Defense of Sola Scriptura

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

Nice post … I really can not comment on why the previous poster wanted a Fundamentalist to provide an explanation…

Why are you interested in Fundamentalist responses particularly? Why not look at non-fundamentalist Protestants, who are likely to have more thoughtful positions and defend them more skillfully?

Edwin

But, it sounds like you have some “…thoughtful positions…” all lined up… Please - don’t keep us in suspense … and share these thoughtful positions. I promise, I will give them careful consideration and do my best to give a cogent response.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jon NC,

Thank you for the clarification.

Joe,
I feel the need to clarify this one question without qualification.

1. Lutheranism in general, and the LCMS (of which both AJ and I are members) specifically, state clearly that Catholics are Christians.
2. To deny that the Catholic Church, led by the Bishop of Rome, is not part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church established at Pentecost would be to deny truth, and history.

Jon

Enjoyed reading your post.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

I really would suggest that you take some pointers from JohNC on the benefits of brevity in posting a response…

AGAIN, I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE. And I believe that the community or communion or gathering or assembly of Christians is also PEOPLE. Thus, the church is people. Christian people. They are one, holy and catholic. The are the communion of saints.

Now, just compare your response with JonNC’s for both tone and content…

I see zero evidence that Jesus founded any denomination, and that includes The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the insistence of both of them to the contrary). Jesus founded the church, not ANY denomination - mine, yours, or any other. That doesn’t make denominations bad (I strongly support community, cooperation and accountability - thus congregations and the denominations they may form) but Jesus didn’t found any, and such are not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

Since this IS TO BE A DEFENSE of SS, then tell me how you get around Matt 16 where God the Father specifically inspires Peter to give the correct resposne, God the Son publically recognizes the Divine Action of the Father and Peter is now the foundation for the Church (as in “…I will build My Church…”) and is given the authority to bind and lose as represented by the Keys. Now, you have demonstrated that you see zero evidence for a lot of things - I am just curious how you work your way around this using SS as the praxis as you like to tell us. So, AJ, what is the SS answer?

Just answer this question and let’s see what you have to say…

God bless

.

 

[joe370]

AGAIN, I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE. And I believe that the community or communion or gathering or assembly of Christians is also PEOPLE. Thus, the church is people. Christian people. They are one, holy and catholic. The are the communion of saints.

Again you refused to answer my question, but that is cool.

I see zero evidence that Jesus founded any denomination, and that includes The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the insistence of both of them to the contrary).

So, Jesus did not found any one church circa AD 33? What Jesus did found are all of the churches that we see in the world today? I know the church built by Jesus consist of people, and I too believe that the community or communion or gathering or assembly of Christians is also PEOPLE, however they are not one and united. We know Jesus built a church and is still building it; does that include the CC comprised of Christians? You did not answer this question.

Jesus founded the church, not ANY denomination - mine, yours, or any other.

I have already agreed with you on that point; why keep bringing it up? Historians claim that Jesus built just one church; it then split into 2, and eventually fractured into hundreds when men broke away from Jesus’ established church and established new churches; this is a historical fact - correct?

That doesn’t make denominations bad (I strongly support community, cooperation and accountability - thus congregations and the denominations they may form) but Jesus didn’t found any, and such are not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

Are you saying that Jesus did not found the following denominations and that they are not part of the one, holy, catholic church built by God:

1. The Catholic Church,
2. The Southern Baptist Convention,
3. The United Methodist Church,
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
5. The Church of God in Christ,
6. National Baptist Convention, USA,
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8. National Baptist Convention of America,
9. Presbyterian Church (USA),
10. Assemblies of God,
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church,
12. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America,
13. Progressive National Baptist Convention,
14. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS)
15. Episcopal Church,
16. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members,
17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America,
18. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc.,
19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church,
20. American Baptist Churches in the USA,
21. United Church of Christ, 1,224,297,
22. Baptist Bible Fellowship International,
23. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ,
24. The Orthodox Church in America,
25. Jehovah’s Witnesses,

1. I think you are confusing authority with truth. Studied any of the cults? Just because one says one is “infallible” has ZERO relevance to that one being correct. Apples and oranges.

