The Mystery and power of God’s grace!

[donadams]

No "buts"

The point is singular and unequivocal: Anything that contradicts God's word is not to be trusted. Therefore, whatever other authorities may exist, they cannot contradict scripture and be trusted.

Yes?

No one likes repeating themselves. It has already been established there are other authorities. It has already been established sola scriptura does not say anything about denying the existence of other authorities. It has also now been established anything that contradicts God's word is not to be trusted.

Great question but that has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is the third time now you've asked about or asserted a non sequitur. Regardless by what means it is (correctly) interpreted, scripture is the authority. When you ask, "By what means is it interpreted?" what you are asking is not "Is scripture the authority?" but "What authority interprets scripture?" and "What authority interprets the authoritative scripture?" and that is an entirely different question from "Is scripture the authority?" Since anything that contradicts scripture is not to be trusted, we necessarily know and understand any authority interpreting scripture cannot do so in any manner that contradicts scripture, otherwise, that "authority" isn't an authority and is not to be trusted on any such occasion.

Yes?

And the reason this is important is because since scripture is authoritative to all that it speaks and sufficient for understanding faith and the Christian life, we do not want just anyone interpreting it any way they like and claiming that is the authoritative way to read the scripture that is authoritative. We most definitely do not want a bunch of differing authorities interpreting the authoritative scripture in differing ways and creating multiple authorities and multiple authoritative views of scripture which would all be the authorities of Christians.

Yes?

Then we can stop saying “scripture alone” and “sola scriptura”!

Why did Christ establish a church with authority to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation? Matt 16:18 28:19 Etc.
thanks

 

[donadams]

Are Christian required to be taught or to make their own doctrine from scripture?

 

[donadams]

@donadams,


Aside from your confirming the four "yesses" in the previous two posts, I have a question for you. I know the answer, but I'd like to know you know, I'd like to build from consensus, and I'd like the lurkers to benefit accordingly.



When did the Magisterium come into existence?

When Christ founded the church on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18-19
What is a magisterium?

 

[donadams]

By the Spirit with other Scripture 1 Cor 2:12-13

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Only by the authority of the apostolic church

 

[brightfame52]

Only by the authority of the apostolic church

Thats false, you are a idolator, a church worshiper

 

[Josheb]

Then we can stop saying “scripture alone” and “sola scriptura”!

No, we say "sola scriptura" and "scripture alone," and we do not abuse either term to make them say things they do not teach. We do not argue a dissent based on straw men. We correctly understand the specifics of sola scripture and its inherent limits; we do not ignore either.

Why did Christ establish a church with authority to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation? Matt 16:18 28:19 Etc.
thanks

Off topic. Do not move the goal posts. Come to agreement before moving on to other matters.

Say it, don: "I misunderstood sola scriptura, what it teaches and its inherent limits, and my protests were baseless." Put it in your own words if you like but do not pretend any further that the protest(s) had any rational basis or logical construction.

 

[Josheb]

When Christ founded the church on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18-19
What is a magisterium?

That is not an answer to my question. It's another dodge. The question asked you is valid, relevant, and very easy to answer:

When did the Magisterium come into existence?

I will ask you about what preceded it and all the other related questions, and you will have plenty of opportunity to answer all the questions and ask your own (as long as they are relevant to the current subject at hand), and I will gladly provide scriptural and historically factual answers. By answering my questions you have the opportunity to assert your pov and you give me the opportunity to say, "Yep" (as I have already done multiple times). I reiterate: I have no particular axe to grind. I am not going to RC-rag for the sake of RC ragging. You have the opprtunity to have a different conversation with me.

Do so.

Just answer the questions asked and expect me to do likewise because when you do stuff like you just did, I'm gonna call you on it. If you are going to be a "good" RC and defend your views, then do it well. No more subterfuge. One last point: On any occasion where the answer is, "I do not know," then just say so. Not knowing something is a place of learning if handled that way. No shame, no exploitation, no RC-ragging.



When did the Magisterium come into existence?

 

[donadams]

Thats false, you are a idolator, a church worshiper

Did d Christ found a church?

 

[donadams]

No, we say "sola scriptura" and "scripture alone," and we do not abuse either term to make them say things they do not teach. We do not argue a dissent based on straw men. We correctly understand the specifics of sola scripture and its inherent limits; we do not ignore either.

Off topic. Do not move the goal posts. Come to agreement before moving on to other matters.

