Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

=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.

Jon, if the holy spirit did not/will not guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, until the end of time, as He promised, and there is no way to make a distinction between the church of Matthew 16 and all the other man-made churches (including the CC and the EOC’s if most Protestants are right) - claiming that they too are being guided into all truth, while at the same time, teaching/believing conflicting truths, (including the conflicting truths of the CC, the EOC’s and the Lutheran churches) - then I don’t really see how the bible can be trusted as the infallible Word of God. Either all the truths handed on to Jesus’ apostolic church teachers, regarding the teachings of Christ, have been preserved in His apostolic church, built (still being built up) - by God on Pentecost, and safeguarded by Jesus’ established church from within His church and without, by the infallible HS, or the truth regarding the teachings of Jesus have been disturbed by the sin of man, thanks to the wiles of the evil one, negating Jesus’ promise to guide his church into all truth? In other words, the devil through the agency of man, has successfully disturbed God’s plan to guide His church into all truth regarding faith or morals. I just don’t think the devil has any sway over the one thing that Jesus built. Of course the devil, no doubt, has influence on all sinners, existing within Jesus’ established church, but I do not believe that the devil can prevent the church built by God, from preserving the very truths that Jesus suffered and died for so many centuries ago. I believe that God can do anything, including the preservation of His truths in spite of the sinful, fallible teachers that comprise His church. The sin of man will always adversely effect the sinner, but never the truths safeguarded by Jesus’ established church, and we have only the HS to thank for that preservation of truth. Perhaps, maybe we can agree on this particular point, even if you don’t believe that that church is the CC?

Clearly you are a very smart and patient person, so, perhaps you can help me understand why the bible seems to call Jesus a liar, if in fact your supposition is correct? I am always open to new ideas as long as they seem reasonable. I always remove my personal biases and try to see things from the other side of the fence. It’s my understanding (from the bible alone as opposed to the CC) - that Jesus promised to dwell within His church “forever” and promised to give His church leaders/teachers, in His stead, the infallible Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, in perpetuity; do you believe this to be the case, again, even if you don’t believe that church to be the CC? I truly believe that Jesus’ church leadership, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, has preserved the truths taught by Jesus and His apostles, so long ago. As a former Lutheran, I just wasn’t sure where that church was located.

Here are just a few churches founded by men and not God, established 1500 to 2000 years removed from the church of Matthew 16, and they all have some conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, but are one and united for the most part, from within their sphere of influence. But, like Aj said: that is just self proclaiming self to be right, if these churches are not the church of Matthew 16. No doubt some of them have the same truths that my church leadership or your church leadership possess, but who am I or the Lutheran Confessions (accurate reflection of the bible for Lutheran Christians) - or the CC leadership or the leadership of the EOC’s, to judge or arbitrate or determine if these church leaders are right or wrong, if none of these churches (body of Christians with both teacher and pupil) - were built by God circa AD 33, and infused with the infallible guidance of the HS? Jesus promised just one church, (one body of Christian teachers) - the church of Matthew 16, that He would be with His church forever, guiding His church into all truth, not partial truths, and if the following churches are not the one church of Matthew 16, then why should I believe/trust their church leaders:

33- the Catholic church

If the true church built by God, on Pentecost, circa AD 33, is not the CC, please insert the name of the church that was built by God, on Pentecost, circa AD 33,next to the CC?

1147- Eastern Orthodox church
1457- United Brethren (Moravians): Huss.
1517- Lutherans: Martin Luther
1519- Anabaptists: Grebel (after Ulrich Zwingli)
1534- Church of England: Henry VIII
1536- Calvinism: John Calvin
1560- Presbyterians: J. Knox (Calvin)
1570- Puritans: T. Cartwright.
1582- Congregationalism: R. Brown.
1605- Baptists: John Smith (Zwingli)
1620- Episcopalians: S. Seabury (Henry VIII)
1654- Quakers: Fox
1741- Shakers: Ann Lee
1744- Methodists: J and C. Wesley
1774- Unitarians: T. Lindsay.
1800- Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
1830- Mormons: Joseph Smith
1846- Adventists: W. Miller
1852- Jehovah’s Witnesses: C.Russel
1865- Salvation Army: M. Jones
1879- Christian Science: Mary Baker
1900- Pentecostals: C.F. Parham
1934- Worldwide Ch. of God: Armstrong
1954- Moonies: Sun M. Moon
1957- United Church of Christ
1969- Children of God: David “Mo” Berg