Kind of like those pesky fallible catholic leaders who infallibly defined the Trinitarian dogma. Why should I believe this to be truth if these CC leaders did not have the authority to make such an infallible claim?

1. I think you are confusing self being in unity with self with Christian unity. We all know that The Catholic Church is in full agreement (officially and currently anyway) with ONE - itself (at least in all matters that itself alone currently regards as necessary to be in agreement upon).

Just as each respective PC is in full agreement (officially and currently anyway) with ONE - itself.

It has a unity with only one - itself.

As well as all the PC’s.

Is THAT what you think all those Scriptures call for? You DO realize that all other denominations can say AT LEAST as much.

Yup, and they do.

Heck, I’m officially, formally and currently in agreement with myself in all matters that I myself think I should agree on, am I therefore infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error and you should just accept “with docility” whatever I say?

You are if God endowed you with the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit on Pentecost, until the end of time.

1. Again, you seem to be confusing truth with authority.

OK…help me out; explain the difference between the 2 for me! AJ you believe that the Lutheran Confessions as the accurate reflection of the bible, is your one and only authority, and I believe that Jesus passed his authority on to His established church leaders. Am I wrong? How can I know what truth is when different PC’ have conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and none of them can teach infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus???

 

[joe370]

Yes, I agree with The Catholic Church (and thousands of other denominations) on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ. BTW, The Catholic Church is in agreement with The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod on that, too. But just because one is right in a matter is entirely moot to the issue of infalliblity or unaccountablilty to their being right in ALL matters.

So there is a chance that the Trinity could be fallible? Just a direct answers please. It is a yes or no question.

President Obama said there are 50 States in the USA. Do you think that is correct? IF so, MUST he also be correct in EVERYTHING he thinks and says and does, is he right in defending abortion on demand?

Was the holy spirit sent to President Obama 2000 years ago? No, then no, he can teach fallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is he ergo infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, you must accept “with docility” whatever he says since he was correct about the USA having 50 States? Friend, you are confusing issues.

I am afraid that you are confusing me. Sorry I am not understanding your perspective; I am trying…

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread.

Good idea; please respond to my other questions (when you get the chance) - that have to do with this thread. I might not agree with you but I have enjoyed our exchange.

 

[benedictus2]

Once again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. Scripture is not the norma normans for Scripture (obviously) anymore than Chuck Smith is the norma normans for Chuck Smith, that would not only be absurd but would render the entire process moot since it would simply be self looking at self. Compare that absurdity with “the three-legged-stool” in the RCC and LDS. No, Sola Scriptura rejects using the doctrine as the norma normans for the self-same since that has nothing to do with norming, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self.

But before you can assess doctrine, you need to be able to interpret scripture correctly or else you will end up with wrong doctrine. Doctrine is in itself an interpretation of Scripture. So how can you use Scripture as the rule when the interpretation of it which results in Doctrine is what you are trying to asses.

Let us put your proposition to the test.

Doctrine to be assesed: Eucharist ( whether it is the Real Body and Blood of our Lord (Catholic view) or it is only symbolic (Protestant view).

Norm: Sola Scriptura.

Now, tell me using SS, which doctrine of the Eucharist is correct: that it is literal or it is symbolic.

Note: According to you, by using your norm we should be able to arrive at the correct doctrine.

Let me see how you apply SS as the norm to this doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, AJ,

I really would suggest that you take some pointers from JohNC on the benefits of brevity in posting a response…

I second the motion.

 

[joe370]

Joe,

I feel the need to clarify this one question without qualification.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

You hit the nail on the head, Joe370 - there are many profound disappointments in trying to communicate with AJ. While evasion comes immediately to mind - his tedious repititions (measured in 3-4 and even 5 pages)that still manage to avoid or dismiss what he does not like are truly singular.

Again you refused to answer my question, but that is cool.

So, Jesus did not found any one church circa AD 33? What Jesus did found are all of the churches that we see in the world today? I know the church built by Jesus consist of people, and I too believe that the community or communion or gathering or assembly of Christians is also PEOPLE, however they are not one and united. We know Jesus built a church and is still building it; does that include the CC comprised of Christians? You did not answer this question.