Say it, don: "I misunderstood sola scriptura, what it teaches and its inherent limits, and my protests were baseless." Put it in your own words if you like but do not pretend any further that the protest(s) had any rational basis or logical construction.

Sola means alone!

It’s not off topic Christian’s must be taught

 

[donadams]

That is not an answer to my question. It's another dodge. The question asked you is valid, relevant, and very easy to answer:

When did the Magisterium come into existence?

I will ask you about what preceded it and all the other related questions, and you will have plenty of opportunity to answer all the questions and ask your own (as long as they are relevant to the current subject at hand), and I will gladly provide scriptural and historically factual answers. By answering my questions you have the opportunity to assert your pov and you give me the opportunity to say, "Yep" (as I have already done multiple times). I reiterate: I have no particular axe to grind. I am not going to RC-rag for the sake of RC ragging. You have the opprtunity to have a different conversation with me.

Do so.

Just answer the questions asked and expect me to do likewise because when you do stuff like you just did, I'm gonna call you on it. If you are going to be a "good" RC and defend your views, then do it well. No more subterfuge. One last point: On any occasion where the answer is, "I do not know," then just say so. Not knowing something is a place of learning if handled that way. No shame, no exploitation, no RC-ragging.



When did the Magisterium come into existence?

It was instituted by Christ
Matt 23:1 the successors of Moses had the kingdom and it’s authority
Christ took it from them and gave to Peter and the apostles establishing the church and the magisterium Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 eph 2:20
Thanks

 

[brightfame52]

Did d Christ found a church?

Who do you mean by Christ ? Who is He, what has He accomplished, and for whom did He accomplish it ?

 

[Josheb]

Sola means alone!

It’s not off topic Christian’s must be taught

But it does not mean alone over everything. You are off-topic when you make sola scriptura mean things it does not mean. Every single time you do that you are ALWAYS arguing a strawman.

It was instituted by Christ
Matt 23:1 the successors of Moses had the kingdom and it’s authority
Christ took it from them and gave to Peter and the apostles establishing the church and the magisterium Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 eph 2:20
Thanks

No, it was not. The Magisterium was instituted by name in the 19th century. Prior to that the branch of the RCC that served that role began in late 9th century. It was necessary at that time to have a body taking authority over the correct interpretation of scripture for two reasons: 1) most people did not have Bibles (most people were illiterate) and 2) there was growing division in the institution of the Church. In less than 75 years the Schism would occur.

Now it is reasonable for a person of Catholic faith to trace the Magisterium back to the Jerusalem Council described in Acts but the council in Jerusalem did NOT call itself the "Magisterium." The Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist back then and Peter was NOT the leader of that council. The evidence of Acts and Galatians proves Peter was mistaken on a very important doctrinal matter. Something the Pope, presumably, would never do .

The fact is there are three components to the Magisterium, a sort of "checks and balances" because none of them is the sole authority over the other, AND all of them - according to Catholic doctrine - garner their power from the people, the body of Christ. Presumably, you know what I just posted to be correct but, if you doubt this, I can provide statements from the official RCC website proving this.

You have not correctly understood sola scriptura so I am doubtful you correctly understand the Magisterium and the official RCC teachings governing its existence.



The fact is it took several hundred years of vigorous and prayerful debate for the Church to decide its doctrines. By the time that happened not only was orthodoxy established, but so too was the institutional structure of what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. The Magisterium did not come into formal existence for several more centuries, during which time the RCC continued to debate, pray about, and formalize various teaching - many of which directly contradict plainly read scripture that do not require an authoritative body to correctly understand.

Clerical celibacy would be one of them.

Peter was married.

We now live in an age when people can find scripture near-instantly and read it for themselves. That is both a strength and a weakness because ignorance is not bliss and scripture is not to be interpreted subjectively, nor eisegetically. There is a need for some means by which scripture is read and understood correctly by all. That means is exegesis. Even the Magisterium and the Pope practice exegesis.




So....


Stop making sola scriptura mean things it does not teach, stop arguing strawmen based on that misguided understanding of sola scriptura, answer questions directly when asked, be honest and forthcoming with both me and yourself about the Magisterium and Church history, and acknowledge the facts in evidence.

 

[donadams]

But it does not mean alone over everything. You are off-topic when you make sola scriptura mean things it does not mean. Every single time you do that you are ALWAYS arguing a strawman.

No, it was not. The Magisterium was instituted by name in the 19th century. Prior to that the branch of the RCC that served that role began in late 9th century. It was necessary at that time to have a body taking authority over the correct interpretation of scripture for two reasons: 1) most people did not have Bibles (most people were illiterate) and 2) there was growing division in the institution of the Church. In less than 75 years the Schism would occur.

