In Him,

Zoltan

I replied on my blog here

http://www.purifyyourbride.stblogs.com

“When you say “subordinate to scripture” it is important to note that means subordinate to my interpretation of scripture. Mathison says “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.””

*** This is not necessarily true. I believe you treat this issue as though we are dealing with abstract, propositional truth which is the wrong approach because as I outlined in my previous posts, we are dealing with Incarnational truth ie: the Living Truth who is Christ. Therefore, what we are really asking is how Christ reveals His truth not whose personal interpretation is right. If the Bible were a mere novel, then you would be quite right in pointing out that my interpretation of an author’s work is probably no better than anyone else’s. However, it is the Holy Spirit who reveals truth to the believer. Therefore, the issue is how and to whom (cf 2 Pet 20-21).

The RC tradition has in my view limited God. You are basically arguing that God MUST have a perpetual, infallible office present on this earth in order to reveal His truth reliably to His people. This is not self-evident and it cannot be proven by sheer reason or conclusively from Scripture. Neither can it be demonstrated in early Church history except for select passages which I think are cherry picked from certain patristics while ignoring others. Michael Liccione lays claim to Irenaeus for example but some of his writing was in line with Sola Scriptura as well (see: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-irenaeus.htm).

Magisterial infallibility was by no means a developed doctrine in the early Church by any means and it was not uniformly held. Nevertheless, you believe yourselves to be the one true church and your pope is infallible, therefore Luther was wrong because he challenged that authority (even though more recently Pope Benedict has said that Luther was right in many respects which underscores the error of the question put to him at Worms in which he was asked to recant of “all his writings”. I maintain it was an absurd charge but his refusal to comply lead your true and infallible church to excommunicate him because by definition, she cannot err.)

As a reformed catholic, I reject the notion of personal or ecclesial infallibility. I reject that there is a continuation of apostolic infallibility. I reject these on the basis of Scripture and history as well as early church tradition. This view of infallibility clearly evolved over time and if it were so essential to the Church, it would have been settled clearly by the apostles themselves not with vague allusions but direct claims to magisterial infallibility passed down the line. Otherwise, you are in a tautology ie: your infallible pope tells you he is infallible, therefore he is.

“Even a command that says “do everything they tell you” cannot be viewed as a command to do everything they tell you?”

*** So then you maintain that Jesus was actually saying follow ALL their rules even the ones He said broke the commandment of God? That is not tenable. All Scripture must be read with ALL other Scripture in mind for there can be no contradiction or distinction. So when Christ said do not call anyone father, He meant we are sinning when we call our earthly fathers “father” or when you RCs call your priests father I suppose?

“I would say for a protestant it is tradition. Sure their tradition is allegedly bible-based but false teachers can quote the bible as well. Even Satan quotes scripture. Catholics use the same but are more formal. False teachers were identified in scripture by the apostles. They didn’t make a biblical argument. They simply used their authority to declare them false.”

*** Of course Protestants have tradition. The tradition of the Magisterial reformed church can be found in the NT and early Church (illustrated beautifully in Mathison’s book). Tradition is good and necessary. My point all along is that it is merely subordinate to Scripture and not infallible as Scripture is infallible, nor is it necessary for it to be so. Yes false teachers quote the Bible. Moreover, the apostles bore real authority to declare teachings as false. The dispute is not here. They of course did use Scripture to teach and refute, your point here is demonstrably false (cf Heb 4:11-13, Acts 17, Acts 18:28, Rom 15:4, 1 Tim 4:13).

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, have that authority today. But often the bishop does not comment directly so we use scripture and tradition.”

*** Bishops/elders do have authority but it is not infallible or apostolic in the strict sense of the term. The NT repeatedly uses the term apostle in distinction to other church offices (cf Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12:28, Acts 15:22-23).

“But an error does not mean a lack of authority. Bishops can make errors. Jesus pointed out errors the Pharisees were making in Mark 7 and elsewhere. Still he affirms their authority in Mat 23. You keep wanting to ignore that text.”

