tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post750406253428318004..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: The perspicuity (clarity) of Sacred Scripture.David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-30827763306704393292008-07-17T13:34:00.000-07:002008-07-17T13:34:00.000-07:00Just moments ago, I came across three threads at B...Just moments ago, I came across three threads at Byron Cross’ <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Principium Unitatis</A> (<A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2007/09/whose-tradition-which-orthodoxy.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>; <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/07/michael-brown-on-sola-scriptura-or.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>; and <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/07/tu-quoque-catholic-convert.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>) that are must reads for anyone interested in some of the important issues concerning <I>SOLA SCRIPTURA</I>. <BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55230267757128019142007-11-10T10:16:00.000-08:002007-11-10T10:16:00.000-08:00Hello Albert,I certainly hope that I have not give...Hello Albert,<BR/><BR/>I certainly hope that I have not given the impression that ALL doctrine has been fully developed and clarified within the Catholic paradigm, for this is certainly not the case. Further, it is very important to point out that many “tares” exist among the “wheat” within the Catholic communion. On thses two important points, Catholicism does not differ from our separated Protestant brothers.<BR/><BR/>Yet with that said, an important distinction does exist: Catholics believe that many important doctrines have been clearly, and formally settled for the faithful via the gift of infallibility provided by the Holy Spirit. Our official creeds and decrees are not just ‘maybe(s)’; they contain many defined, clear, undeniable truths. A few of those clear/developed truths include: the Trinity, hypostatic union of God the Son in two complete natures, baptismal regeneration, real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist (both natures); threefold ministry; apostolic succession…<BR/><BR/>However, in theory, no doctrinal development within the Protestant is infallible; as such, even the doctrine of the Trinity could be in error—the very essence of the doctrine of sola scriptura demands such a view. <BR/><BR/>In ending, I do not wish to diminish the fact of current controversy within the Catholic Church concerning some doctrines; but I submit, that unlike our separated Protestant brothers, there exists within our paradigm a definitive vehicle by which the Holy Spirit can clearly settle any controversy (though, of course, within His time frame, not ours).<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81387886710508831842007-11-09T19:58:00.000-08:002007-11-09T19:58:00.000-08:00Can we not apply the same standard to Roman Cathol...Can we not apply the same standard to Roman Catholic authority? There are divergent interpretations of Roman Catholic pronouncements. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church has historically held that there is no salvation outside the church. This is something that should be understood in context. It was proclaimed with other religions in mind. Yet, the people of post-Vatican Council II Roman Catholic church says that non-Roman Catholics can now be saved. Of course, not all Roman Catholics believe this. That's why we have Gerry Matatics and his sedevacantist army to oppose this novel and a-historical understanding of Roman Catholic salvation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-25017543696125078442007-09-16T13:08:00.000-07:002007-09-16T13:08:00.000-07:00Hi Interlocutor,Thanks for responding. Rory has al...Hi Interlocutor,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding. Rory has already addressed some key aspects your post, so my response shall be somewhat of a supplement. You wrote:<BR/><BR/>>>Can Catholics even agree on what is infallible (and therefore binding) teaching?>><BR/><BR/>Me: All “true” Catholics agree that when the Ecumenical Councils define doctrines, which pertain to faith and morals, such definitions are infallible. But concerning exactly which Papal pronouncements were/are in fact <I>ex cathedra</I>, there does exist some differing opinions. <BR/><BR/>>>Certain RC dogmas were not binding on the faithful for even more than 1500 years in RCism, but apparently that is not a problem from your end.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Since you already understand the importance of doctrinal development, I will not explain in detail how the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, Atonement, et al. arrived at their fully defined forms. The only point I would like to make at this time is simply that once they were officially defined, they needed to be accepted by the faithful.<BR/><BR/>>>Yes, tu quoque is not a solid argument for the Protestant position, but the alternative you present must be investigated as well to see if it is found wanting on the same grounds.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Here is the most important difference between the Catholic and Protestant positions: Catholic development takes place within a clearly defined historical paradigm (i.e. Ecumenical Councils), whereas the developments of the Reformers took off on clearly separate trajectories; they rejected the formally defined doctrines of Trent, becoming in essence what the Arians were in the 4th century—heretics. Arius and his followers were just as convinced as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli that Scripture was on their side, that the Catholic Church’s formally defined definitions at Nicea were in error. <BR/><BR/>As soon as one jettisons the historical underpinnings of Catholic Church, the door swings wide open for countless “Bible only” interpretations, with each respective interpreter fully convinced that is his/her interpretation is truly the “Biblical” one.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-56413526202622698282007-09-15T10:31:00.000-07:002007-09-15T10:31:00.000-07:00Hi Interlocutor,If I understand correctly you ack...Hi Interlocutor,<BR/><BR/>If I understand correctly you acknowledge David's major contention, that the Scriptures alone do not clearly resolve doctrinal controversies, but you are concerned about whether becoming Catholic, one has the same problem once removed: "Are the magisterial and papal documents throughout the centuries perspicuous?"<BR/><BR/>Regarding the resolution of any particular doctrinal controversy, the Catholic Church can and has issued clear statements which address questions as they arise. For that matter, Protestants have issued clear statements in the same way such as the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the Augsburg Confession which offer clear outlines of what is believed.<BR/><BR/>To argue that the Scriptures cannot do what creedal formulations by Protestants and Catholics can do is no criticism of Scripture. It is to acknowledge the lesson presented to Christianity at first through the lesson of the Ethiopian eunuch, and in the post-apostolic age as history repeatedly shows how the same words of Scripture can be rationally interpreted in different ways, making Scripture alone an inadequate arbiter of doctrinal controversy. <BR/><BR/>This view of the situation allows Christians who differ on the meaning of Scripture to recognize that the opposition side is in possession of full mental faculties and has good intent. This is important if steps are to be made toward unified resolution on a question. If Scripture alone is clear regarding most or all doctrinal controversies, what good reason could there be for dispute? The opposing party becomes either mentally impaired or worse, having an agenda founded in ill will toward God's truth. They become stupid, evil, or both.<BR/><BR/>Perceiving that Scripture alone can lead persons of sound mind and good will astray, one realizes that the Scripture cannot be the battle ground. Resolution of difficulties must be met some other way. Only if a non-Catholic/Orthodox Christian reaches this point, does the idea of learning about how the authority of apostolic tradition can be an aid seem reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Certainly we can still argue about what the Fathers wrote also. But even if not all of their writings are clear either, one can get strong clues as to practices and teachings in the early church. If a study of the Fathers leads someone to join the Baptist church so be it. I do not think such a step is likely, however, I would welcome any Protestant doing so because the biggest loggerhead we encounter with each other is over the question of the authority of Scripture alone. To become Baptist because of one's understanding of apostolic tradition is quite frankly, to be more a Catholic than a Baptist anyway!<BR/><BR/>RoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-11546591563172553792007-09-14T13:44:00.000-07:002007-09-14T13:44:00.000-07:00David,Are the magisterial and papal documents thro...David,<BR/>Are the magisterial and papal documents throughout the centuries perspicuous? Are there not many scholars and works devoted to explaining and clarifying and harmonizing these documents for Catholics? Can Catholics even agree on what is infallible (and therefore binding) teaching? Certain RC dogmas were not binding on the faithful for even more than 1500 years in RCism, but apparently that is not a problem from your end.<BR/>Yes, tu quoque is not a solid argument for the Protestant position, but the alternative you present must be investigated as well to see if it is found wanting on the same grounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com