I proposed a similar question to AJ…and fortunately did hold my breath waiting for his answer… I suggest you take a deep breath and look at other postings that offer reasoned dialogue.

God bless and a Happy and Joyous New Year to you and all of the members on CAF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Don’t you hold your breath either waiting for his response. I have a similar question pending with AJ… and he just has not gotten around to finding the time to respond… Of course if this was a ‘praxis’ issue, he would inundate us with at least 3 pages of circular reasoning!

But before you can assess doctrine, you need to be able to interpret scripture correctly or else you will end up with wrong doctrine. Doctrine is in itself an interpretation of Scripture. So how can you use Scripture as the rule when the interpretation of it which results in Doctrine is what you are trying to asses.

The very idea that protestantism has so many different interpretations (and, these are just the ones that are written! ) on every topic - it should clearly demonstrate to anyone wishing to see that such mutually contradictory positions can not be the work of God.

Let us put your proposition to the test.

Doctrine to be assesed: Eucharist ( whether it is the Real Body and Blood of our Lord (Catholic view) or it is only symbolic (Protestant view).

Norm: Sola Scriptura.

Now, tell me using SS, which doctrine of the Eucharist is correct: that it is literal or it is symbolic.

Note: According to you, by using your norm we should be able to arrive at the correct doctrine.

Let me see how you apply SS as the norm to this doctrine.

Hmmmmmmmmmm… don’t you think this is really one of AJ’s “praxis” issues? It certainly looks like a pratical application of a doctrine - is Christ present in the Consecrated Bread and Wine as He said He is … or was He just ‘misunderstood’ by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Councils of the Chruch as Calvin & Co claim? If SS had any merit at all - there would no room for these mutually exclusive positions. The rub, of course, is that Scripture is not necessarily clear (and, as we see - even when it is, it is turned on its head to the point where Christ is either lying or a fool for having said what He said!) Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the recognized teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) the only other path is error.

As I appreciate the position taken by AJ - the Catholic Church is at fault because, “… it agrees with itself …”(ah, would that be internally consistent doctrine?). But, protestantism is correct because not only is there divergence (ah, coufusion!) in the doctrines of these thousands and thousands of groups, sects, cults, assemblies, missions, etc. - all claiming to be a ‘church’ but, there is considerable discord within individual groups because ‘private interpretation’ is the - norm!

God bless and may you and all the members of CAF have a happy and joyous new year.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Don’t you hold your breath either waiting for his response. I have a similar question pending with AJ… and he just has not gotten around to finding the time to respond… Of course if this was a ‘praxis’ issue, he would inundate us with at least 3 pages of circular reasoning!

I’m a patient woman. I’ll just twiddle my thumbs here and maybe grab a cup of coffee and read while I wait. :coffeeread:

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6118530]
And vice versa, but my question was: Which church in the world today was established by Jesus on Pentecost, as opposed to the myriad churches established by men, centuries removed from Pentecost? Josiah seems to think that none of the churches (denominations) - in the world today (including the CC and the EOC’s) - were established by Christ, yet, at the same time, he claims that all of the myriad 16th century PC’s, regardless of denomination, (including the CC and the EOC’s) - were established by Jesus. That is very confusing to me.

In one sense, I agree with AJ. We discussed this in part on the Ask a Lutheran thread, and while a bit off topic here, it is worth discussion. If we are to determine if there is a single communion which is specifically the one Christ established on Pentecost, I would say it does not exist in the form that it did the first millenium. The ministry of that Church, indeed that Church itself, is wounded by schism and separation, and all of us share in the sin of separation that defies Christ’s command of unity. Is the Bishop of Rome part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes. Are Lutherans, as a part of the western Church part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes.

Agreed! I know that all churches regardless of denomination, make up the one body of Christ to which Christ is the savior, but only one of these churches were actually built by Jesus (Matthew 16) - circa AD 33 on Pentecost - correct, or is my line of thinking askew? After all, I can give you the name of the man who founded each respective Protestant church, just as I can give you the name of the man who built the CC which eventually split in the 11th century.