*** I do not ignore that text. I thought I made myself clear so allow me to state it again. Bishops/elders have authority. The Sanhedrin had authority until Christ took it away leaving their house “desolate”. I have never denied this. What I deny is infallibility apart from the apostles when the Spirit spoke through them authoritatively. You seem to have neatly side-stepped the point when it came to the erroneous teachings that existed in some NT churches.

“I am not talking about infallibility here.”

*** But I am because I believe that is where we actually differ.

“Just an office of leadership that we are to respect today.”

*** I agree that we must respect the office of leadership that God has put over us in accordance with the Scriptures (cf Heb 13:17). However, leaders can err in their teaching and so often in the Scriptures and history, God used people of inferior stature to rebuke their superiors. Remember that many bishops were actually Arians and God raised up Athanasius a mere deacon at the time to oppose them at Nicaea.

“The Jews never respected this authority so I would not expect Apollos to try and invoke it with them. As far as the NT and the early church. Where is it not evident? The book of Matthew is the authoritative teaching of the apostle Matthew. Almost all the NT and early church writings are bishops exercising the teaching authority of their office.”

*** Agreed.

“Why is that absurd? Pope Leo is not saying they are all false. Just that he should stop teaching until the appropriate authorities can sort out what is what. The problem was he did not obey. So he proved Pope Leo right. In church history there are many true reformers who did obey such orders and were eventually vindicated. It is hard but it is what he was called to do even if the pope was completely wrong.”

*** It is absurd because he was not just told to stop teaching until things are sorted out. That is totally inaccurate. He was told to RECANT which means to disavow or retract.

“The Philistines were sent by God too. Does that make them prophets?”

*** No, but God destroyed the Philistines in the end which is why I have been charging RC’s to consider the fruit of the reformation which Christ commanded us to do when looking at prophets. Nations where the Reformation was strongest flourished in accordance with the promises of Deuteronomy whereas RC nations have generally declined from former prominence. The contrast between primarily protestant North America vs primarily RC South America is a case in point. Now I believe the West has more recently lost its way but the blessing of prosperity cannot be denied and I believe judgement is coming.

“Luther could have been a great reformer of the church but he failed because he lacked humility. Once he left the church he could not reform it. Especially when he published so much venom. Does a prophet of God make so many crude sexual insults?”

*** I do not pretend to defend Luther at every turn. He had his warts and faults like us all. Remember also though the venom spouted against him by the RC’s. Was that humility? I also lament of what could have been if the RC magisterium would only have been more patient with Luther and really tried to understand his teaching.

“You need to learn what the word “schismatic” means. You can’t say the entire church was schismatic. Schism means cutting or separating. The reformers did that. They set up their own organizations with themselves as the head and called them “church”. The fact that they were not in good standing in the Catholic church does not justify that. It does not make it any less schismatic.”

*** Yes, schism does mean to cut or separate, so who did the cutting? It is undeniable that Rome kicked them out (separated them). If the reformers merely called the RC Church corrupt and left of their own accord to “set up their own organizations” then I would agree with you. In this light, Henry the VIII was schismatic. The magisterial reformers, however, wanted to reform the RC church back to what she once was before the many innovations of the Middle Ages crept in.

“Yes, most protestants don’t actually live Sola Scriptura. They have some unprincipled reason for obeying leaders when they disagree. But that does not make Sola Scriptura right. It just means you are living better than your creed. This is a good thing. Sola Scriptura is a bad creed and if you would follow it then it would be a complete disaster. So you, like most protestants, rarely follow it. Only when you really want to disobey which might never happen. So in practice you follow scripture, tradition, and a magisterium just like we do. The only difference is you have an inferior tradition and magisterium. That is a big difference because Jesus works most powerfully in His one true church.”

