Defense of Sola Scriptura

[moondweller]

Here is my post on this:

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.

Excellent, AJ. :thankyou:

Having read all the posts I’ve concluded that the only thing these Catholics have been doing here is to make a feeble attempt at *circumventing * the true issue of this thread: “Defense of Sola Scriptura.” But you are to be commended in that you have not given over to their many and constant digressions.

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties.

And a truly, noble opinion it is! Since all parties here agree that Scripture is the inspired (theopneustos), written Word of God. Therefore, inherently Scripture itself holds the authority of God Himself. No church denomination (Protestant or Catholic) can rightfully claim such divine authority. The job of the true church, which Christ is presently building through the Holy Spirit, is to be a pillar (supporter, champion) of the truths revealed in these God-breathed writings. The church itself is not the Truth - which, essentially, the Magisterium of the RCC claims of itself with its self-proclaimed infallibility, and of which its devotees (must) accept with docility (this being the underlying egress exerted here by the Catholics - circumventing the actual issue of Sola Scriptura) .

 

[T_More]

Is there any evidence anywhere of the early Chrisitans defending Sola Scriptura in their writings?

 

[Teneas]

Is there any evidence anywhere of the early Chrisitans defending Sola Scriptura in their writings?

really really misses his Faith of the Early Fathers book right about now

 

[benedictus2]

Let’s try this again…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It is not hermeneutics and it is not arbitration. It doesn’t “say” or “determine” anything, it is a practice.

But the point is how “valid and acceptable” as a practice would SS be if it is incapable of arriving at the truth.

And I am not talking hermeneutics.

Based on what you have written above this is how it plays out.

Norma/Norma/Rule/Canon : Sola Scriptura

Doctrine to be evaluated: That as per John 6 and the Last Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels, the Eucharist is not merely symbolic but is the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

So now. Please proceed with your evaluation.

 

[benedictus2]

Excellent, AJ. :thankyou:

Having read all the posts I’ve concluded that the only thing these Catholics have been doing here is to make a feeble attempt at *circumventing *the true issue of this thread: “Defense of Sola Scriptura.” But you are to be commended in that you have not given over to their many and constant digressions.

Actually, AJ has failed to grasp a lot of points. The topic is Defense of Sola Scriptura and while has attempted to defend it, he has failed miserably in proving that it is the Rule/Normans/Canon by which Doctrine is to be evaluated.

And a truly, noble opinion it is! Since all parties here agree that Scripture is the inspired (theopneustos), written Word of God. Therefore, inherently Scripture itself holds the authority of God Himself.

Here again is a big duh! Scripture is the written word of God not because all parties have agreed it is the written word of God. Scripture is the Word of God because the Catholic Church said so. This is the fact that has eluded AJ. That is why he insists on his erroneous explanation.

No church denomination (Protestant or Catholic) can rightfully claim such divine authority.

Well duh, since we only have the Bible because of the Catholic Church, therefore the Church is the divine authority and she has the divine authority becuase she is the body of Christ and Christ is God and Christ established her.

The job of the true church, which Christ is presently building through the Holy Spirit, is to be a pillar (supporter, champion) of the truths revealed in these God-breathed writings.

Wrong. Christ has already built the church but He is conitnually nourishing her. And we know that Scripture is God breathed because the Church said so and we know we can believe that because Christ said so.

The church itself is not the Truth - which, essentially, the Magisterium of the RCC claims of itself with its self-proclaimed infallibility,

The church never claimed to be the Truth. But she has / is in posession of the fullness of Truth because of Jesus Christ who WILLED her into being and promised to send her the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. And we know this to be true because we believe in Jesus Christ and what He says. Unlike some who only believes some of what He said and did .

 

[joe370]

Josiah, you said:

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.”

For example, addressing the question of whether the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine is correct, or the common Protestant interpretation is correct, would be considered norming - right?

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?

I am gonna work within the confines of the sola scriptura system. As a sola scriptura advocate the holy bible will serve as my “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick) when confronted with doctrinal questions/differences? It is the standard by which all Christians can measure their belief system?

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.