Well, you know, Joe, that I will say that, as an evangelical Catholic (Lutheran), my Church is founded by Christ, because my Church is the one Christ established, as is yours. That is a different discussion then “which denomination”?

You are the only non-Catholic who answers my questions directly (and I am not exaggerating)

Thanks, but I know a number here who answer things directly. And just because I’m direct, doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right.

• so what the heck, I will ask you what no other non-Catholic will answer: Did any of the PC’s (I hate the word protestant; it’s such a negative word ) - in the world today, exist prior to the reformation?

As a distinct “denomination”? Probably not. But then, by our discussion above, I would contend that the Catholic Church, as we know it today, did not exist in its current form prior to the Great Schism.
We are all one Church, Joe, wounded by human sin, schism and separation, but one Church. And I believe the most important steps toward unity is to recognize that we share in the sin that divides His Church, and also in Christian love, recognize the Holy Spirit in each other.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

First, let me complement you on a well written post. Your ideas are clearly express and without repitition. Agreement, as you may guess, is another matter…… but, as I see it, the purpose of CAF is dialogue. So, let me try my hand at responding to some of your ideas. I will only work with your opening comments for now…

I … If we are to determine if there is a single communion which is specifically the one Christ established on Pentecost, I would say it does not exist in the form that it did the first millenium. This is an interesting concept and one that deserves a thorough evaluation. Just look around you - while secular trappings of the Christmas season may still remain - the Church is still very much aware of Christ’s arrival in Flesh upon this earth. And, how is it He came? In the form we identify Him as the Crucified Christ or the Resurrected Lord? No. As a weak and helpless babe about to be carried off to Egypt by the Holy Family in fear for their lives!

How is it that Christ did not chose the form that we associate our Salvation with? While many pious answers are available - let me offer one: to give us an example of living a life of humble, poverty as a tradesman - earning His bread by the sweat of His brow. Could not your question about the Church be asked of the New Born Christ - He really is not the same. No one doubts that His birth alone could have redeemed us - but, that was not His Plan. No one doubts that shedding His Blood in pain via His Circumcision on the 8th day according to the Law could have redeemed us - but, that was not His Plan, either. Old Testament prophets hinted at His suffering, He was never really that specific to His Apostles until the hours preceeding His Arrest. Why? Ultimately, we do not know - that is the Mind of God. But, it was His Plan and our work is to accept the Plan of God made know to us.

Viewing the Catholic Church today through the filter of what it looked like when it began (as recorded in Matt 16) would be like viewing Christ at His Concpetion. Viewing the Catholic Church today through the filter of the first 100 or first 1000 years is not a valid approach either - the Catholic Chruch is continuing on the road to following Christ more fully in a complex and technological world. Chrsit did not have a cell phone, web page and access to e-mail - but the Vicar of Christ does. Is this a criticism of not following Christ? I certainly hope not. What organization that dates its origin to the year 100AD is the same as it was? Honestly, none to my knowedge. What organization that dates its origin to the year 1000AD is the same as it was? Same answer. If I were to ask, do you think M. Luther were to recognize the church he founded today - do you think he could? If you forget the externals (types of buildings, clothing people now wear, indoor plumbing, etc) and look at the spirit - he may still be challenged! But, that was just my guess.

The ministry of that Church, indeed that Church itself, is wounded by schism and separation, and all of us share in the sin of separation that defies Christ’s command of unity. Is the Bishop of Rome part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes. Are Lutherans, as a part of the western Church part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes.

What I would submit, is to look at Peter himself. Plain characterizations would have probably used the terms like, brash, boastful, rough manner, lacking in education, vain, cowardly (he struck an possibly unarmed servant with a sword, ran away, denied Christ 3x to a servant girl, was conspicuous by his absence at Calvary), and initially doubted the Resurrection. There are hardly leaderhip traits - then or today! But, you know what, Samuel picked David when Jesse, his own father, sent him out to tend the sheep and not even to be part of the festivities! God chooses in ways we can not even imagine.