*** I think you misunderstand Sola Scriptura for the Solo Scriptura “tradition” Mathison refuted brilliantly. Have you read his book? Moreover, we both know that I would say a majority of RC’s the world over do not agree with all RC teaching at every point. Some even border on the heretical and still remain RC’s in good standing. Many prominent RC politicians reject the church’s teaching on abortion or homosexuality in the public forum. They are not excommunicated for this. In my church, they would be. So who is more faithful to their creed?

Grace and Peace

Jesus was not just saying the Pharisees were imperfect examples (scoundrels), but also that their teachings and traditions at places was in error in Mark 7 and He rebuked them for that. Teachers who teach wrong doctrines also need correction. An appeal to Matt 23 is judgment against hypocrisy, but once again cannot be viewed as a command to do everything teachers tell you.
Even a command that says “do everything they tell you” cannot be viewed as a command to do everything they tell you?

Jesus many times preached about false teachers leading sheep astray. We differ on how one discerns the false vs true teacher. For RC tradition, it is essentially a pedigree, for the Protestant, it is Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit revealing His truth gradually.
I would say for a protestant it is tradition. Sure their tradition is allegedly bible-based but false teachers can quote the bible as well. Even Satan quotes scripture. Catholics use the same but are more formal. False teachers were identified in scripture by the apostles. They didn’t make a biblical argument. They simply used their authority to declare them false. Bishops, as successors of the apostles, have that authority today. But often the bishop does not comment directly so we use scripture and tradition.

This is not true as I would again appeal to Mark 7 for example of wrong tradition. I would also point to the numerous warnings against false teachers. In Revelation 2, we read in fact of two churches at Pergamum and Thyatira, who held to some measure of false teaching. Jesus does not say they are not churches, but rather calls them to repent. Thus one may have a true church and still some measure of false teaching which over time must be dealt with.
But an error does not mean a lack of authority. Bishops can make errors. Jesus pointed out errors the Pharisees were making in Mark 7 and elsewhere. Still he affirms their authority in Mat 23. You keep wanting to ignore that text.

I would also affirm that authority had changed hands in the case of Stephen and Peter but I think that puts Christ’s command in Matt 23 in a different light. However, we are not disputing this. We are discussing whether or not there is a continuation of apostolic infallibility through the Church magisterium. In the early church of the NT, there is no example of this. In fact, Apollos in Acts 18:24-28, received correction from Aquila and Priscilla and again, he used Scripture to refute the Jews not apostolic authority.

I am not talking about infallibility here. Just an office of leadership that we are to respect today. The Jews never respected this authority so I would not expect Apollos to try and invoke it with them. As far as the NT and the early church. Where is it not evident? The book of Matthew is the authoritative teaching of the apostle Matthew. Almost all the NT and early church writings are bishops exercising the teaching authority of their office.

This is not entirely accurate. Every believer, even RC’s, should judge the integrity of the teacher before them. There are individual RC’s priests who have taught wrong doctrines. Ought not the people hold them to account? I believe Michael argued as much in 748.
The people can but they are not expected to. The bishop has that role.

The issue about “rare prophets” would pertain to someone like Luther. He was judged falsely and ordered to recant “All his writings” by Leo X which is absurd because much of what Luther wrote is held true by all Christians.
Why is that absurd? Pope Leo is not saying they are all false. Just that he should stop teaching until the appropriate authorities can sort out what is what. The problem was he did not obey. So he proved Pope Leo right. In church history there are many true reformers who did obey such orders and were eventually vindicated. It is hard but it is what he was called to do even if the pope was completely wrong.

He is an example of the rare prophet. The firestorm he started in Europe was beyond anything he anticipated because it was God’s doing. The Magisterium had erred but by definition, Luther was told they could not for all the reasons you and other RC’s give.
The Philistines were sent by God too. Does that make them prophets? Luther could have been a great reformer of the church but he failed because he lacked humility. Once he left the church he could not reform it. Especially when he published so much venom. Does a prophet of God make so many crude sexual insults?