So, we can use the bible as our norm, just as you use math as your norma normans, and this norm, along with repeatable, observable experimental evidence is to be used for resolving issues/differences that will yield an accurate position? In other words, all Christians using the bible (as opposed to math) - as their norm, and repeatable, observable experiential evidence, is all a Christian needs to resolve issues? What is this observable experiential evidence to which you are referring, in the Christian context, as opposed to the scientific context?

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.

Seems reasonable! Also, I am not really trying to tear apart the doctrine sola scriptura. I just don’t believe that the bible alone was meant to be the Christians one and only norm, (authority) - but I do respect your right to defend your position, and if it seems plausible I will support your position. In a way it is kind of difficult to steer clear of subjectivity when every Christian is the interpreter of the bible as their norm, don’t you think?

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.

Who determines which canon/rule is the best canon rule and the most objective, in the end, regarding biblical truth? Keeping in mind that you said:

*The bible alone doesn’t say or determine anything, and it cannot arbitrate anything. *

So the same applies to you and I when it comes to the bible (canon) - as our norm and you and I cannot say it’s true just because you and I say it is; we need accurate verification? In other words, we must both defer to the norm (the bible) - to draw our conclusions and identify the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties involved in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such?

If every Protestant leader/teacher of each respective PC uses the bible (norm) - to evaluate, verify and determine the accuracy of biblical doctrine and every Protestant leader/teacher uses the bible (their norm) - to draw their conclusions and to identify the most objective conclusions regarding biblical doctrine, and upon doing so, establish a church charter, such as the Lutheran Confessions, that must be accepted with docility to be a part of the Lutheran community, then clearly every Protestant church leader/teacher is guilty of saying: it’s true cuz I say it is?

Aj, once those canons for physics are recognized, can those canons ALONE (sola science norm if you will) - be used to arbitrate and resolve differences in the scientific community?

If SS (the norm) - either through the lens of the Lutheran Confessions, or through the lens of each Christian in general, or each Protestant Pastor, of each respective PC, is the most objective and accurate reflection of the teachings found in the bible, then why all the doctrinal disunity and what would you consider the most subjective, which of course should lead to division and fragmentation?

Was/is sola scriptura the most historically embraced, broadly embraced belief since the inception of Christ’s church?

For the last 2000 years, has SS (the norm) - been the accepted norm, and considered reliable by all parties (Christians) - involved in the evaluation of doctrines for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

 

[moondweller]

Actually, AJ has failed to grasp a lot of points. The topic is Defense of Sola Scriptura and while has attempted to defend it, he has failed miserably in proving that it is the Rule/Normans/Canon by which Doctrine is to be evaluated.

He hasn’t failed at all. As I said, you’ve simply attempted to circumvent the real issue.

Here again is a big duh! Scripture is the written word of God not because all parties have agreed it is the written word of God. Scripture is the Word of God because the Catholic Church said so. This is the fact that has eluded AJ. That is why he insists on his erroneous explanation.

Actually Scripture itself testifies to its divine origin (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Well duh, since we only have the Bible because of the Catholic Church, therefore the Church is the divine authority and she has the divine authority becuase she is the body of Christ and Christ is God and Christ established her.

He’s already successfully refuted this faulty logic.

Wrong. Christ has already built the church but He is conitnually nourishing her.

If Christ already built (past tense) the church then there are no new members presently being added to it. Why then do you baptize? But read what the Scriptures say:Eph 2:20-21 "…having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,} in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,"According to the Word of God only the foundation has been built, with its Corner Stone; but the rest continues to be fitted together and is growing.

And we know that Scripture is God breathed because the Church said so and we know we can believe that because Christ said so.

The “Church” said nothing about Scripture being God-breathed. Scripture itself (through Paul) testified to its own divine origin.

The church never claimed to be the Truth.

Your Church does claim itself to be the truth in claiming its own infallibility.

But she has / is in posession of the fullness of Truth because of Jesus Christ who WILLED her into being and promised to send her the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.

Guiding into all truth was promised to the Apostles, and it alludes to the forming of the N.T. Scriptures that the Holy Spirit would inspire through certain men. Preserving His Word in this world for future generations, just as He has done since Moses.

And we know this to be true because we believe in Jesus Christ and what He says. Unlike some who only believes some of what He said and did.