Now it is reasonable for a person of Catholic faith to trace the Magisterium back to the Jerusalem Council described in Acts but the council in Jerusalem did NOT call itself the "Magisterium." The Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist back then and Peter was NOT the leader of that council. The evidence of Acts and Galatians proves Peter was mistaken on a very important doctrinal matter. Something the Pope, presumably, would never do .

The fact is there are three components to the Magisterium, a sort of "checks and balances" because none of them is the sole authority over the other, AND all of them - according to Catholic doctrine - garner their power from the people, the body of Christ. Presumably, you know what I just posted to be correct but, if you doubt this, I can provide statements from the official RCC website proving this.

You have not correctly understood sola scriptura so I am doubtful you correctly understand the Magisterium and the official RCC teachings governing its existence.



The fact is it took several hundred years of vigorous and prayerful debate for the Church to decide its doctrines. By the time that happened not only was orthodoxy established, but so too was the institutional structure of what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. The Magisterium did not come into formal existence for several more centuries, during which time the RCC continued to debate, pray about, and formalize various teaching - many of which directly contradict plainly read scripture that do not require an authoritative body to correctly understand.

Clerical celibacy would be one of them.

Peter was married.

We now live in an age when people can find scripture near-instantly and read it for themselves. That is both a strength and a weakness because ignorance is not bliss and scripture is not to be interpreted subjectively, nor eisegetically. There is a need for some means by which scripture is read and understood correctly by all. That means is exegesis. Even the Magisterium and the Pope practice exegesis.




So....


Stop making sola scriptura mean things it does not teach, stop arguing strawmen based on that misguided understanding of sola scriptura, answer questions directly when asked, be honest and forthcoming with both me and yourself about the Magisterium and Church history, and acknowledge the facts in evidence.

Alone means alone! No possibility of “any” anything added!

What is “apostolic tradition”?

 

[Josheb]

Alone means alone! No possibility of “any” anything added!

What is “apostolic tradition”?

Sola Scriptura does not claim to be the sole authority always and everywhere. Scripture is the lone authority for faith and the Christian life, sufficient for understanding salvation. Nothing more.

Claiming sola scriptura means things is does not mean is factual error. Arguing against such a misrepresentation a straw man. Claiming other authorities exist is a red herring because sola scriptura does say anything about the existence of other authorities other than they cannot contradict scripture (something you have agree with). Calling sola scriptura a false doctrine is an appeal to ridicule. Arguing the Magisterium is authoritative for understanding scripture is equal to being authoritative over scripture is a false equivalence. Using scripture to prove any point begs the question in antithesis. Arguing against misunderstandings is moving the goalposts. Repetition is argumentum ad nauseam.

• Factual error
• Straw man
• Red herring
• Appeal to ridicule
• False equivalence
• begging the question
• Moving the goalpost
• Repetitive protest

There is simply no way any case made with so many fallacies can be reasonable and rational. Neither can it be scriptural, and I doubt it is what the RCC argues because if that is the way the Magisterium argues then it has proven itself NOT an authority.

Are Christian required to be taught or to make their own doctrine from scripture?

What does scripture say?

Only by the authority of the apostolic church

Is that something scripture says?

Did d Christ found a church?

What does scripture say?

It was instituted by Christ
Matt 23:1 the successors of Moses had the kingdom and it’s authority
Christ took it from them and gave to Peter and the apostles establishing the church and the magisterium Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 eph 2:20
Thanks

Is that what scripture says?


Can you see the problem? If you use scripture to prove a point, then you have demonstrated scripture is authoritative to all that it speaks regarding faith and the Christian life. If scripture speaks to any point, you make then, again, scripture has been shown authoritative. Any point you make that contradicts scripture proves two things 1) the other would-be authority isn't authoritative because it contradicts scripture and 2) you've run into self-contradiction because you agreed no authority can contradict scripture.

I do not care who a protester is (or isn't), they MUST be able to form a better case than the one mustered in these two pages.