 

[JacobG]

In order to prove against sola scriptura, the burden of proof lies with the catholic to provide clear evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught that tradition is on the same level as God’s Holy Word. Where can one provide such evidence apart from the Holy Scriptures whose author is the Holy Spirit, God Himself? If neither Jesus or the apostles ever taught that tradition is equal to the very God-Breathed Scriptures, and the RCC teaches it, then the RCC is not an apostolic church.

We run into a very serious problem when catholics (or anyone else) resorts to sources outside the Scriptures which are neither inspired or from God Himself. For example, the 10 Commandments would have been worth little if they were written by Moses alone with no direction from God. But it was God who wrote these tablets. Writings of men like Tertullian, Martyr, Augustine, etc. were not inspired nor inerrant. Therefore, the only reliable source for Truth is the Holy Scriptures.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JacobG,

Actually, SS is a reformation concept - breaking from the established and it really and logically needs to ‘prove’ itself - not that the Catholic Church needs to ‘prove’ that Apostolic Tradition is foundational.

But, lest you feel that this did not answer your challenge…

In order to prove against sola scriptura, the burden of proof lies with the catholic to provide clear evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught that tradition is on the same level as God’s Holy Word. Where can one provide such evidence apart from the Holy Scriptures whose author is the Holy Spirit, God Himself? If neither Jesus or the apostles ever taught that tradition is equal to the very God-Breathed Scriptures, and the RCC teaches it, then the RCC is not an apostolic church.

We run into a very serious problem when catholics (or anyone else) resorts to sources outside the Scriptures which are neither inspired or from God Himself. For example, the 10 Commandments would have been worth little if they were written by Moses alone with no direction from God. But it was God who wrote these tablets. Writings of men like Tertullian, Martyr, Augustine, etc. were not inspired nor inerrant. Therefore, the only reliable source for Truth is the Holy Scriptures.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

You can find the rest of the answer in this excellent article - here is the link: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

The ‘serious trouble’ to fear - is totally self-inflicted … and, you really do have every reason to fear! You see, Christ found His Chruch (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter (Matt 16) and this understanding of the pope being the visible head of Christ’s Church withstood centuries of prayer and insight. Through pride and hatred - it was lost in the protestant revolt - from Christ.

God bless

 

[T_More]

In order to prove against sola scriptura, the burden of proof lies with the catholic to provide clear evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught that tradition is on the same level as God’s Holy Word. Where can one provide such evidence apart from the Holy Scriptures whose author is the Holy Spirit, God Himself? If neither Jesus or the apostles ever taught that tradition is equal to the very God-Breathed Scriptures, and the RCC teaches it, then the RCC is not an apostolic church.

Jacob, where then in the New Testament do we learn of there being a set of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians? Namely, that there are 27 inspired books that form that definitive body of literature that make up the NT?

 

[moondweller]

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.

The promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth was made to His apostles; but that did not guarantee that the church He was about to build would be free from doctrinal error. He said the Spirit would lead them (the Apostles) into all truth; He did not at all say the church would be free of all error. Church history bears this out. Here’s what Christ actually said:John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."The Spirit, at His coming, did lead the Apostles into all truth. Subsequently He (the Holy Spirit) preserved “all truth” for future generations in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures - which are without error (inerrant).

Christ never promised that His church would be without error. In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scriptures, through Peter, said that there would be false teachers among us who would introduce destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1). In fact, your interpretation of Jn. 16:13 is itself erroneous. You are stating something that the verse itself does not.

It’s the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures that are without error, not men, not your Church. When dealing with the errors of the beliefs and traditions of the religious leaders of His day, Christ Himself always appealed to the Scriptures. For example, when confronting the belief (or, unbelief) of the Sadducees He said they were mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Hence we see in the Scriptures, through Christ Himself, the practical side of Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures were always the standard by which doctrines and traditions were to be evaluated - ever since Moses.