Do you believe Christ where it is recorded that He said that the one who believes in Him HAS eternal life and DOES NOT come into judgment but HAS passed out of death into LIFE (Jn. 5:24)? IOW, do you believe in the believer’s eternal security based on what Jesus Himself said? If not, then maybe you don’t really believe everything He said. But we know we can believe what is written in the Scripture because we know the Scriptures to be “the Rule/Normans/Canon by which Doctrine is to be evaluated.”

 

[T_More]

Actually Scripture itself testifies to its divine origin (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Monndweller, may I ask you a question? Do you only believe things that are taught in the scriptures? Just curious.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I think you have captured the essece of his circular argument.

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?

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?

It is really more then a contradiction in terms - based on AJ’s line of thinking it is self affirming self and refusing everything else. Additionally, considering that AJ’s group of Lutherans did not sign on to Luther’s approach to churhcmaking until hundreds of years after most had done so. Now, I am not sure if this group of Lutherans is just harder to convince that Luther was the way to go or what … but, I would say this is far fmor being so ‘clear’ and so much of a ‘norm’ that it apparently caused some delays.

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?

I would be interested in his response to this…assuming he makes one does not include for pages of his ‘norming’ cut and paste material…

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?

I would be interested in his response to this one, too! But, there will be no breath holding awaiting his response.

God bless

Continued…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

While Benedictus2 is quite capable of responding……I thought I would make a small contribution or two…

He hasn’t failed at all. As I said, you’ve simply attempted to circumvent the real issue.

I am thinking that you have gotten lost in AJ’s multi-page cut-n-paste approaches to responding that really do evade. The ‘real issue’ deals with SS and if it can be defended. The multiple critiques from the numerous posters to AJ’s line of reasoning show direct and focused responses to his numerous errors.

But, you know, if Scripture was so clear and so well normed so that anyone could read, understand and implement what was written - there there would not be all of these thousands of splintered sects, cults, groups, missions, networks, assemblies - all claiming to be the Church founded by Christ (and you can find that in Matt 16) on Peter.

Actually Scripture itself testifies to its divine origin (2 Tim. 3:16-17).He’s already successfully refuted this faulty logic.If Christ already built (past tense) the church then there are no new members presently being added to it. Why then do you baptize? But read what the Scriptures say:Eph 2:20-21 "…having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,} in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,"According to the Word of God only the foundation has been built, with its Corner Stone; but the rest continues to be fitted together and is growing.

I think there is a focus on time here that may need some patience on your part. Christ FOUNDED His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter about in the year 33AD. This is simply a historic fact and one requiring a past tense verb. The issue about the Church of Christ continuing to be ‘…fitted together…’ as an on-going process that you identify in Eph 2 is quite valid - but, demonstrates another reality. For example, Christ, during His early life, agreed to be bound in time. The Resurrected Christ is free of this restraint and is with the Church today. Every time that a Mass is said anywhere in the world, Christ is physically present under the apearance of Bread and Wine (cf John 6, Synoptic Gospels on the Last Supper). I hope this removes the obvious stumbling block from your understanding.

The “Church” said nothing about Scripture being God-breathed.

Actually, it is the Catholic Chruch that gave you the Scripture - not the Scripture that gave you the Church. That really is an important distinction that is both historical and theological.

Scripture itself (through Paul) testified to its own divine origin.Your Church does claim itself to be the truth in claiming its own infallibility.

Actually, the ‘claim’ comes the promise made by Christ that He would be with His Church - even to the end of the world. Additionally, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide His Church - and the dramatic event that proclaimed the beginning of promise keeping happened on Pentecost Sunday as recorded in Acts.

IOW, do you believe in the believer’s eternal security based on what Jesus Himself said? If not, then maybe you don’t really believe everything He said. But we know we can believe what is written in the Scripture because we know the Scriptures to be "the Rule/Normans/Canon by which Doctrine is to be evaluated.

Interesting - maybe turning that question around would be appropriate and ask you about the the last judgment as recorded in Matthew when Christ said not every one who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom - not everyone who proclaims His Word, performs miracles and casts out demons is going to be known by God. “Eternal security” for what? Belief? Recall, that it is recoreded that even the Devils believe that Christ is Lord - but, it does not change their position any…

But, by the way … what of Christ words that, “… unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood you have no life in you”… it seems like you really do not believe everything He said…or, do you?