Now I would charge that the RC church was schismatic at the time of the reformation because rather than keep dialogue open for the sake of unity (which was the desire of most of the magisterial reformers), debate was quickly shut down, reformers were kicked out (they did not leave voluntarily so they were not schismatic) and we had the indictments against the reformed faith formalized in Trent.
You need to learn what the word “schismatic” means. You can’t say the entire church was schismatic. Schism means cutting or separating. The reformers did that. They set up their own organizations with themselves as the head and called them “church”. The fact that they were not in good standing in the Catholic church does not justify that. It does not make it any less schismatic.

So therefore Randy, I have not completely ignored any God-ordained authority – and the church leadership has real authority. In my Church, my pastor holds to certain views I do not share but I am still in submission to his teaching and the elders. For the sake of unity we “agree in the LORD” (1 Cor 1:10), I do not go about fomenting discord among brethren because there is much more that we do agree upon.
Yes, most protestants don’t actually live Sola Scriptura. They have some unprincipled reason for obeying leaders when they disagree. But that does not make Sola Scriptura right. It just means you are living better than your creed. This is a good thing. Sola Scriptura is a bad creed and if you would follow it then it would be a complete disaster. So you, like most protestants, rarely follow it. Only when you really want to disobey which might never happen. So in practice you follow scripture, tradition, and a magisterium just like we do. The only difference is you have an inferior tradition and magisterium. That is a big difference because Jesus works most powerfully in His one true church.

You wrote: “Mark 7 is about Jesus exhorting the Pharisees to use their authority well. Jesus does not say that their authority is nullified by the fact that they don’t. Indeed all authority would be nullified if it had to be exercised perfectly. Jesus knows (and even says in Matt 23) that the Pharisees are scoundrels. His point is obey them anyway. Otherwise authority is reduced to cases where the submitter agrees. That basically makes it pretty meaningless.”

There is much agreement here. Remember, the Sola Scriptura position does not refute Church authority, which is real, but rather holds it subordinate to Scripture. Jesus was not just saying the Pharisees were imperfect examples (scoundrels), but also that their teachings and traditions at places was in error in Mark 7 and He rebuked them for that. Teachers who teach wrong doctrines also need correction. An appeal to Matt 23 is judgement against hypocrisy, but once again cannot be viewed as a command to do everything teachers tell you. Jesus many times preached about false teachers leading sheep astray. We differ on how one discerns the false vs true teacher. For RC tradition, it is essentially a pedigree, for the Protestant, it is Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit revealing His truth gradually.

“The authority has changed hands. Peter and the apostles now have it and the Sanhedrin does not. But has the nature of the authority changed? Is it now dependent on agreement when in Mat 23 it was not? Given that authority that depends on agreement is logically absurd and that there is no hint anywhere else in the New Testament that this has changed then it makes sense to say that the notion of obeying imperfect leaders remains as Jesus described in in Mat 23.”

This is not true as I would again appeal to Mark 7 for example of wrong tradition. I would also point to the numerous warnings against false teachers. In Revelation 2, we read in fact of two churches at Pergamum and Thyatira, who held to some measure of false teaching. Jesus does not say they are not churches, but rather calls them to repent. Thus one may have a true church and still some measure of false teaching which over time must be dealt with.

I would also affirm that authority had changed hands in the case of Stephen and Peter but I think that puts Christ’s command in Matt 23 in a different light. However, we are not disputing this. We are discussing whether or not there is a continuation of apostolic infallibility through the Church magisterium. In the early church of the NT, there is no example of this. In fact, Apollos in Acts 18:24-28, received correction from Aquila and Priscilla and again, he used Scripture to refute the Jews not apostolic authority.

“But we are not talking about the rare prophets. We are talking about every day preachers. The idea of every believer being required to judge the biblical integrity of the various pastors that are out there.”

