The Bible vs Eastern Orthodoxy
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
The answer is whatever the Catholics say about this, since they say the gift of infallibility was not used in the compilation of the canon (but only once or twice, in recent history). Check.
That's a tu quoque. How does the Catholicism position being wrong help the Protestant position with that problem?
Also, your claim is false. The Catholic Vatican I teaching is that the magisterium (ordinary and extraordinary) can't teach error in any shape or form. The canon itself was declared infallible by the council of Trent.
Inerrancy is not infallibility, which was described by Vatican I as ex cathedra statements. Catholics argue that there are exactly one, two, seven, or some other small number of ex cathedra statements (I'm sure some include Trent too); I join in with them on this and propose zero (they have never fully demonstrated delivery of an ex cathedra statement). I'll give you Trent for inerrancy, but that didn't add anything to the Protestant doctrine either, because both relied on work done by the catholic orthodox church a thousand years prior.
Separately I stated that the Protestant position of OSAS is not hyper-Calvinism (something which no Reformer ever taught). Check.
I am aware of the distinction but both the Bible canon and magisterium teaching is declared infallible.
Ex cathedra papal statements are not the only type of infallible teachings. Those are indeed very rare. Councils represent another type of infallible extraordinary definitions. The third type is ordinary and universal magisterium or bishops worldwide definitive doctrinal teachings.
Exactly. This was why I went after OP. This is where Sola Scriptura fumbles and crashes if one is consistent with the position. RC and Orthodoxy are in the clear because both affirm apostolic succession, the infallibility of ecumenical councils and Church historicity (the Church being a both divine and human institution, the Body of Christ, here on Earth guided by the Spirit).
No reformer taught OSAS to begin with. It is a later development and I understand not all Protestants believe it. Reformers taught that one can loose their salvation if they apostatize and fall away (or that they never had true faith if that happens). OP believes it though and I was arguing against his flavor of protestantism.
See, that's the thing, "ordinary infallibility" is unenforceable, Catholics let each other disagree with ordinary infallibility all the time, which is why the right view is that inconsistency is everywhere. "Papal infallibility" is a retreat from the great 19th-century Protestant inroads on ordinary infallibility.
I think you're taking "consistent" sola Scriptura as if it teaches divorce from tradition, but it doesn't. If there were no traditional language one could make the glyphs mean anything one wanted. That is why Psalm 119 contains the individual Hebrew letters as part of the text, to show that language is important and nobody can understand any Scripture unless one has a cultural tradition informing the meaning of the words. From there C & P should agree that doctrine must be inferable from Scripture; John recognized that all that was needed to found sacred tradition had been written down. Catholics never say that any generation made up new doctrine not founded in Scripture, they always "discover" it as something the generations inferred from Scripture. The Reformers were about removing encrusted traditions that were not based in Scripture, starting with the idea that the Pope rather than Jesus absolves "all penalties" (postmortem "penalties" should be understood as limited to burning of stubble).
Apostolic succession, councils, and church history as you describe should be accepted by Protestants; all their chains of authority come ultimately from Roman Catholics (except those few pre-Protestant divisions coming from orthodox catholics). The councils are "infallible" except when they disagree or when one council throws out another as an anticouncil.
I suppose we might argue that OSAS was only enunciated later at Dort due to the hyper-Arminians (i.e. those who went beyond Arminius's teaching after he died but who are now called the standard "Arminians"). It's pretty much implied by Calvin's definition of predestination, but Dort dealt more heavily with the individual reflection experience on Augustinian perseverance (cf. Turretin). I'm pretty sure Catholics believe that there are special saints who had perfect assurance of eternal security. Yes, Lutherans taught fall from grace, and thus "evanescent grace", but I think that too is a result of the incompletions of assurance. To me OSAS is simply the unity of Paul's three tenses of deliverance; if you don't have assurance of deliverance in one tense you need to question it in the others, and if you have infallibility of deliverance in one tense (regenerational baptism) then you need to have it in the others. (The Reformation was a pushback for the abusive advantaging of doubt in the present tense.)
So I'd be happy to continue defending solas and OSAS as I define them, but we need to be very sure of the text of the doctrines we're debating because you recognize the subtle differences. I think we'd come out on the same side when the smoke clears.