Now the facts of the Magisterium are that they do not hold themselves to be an authority above scripture. They do not, in fact, hold themselves to be authoritative over many things regarding faith and Christian life or their own existence. The Magesterium is established by the sacrament of Orders. It is more authoritative then the Magisterium . There are three magisteriums, not one (ordinary, conciliar, pontifical). The Bishops of the Magisterium, are accompanied by trained theologians upon whom they rely. These theologians are Masters of Doctrine. The former holds the authority when it proposes a doctrine with which the Pope agrees, but they are dependent upon the theologians to make scripturally and (RC) doctrinally informed decisions, as well as Christ and the Holy Spirit and Christ's Successor (which is a post-scriptural second century term invented by Irenaeus and not found in scripture). According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope has no authority apart from the Bishops and the Bishops have no authority apart from the people from whom they were chosen, and they all represent Christ who provided the Holy Spirit upon whom they rely to understand scripture and determine sound and infallible doctrine.

And since the written word of God, the person of Christ, and revelation of God are all Divine (the logos, Person, and rhema) All those entities just listed receive their authority from a superior authority: God's word (whether logos, incarnate, or rhema). It is Catholic doctrine.



Does that mean an agency responsible for uniform instruction is not needed? No! The Magisterium is certainly something the Protestants are lacking but since the Magisterium can demonstrably be shown imperfect the Catholics have little basis for making Tradition and the Magisterium co-equals with scripture. The entire reason Protestantism exists is because of godless errors made in the RCC blatantly in contradiction to scripture. If the RCC leadership had listened to the Catholic men crying out for reform Protestantism might not exist. So you think about that because every single protest you will ever have against sola scripture always and everywhere come accompanied by the historical facts of the Reformation proving Catholic doctrine pertaining to faith and the Christian life (they were selling absolution!!!) imperfect and the RCC's own subsequent internal reformation. If they'd been perfect to begin with their own reformation wouldn't have been necessary, and if they'd listened to the Reformers (most of whom were good Catholics NOT wanting to leave the RC) you and I would not be having this discussion.

 

[donadams]

Sola Scriptura does not claim to be the sole authority always and everywhere. Scripture is the lone authority for faith and the Christian life, sufficient for understanding salvation. Nothing more.

Claiming sola scriptura means things is does not mean is factual error. Arguing against such a misrepresentation a straw man. Claiming other authorities exist is a red herring because sola scriptura does say anything about the existence of other authorities other than they cannot contradict scripture (something you have agree with). Calling sola scriptura a false doctrine is an appeal to ridicule. Arguing the Magisterium is authoritative for understanding scripture is equal to being authoritative over scripture is a false equivalence. Using scripture to prove any point begs the question in antithesis. Arguing against misunderstandings is moving the goalposts. Repetition is argumentum ad nauseam.

• Factual error
• Straw man
• Red herring
• Appeal to ridicule
• False equivalence
• begging the question
• Moving the goalpost
• Repetitive protest

There is simply no way any case made with so many fallacies can be reasonable and rational. Neither can it be scriptural, and I doubt it is what the RCC argues because if that is the way the Magisterium argues then it has proven itself NOT an authority.

What does scripture say?

Is that something scripture says?

What does scripture say?

Is that what scripture says?


Can you see the problem? If you use scripture to prove a point, then you have demonstrated scripture is authoritative to all that it speaks regarding faith and the Christian life. If scripture speaks to any point, you make then, again, scripture has been shown authoritative. Any point you make that contradicts scripture proves two things 1) the other would-be authority isn't authoritative because it contradicts scripture and 2) you've run into self-contradiction because you agreed no authority can contradict scripture.

I do not care who a protester is (or isn't), they MUST be able to form a better case than the one mustered in these two pages.



Now the facts of the Magisterium are that they do not hold themselves to be an authority above scripture. They do not, in fact, hold themselves to be authoritative over many things regarding faith and Christian life or their own existence. The Magesterium is established by the sacrament of Orders. It is more authoritative then the Magisterium . There are three magisteriums, not one (ordinary, conciliar, pontifical). The Bishops of the Magisterium, are accompanied by trained theologians upon whom they rely. These theologians are Masters of Doctrine. The former holds the authority when it proposes a doctrine with which the Pope agrees, but they are dependent upon the theologians to make scripturally and (RC) doctrinally informed decisions, as well as Christ and the Holy Spirit and Christ's Successor (which is a post-scriptural second century term invented by Irenaeus and not found in scripture). According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope has no authority apart from the Bishops and the Bishops have no authority apart from the people from whom they were chosen, and they all represent Christ who provided the Holy Spirit upon whom they rely to understand scripture and determine sound and infallible doctrine.

And since the written word of God, the person of Christ, and revelation of God are all Divine (the logos, Person, and rhema) All those entities just listed receive their authority from a superior authority: God's word (whether logos, incarnate, or rhema). It is Catholic doctrine.