This is not entirely accurate. Every believer, even RC’s, should judge the intergrity of the teacher before them. There are individual RC’s priests who have taught wrong doctrines. Ought not the people hold them to account? I believe Michael argued as much in 748. The issue about “rare prophets” would pertain to someone like Luther. He was judged falsely and ordered to recant “All his writings” by Leo X which is absurd because much of what Luther wrote is held true by all Christians. He is an example of the rare prophet. The firestorm he started in Europe was beyond anything he anticipated because it was God’s doing. The Magisterium had erred but by definition, Luther was told they could not for all the reasons you and other RC’s give.

Now I would charge that the RC church was schismatic at the time of the reformation because rather than keep dialogue open for the sake of unity (which was the desire of most of the magisterial reformers), debate was quickly shut down, reformers were kicked out (they did not leave voluntarily so they were not schismatic) and we had the indictments against the reformed faith formalized in Trent.

So therefore Randy, I have not completely ignored any God-ordained authority – and the church leadership has real authority. In my Church, my pastor holds to certain views I do not share but I am still in submission to his teaching and the elders. For the sake of unity we “agree in the LORD” (1 Cor 1:10), I do not go about fomenting discord among brethren because there is much more that we do agree upon.

“Schism is often seen as a way to fix bad leadership. It can’t. The problem is sin. We cannot get away from sinful leaders. That is why we need God to grant our leadership special graces. Not because they are so holy but precisely because they are not holy enough. The worse the leaders are the more we rely on that grace.”

AMEN!

Grace and Peace

I understand you to be saying that the New Testament itself doesn’t clearly explain what constitutes “fidelity to the new covenant” and consequently some further guidance (from Tradition and/or the Magisterium to use the categories of Dei Verbum) would be required. In contrast, it seems that you believe Adam’s book clearly explains what constitutes “fidelity to the new covenant.” Have I understood you correctly?

I don’t think Adam’s book is the be-all and end-all. I just think it synthesizes the sources, and thus explains what is necessary for fidelity, better than most works of theology that are readily accessible to the general reader. I cite it only as an example. For the longer term, a study of the lives of the saints would probably serve even better. As for the broader issue, you have not understood me correctly. I find that rather puzzling, since I think you generally understand the Catholic position rather well. So, I shall try once again to make myself clear.

God authored the books of the New Testament by means of the authorities of the Church he established–to wit, the Apostles and those who wrote in their name. But that Tradition of which the NT is the most authoritative written record is wider and older than the NT. Hence, the NT can only be adequately understood in the context of that wider and older Tradition. Moreover, Tradition itself can only be properly received and interpreted with the mind of the Church to which it was entrusted. Therefore, it is a necessary condition for interpreting the NT adequately that one identify which visible body counts as “the” Church founded by the Lord, and then choose to conform one’s mind with hers. One can only do that by choosing to submit one’s judgment on matters de fide to those with divinely given authority to speak for and to the whole Church: those who hold and exercise the Magisterium. But such a submission would only be justifiable if in fact the Magisterium speaks with divine authority, and is not giving just its own opinions. Anybody can have opinions, but those are always provisional because always fallible. Divine authority, when exercised, is infallible, and thus its judgments are irreformable.

The NT is “adequate” only when prayerfully read in that context. It is of course possible for a person to simply read the NT on its own and learn a great deal of what’s necessary; in fact, I believe it happens a lot. But partly for the reasons given above, I don’t think it’s possible for anybody to assent by faith to the entire content of the deposit of faith in such a way. The history of Protestantism only confirms that judgment for me; in fact, the broad split between the Lutheran, Reformed, and free-church branches of Protestantism was already evident at the Colloquy of Marburg, a dozen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door. Thus, as St. Thomas had said, it is possible to learn by reading the NT alone much of that which is “of faith”; but unless one submits one’s judgment to that of the bishops in apostolic succession, one does not adhere “by faith” to what one thereby learns. For one has no way of knowing that what one learns is the actual faith of the Church rather than just one’s personal opinions. When one reads such early Fathers as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Irenaeus of Lyons, one can see that such was already the attitude of the Church by the early 2nd century.