They’re the Word of God. :doh2:

 

[AmericanJosiah]

how can a Protestant be certain that he/she is being taught, by their Pastors, the truth as opposed to error?

Welcome (finally) to an issue related to this thread.

The issue you have is called “norming” in epistemology. I realize it’s moot in The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults) because each one of them (alone, exclusively) simply claims that there is one (exclusively) that is INCAPABLE of error (at least in some areas and under some conditions) - thus infallible and unaccountable, and exempt from the entire issue of norming. Each of them circumvents the entire issue by insisting: “I (alone) am right, ergo when I (alone) say I’m right, I’m right - thus I (alone) am right. And since I (alone) am right, I (alone) am exempt from accountability and norming.”

But when truth matters more than self (and the power of self), when humility is greater than ego, when self is willing to submit to the same as self demands of all others - then norming becomes relevant. And we came face-to-face with the two major issues in the process you describe: WHAT will serve as the norma normans (the sole issue of this thread) and HOW will it be determined if the said doctrine “measures up” to the “measuring stick” (arbitration).

Now, I realize very well, that in the RCC and to a much lesser degree in the LDS (and of course in all the cults), since there is zero interest or willingness in norming, the issue becomes one of POWER (usually spoken of “authority”) and INFALLIBILITY (of course, embraced to circumvent accountability). But I remind you again: never does the Bible grant infallibility to anyone or any denomination - and that includes The Catholic Church. Even the verse The Catholic Church (MIS)uses in this regard speaks NOT of infallibility and isn’t addressed to The Catholic Church (or any other denomination or organization or physical entity) or even to any Apostle (correctively, individually - much less any supposed “successor” thereof).

Friend, I WISH life was as easy as self (alone) simply claiming that self (alone) is right - even INFALLIBLE - cuz self (alone) so claims for self (alone). I then could state (even as dogma) that Josiah is the most handsome, intelligent and good person in the world; sinless, holy, perfect; and all I say is as God saying it - and it MUST be true cuz I said it and I say that what I say is true - ergo, it’s true. Studied any of the cults? Friend, they all have the same epistemology: and it’s all based on ONE (always self) being the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - self in some sense being especially protected and guided, self being exempt from accountability, self being “infallible” (actually, that claim of The Catholic Church is rare in the cults, most won’t go that far; the LDS dropped that nearly a century ago - it claims it will ultimately be “correct” but has dropped the “infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error” boast/claim/circumvention a long time ago).

To belong to the Lutheran church, must I accept, with docility, the Lutheran Confessions as a “true exposition of Scripture,” which of course is UNDER Scripture and subject to Scripture? I have asked you quite a few questions about the tenets of the Lutheran Confessions and sola scriptura but I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Perhaps you have not gotten to them yet. Take your time.

Already addressed, several times.

Friend, IF you could find the same as Catholic Catechism #85 and 87 in ANY Protestant Catechism, you would have posted it. You have not because you cannot - it doesn’t exist. You won’t find that in ANY Christian denomination known to me (albeit in all the cults).

No. NO Lutheran is commanded by ANY Lutheran denomination to accept any point in any of the The Lutheran Confessions “with docility” or “as Jesus speaking.” NOR does ANY Lutheran denomination claim that it is the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter or infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error. Nor does any claim that The Lutheran Confessions are norma normans.

So, the unity of each isolated protestant church, (and for the most part each insular church is united) - all of which use the bible alone as their best norma normans for the evaluation of their established doctrines, is what Jesus prayed for in John 17?

Already addressed, frequently. It is true that the world’s 2.1 billion Christians do not agree in every single issue. Never have. If you believe that His prayer in John 17 is that all Christians are in cognative agreement on all issues, then I agree with you - it is a prayer not fullfilled. But I fail to see how The Catholic Church ALONE being in current and official and formal agreement withe ONE - exclusively itself - and only in those matters it ALONE currently views as good to agree upon, how that IN ANY SENSE addresses your concern. AT LEAST AS MUCH can be said for every other denomination; The Catholic Church is no better and often worse than other denominations in this regard. Heck, I agree with me (officially and currently anyway) in all matters where I think agreement good (currently anyway) - EXACTLY LIKE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and are you impressed? Probably as much as I’m impressed that The Catholic Church is the same. Do you conclude there ERGO I’m infallible, unaccountable, incaptable of error, when I speak Jesus speaks? I’m the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - cuz I alone agree with I alone: a unity of ONE - self with self? I doubt it, and yet you want all to be so impressed that The Catholic Church has that same unity: with nothing and no one but ITSELF. And that only currently and only in what it itself alone views as good to have agreement upon.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