Does that mean an agency responsible for uniform instruction is not needed? No! The Magisterium is certainly something the Protestants are lacking but since the Magisterium can demonstrably be shown imperfect the Catholics have little basis for making Tradition and the Magisterium co-equals with scripture. The entire reason Protestantism exists is because of godless errors made in the RCC blatantly in contradiction to scripture. If the RCC leadership had listened to the Catholic men crying out for reform Protestantism might not exist. So you think about that because every single protest you will ever have against sola scripture always and everywhere come accompanied by the historical facts of the Reformation proving Catholic doctrine pertaining to faith and the Christian life (they were selling absolution!!!) imperfect and the RCC's own subsequent internal reformation. If they'd been perfect to begin with their own reformation wouldn't have been necessary, and if they'd listened to the Reformers (most of whom were good Catholics NOT wanting to leave the RC) you and I would not be having this discussion.

Then you think the reformers had authority!

Joke!

No reformers were apostles none had any authority from Christ or his church!

Was no reformation but a revolt where new doctrine and new churches (30,000) of them were started Jn 10:16 one true church

The time of reformation According to scripture was the time of Christ not the time of Luther heb 9:10

Only Christ has authority to establish a church all others are heretical sects the tradition of men!

 

[donadams]

Christ and his church are one! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32

Anyone opposed to Christ or his church or His revelation are in spiritual blindness and bondage

 

[Josheb]

Then you think the reformers had authority!

Joke!

I will add another straw man and another fallacious appeal to ridicule to the already existing list of fallacies deployed in this thread. Mockery is not an argument for anything. I did not say the reformers had authority. Whatever authority they had was based on scripture, not their being reformers. It is an ungodly practice to sell absolution from sins and the RCC eventually recognized that error and reformed themselves. Unblessedly, they unjustly persecuted and murdered those who were simply trying to work within the RCC system to do what was right. Comments like the one just received are a problem to be solved, NOT a cogent and coherent response of reason.


So I think we're done here. It's not possible to have an intelligent conversation with any case so laden with the fallacies deployed in this thread. If you will acknowledge the definition of sola scriptura with which you began was flawed, and if you can acknowledge sola scriptura doesn't claim to be any authority over anything other than faith and the Christian life, particularly as such things pertain to the knowledge of salvation, and if you can acknowledge the authorities of Magisterium and Tradition are based on the authoritative teachings of scripture then I will reconsider continuing. I say this because it took multiple posts to get you to agree anything contradicting scripture is not true and plenty of opportunity has passed for you to say "yes, I agree" to some of our basic areas of agreement and you have refused to do so on every occasion. Now, with comments like,

Then you think the reformers had authority!

Joke!

It looks like you just want to argue.

No reformers were apostles

Red herring. No one said the Reformers were apostles. What I did say is most of them were Catholics in good standing with the RCC when they first asked for reform.

none had any authority from Christ or his church!

Red herring. Not only has no one suggested they were but it is also untrue. Many of the early Reformers were RCC clergy. They had, in fact, been bestowed with certain degrees of authority by the RCC.

Was no reformation but a revolt where new doctrine and new churches (30,000) of them were started Jn 10:16 one true church

Factual falsehood.

The time of reformation According to scripture was the time of Christ not the time of Luther heb 9:10

Factual falsehood. The Counter-Reformation was a time of reform within the RCC at the hands of RCC leadership. This article at catholicdotcom's Catholic Answers explains it. This is not a bias Protestant source, but one from within your own authority.

Only Christ has authority to establish a church all others are heretical sects the tradition of men!

Red herring that obfuscates the fact scripture is the written logos of the incarnate logos to which the pneuma logos and all lesser authorites cannot contradict. You said it yourself in agreement with me: Nothing that contradicts scripture can be nor should be trusted.



So, here at the end, the result is more fallacy, not less.

I'll see you in the next thread, don. Blessings.

 

[brightfame52]

Christ and his church are one! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32

Anyone opposed to Christ or his church or His revelation are in spiritual blindness and bondage

What Christ are you speaking of ? Who is He, what has He accomplished, and for whom ?

 

[Arch Stanton]

The entire reason Protestantism exists is because of godless errors made in the RCC blatantly in contradiction to scripture. If the RCC leadership had listened to the Catholic men crying out for reform Protestantism might not exist.

Would you include the abolishment of the ministerial priesthood?

Thank you!

 

[donadams]

Would you include the abolishment of the ministerial priesthood?

Thank you!

What errors be specific!