God bless

"

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6124031]The east west schism has more to do with territory than doctrine. Protestant / Catholic divide has to do with doctrine.

Papal infallibility is territory and not doctrine? The Filioque is territory and not doctrine?
Purgatory? Universal Jurisdiction? Original sin?

But is it just sin or the protestants departure from truth. One can sin and still acknowledge what is true so yes, hypocritical. The problem with protestantism is that they now have erroneous doctrnie.

So says the Catholic Church, and of course I agree with you about most Protestants. But the disagreement over doctrine is stating the obvious. We believe your doctrine has error mixed with truth. You believe the same about us.

Our sin is our fault. But consider this: Christ did not promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all goodness or into all sinlessness but into ALL TRUTH.

No disagreement

SIZE=3]If this is the promise, then how come we come up with difering interpretations of the Bible? Is the Christ incapable of keeping that promise?

We’re being circular here. We keep coming up with differing doctrine because of human sin. Christ is quite capable, but we still sin.

We come up with the question that if the Holy Spirit is guiding us all into all truth, then which one is the truth when it comes to Eucharist, Baptism, 'Divorce, Salvation, etc,etc.

Human sin.

quote] The division of east and west is a thousand years old! The division between Catholic and Lutheran approaches 500 years. 500 years! And in that time we have not been able to reconcile? It should be a common confession, this sin of division, for all of us, every communion, every week, until Christ’s call for unity is complied with. [/qutoe]
That is really evading the issue. The division comes from differing apprehension of “Truth”. If we all believed in the same doctrines, there would be no division. So it always come down to what is true?

And we continue to come to, or stand by, different doctrine, because of human sin. There is no evasion here.

Separated. Your denomination was founded by Luther. This is so easily proved by a cursory examination of history. Do you think that it is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that led Luther to start his own church. Are denominations what Christ had in mind?

The denomination was, not the Church.

But I do not deny the abuses. But you see this is what protestants get so wrong time and time again. Luther, was completely right about denouncing abuses. He was completely wrong about starting his own church and coming up with His own set of doctrines by himself.

He was thrown out! Why? For trying to help the pope by bringing the abuses to light.
Luther may have been brash, rude and crude, but it was not his goal to break from the Church.

Coming up with SS opened up the floodgates of division and that is why now you have thousands of different denominations. Why churches has allowed themselves to be evangelized by the world instead of them evangelizing the world.
Division started 500 years prior to Luther. Even without SS, and with Holy Tradition, Rome and Orthodoxy can’t reconcile.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Again I agree! There is ZERO evidence that Jesus founded ANY denomination.

So, the CC is a denomination and the Lutheran church is not?

Did Jesus Christ build the CC (comprised of people) - and the Lutheran church (comprised of people) - yes or no?

I thought this thread was a defense of sola scriptura? Who is norma? LOL…Jon to you feel that Josiah has answered my question?

Joe,
Here is what the Augsburg Confession says:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article7

If you follow the link, you will find a progression from this to the response of the Confutation, followed by the Apology.

IOW, the Church is people, those alive and those who have transferred to theChurch Triumphant. Without getting into the visible vs invisible Church argument, I believe that AJ is right in the sense that no particular organization, denomination, etc. is what Christ intended to establish.
It seems reasonable, however, to desire while here on earth an institution that makes it possible to rightly preach the word and administer the sacraments. And my point has been that while one might claim that the Church that held the early councils was the one true Church, that Church is now splintered and wounded by schism and division, the cause of which is human sin.
Are institutions known as the Catholic Church, whose members are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the various Lutheran synods part of that one holy Church? Yes, in the sense that within them, and many others are people who believe on His name.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Of course to hold to a doctrine of sola scriptura (in a true sense) requires a rejection of science, not to mention commen sense (so good choice )

Actually, this is perhaps the worst understanding of sola scriptura that I’ve seen.

Jon

 

[rovimax]

“IF SS IS THE PRAXIS… then there should be a uniformity of doctrine on items such as Baptism. Christ was quite clear to the old Pharisee Nicodeamus that Baptism with water was necesssary - and quite clear that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were to go out into the world and baptize in the name of the Trinity. YET THIS IS NOT THE CASE - as we see with the multiplicity of protestent groups - who yet all claim SS as their only source of doctrine.”

