Comments on: Evangelicals and Roman Catholics: Sola Scriptura and Papal Infallibility http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:20:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Holopupenko http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45356 Holopupenko Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:57:16 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45356 Hi Barry:      Thanks very much for your gracious response. To be clear, I wasn't trying to... well... Catho-evangelize you (it's not in my job description!). I was just trying to show some of the problems with the doctrine of <i>sola Scriptura</i>, and hint at what the actual Catholic position is.      May I suggest there are significant errors in your exposition of the Catholic position (misunderstanding of what veneration vs. worship are, misunderstanding the difference between infallibility vs. impecability, etc.) throughout your related posts. Given this, it's not that Catholics will "defend" or "respond" to what you propose because they don't properly expound Catholic doctrines in the first place. May I also suggest you consult what Catholic sources such as the Catholic on-line Encyclopedia, Catholic Answers, Ignatius Insight, Cor ad cor loquitur, and others have to say on the matter. You seem to depend significantly on Protestant Evangelical understandings of Catholic doctrines or positions on issues... and they are simply incorrect.      Anyway, enough said. Thanks for your posts--they are interesting and do bring to the fore topics that should be openly and virtuously discussed. In that sense, I commend you for contributing to that general discussion. Hi Barry:
     Thanks very much for your gracious response. To be clear, I wasn’t trying to… well… Catho-evangelize you (it’s not in my job description!). I was just trying to show some of the problems with the doctrine of sola Scriptura, and hint at what the actual Catholic position is.
     May I suggest there are significant errors in your exposition of the Catholic position (misunderstanding of what veneration vs. worship are, misunderstanding the difference between infallibility vs. impecability, etc.) throughout your related posts. Given this, it’s not that Catholics will “defend” or “respond” to what you propose because they don’t properly expound Catholic doctrines in the first place. May I also suggest you consult what Catholic sources such as the Catholic on-line Encyclopedia, Catholic Answers, Ignatius Insight, Cor ad cor loquitur, and others have to say on the matter. You seem to depend significantly on Protestant Evangelical understandings of Catholic doctrines or positions on issues… and they are simply incorrect.
     Anyway, enough said. Thanks for your posts–they are interesting and do bring to the fore topics that should be openly and virtuously discussed. In that sense, I commend you for contributing to that general discussion.

]]> By: Barry Carey http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45350 Barry Carey Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:46:55 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45350 Holopupenko, Wow! What a response! I appreciate the time and effort you have put into the response. My main purpose in presenting this overview is to point out the areas of agreement and disagreement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I have purposefully stated a couple of times that I am aware I am not presenting the Catholic defense of any of these doctrines (and they do have a defense). I am also just giving the briefest of evangelical arguments against the Catholic teaching. I appreciate your willingness to point out some questions Catholics might have in response to evangelical teaching. I will allow your comments to stand as equal time for the opposing view. I wish I had time to speak specifically to your questions (maybe another time?). Perhaps, others would want to respond. Anyway, thanks for your questions and opinions. Friends with fellow Catholic believers, Barry Holopupenko,
Wow! What a response! I appreciate the time and effort you have put into the response. My main purpose in presenting this overview is to point out the areas of agreement and disagreement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I have purposefully stated a couple of times that I am aware I am not presenting the Catholic defense of any of these doctrines (and they do have a defense). I am also just giving the briefest of evangelical arguments against the Catholic teaching. I appreciate your willingness to point out some questions Catholics might have in response to evangelical teaching.

I will allow your comments to stand as equal time for the opposing view. I wish I had time to speak specifically to your questions (maybe another time?). Perhaps, others would want to respond.

Anyway, thanks for your questions and opinions.
Friends with fellow Catholic believers,
Barry

]]> By: Holopupenko http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45310 Holopupenko Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:54:01 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45310 Hi Barey: A few questions: (1) If it’s true, as you claim, that Scripture interprets Scripture…      (a) isn’t that circular or self-referencing reasoning? [e.g., “it’s true because Scripture says it’s true”];      (b) if not, can you please explain why you believe it is not circular;      (c) if you agree it is circular but that Scripture is nonetheless “permitted” this because of “what” it is, on what basis do you believe Scripture is permitted to violate logic, and can you point to a clear Scriptural reference—explicit or implicit—that supports your position?      (d) isn’t it a bit sloppy to claim “Scripture interprets Scripture” when—even if one buys the inherent circularity of such a position—it’s not Scripture that interprets but the reader of Scripture?      (e) if some reader actually interprets Scripture, then who or what bestowed authority on him to interpret Scripture correctly?      (f) My understanding is there are upwards of 33k Protestant denominations/sects out there: who’s interpretation is correct? Could it be that, for among other reasons, this is precisely why there are so many Protestant interpretations across the board of doctrines? In other words, isn’t this a clear sign of the sin against the unity of the Body of Christ?      (g) I’m sure you’ve heard this analogy, but if the U.S. Constitution is ~10-15 printed pages long and needs and interpretive body (the Supreme Court), don’t you think it goes against reason (alone!) to not believe this about so many books written over hundreds of years?      (h) Look at the issue of the canon of Scripture: Luther himself believed the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw” (i.e., almost worthless), and he viewed four books of the New Testament (as we know it today) as “less than inspired.” (Is that something like being “less than pregnant”?) And, how does one deal with the very last sentences of the Gospel of John against your claim that Scripture is the “sufficient and final authority”?      (i) It seems to me that Protestants, while having a problem with ONE Catholic Pope and the Magisterium proclaiming, protecting, and interpreting the deposit of faith, they nonetheless don’t see the obvious problem of having many, many individual “popes” interpreting Scripture as they see fit. Does that go against Proverb 3:5-6 and II Pet 1:20-21 teach? (2) If Scripture is the one true pillar and foundation of truth against which other (theological) truths are judged (as you’ve stated in more or less the same words), how does that square with I Tim 3:15? (Perhaps you’ve heard of the Catholic doctrine of <i>sola verbum Dei</i>?) (3) In terms of Protestants not relying on Traditions (as opposed to traditions), how does this square with II Thess 2:15 and II Thess 3:6. (And, based on what was said above, on what basis should anyone accept your interpretation of these passages as true and authoritative?) (4) Is Scripture alone sufficient (as you say)? How does this square with John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-13)? (5) I agree that II Tim 3:16-17 is a strong endorsement (albeit circular if taken itself) of what Scripture is and can do, but on what basis do you impose a <i>sola</i>? Note that in all this I haven’t broached the issue of infallibility, but what must necessarily precede such a development, i.e., let’s get straight WHAT Scripture is and HOW it is interpreted before proceeding to what is required based on that conclusion. Thanks Hi Barey:

A few questions:

(1) If it’s true, as you claim, that Scripture interprets Scripture…

     (a) isn’t that circular or self-referencing reasoning? [e.g., “it’s true because Scripture says it’s true”];

     (b) if not, can you please explain why you believe it is not circular;

     (c) if you agree it is circular but that Scripture is nonetheless “permitted” this because of “what” it is, on what basis do you believe Scripture is permitted to violate logic, and can you point to a clear Scriptural reference—explicit or implicit—that supports your position?

     (d) isn’t it a bit sloppy to claim “Scripture interprets Scripture” when—even if one buys the inherent circularity of such a position—it’s not Scripture that interprets but the reader of Scripture?

     (e) if some reader actually interprets Scripture, then who or what bestowed authority on him to interpret Scripture correctly?

     (f) My understanding is there are upwards of 33k Protestant denominations/sects out there: who’s interpretation is correct? Could it be that, for among other reasons, this is precisely why there are so many Protestant interpretations across the board of doctrines? In other words, isn’t this a clear sign of the sin against the unity of the Body of Christ?

     (g) I’m sure you’ve heard this analogy, but if the U.S. Constitution is ~10-15 printed pages long and needs and interpretive body (the Supreme Court), don’t you think it goes against reason (alone!) to not believe this about so many books written over hundreds of years?

     (h) Look at the issue of the canon of Scripture: Luther himself believed the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw” (i.e., almost worthless), and he viewed four books of the New Testament (as we know it today) as “less than inspired.” (Is that something like being “less than pregnant”?) And, how does one deal with the very last sentences of the Gospel of John against your claim that Scripture is the “sufficient and final authority”?

     (i) It seems to me that Protestants, while having a problem with ONE Catholic Pope and the Magisterium proclaiming, protecting, and interpreting the deposit of faith, they nonetheless don’t see the obvious problem of having many, many individual “popes” interpreting Scripture as they see fit. Does that go against Proverb 3:5-6 and II Pet 1:20-21 teach?

(2) If Scripture is the one true pillar and foundation of truth against which other (theological) truths are judged (as you’ve stated in more or less the same words), how does that square with I Tim 3:15? (Perhaps you’ve heard of the Catholic doctrine of sola verbum Dei?)

(3) In terms of Protestants not relying on Traditions (as opposed to traditions), how does this square with II Thess 2:15 and II Thess 3:6. (And, based on what was said above, on what basis should anyone accept your interpretation of these passages as true and authoritative?)

(4) Is Scripture alone sufficient (as you say)? How does this square with John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-13)?

(5) I agree that II Tim 3:16-17 is a strong endorsement (albeit circular if taken itself) of what Scripture is and can do, but on what basis do you impose a sola?

Note that in all this I haven’t broached the issue of infallibility, but what must necessarily precede such a development, i.e., let’s get straight WHAT Scripture is and HOW it is interpreted before proceeding to what is required based on that conclusion.

Thanks

]]> By: Barry Carey http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45254 Barry Carey Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:14:56 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45254 Leo, Thanks for your comment. I may not have been clear in my post. The argument is not that Peter was not an apostle, but that if he possessed the powers which the Catholic church ascribes to him there is no reason to think that future Popes have that power since they do not meet the qualifications given in Scripture for apostleship... being an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and showing the "signs" of an apotles. No one doubts Peter's apostolic authority. Leo, Thanks for your comment. I may not have been clear in my post. The argument is not that Peter was not an apostle, but that if he possessed the powers which the Catholic church ascribes to him there is no reason to think that future Popes have that power since they do not meet the qualifications given in Scripture for apostleship… being an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and showing the “signs” of an apotles. No one doubts Peter’s apostolic authority.

]]> By: Leo http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45250 Leo Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:30:06 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/evangelicals-and-roman-catholics-sola-scriptura-and-papal-infallibility/#comment-45250 Hmmm not sure what 2 Cor. has to do with this argument for the signs of an apostle: did not Peter raise the dead (Acts 9)? Does that not qualify as a miracle? Hmmm not sure what 2 Cor. has to do with this argument for the signs of an apostle: did not Peter raise the dead (Acts 9)? Does that not qualify as a miracle?

]]>