When 2 churches (leaders of each respective church) - disagree with one another, and both defer to the bible as their norma normans (authority) - to define and establish their doctrines, and refuse to back down vis-a-vis their unique perspective regarding said doctrines, what is the next step at resolving the matter?

Well, if one of them is The Catholic Church (or any cult), there CAN be no resolution, since self won’t permit it: self simply proclaims self a INCAPABLE of error and ERGO correct. End of discussion. Put your hand down. All others MUST be wrong for one reason - they disagree with self.

Otherwise, among those with humility and where truth matters more than self, the issue would need to be arbitrated. This thread, of course, deals with only the first part of norming: the embraced norma normans/rule/canon.

if you are right and all churches regardless of who established them or when, make up the one, holy catholic church then the holy spirit is not doing a very good job - wouldn’t you agree?

As I’ve posted many times now, I don’t believe Jesus founded ANY denomination. Not yours, not mine, not ANY.

Yes, I agree - IF it is true that the Holy Spirit causes every denomintion that claims that Jesus founded it and that it is infallible/unaccountable so that each is - then SOMETHING obviously is wrong, because of the thousands of these (only one of which, to my knowledge, is a large denomination) none of them teaches the same things - in fact, among them, you will find BY FAR the widest range of thoughts, doctrines and practices.

But, you may have not considered a possible option: perhaps some of the things that divide The Catholic Church from us - INFALLIBILITY of the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Assumption of Mary - DOGMAS of only one denomination on the planet - maybe they have not been affirmed as correct by Scripture and are not affirmed by ANY other because they simply are baseless?

Aj, does the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, guide one assembly of believers into one set of truths and another assembly of believers into another set of truths?

No, but then there’s only ONE that claims He does - The Catholic Church; well, actually, it claims that He leads just ONE - itself. Exclusively. Thus, the exemption of one (self) by one (self) from the entire issue of this thread.

.

 

[HisWill777]

Josiah,

I agree with you and you make alot of my points more eloquently than I can. As Christians, I can’t stand that we don’t all come together as brothers and sisters. It’s human sickness I guess. Jesus wants us to serve Him, love Him, love each other as ourselves. Are any of us doing any of that to the full extent?

It’s my opinion that God would be thrilled if we threw away all of our titles, rules, etc and just established one Christian Church based on His Word. For all of it’s defenses, the Catholic Church has turned off many followers and its teachings have prevented many from joining. How can that (or any Church) claim to be of God??? How can a Church that can’t decide which mass is appropriate make these claims?? My opinion is our pride has made us all fall sadly short, just look at the world around us.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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

1. In good Catholic form, you are working so extremely hard to TRY to exempt one (just one) from the issue of accountability. But it’s not an alternative approach to norming - it’s the examption of ONE for ONE - self. And it’s not an alternative norma normans to Scripture - it’s just the circumvention of the issue for ONE (but not any other).
2. Of course, as we all know (including you), Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. Ever. Not once. No other did/has, either. Your denomination isn’t so much as even MENTIONED in the Bible. Anywhere. About anything. It’s all just the claims of one for one (self).
3. No one is questioning the validity of God’s leading. But there is one that claims for one (self, exclusively) infallible following. Read the OT? Been to Sunday School? One of the lessons we learn is that while God ALWAYS infallibly leads, that’s NO guarentee that God’s people (individually or collectively) infallibly follow. God’s people are rather consistently bad at this, so that God raises us Reformers (I’m named for one of them, lol). And yes, it appears to be one reason for inscripturated His truth. God holds His people accountable. Even His prophets (remember Jonah?). Where did you learn that God grants people INFALLIBLE FOLLOWING status?