What protestant groups don’t baptize with water?

“So, let’s just look at this logically - since Scripture never claims SS (this is really a man-made tradition with its origin solidly in the Reformation) and Scripture must be explained - just like the eunich said to Phillip - there must be a recognized source of divinely inspired wisdom to make these written words understandable. If not, you know what happens? Yep, you guess it, the chaos of protestantism with its divergence on every conceivable topic in Scripture. While Christ prayed that His Chruch would be one - we see the historic and quite contemporary divisions of protestantism that splinter before our very eyes.”

What chaos? HIS Church is one. All Trinitarian Christians believe the same basic tenets of faith and all believe that Jesus is the rock on which the Church of Christ was built.

The Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians believed in infant baptism, the Baptist, Seventh Day adventist, Fundamentalists don’t believe in infant baptism… What norm are you saying??? The thing protestants have in common is that it must hold tightly to the doctrine that Jesus is the rock at Mat 16. Because that twisting of scripture will be the only reason for protestants to exist as a religious organization. Each organization holding to Sola Scriptura continues to divide itself bacause each member wants his own interpretation to be the norm.:dts:

 

[bridgeforsale]

Actually, this is perhaps the worst understanding of sola scriptura that I’ve seen.

Jon

I understand the point you’re inferring i.e. sola scriptura is NOT biblical literalism. I’m simply pointing to the logical inconsistency of that idea. Nonetheless, this really isn’t my cup of tea (and as someone who doesn’t believe ANY of the paranormal claims made by the bible, this is probably not a discussion I need to be involved with).

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6124999]

I agree. But not one and united in belief I must sadly concede, right?

Yes, this is the wounding of Christ’s Church, and its ministry, which we must depend upon the Holy Spirit to help us overcome.

Will that include the many churches that do not exist today, but will exist in the future? Will the grandfather clause apply to them as well? LOL…

“Where two or more are gathered in My name…” I am not defending error, but instead the willingness of the Holy Spirit to be with us, out of love, for us.

Amen brother… Jon is there a chance, no matter how unlikely to most Protestants, that Jesus actually kept the church which He built, one and united in belief and doctrine, and that that church was/is the CC, and that all other PC’s established by someone other than Jesus, remain in communion with the CC, but not in full communion, for the simple fact that they are not one and united with the CC vis-a-vis belief and doctrine, and are therefore part of the one, holy CC to which Jesus is the Head and Savior?

Sure, there is a chance. There is also a chance that that one Church is in Antioch and Jerusalem, and you and I are linked to that Church, or it might be in Wittenburg, in response to the corruption with infected the Church prior to the reformation. More likely, however, is that the on Church was the catholic Catholic Church of the ECF’s and early councils, which we should be striving to reconcile, in response to Christ’s call for unity.

Certainly God has the power/means to accomplish this in spite of the sin of man that divide Christianity? For someone to claim that the sin of man could somehow prevent God from preserving HIS truths in the church established by His Son, which each Christian must be armed with to be saved, seems to limit God in a way, don’t you think?

Who is to say this isn’t happening right now, that the Holy Spirit is moving in His Church in ways we do not yet recognize.

We both agree that Jesus’ established church of the west and of the east, and of the north and of the south, (in other words universal in time and space) - for the first 1000 years of Christianity was in fact the CC. If no other churches (PC’s) - for the first 1000 years of Christianity existed then doesn’t it stand to reason that the CC is the church of Matthew 16, or is Josiah right and locating Jesus’ established church is impossible?

When I speak of myself as an evangelical Catholic, I mean it. I may be of the Lutheran Confession, but it is of the Catholic Church. “Where two or more are gathered in my name…” and where the word is preached and the sacraments administered, there is the Church. When you attend Mass, there is the Church! When Harpazo received the Eucharist in his Orthodox parish, there is the Church! When I was baptized June 27, 1954, at my parent’s Lutheran parish, there is the Church!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I understand the point you’re inferring i.e. sola scriptura is NOT biblical literalism. I’m simply pointing to the logical inconsistency of that idea. Nonetheless, this really isn’t my cup of tea (and as someone who doesn’t believe ANY of the paranormal claims made by the bible, this is probably not a discussion I need to be involved with).

