| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2008 12:39:43 PM |
| Object: |
Sola Scriptura |
I recently saw the topic of sola scriptura raised by someone and decided to
post some articles covering the topic.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Sola Scriptura
by A.A. Hodge (1823-1886)
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By
Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and
Practice, and Judge of Controversies.
1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule
of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys
to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible
rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs
through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a
knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and
what duties he requires of us.
2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith
and practice?
The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists
of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles,
handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to
teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to
interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository
and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--" Decrees of Council of Trent,"
Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.
3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition?
By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on
what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?
1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are--(1.) Scripture authorizes
it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and
founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and
his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority
with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the
evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source.
(4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition
as its interpreter. (b.)Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and
practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally
recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to
Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten,
common and statute law.
2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false
traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the
application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists
recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally
expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in
any age of the church whatever.
3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the
ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their
source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.
4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as
a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?
1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition.
Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and
3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to
those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ
rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees,
Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.
2nd. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with
tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be
shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and
perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate,
and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will
be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest
ultimately upon tradition.
3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their
traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History
utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles
they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their
traditions.
They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the
fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the
first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question
18).
4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the
earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their
pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.
5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the
sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture.
Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house
divided against itself cannot stand.
5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?
Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and
accessibility.
6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the
doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and
obedience.
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then
existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke
16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic
teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the
Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut.
4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.
7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith
asserted?
It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has
ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural
revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is
abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith,
practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of
any human inventions.
8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?
The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end
they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to
that end, they must refer us to it.
"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer
constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever
intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other
rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?
As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have
always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God
in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They
furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of
Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the
administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all
pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.
10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity
of Scripture?
Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are
level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond
all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be
certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being
perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that
every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in
Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least
instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is
true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by
means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress
in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its
integrity of the system therein taught.
Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians
may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves.
11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is
a law and a message?
We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own
professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It
professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be
believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal
death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of
commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit
at once disingenuous and cruel.
12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?
Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim.
3:15,17.
13. By what other arguments may this point be established?
1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men
indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut.
6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1;
Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14;
Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy
and Titus.
2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the
Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.
3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving
power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The
argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole
world of Bible readers.
4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all
circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and
nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.
14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the
sufficient rule of faith and practice?
Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent
characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the
custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule
whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all
currency to the word of God.
15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the
rule in questions of faith?
"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of
that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is--
1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified,
or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the
decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their
fellow Christians.
(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church,
and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of
the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each
individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of
his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those
who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as
they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so
teach.
16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the
infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of
all controversies?
The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all
matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized
depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey
new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible
in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated
through the apostles.
The church, therefore, authoritatively determines--1st. What is Scripture.
2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and
'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every
particular question of belief or practice.
This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and
in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when
giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.--"Decrees of
Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96.
"Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap.
2.
17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?
1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to
their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent
authority.--Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.
2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.--Matt.
28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.
3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and
it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."
4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not
hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.
5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and
must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so--2 Thessalonians 3:6;
Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.
6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living,
visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.
7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge
as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the
other.
8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all
acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.
18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be
utterly baseless?
1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established
only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such
converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.
2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his
church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of
pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God
shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from
the essentials of the faith.
3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not
to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers.
Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.
4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises
of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the
authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles.
For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the
effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude
1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb.
9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed
to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God
as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles
are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as
equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;"
witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians,
1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members
of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor.
1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13;
Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.
5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence
that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for
the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim.
3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the
apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence
of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both
the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their
successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor.
9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.
6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly
unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon
the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general
consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is,
moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and
never can be impartially collected and pronounced.
7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But
as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her
teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and
ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the
same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their
manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance,
of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the
Scriptures from the people.
8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to
flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral
desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that
the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of
Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of
true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.
19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the
final judge of controversies be established?
That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in
all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures
alone, is proved by the following facts:
1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.
2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question
13.
3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to
judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal.
1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.
4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of
Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke
24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.
5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and
believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own
moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority.
Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart."
Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately
apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1
Pet. 1:22.
20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the
ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the
scriptures are the word of God?
Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God
only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the
Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the
authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of
course be held paramount.
This is absurd, for two reasons--
1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture
as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did
speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of
their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our
personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These
very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is
evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered
by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.
