pritybetta says "catholics are not christians...

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Ahh--okay. That's an interesting point. I don't agree with one person deciding for another what the "rules" of posting on the debate forum of a chess site must be, but at least I understand the thread now.
Thank you.

no i don't decide. but common sense demands that if you make a claim, you offer arguments. which she did in a thread just now.

Yeah, Christianity is just one big mess when you start digging. 🙄[/b]

I suggest you dig a bit deeper!! Try Biblical prophecy.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]My understanding of prima scriptura, the Roman Catholic position, is that secondary sources have authority only in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures. Only the canon itself remains impervious to correction. Given this, questioning the biblical merit of certain core Catholic beliefs remains relevant.

This is not true. The Cath ...[text shortened]... ves all the features of one true church, it does not constitute this church in all entirety.[/b]

As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility,...

I had a very lengthy debate with lucifershammer about this, one in which we each did a great deal of research along the way. The tradition is hardly unequivocal on this question—that is, infallibility; and on the question of the supremacy of the Roman Patriarch (Pope)—(same for scripture).

One really needs to look at the Greek Orthodox readings of both scripture and tradition on this issue. I tend to agree with the Orthodox; however, the point is that it is—equivocal!

“Tradition” is not necessarily as the RCC reads it. That is no reason—as I tried to point out in the other thread—for Protestants to ignore tradition (which, in fact, they cannot).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility,...

I had a very lengthy debate with lucifershammer about this, one in which we each did a great deal of research along the way. The tradition is hardly unequivocal on this question—that is, infallibility; and on the question of the supremacy of t ...[text shortened]... point out in the other thread—for Protestants to ignore tradition (which, in fact, they cannot).[/b]

We are using "tradition" differently, I think. If I recall properly, you and lucifershammer argued about the infaillibility of the pope in the pre-schism years, which I suppose could be called the patristic tradition. I am referring more broadly to the tradition as the collection of dogmatic statements in the RCC, which includes those of 1870.

I may have been abusing the term.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility,...

I had a very lengthy debate with lucifershammer about this, one in which we each did a great deal of research along the way. The tradition is hardly unequivocal on this question—that is, infallibility; and on the question of the supremacy of t ...[text shortened]... point out in the other thread—for Protestants to ignore tradition (which, in fact, they cannot).[/b]

“Tradition” is not necessarily as the RCC reads it. That is no reason—as I tried to point out in the other thread—for Protestants to ignore tradition (which, in fact, they cannot).

I suppose, not being Catholic, I must be Protestant, right? 😉

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with tradition. There is a great deal of tradition which is essential to and necessary for establishing certain doctrinal views extrapolated from the authority of scripture, e.g., the Trinity, Jesus as both God and man, etc., which I recognize as being established in RCC tradition. I could care less whether such tradition arise from the RCC or any other established Christian church, as long as it is in sync with scripture. What I take issue with is what I would call "bad" tradition; i.e., traditional beliefs or practices which aren't substantiated by scripture.

Bad tradition is that which I do have a right to ignore, especially when such tradition may possibly make Christ's gospel of no effect.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Of course the RCC will invoke Tradition to justify any inconsistencies with scripture, but the simple fact that the RCC is capable of successfully rationalizing to itself the legitimacy of its authority lends zero objective credibility to its sacraments.

I do not see how that is the case. Historical records suggest that sacramental norms existed ...[text shortened]... C recognizes it or not).[/b]

So, do you think that scripture validates its own authority?[/b]

So, do you think that scripture validates its own authority?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe God validates scripture's authority. First, of course, by inspiring the words of the apostles through the Holy Spirit. And second, by the same manner in which he validated his promise to Abraham, i.e., by fulfilling that promise. Abraham trusted that God would do what he had promised, and God validated that promise by doing what he said he would do. Likewise, the authority of the NT is validated by the power of God in the lives of those who believe the promises found there.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So, do you think that scripture validates its own authority?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe God validates scripture's authority. First, of course, by inspiring the words of the apostles through the Holy Spirit. And second, by the same manner in which he validated his promise to Abraham, i.e., by fulfilling that promise. Abra ...[text shortened]... NT is validated by the power of God in the lives of those who believe the promises found there.[/b]

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe God validates scripture's authority. First, of course, by inspiring the words of the apostles through the Holy Spirit. And second, by the same manner in which he validated his promise to Abraham, i.e., by fulfilling that promise.