Your involvement is welcome. And I accept your point of view as you offer it.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Papal infallibility is territory and not doctrine?

Oh, but that doctrine came after the schism.

The Filioque is territory and not doctrine?

Aaah, but the Filioque was not the reason for the schism. The East and West co-existed well enough for almost 400 years after its addition.

Purgatory?

The Orthodox also believe in purgatory (the state of purgation which they call part of the process of Theosis) but they have just not defined it.

Universal Jurisdiction?

As I said before, it was about territory.

Original sin?

They call it ancestral sin. Same thing.

So says the Catholic Church, and of course I agree with you about most Protestants. But the disagreement over doctrine is stating the obvious. We believe your doctrine has error mixed with truth. You believe the same about us.

So which one is correct? If Christ promised her Church to lead her into all truth then does that mean He did not keep his promise? Is this what He intended for us to muddle about in uncertainity as to what is and what is not true?

We’re being circular here. We keep coming up with differing doctrine because of human sin. Christ is quite capable, but we still sin.

But you miss the point. Christ said His Church will be guided into all truth. If Christ is capable of keeping that promise then HE HAS KEPT THAT PROMISE. If he has kept that promise therefore His Church is free from doctrinal error.
Take for example the apostles. They are all sinners. But they were none the less able to proclaim what is true because that is what Christ promised.
But you are right. Wrong doctrine also stem from human sin, Luther’s terrible pride. He thought that he knew better than all the doctors and sins that came before him and thought he was quite capable of deciding which form part of the canon BY HIMSELF and that He can make a doctrine BY HIMSELF.
So in his case it became indeed circular. His sin (pride) brought about wrong doctrine and this wrong doctrine brought about the proliferation of sin and even more wrong doctrine and so it goes.

Human sin.

Nice try but nope. Goodness and Truth are two different things. Evil (Sin) is the absence of good, lie is the opposite of Truth.
The Holy Spirit guided and continues to guide the Church into all Truth. Free will then responds to the truth and puts it into action to do good.
So therefore my question remains unanswered.
So here it is again: If the Holy Spirit is guiding us all into all truth, then which one is the truth when it comes to Eucharist, Baptism, 'Divorce, Salvation, etc,etc ?

And we continue to come to, or stand by, different doctrine, because of human sin. There is no evasion here.

That’s a convenient answer when you don’t have a good enough answer. Just keep answering “human sin” and hopefully that will be enough.
I asked you a question: How do we know what is true? If we are all guided by the Holy Spirit how do we know what is true? Which of us is truly guided by the Holy Spirit?
And no you cannot get away with answering with “human sin’ because that just does not work.

The denomination was, not the Church.

Oh yes it is. Lutheran Church is separate to the Anglican Church is separate to the Presbyterian church, etc, etc.

He was thrown out! Why? For trying to help the pope by bringing the abuses to light. Luther may have been brash, rude and crude, but it was not his goal to break from the Church.

I have no doubt that his intentions were good at the beginning. What was it someone said? That the road to hell is paved with good intentions?
As I said before, if he had had a little bit more humility and done a little bit more discernment then he would have seen the tail of the snake .
You see, there were a lot of people who were very critical of the Pope and the church hierarchy at that time but they did not do what Luther did. St Thomas Moore was one. The thing with Thomas Moore was that even though he knew that the heirarchy was corrupt, He still understood that the Church is Chrit’s church.

Division started 500 years prior to Luther. Even without SS, and with Holy Tradition, Rome and Orthodoxy can’t reconcile.

But as I said before what brought about the Schism was more about territorial jurisdiction than anything else. http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

 

[benedictus2]

He hasn’t failed at all. As I said, you’ve simply attempted to circumvent the real issue.

Well then explaine what issue we have circumvented and how we have done that.

Actually Scripture itself testifies to its divine origin (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Scipture that 2 Tim was talking about was OT. The NT at that time was not considered Scripture, including 2Tim. We only know the NT is Scripture because the Catholic Church has declared it to be so.

He’s already successfully refuted this faulty logic.