Mark 7 is about Jesus exhorting the Pharisees to use their authority well. Jesus does not say that their authority is nullified by the fact that they don’t. Indeed all authority would be nullified if it had to be exercised perfectly. Jesus knows (and even says in Matt 23) that the Pharisees are scoundrels. His point is obey them anyway. Otherwise authority is reduced to cases where the submitter agrees. That basically makes it pretty meaningless.

Now, once the Holy Spirit was given, God used Stephen the first martyr, to speak to and judge the Sanhedrin completely thus breaking their authority. Peter and John also refused to submit to their orders not to speak the gospel for that would contradict what God had commanded them to do (Acts 4:19). According to RC doctrine, such is impossible now and these are merely historical curiosities I suppose but not examples to follow.

The authority has changed hands. Peter and the apostles now have it and the Sanhedrin does not. But has the nature of the authority changed? Is it now dependent on agreement when in Mat 23 it was not? Given that authority that depends on agreement is logically absurd and that there is no hint anywhere else in the New Testament that this has changed then it makes sense to say that the notion of obeying imperfect leaders remains as Jesus described in in Mat 23.

However, in the Scriptures and indeed throughout Church history, God has sent prophets and teachers who speak against corruption and heresy. The standards we have to judge such prophets are clear. We have the Scriptures and we have their fruits to look at both with the aid of the Holy Spirit (Deut 13, Matt 7:15 – 23, 2 Pet 2, 1 John 4).

But we are not talking about the rare prophets. We are talking about every day preachers. The idea of every believer being required to judge the biblical integrity of the various pastors that are out there. It is simply the opposite of the situation Jesus commands His followers to accept in Mat 23. Rather than:
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach
You now have:
b>Completely ignore Moses’ seat or any other divinely ordained office. So you must obey whoever you choose to obey for as long they practice what they preach and you agree with their reading of scripture

Jesus’ words give us one option: obey. The protestant corruption of Jesus’ teaching legitimizes a thousand excuses for not obeying. So you have changed the very essence of what Jesus said about authority.

Historically it seems to me that RC tradition often looks more analogous to the Pharisees and assertions of pedigree such as were made when Christ first came when they claimed righteousness by virtue of their lineage from Abraham. For those who consider of paramount importance a strict lineage of apostolic succession, please review Mark 9:38 to 40.

When there are blessings there are always temptations to become spiritually lazy. Certainly the problem Jesus pointed out in the Pharisees is still with us. It is especially a temptation for leaders. I would say both protestant and Catholic leaders. But just because it is possible to be a bad leader does not mean leadership is unimportant. The question is whether bad leadership justifies schism. The answer is No. Schism is often seen as a way to fix bad leadership. It can’t. The problem is sin. We cannot get away from sinful leaders. That is why we need God to grant our leadership special graces. Not because they are so holy but precisely because they are not holy enough. The worse the leaders are the more we rely on that grace.

From my perspective as a reformed catholic, I can agree for the most part with your quote from Vatican II. No one is asserting that the Church is not essential for the gospel and for salvation. As Calvin wrote “no one can claim God as his Father without the Church as his mother”. Here “Church” would of course include Tradition and the shepherds God has placed over her. That is the essential point of Mathison’s book which I found excellently researched and written. It was a repudiation of the idea that one simply needed their Bible and a prayer closet without secondary creeds and confessions (which everyone has by default whether they admit it or not).