In the RCC (and in all the cults), there seems to be this strange ASSUMPTION that if God founds something, it is INFALLIBLE. Curious. Odd. Especially to any even causually familiar with the Bible. God founded The Garden of Eden and founded Adam and Eve. Did HE blow it by bad leadership? But they DID fall… And God establsihed the Kingdom, even personally appointed the first 3 kings. Was the kingdom infallible/unaccountable? Incapable of error? Beyond questioning, correcting? Did it last forever? I sometimes wonder if those who claim that there is ONE who is infallible/unaccountable cuz God leads infalliblity or because God founded just one (self) have been to Sunday School?

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 ?

Read your Catechism #87. You aren’t allowed to ask that question, you are required by The Catholic Church to simply accept “with docility” whatever it and it itself exclusively tells you (officially and currently, anyway).

The issue you seem to suddenly be concerned about is the very issue The Catholic Church circumvents and won’t permit you to ask. It, instead, requires you to accept 'with docility" (without questioning, evidence, accountability) that there is ONE that is right - and wanna guess which ONE The Catholic Church insists that that is?

And again, contrary to anything in Scripture or experience, you seem to be assuming that if God leads, people infallibly follow. And keep in mind: God never promised ANYTHING to The Catholic Church. He never mentions anything at all about it, for it, concerning it.

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?

Am I the exclusive INFALLIBLE follower of God if I exclusively insist that I am? And yup, that claim is also infallible/unaccountable cuz it’s what I insist is true? Do you actually defend and agree with this rubric, or is it too just a circumvention of one for one - self, exclusively? I’m curious, have you studied any of the cults?

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

The Catholic Church is separate from all others, too. The WORSE you can say about any other denomination is that it’s as “bad” as The Catholic Church in this regard: in full unity with only and exclusively ONE - itself. Why does that make The Catholic Church infallible/unaccountable, right cuz it can’t be wrong - but the very same reality makes all others wrong?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

IF you agree that we are accountable, and that ONE is not infallible/unaccountable based on the claim of self for self and thus exempt from accountability, then we have the issue of norming. 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 what they are, there in black and white for ALL to see and know. Knowable to all, alterable to none. 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 its own positions (often called “Tradition”) and its 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 alone - 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

.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6132069]Oh, but that doctrine came after the schism.

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.

Are they Church-dividing?

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.

Is it not Church-divding?

As I said before, it was about territory.

Is it not doctrine? Is it not Church-dividing?

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?

Clearly not. We agree. Christ keeps His promises, and He will lead us all into all Truth.
Has the Church triumphant been led into all Truth? Is it not part of His Church Universal?
The notion that since there is division among those of us in the Church Militant automatically makes Christ’s promise unkept is narrow and temporal in thinking, and limits the Holy Spirit.

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.

Indeed He has and will. See above.

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.

And so are we.

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.

Honestly, we know squat about Luther’s pride. Luther never did anything by himself. Check your facts, and don’t listen to the polemical writings of those who were intent to smear Luther, not get to the truth. What about the pride and corruption of those in the Church at Luther’s time? And most importantly, what on earth do they have to do with our sin of division today? If you prefer the condition Christianity is in today, then sniping at Luther or Pope Leo X is the best way to maintain division.

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.

Agreed.

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 ?

No. It has been answered. The Holy Spirit leads us in all Truth. Human sin causes us to not hear His leadership. This sin wounds the teaching and ministry of His Church.

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.

then you must have a different answer. What is it?

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?

All we can do is rely on His Grace. I am not going to accuse you of telling lies because you don’t agree on some doctrines with me. I am going to pray the Holy Spirit leads us closer together.

And no you cannot get away with answering with “human sin’ because that just does not work.

I’ll change my answer if you can convince me it is something else.

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

You completely miss the point regarding Church. But ok.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6132686]Jon, if the holy spirit did not/will not guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, until the end of time, as He promised, and there is no way to make a distinction between the church of Matthew 16 and all the other man-made churches (including the CC and the EOC’s if most Protestants are right) - claiming that they too are being guided into all truth, while at the same time, teaching/believing conflicting truths, (including the conflicting truths of the CC, the EOC’s and the Lutheran churches) - then I don’t really see how the bible can be trusted as the infallible Word of God. Either all the truths handed on to Jesus’ apostolic church teachers, regarding the teachings of Christ, have been preserved in His apostolic church, built (still being built up) - by God on Pentecost, and safeguarded by Jesus’ established church from within His church and without, by the infallible HS, or the truth regarding the teachings of Jesus have been disturbed by the sin of man, thanks to the wiles of the evil one, negating Jesus’ promise to guide his church into all truth?