No he hasn’t. Otherwise you would have shown here how he has done that. There is no logical fault in that statement at all.

If Christ already built (past tense) the church then there are no new members presently being added to it. Why then do you baptize? But read what the Scriptures say:

Eph 2:20-21 "…having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,} in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,"

He has established [PAST TENSE] the Church but He continues to add to it.
Just as a family is already established one a couple marries, it continues to grow with every addition of a child and so forth.
The Church was firmly established once Pentecost came. The foundation was the apostles but at Pentecost there were much more than the apostles in the upper room.

According to the Word of God only the foundation has been built, with its Corner Stone; but the rest continues to be fitted together and is growing.

Well duh, the Conner Stone does not need to be built, precisely because it is the corner stone.

If it was a building, the building is built. But wings and rooms get added so that we end up with this colossal structure.

The “Church” said nothing about Scripture being God-breathed. Scripture itself (through Paul) testified to its own divine origin.

But the Scripture you refer (2 Tim) to was not considered Scripture then. You only know now that it is Scripture because the Catholic Church said so.

Your Church does claim itself to be the truth in claiming its own infallibility.

You didn’t see how faulty that statement is?. Saying that someone is infallible does not mean that that someone is truth itself.
Here is a simple example for your clarification.
“God is a Trinity” is a Truth.
The Catholic Church says God is a Trinity. The Church is not the Truth but what she proclaims (that God is a trinity is True). And we know that she will always proclaim truth and truth alone when it comes to doctrine and morals because Christ Himself promised to lead her into all truth.

Guiding into all truth was promised to the Apostles, and it alludes to the forming of the N.T. Scriptures that the Holy Spirit would inspire through certain men. Preserving His Word in this world for future generations, just as He has done since Moses.

Oh but dear, you cannot support that from Scripture at all. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that guiding into all truth meant only with the establishment of the Canon. Christ simply said that she will be guided into all truth.
For one thing, by the time the canon was established the Apostles were long (200 years as a matter of fact) dead.

Do you believe Christ where it is recorded that He said that the one who believes in Him HAS

eternal life and DOES NOT come into judgment but HAS passed out of death into LIFE (Jn. 5:24)? IOW, do you believe in the believer’s eternal security based on what Jesus Himself said? If not, then maybe you don’t really believe everything He said. But we know we can believe what is written in the Scripture because we know the Scriptures to be “the Rule/Normans/Canon by which Doctrine is to be evaluated.”
Oh but that is not all that Christ said. See this is the whole problem with you and a lot of protestants. You think that somehow the gospel consists of 2 or 3 verses.
Jesus also said that not all who call him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom.
Broaden your reading please to include all the four Gospels. I mean their entirety not a smattering of verses here and there.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Your involvement is welcome. And I accept your point of view as you offer it.

Jon

I’m not sure what I could offer to this discussion; I don’t believe the events described in the bible (at least the fantastic claims) happened. I don’t mind thinking a god or creator of some sort might exist, or even thinking a human soul might be plausible (there are logical arguments and facts, which are compelling; although arguments agaist the idea are also compelling). Nonetheless, I simply don’t find religious claims compelling; not even a little bit.

I was raised around this stuff, so I have sufficient familiarity with it; and I know apologists will say there’s compelling evidence showing Jesus was a real person. Of course so was Muhammad, so were the main characters in many Hellenic myths, etc.

Put it this way, if there is creator god, a spirit, who put this universe in motion (and was the initial impetus behind the big bang, contemplated human evolution, and so on) he must be an immensely intelligent being. I simply cannot imagine such an immensely intelligent being would contemplate coming to earth on a suicide mission, much less intentionally murdering thousands of Egyptian infants and young children (along with all the other horrific stories contained in the various holy books of the major world religions, and I haven’t even begun to pick apart the gross inconsistancies of these books).

In my view it’s a preposterous story. I think I need to work to get myself back to a more tolerant view of religion, but I’m not sure how possible that is. I don’t think I can stop thinking that this stuff is ridiculous (I suppose all I can do is avoid thinking about it altogether). I guess for these reasons I’m becoming less inclined to want to discuss it (particularly in this sort of thread, which really is an exclusively theistic subject matter).