The point I would advance, and Mathison is making in my understanding, is that where we differ with RCs is the “Tradition and Magisterium” alluded to in Vatican II is not infallible or on equal footing with Scripture, nor does it need to be to fulfill her mission as God is capable of revealing truth over time even through flawed vessels. What is essential doctrine for salvation (the simple declaration of the gospel and orthodox understanding of God’s nature) is clearly laid out in the Bible and affirmed by the ecumenical creeds which were formulated by the Church under divine guidance by the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura properly understood, means that a Christian submits to these and to his/her pastor and Church teaching in accordance with the very command of Scripture but does not see them as necessarily infallible. In this is more humility, as it is easier to submit to one you believe to hold infallible office than to a peer in a certain sense (which is why so often the apostles address Christians as “brothers”.)

However, God has always allowed for the prophetic voice to address corruption and heresy in special circumstances. This is done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and we discern that from the Scriptures and from fruit as Christ commanded. We are to “test the spirits” as John commanded and imitate the noble-minded Bereans. I believe if one strived to look at church history objectively (though no one can be completely objective) the work of the Holy Spirit in the Reformation is undeniable in the literal explosion of theologians, musicians and people that flocked to the Reformed faith. This could not have been by mere human effort and the Providential fact that this happened to occur when the printing press was invented in Europe, meant that it could not be contained.

Church history, however, has never been clear cut. In Athanasius’ day, the Arians were in the majority at times in much of Christendom including many bishops which resulted in his multiple exiles and the coining of the phrase “Athanasius contra mundum”. Nicaea was not convened and decided by papal decree, for the Roman bishop did not function in that way at that time otherwise the controversy would not have lasted as long as it did, but rather it was emperor Constantine.

Now, I have looked earnestly at RC tradition and at one time considered becoming RC before I discovered the Reformed faith (for I was an evangelical from Baptist/Pentecostal roots). I read the patristics and loved what I saw. When I discovered Calvin, he was the foremost scholar of patristic writing in his day and he sought to recover teaching that had been lost since he was a child of the renaissance where the battle cry was “ad fontes”. This is not only evident from his Institutes but also in more polemic tomes like “the Bondage and Liberation of the Will” in which he brilliantly dismantles every argument of the RC apologist Pighius with not only Scripture but copious patristic references.

What I am trying to point out as erroneous about Cross’s assessement of Mathison’s book is therefore two-fold. First, I think there IS a real difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura because of the very action of the Holy Spirit you quoted from in Vatican II. If there is no Holy Spirit acting, then BOTH of our positions fail. So I see RC tradition as effectively limiting the power of God by maintaining that there cannot be a “ground and pillar of truth” in the Church without infallibility based on an evolved tradition and personal prejudice. Christians should understand that the Holy Spirit’s work can be more clearly discerned corporately over time than in a single individual’s thought or life. If so, this would lead to a fundamentally different ecclesiology than what we find in common evangelicalism today because of Solo Scriptura. There would be far less schismatic behaviour which I think is lamentable in the eyes of the Lord and shows clear ignorance of John 17. Thus the Sola vs Solo distinction stands as it would fundamentally affect the behaviour of believers (the manifest fruit).

The second point is that the refutation of the “Tu quoque” argument is spurious. I have tried to demonstrate that the RC position on tradition is by no means self-evident from Scripture or Tradition. Indeed you essentially revealed a presupposition that you hold to based not on divine revelation but as far as I can tell, by your own opinion when you wrote: “I am Catholic because I believe that … the teaching authorities of the Church needed the charism of infallibility in order to carry out that purpose.” Obviously the RC tradition fulfills what you personally deem necessary and you appreciate writers that write what is in accordance with that. “Teri” also said as much in a posting #56 so you are not unique in your RC predisposition.

It therefore stands in my view that Mathison’s exposition of Church tradition properly understood, shows that Church authority is vital but subordinate to Scripture and it therefore stands in contradistinction to Solo Scriptura where such secondary authority does not exist at all. Both result in a different ecclesiology. To point out that ultimately it still boils down to personal opinion is the same for both of us at the core and it completely ignores the work of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Person who can move as He deems fit not as we think would be best. Therefore, Cross is wrong in this critique.