It is a technical point: yes, in mainstream Christianity, God is the ultimate authority who validates scripture. But this is not exactly what I asked you. I am asking whether scripture by itself is proof of its own historical veracity and divine inspiration, whether it is "self-validating" in the sense that it is sufficient by itself to establish the truth of its contents. I am not asking whether God gives authority to the scriptures, but whether the scripture lends credence to itself by virtue of what it is -- scripture.

Originally posted by Conrau K
We are using "tradition" differently, I think. If I recall properly, you and lucifershammer argued about the infaillibility of the pope in the pre-schism years, which I suppose could be called the patristic tradition. I am referring more broadly to the tradition as the collection of dogmatic statements in the RCC, which includes those of 1870.

I may have been abusing the term.

LH and I both argued from the pre-schism patristic tradition. I don’t think you were abusing the term, just using it in a (valid) particular sense. I confess that I have in the past used it in a similar particular sense—generally the sense in which an Eastern Orthodox would use it. I am now just trying to broaden that sense somewhat...

As a Lutheran—well that’s original sola scriptura land! Later, as an Anglican (Episcopal) catechumen, I learned that the Anglican Church has three “pillars of faith”: scripture, tradition and reason. (Duecer pointed out to me that Wesley added a fourth.)

I’ll just add a note here regarding your point about the filioque in the other thread: Well, I have studied Eastern Orthodoxy far, far more than Roman Catholicism (my readings in the RCC has always been the mystics: Eckhart, Merton, Dame Julian, etc.—and of course, what you and LH and Ivanhoe post here). The Orthodox claim that the filioque just represented bad theology, and that it was Rome that insisted upon it; the Orthos never claimed that it was heresy of any kind to add the clause—but, as you have pointed out, that would’ve required the calling of a council. I have read some stuff fairly recently by Orthos, exploring interpretations of the filioque that might move toward some concord with Rome, though... Ultimately, the real stumbling block is Papal Supremacy (as opposed to primacy among equals, which they had always granted), and infallibility of course.

BTW, I took the Orthodox position in that extended debate with LH in order to use the debate itself as a learning discipline. I used to have a whole cache of Orthodox sites bookmarked (but I allowed them to get lost when our computer died).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]“Tradition” is not necessarily as the RCC reads it. That is no reason—as I tried to point out in the other thread—for Protestants to ignore tradition (which, in fact, they cannot).

I suppose, not being Catholic, I must be Protestant, right? 😉

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with tradition. There is a great deal of tradition which ...[text shortened]... ht to ignore, especially when such tradition may possibly make Christ's gospel of no effect.[/b]

Where the disagreements begin, of course, is where tradition represents interpretation of scripture—of course, I don’t think that anything I’ve ever presented on here, in the context of exegesis and the post-apostolic tradition, is out of sync with scripture. 🙂

Also, I recognize an originally oral, subsequently written, developing tradition that parallels scripture and addresses matters that are not strictly in scripture—oh, icons, for instance: I don’t see pictorial iconography as any less valid that word-iconography; veneration of a visual icon is no more worship of that icon than veneration of scripture is the same as worship of scripture.

But that’s another matter. My point is that recognition of that parallel tradition(s) is what part of makes me not a sola scripturist.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It is a technical point: yes, in mainstream Christianity, God is the ultimate authority who validates scripture. But this is not exactly what I asked you. I am asking whether scripture by itself is proof of its own historical veracity and divine inspiration, whether it is "self-validating" in the sense that it is sufficient by itself to establish the truth ...[text shortened]... ures, but whether the scripture lends credence to itself by virtue of what it is -- scripture.

Funny, I have atheists asking me the same questions. 🙂

__________

Undoubtedly, believers down through the centuries have recognized the veracity of scripture. But (and this is important to note) believers did not establish the veracity of scripture, they discovered what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word.

The writings of the apostles, because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in some institution. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church.

__________

I am not asking whether God gives authority to the scriptures, but whether the scripture lends credence to itself by virtue of what it is -- scripture.

