Cruciform
New member
Still waiting for you to post your proof for the assertion that the one historic Catholic Church was founded by a mere man.
Is Perspecuity Necessary for Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
brewmama
New member
Do I believe that the righteousness of God is revealed? That the Gospel is salvation for everyone who believes? Of course. As do all Catholics and Orthodox. You have built up a wall of error and deceit that you seem to fall prey to.
You want to know why I do not embrace Catholicism? Why was there a split.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Protestants-split-from-Catholicism
Cruciform
New member
Post #241
Would it be fair to say that Jesus founded the Church and leadership was passed on to Peter and subsequent popes? Do Peter and the others claim infallibility in establishing the traditions of the Church?
Cruciform
New member
Not exactly. Jesus hasn't given up his leadership of the Church. Jesus personally founded His one historic Church in 33 A.D., and ordained the apostles and their successors (the bishops)---the Magisterium---as His instruments of word and sacrament, and through whom He infallibly guides and teaches the faithful (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).
Indeed, for example Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6.
Are you, then, retracting your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded by a mere man?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
So you are saying that the Popes are infallibly guides by Jesus?
Cruciform
New member
Yes, in their (the Popes') capacity as teachers of doctrine and morals---what the apostles/bishops teach, the Lord Jesus Christ himself teaches (Lk. 10:16).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The argument for the Magisterium is circular. Catholic apologists prooftext the Magisterium from the Bible. But if the Bible is not perspicuous, how do they know that their prooftexts apply to the Magisterium? Are they prooftexting the Magisterium with or without the Magisterium? If the former, then the prooftexts are superfluous–but if the latter, then the Magisterium is superfluous.
Of course, the argument of an infallible church is circular, because it is only on the authority of tradition that the Roman Catholic church can claim infallibility, yet infallibility is required in order to guarantee the truth of the tradition to which Rome appeals.
Rome has no infallible canon, as it were, of infallible papal statements.
Rome claims that the authority of the Church is logically and temporally prior to that of Scripture and therefore denies the self-attesting nature of scriptural authority. Scripture, according to Rome, owes its very existence to the decisions of Rome, and therefore the Romaist Church authority is in a very real sense prior to that of Scripture.
The Romanist requires multiple infallible authorities. People who abandon sola scriptura ultimately simply just decide to to take on another infallible authority, sort of like how someone converting to the Mormonism gets "a burning in the bosom".
When all is said a done, any appeals Romainsts make to Scripture to establish their other infallible authorities requires a lot to be read in to those verses. Romanists can continually say that the Scriptural evidence provided to them do not establish sola scriptura, but, oddly enough and ignoring the irony, Romanists readily will use Scripture in response to say Scripture somehow clearly establishes other infallible rules of faith. That won't do. :AMR:
How is it that Scripture is clearer to the Roman magisterium than to some other body of men? A Roman Catholic’s only appeal is that Rome says so. For as soon as the Romanist reaches for his Bible to prove his point he undermines his conclusion that Scripture is not an effective final infallible source of doctrine. Not only do Romanists believe Rome on her say so alone; they are unable to check her claims against Scripture because Scripture is apparently unclear and not effective in settling such matters. By the way, Mormons have a similar problem.
Given the Roman Catholic view of the ineffectiveness of Scripture to settle doctrinal matters, the conclusion of an infallible magisterium rests one-hundred percent upon Rome’s claims regarding infallibility.
This should come as no surprise since that in order to establish sola ecclesia one must attack sola scriptura. To convince someone of the necessity of the Church's sufficiency, one must deny the Scripture's sufficiency. And that, beloved, is where the battle rages.
AMR
Thanks AMR
Cruciform
New member
...as any ultimate authority must be (hence the word "ultimate"):
- Jesus founded the Church as his authoritative instrument on the earth
- How do we know this?
- Because Jesus told us this through the authoritative Church which he founded
Because this is what Christ's one historic Church (Magisterium) has always taught. The buck stops with the Church through which Jesus Christ teaches (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).
You can start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Only three: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. This is what Christ's one historic Church has always believed and taught.
Unfortunately for your assumptions, Catholics can appeal to Scripture as AN authority without buying into the entirely unbiblical---and therefore directly self-refuting---16th-century Protestant notion that the Bible is the ONLY authority. Try again.
For the very same reason that, in the 1st century, Scripture was clearer to the Church's original Magisterium---i.e., the Apostles---than they were to other men (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).
Thus has it always been. "Because the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself teaches it" has always been the belief and teaching of the Christian Church itself. The Church infallibly formulates Christian doctrines and beliefs, and the laity is bound to accept and follow the Church's authoritative teachings. Christ's Church is not---and has never been---a democracy. Jesus is our king, not our president, and lay believers just don't get a vote. You might want to get used to that fact.
Not even close, as has already been observed above.
"...Scripture ALONE," you mean.
Straw Man Fallacy: Strike one.
Straw Man Fallacy: Strike two.
Straw Man Fallacy: Strike three.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+