2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to
be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the
conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who
proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a
right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.
21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from
the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered?
1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is
infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it
always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.
2nd. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels
who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But
Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a
wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness
their hymns and devotional literature.
3rd. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure in applying
faithfully the Protestant principles for which we contend. Men do not simply
and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible.
4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative utterance
through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most indefinite Judge.
Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible interpreter infinitely more than
the Scriptures.
22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant,
necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?
Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is
that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which
of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions
evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he
can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the
direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal
to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and
address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private
judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the
object of the argument to prove is baseless.
23. How may it be proved that the people are far more competent to discover
what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marks insisted upon by the
Romanists, which is the true church?
The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true
church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. These are (1.) Unity
(through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.)
Catholicity; (4.) Apostolicity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from
the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.)--"Cat. of Council of Trent,"
Part 1., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of
these marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity upon
the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended
from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the
right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he cannot rationally give up the right
of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear.
Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less
exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS TO THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND
AS TO TRADITION, AND AS TO THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.
1st. AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.--"Decrees of council of Trent,"
Sess. 4.--"Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod ordains and declares,
that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so
many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be in public lectures,
disputations, sermons, and expositions held as authentic; and that no one is
to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one,
relying on his own skill shall in matters of faith and of morals pertaining
to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to
his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred scripture contrary to
that sense which holy mother church--whose it is to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy scriptures--hath held and doth hold, or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published."
"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican council," ch. 2.--"And as the things which
the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the
interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits,
have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare
this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining
to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true
sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath held and holds, to
whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture; and
therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the sacred scripture
contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of
the Fathers. "
2nd. AS TO TRADITION.--"Prof. Fidei Tridentinoe"--(A. D. 1564) 2. and 3. "I
most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions,
and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit
the Holy scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church
has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and
interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret
them otherwise than according, to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
"Council of Trent," Sess. 4.--"And seeing clearly that this truth and
discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions
which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the
apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us
transmitted as it were from hand to hand."
3rd. AS TO THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE.--"Dogmatic Decisions of the
Vatican Council," chap. 3.--"Hence we teach and declare that by the
appointment of our Lord . . . the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff
is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and
faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of
hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters
which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the
discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. . . . We
further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and
that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
may be had to his tribunal, and that none may reopen the judgment of the
Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any
lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who
assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff
to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman
Pontiff."
4th. CONCERNING THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AS THE TEACHER OF THE
UNIVERSAL CHURCH.--"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council," Chap.
4.--"Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the
beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the
exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people,
the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma
divinely revealed:That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that
is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,
by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to he held by the universal Church, by the divine
assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of the
infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should
be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; and that
therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of
themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one--which
may God avert--presume to contradict this our definition:let him be
anathema."
Cardinal Manning in his "Vatican Council" says, "In this definition there
are six points to be noted:"
"1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex cathedra ;
that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority of the
supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the universal
Church."
"2nd. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doctrine of
faith and morals."
"3rd. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance
promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors."
"4th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining of
doctrines of faith and morals."
"5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the
doctrinal office of the Church."
"6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that they
are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and not
because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to
them."
"Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council" Ch. 4.--"For the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make
known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep
and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through
the Apostles."
.
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura |
04 Jan 2008 09:31:12 PM |
|
|
On Jan 4, 10:39 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
I recently saw the topic of sola scriptura raised by someone and decided to
post some articles covering the topic.
---
Sola Scriptura
by A.A. Hodge (1823-1886)
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By
Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and
Practice, and Judge of Controversies.
1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule
of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority.
JERRY
Wrong first shot out of the box. First, this statement assumes that
the bible is not only true but God's word. Then, based upon an
assumption that is not provable in any way, the writer goes on to say
that therefore the bible is infallible and must be obeyed.
Since the bible fails to be historically accurate, fails on prophecy
and contradicts itself, there is no way that one can claim the bible
to be "infallible." Worse, to call it God's word when it's so full of
errors calls into question either the intelligence of the speaker (at
best) or the power, perfection and omniscience of the deity in
question (at worst).
You need to find some other people to emulate Carl. These guys look
terrible and don't make you look good to do your "copy-and-paste"
shtick with.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