Use SS, if you like, and you will clearly see the weakened (especially weak even when contrasted with the Apostle John) But, you notice that it was not John who was given the Selection and Inspiration of God the Father - only Peter was. There was God’s Plan unfolding before our very eyes. Now, were there popes who followed Peter’s earthly example - oh, yes - and while none have publicly denied Christ, they have committed every other sin and public scandal available to them! In looking at the relationship between Christ and Peter - don’t you think Christ was fully aware of the short-comings of all of Peter’s successors.

You will note that that after the Resurrection, when Christ was asking Peter if he loved Him - three times - Christ did not say, “You know, Peter, you are not quite up for this job and I think I am going to give it to someone else!” Nope. Christ re-affirmed Peter’s mission to feed both lambs and sheep. God really does have a Plan - and His Plan is going through, whether we agree with it or not.

Ultimately, when it comes to our association as Christians, we can be in on the playing field - working for the establishment of the Kingdom of God through the Church Christ founded on Peter (Matt 16) or we can be somewhere in the tent. Your choice is before you.

God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I see zero evidence that Jesus founded any denomination, and that includes The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the insistence of both of them to the contrary). Jesus founded the church, not ANY denomination - mine, yours, or any other. That doesn’t make denominations bad (I strongly support community, cooperation and accountability - thus congregations and the denominations they may form) but Jesus didn’t found any, and such are not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

Since this IS TO BE A DEFENSE of SS

It’s not. I was simply and quickly responding to the diversion, with a call to return to the subject of this thread.

Now, you have demonstrated that you see zero evidence for a lot of things - I am just curious how you work your way around this using SS as the praxis as you like to tell us. So, AJ, what is the SS answer?

1. I don’t have to “work around Scripture,” the Catholic Church does. It is the one claiming that Jesus founded itself, but - obviously - there’s nothing in Scripture that says that, in fact, Scripture never so much as even mentions it. About anything. For anything.
2. Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” anything. Let’s see if we can try this AGAIN. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines. It doesn’t SAY anything, it’s not a teaching.

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

2. I think you are confusing self being in unity with self with Christian unity. We all know that The Catholic Church is in full agreement (officially and currently anyway) with ONE - itself (at least in all matters that itself alone currently regards as necessary to be in agreement upon).

Just as each respective PC is in full agreement (officially and currently anyway) with ONE - itself.

Correct. SOME Protestant denominations are a “bad” at this point as is The Catholic Church. How does that substantiate that all such must be wrong but The Catholic Church must be infallible/unaccountable? Yes, as we all know, The Catholic Church is currently and officially in full agreement with itself (alone, exclusively) in all matters that itself alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. Yup. It has a unity of ONE - itself alone with itself alone. And yes, there are Protestant denominations just as bad. But you evaded my two questions: 1) Do you think THAT’S the unity for which Jesus prayed - self agreeing with only one, self? 2) How does self alone agreeing with self alone indicate that self alone is infallible, unaccountable, incaptable of error?

Heck, I’m officially, formally and currently in agreement with myself in all matters that I myself think I should agree on, am I therefore infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error and you should just accept “with docility” whatever I say?

You are if God endowed you with the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit on Pentecost, until the end of time.

Ah, so your point that The Catholic Church has a unity of just one: self alone with self alone has nothing to do with it being correct. It’s correct because it alone claims that it alone is infallible until the end of time? You do realize this is just a perfect circle of self-authentication, of course. And you do realize that such a claim of self alone for self alone has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with self being correct, it is simply self exempting self from accountability. And yes, ANYONE can do it. Studied any of the cults?

How can I know what truth is when different PC’ have conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and none of them can teach infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus???

1. Realize at least as much of the same issue applies to The Catholic Church. Remember: it is in agreement ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with itself, alone - and then only currently and officially and only in those matters that itself exclusively currently regards as necessary to agree upon.
2. You have raised the issue of norming - the very issue The Catholic Church evades by insisting that it itself alone is correct because it itself alone so declares that it self alone is. IF one is infallible and incapable of error then he/she/it would be exempt from accountability, such being moot in that case - but of course, it doesn’t permit an investigation of the conditional clause, it alone simply claims that it alone is.
3. As a Catholic, you are not to ask if The Catholic Church is correct. Read its Catechism for you, # 87 for starters. For if you were a non-Catholic, you would embrace accountability (not just for all OTHERS than The Catholic Church but also The Catholic Church, with none exempting self alone). Two things would be needed: A norma normans (the issue of this thread) and then the arbitration according to it.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Was the holy spirit sent to President Obama 2000 years ago? No, then no, he can teach fallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The point was that if one agrees with The Catholic Church on the doctrine of the Trinity, one MUST agree with it on all other points. I disagreed. Read again what I posted.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob the Builder has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

**Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura. **

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

Of course, any may claim that self alone is right cuz self alone says self alone is - and thus exempt one - self - from accountability and examination. But this is not an alternative praxis (better or worse), it is just self exempting self from such. “Just accept whatever I say with docility cuz I declare that I’m right so I am.” IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects the embrace of God’s Scripture as the rule/canon (Sola Scriptura) NOT because it has a better alternative rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a better approach to norming (it doesn’t). It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming for the same reason it rejects any and all other alternatives - because it rejects norming. It simply circumvents the entire subject of norming (and thus what will serve as the rule/canon in such), itself alone exempting itself alone from accountability. Since it alone insists that it alone is infallible and it CANNOT err (in matters of official doctrine and morals anyway), ergo it is unaccountable. The whole issue of whether it is correct is moot since itself alone insists that itself alone CANNOT be anything but correct. It’s norming it rejects since it alone regards it meaningless, irrelevant, moot in the case of ONE - itself (exclusively).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

Truly amazing - and this bluster and acting ‘put upon’ you still manage to evade the one simple question asked. Truly this is going beyond disappointing and entering the realm of tragic.

It’s not. I was simply and quickly responding to the diversion, with a call to return to the subject of this thread.

1. I don’t have to “work around Scripture,” the Catholic Church does. It is the one claiming that Jesus founded itself, but - obviously - there’s nothing in Scripture that says that, in fact, Scripture never so much as even mentions it. About anything. For anything.
2. Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” anything. Let’s see if we can try this AGAIN. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines. It doesn’t SAY anything, it’s not a teaching.

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread.

H-E-L-L-O…the thread is a defense of SS, the question invovles how you can read the words of Scripture and come up with all of these ideas about Christ NOT founding His chruch on Peter (Matt 16) NOT actually founding a Church at all (back to Matt 16) … and the issue is (heads up, AJ) how does your praxis approach void the very clear words of Christ? Now that is the quesiton - just answer it… and stop with the evasion.

Oh, and do me a favor, please stop pasting that same material you have been handing out with about every fourth post. Honest, it shows a real lack of originality…and it has passed tedious about five posts ago.

God bless

.

 

[joe370]

Josiah, as I mentioned before, every PC demands that a Christian must defer to their church authority with docility, regarding their church charter ( the Lutheran Confessions) - and if one doesn’t, one is simply excluded from their assembly. If I am wrong then surely the church to which you belong will allow me to be a member of your church while sharing my catholic beliefs with your church leaders, and of course they cannot reject my beliefs or my membership, because they do not have the authority to do so, if no church leadership, especially the CC, possesses said authority to make such a claim of “self alone, for self alone has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with self being correct” – is that correct?

If, by your reasoning, we both belong to the same CC, surely the church to which you belong would allow me, as a practicing Catholic, or a want to be Christian (who has never been baptized) - to be a member of “the one holy catholic” without actually being baptized by your church leaders or deferring to the Lutheran Confessions, if I, as a practicing Catholic or the sola scriptura advocate, deem it unnecessary? No need to defer to that pesky Lutheran Confessions with docility - correct???

Josiah, I ask again, only because you have not answered the question, which is cool, if you don’t want to answer it directly. Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when each respective church was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST on Pentecost, with the exception of the CC? Including the churches that are being established as we speak, and the churches that will be established in the future, by mere men, as opposed to God? In other words, it is your contention that all the insular churches in the world today were established by God on Pentecost, even the reformed baptist church being built in my neighborhood, as we speak? I know that all churches comprise the body of Christ, (even the churches established in the future by men as opposed to God) - but only one of these churches (comprised of people) - was built circa AD 33, by Jesus Christ. I agree with Jon: the sin of men, on both sides of the table, has definitely divided Jesus’ Mystical Body, but that doesn’t mean that the one church built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets no longer exists, for that would make Jesus a liar.It simply means that the church built by God, on Pentecost, coexists with the churches built by men, post pentecost by about 1500 years. Jesus said: I will build my church, not churches. He had only one holy universal church in mind, united and one in faith and belief, which is not the case today, so how can you call all of the man-made churches (including the CC if you are right) - the one universal church considering the fact that they are not united in belief? If we all belong to the same CC then why am I not allowed to attend my former Lutheran church or your Lutheran church, unless I defer to the Lutheran Confessions (only the bible regarding my former church?

