to the Bible. There is nothing that says this is so.
There is also nothing that says it is not. Further, there is evidence, both in the Tradition and Scripture, to hold that certain traditions are inspired.
(Before you wrote the following, the argument proceeded thus: I asked you for an outside source defining scripture which was inerrant or infallible. You produced Athanasius because he was "the most ancient." I said this both 1. fails the test -- Athanasius is neither infallible or inerrant and 2. not the first one to produce a proposed canon. You responded that you don't need someone to be inerrant. I here submit that this means you have failed the test.)
Since we are speaking of the Bible, and we both believe it is inspired by God, then this is the best possible impartial evidence we have. If something agrees with the parts of the Bible that Jesus Himself recognized, then it's good to go. If not, then it's good to go in the trash!
But I believe that there is legitimate and good extra-biblical evidence.
This is sufficient for one email. There will be at least one more coming and possibly two.