This question doesn't make any sense to me. If scripture is the inspired word of God, what else need lend credence to its authority? As I point out earlier, the Church recognizes what is inspired and follows the word. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Funny, I have atheists asking me the same questions. 🙂

__________

Undoubtedly, believers down through the centuries have recognized the veracity of scripture. But (and this is important to note) believers did not establish the veracity of scripture, they discovered what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. ired and follows the word. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).

I think you still misunderstand what I am asking you. My fault if this is the case.

This question doesn't make any sense to me. If scripture is the inspired word of God, what else need lend credence to its authority? As I point out earlier, the Church recognizes what is inspired and follows the word. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).

This is precisely the point of contention: how do you know that Scripture is inspired? For sure, only God could grant authority to scripture in such a way that no error is possible. But it is you who makes the determination that such scripture is indeed divinely inspired. In doing so, you must reject the legitimacy of any other rival books which hold forth such a claim to inspiration (such as the Apocrypha and also the books of other faiths.) So my question stands, is scripture self-validating in this way? Is it a proof of itself of its own authority?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think you still misunderstand what I am asking you. My fault if this is the case.

This question doesn't make any sense to me. If scripture is the inspired word of God, what else need lend credence to its authority? As I point out earlier, the Church recognizes what is inspired and follows the word. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." ands, is scripture self-validating in this way? Is it a proof of itself of its own authority?

Yes, scripture is self-validating and proof of its own authority. Other books which aren't inspired may have some value, but Christ's sheep won't recognize God's voice in them. I've read the deuterocanonical books and the Gnostic gospels for myself, and I'm confident the vetting process has largely taken care of itself over the centuries since the time of Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Funny, I have atheists asking me the same questions. 🙂

__________

Undoubtedly, believers down through the centuries have recognized the veracity of scripture. But (and this is important to note) believers did not establish the veracity of scripture, they discovered what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. ...[text shortened]... ired and follows the word. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27).

What the...?!!?

This verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts.

The logos (“word” ) of God is not the Bible. The Logos incarnate is the Christ, the “Son” of God, exemplified by—but not limited to—Jesus of Nazareth. Of course the church recognizes that Word. (Hell, I recognize that Word—though likely not in the particularistic, exclusivist way that you do.)

And even if there was a verb in 2nd Timothy 3:16, to cite scripture in support of the inspiration of scripture is viciously circular.

Two side points:

(1) I have never—never—dismissed your mystical (or “charismatic”, if you prefer) experiences. I have perhaps challenged your interpretations of them, especially in the context of any—at least any universal, as opposed to personal—epistemic warrant.

(2) Sola scripturist or not, there are many instances in which I think your reading of scripture is just—wrong. (Again, at least in any universal sense.) Hence, I cannot ascribe to such readings/interpretations the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, regardless of the charismatic context in which they might have been informed.

Okay, a third point: I suspect that you accede to the charge of epistemic irresponsibility far too readily, as if—in light of spiritual inspiration—that was okay.

Actually, I had another point that I forget....

Let me just say this (do you recall my “sermon” about “Coloring Inside the Lines”, in the sermon contest last year?)...well, I’ll just leave that open. Except—do you think I just make that stuff up? Do you think that whenever I adopt “Christic” language in/from which to speak, I am just faking it? Because I am also willing to use other language if is seems appropriate?

If so, it is my fault. Definitely and clearly my fault.

What do you think was my original language for expressing what I attempt to express? (Hint: It wasn’t the language of Zen Buddhism.)

My real gripe is with religious formalists who think that their word-signs and symbols are themselves the truth; which I find to be idolatrous. That is why I generally refuse to answer them on their own terms, in terms of their own formulaic statements. That is why I refused to answer, “No” to a recent question about whether or not I am a “Christian”.

And that is also likely at the root of my own frustration with my own attempts to communicate on here of late.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm confident the vetting process has largely taken care of itself over the centuries since the time of Christ.

Ahh...Tradition!

Originally posted by vistesd
[....My real gripe is with religious formalists who think that their word-signs and symbols are themselves the truth; which I find to be idolatrous. .....

Vistesd, I find this to be a very thought provoking statement. I think you said it in another thread a few minutes ago. Care to enlarge on it and probably give some examples. Thanks.