If the Bible is the Christians clear and sufficient norm, rule of faith, all by itself (as per the Westminster confession), isn’t the need for an additional document (Lutheran Confessions) - a contradiction in terms?

Regarding statements of faith and belief (Lutheran Confession) - which is clearly an extra-Biblical authoritative body of work, spelling out the limits of belief and even what conclusions the Lutheran church(es) must draw, as the Lutheran Confessions examine the Scriptures through the lens of men such as Martin Luther and company, (as opposed to the Apostles) - who wrote this extra-Biblical document(s), is it not a violation of SS (the bible alone)? Where did they get their Apostolic authority to write the Lutheran Confessions? If the CC leaders that gathered at the various councils through the centuries, and codified the CCC have zero authority to teach Christians outside the CC, then the same applies to the LC leaders that codified the Lutheran Confessions - right? Is this the model that all churches should acknowledge, and that Jesus intended for His flock; no need for any one church to acknowledge or rebuff conflicting truths outside each respective church, for no one church can teach infallibly when it comes to faith or morals?
That is what you are saying, is it not?

Jesus Christ prayed that the faithful “all be one” (Jn 17:21), and Scriptures emphasize the need for doctrinal unity over and over again (Jn 10:16, Eph 4:3-6, 1 Cor 1:10, Rom 15:5, etc.), and surely this unity will always be unattainable as long as your platform that no church leadership can teach infallibly (free of error) - regarding faith or morals ONLY - is accepted as fact. Again, did the CC teach infallibly or fallibly at the various ecumenical councils (to which you acknowledge as truth) - regarding such things as the Trinity, the 2 natures of Jesus or the Theotokos? Yes or no?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

You said:

Ah, so your point that The Catholic Church has a unity of just one: self alone with self alone has nothing to do with it being correct.

Agreed! Logically, the church guided by the holy spirit since Pentecost, is the only church that can make that claim. I believe that church to be the CC; you believe that church to be every single church in the world today with the exception of the CC and the cults, whoever they are; you are quite silent about these cultic assemblies, who would no doubt say the same about the LC, and neither of you, (if in fact you are right about no church possessing any authority outside the sphere of influence of each respective church) - have the authority to make that claim about the other.

It’s correct because it alone claims that it alone is infallible until the end of time? You do realize this is just a perfect circle of self-authentication, of course.

Agreed, if in fact the CC was not established on Pentecost, which of course is where you and I disagree. The claim to speak error free when it comes to such things as the Trinity, Theotokos and Jesus’ 2 natures, and the many other heretical movements that plagued the CC, should a be justifiable claim of the church guided by the Holy spirit Who alone claims that He alone is infallible and is perpetually guiding the very fallible Pastors of Jesus’ established church, until the end of time? As I said before: not one Catholic leader claims to be infallible as you keep insisting. We keep going over this; we are the ones stuck in a perfect circle. LOL…

And you do realize that such a claim of self alone for self alone has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with self being correct, it is simply self exempting self from accountability. And yes, ANYONE can do it. Studied any of the cults?

Aj, could you give me the name of these cults?

All PC’s are guilty of this, and therefore there is no way to know if any one church is correct, if you are right. Are you right? Is there no way to know if any one church is correct regarding such teachings as the Eucharist (symbol vs literal) – or Baptism (by water unnecessary)? Please don’t come back with something like, the CC claims that self alone is correct…etc etc. Please just address the questions. Let’s assume that the CC is guilty of everything you say; help me find a way out of this vicious cycle of NEVER knowing who is correct, from your unique perspective?