::Why not? Because it's special pleading. "All our good deeds are of our Godly natures. Ignore the bad stuff; that really wasn't us anyway."
Hi Josh. Well, remember, I was talking specifically about living Scripture (scripture made alive), Scripture manifesting through us. So I guess I'd ask you then, which is it? When we aren't living godly lives are we manifesting Scripture? or when we are living Christ like lives are we not living Scripture?
::How can a non-churchgoer decipher that? I'm a churchgoer, and I can't decipher it. Looks like a church with a split personality to me.
Simple, you provided the answer already, "I don't trust those sinful people. I trust the Holy Spirit who inspired the words they wrote." The same principle applies to Catholics, and it' is, I believe, what Stanley is saying.
::I don't trust those sinful people. I trust the Holy Spirit who inspired the words they wrote.
Ah; this, I think, is what Stanley is getting at. Note (as he reminds us in his last post), he talks about Tradition and Authority; in his first post he writes, "And this is what I tend to see as the primary difficulty with people who mistrust "Tradition" and "Authority" in the Church, as though it is something that takes the place of Scripture rather than being the thing that it "points" to as Scripture's means of being manifested in the world."
Now, Christ promised His Spirit would lead us into all truth, and Scripture itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Therefore, just as you believe the Spirit used sinful men to communicate revelation through Scripture, so does the Catholic believe the Spirit still uses sinful men to communicate truth (a proper understanding of revelation) through *Tradition and Authority, which act via Council and Papal decree to produce dogma (truth). In addition the Catholic believes the Spirit is still with us using particles of matter to communicate grace through the Sacraments. We too trust the Holy Spirit and not sinful men.
*Please note, Tradition and Authority are inherent to the notion of a Bible which was put together by the Church centuries later. Scripture was carried by the Church; this is nothing other than saying was carried by Tradition. True, the Holy Spirit guided it through the Church, but that's what Tradition IS. If the Holy Spirit worked through the Church guiding and protecting Scripture, then the Church is where Authority, certainly to this extent, is found. The difference is that the Protestant thinks the vehicles through which the Holy Spirit worked to bring us Scripture broke down at that point. That, however, begs the question -- for it's not Scriptural to assume that.
::::I do believe you contradict yourself here. You say Sola Scriptura is the only reliable way to define what we believe, but that is not found in Sola Scriptura -- so it cannot be a reliable way to define what we believe according to your own logic.
::No. Nice try, though. I did not say that all truth comes from scripture, where no truth exists or can be known apart from it. If I said that, and scripture itself did not attest to it, then I'd be in trouble. That's the trap of atheistic existentialism and materialism. But I can make a truth statement--scripture is inspired and is the only reliable source of non-natural revelation (i.e., knowledge that is not the product of reason or observation)--and not have to cite evidence for that truth statement in scripture itself. In other words, I can rely on what scripture says about itself (i.e., its purpose), experience (the things that happen to the Church, for example, when it departs from scripture), and reason in making a truth statement concerning the efficacy of scripture and, more importantly perhaps, the unreliability of other means of non-natural revelation.
I’m afraid I’m not going to let you off that easy, my friend. You wrote, “It (Sola Scriptura) is the only reliable way to define what we believe. All of Tradition should be checked against scripture, not against what the church tells me that scripture says or means.” In the first sentence of the aforementioned quote you’re talking about revelation – I understand that. You say that Scripture Alone is the only way to define what we believe; that statement, however, places what you believe about Scripture Alone OUTSIDE of the realm of revelation.
Catholics are constantly told that they rely on the traditions of men, and not God’s word, but you admit, by the implicit logic of your statement, that the second sentence “All of Tradition should be checked against scripture, not against what the church tells me that scripture says or means”, is not necessarily (certainly not solely) trusting God’s word to define what you believe about this issue.
You’re very standard, therefore, is a tradition of man; thus Sola Scriptura, not being defined by Sola Scriptura, rests on the reasoning of fallen men: not on revelation (I’m not saying the reasoning is false because it came from fallen men, I’m simply calling it like it is). It’s like a group of people getting together saying “I’m only going to accept the book of James as Scripture alone,” and we’ll call it, just as whimsically (ignoring the rules of grammar which I don’t specifically understand, so I’ll just forget about them) Sola Jamesola. “You’re Sola Scriptura standard violates our Sola Jamesola standard (which is the extent to which I believe the word of God exists), so yours is a tradition of man.” You see, if someone actually pulled that on you, you might want to pull out your hair, rend your garments and put on sackcloth and ashes (or maybe I should just speak for myself :-), for it merely begs the question; it tacitly assumes the very same logical ground that it rejects.
So, once we’re honest (and I’m not saying you’re not -- though I’ll judge by your response:-) that we’re operating on a principle which is extra-biblical, then we can go on to see which principle is the most compelling. I’ve attempted to do that in another thread (
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewto ... sc&start=0) where we can carry on this discussion if you’d prefer…
Thanks,
Jesse