Joe, you strike me as a pretty smart guy yourself, and reasonable. But the position you provide here just seems too temporal to me. As I mentioned in my response to benedictus2, the Church is more than the Church Militant. Is not the Church Triumphant led into all Truth? Has Christ’s promised not been fullfilled? The sin that prevents us from agreeing on that Truth will be overcome by His stripes. Do you not agree?
Again, this is not in support of relativism or division. We are obliged to dialogue and pray for unity.

I believe that God can do anything, including the preservation of His truths in spite of the sinful, fallible teachers that comprise His church. The sin of man will always adversely effect the sinner, but never the truths safeguarded by Jesus’ established church, and we have only the HS to thank for that preservation of truth. Perhaps, maybe we can agree on this particular point, even if you don’t believe that that church is the CC?

I do, and I agree that the CC is part of that True Church, in that His Church is the commnity of believers, the communion of saints. And the HS will safegaurd that Truth, even if we don’t recognize it.

Clearly you are a very smart and patient person, so, perhaps you can help me understand why the bible seems to call Jesus a liar, if in fact your supposition is correct? I am always open to new ideas as long as they seem reasonable. I always remove my personal biases and try to see things from the other side of the fence. It’s my understanding (from the bible alone as opposed to the CC) - that Jesus promised to dwell within His church “forever” and promised to give His church leaders/teachers, in His stead, the infallible Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, in perpetuity; do you believe this to be the case, again, even if you don’t believe that church to be the CC? I truly believe that Jesus’ church leadership, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, has preserved the truths taught by Jesus and His apostles, so long ago. As a former Lutheran, I just wasn’t sure where that church was located.

I’m sure you don’t think that I think Jesus is a liar. Perhaps what I stated above has cleared that up.

33- the Catholic church

If the true church built by God, on Pentecost, circa AD 33, is not the CC, please insert the name of the church that was built by God, on Pentecost, circa AD 33,next to the CC?

Augsburg

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.

I also offer this:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_onechrist.html

I reject the notion that our divisions make Christ a liar, or that the Holy Spirit has failed. I reject the idea that His Church, fractured and wounded by the sins of human beings, on all sides, cannot prevail against the gates of Hell and the evil one himself. It can, it has, it is, and it will.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, T More,

Jacob, where then in the New Testament do we learn of there being a set of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians? Namely, that there are 27 inspired books that form that definitive body of literature that make up the NT?

As I see it, T More, in order to make SS ‘work’ you must take a lot for granted, ignore historic fact and simply shut one’s eyes to the development of Christianity in what we usually call Western Civilization. For example…

One must take for granted that the Bible just ‘appeared’ and the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Canon. These NT books were immediately available to all Christians after Pentecost in 33AD - even though the last book was not written until 100AD

One must also ignore the writings of the Early Church Fathers as they aided in the development of the Catholic Church we have today. To assume it stayed with the Apostles and then any promise made to them died when the last Apostle died - sounds like abandoment. Unless, of course you believe that whatever was trying to convince people it was the church was just a sham - are remained a shame until the 16th Century when Luther came on the scene to ‘reform’ it by attempted destruction.

Western civilization - like the development of any civilization - has not been a smooth process. It had its ups and down, wars and revolutions and periods of non-wars (sometimes mistakenly called peace). Through all of this, the Catholic Church has consistently taught the same doctrine. A case in point would be the teaching of the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is physically present on the altar after the Consecration. That one truth has remained the same from John 6 until the present. Look how protestantism has splintered over this.

God bless your efforts at seriously looking at the Catholic Church. I know you are making a big decision - one that those of us who were baptized Catholics as infants can only guess about. But, let me encourage you - through the CAF. This is an excellent listserve and one where you will find knowledge, wisdom, and inspiraiton.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

I think there is a problem here…

The promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth was made to His apostles; but that did not guarantee that the church He was about to build would be free from doctrinal error.

Let me see if I have this straight … from all eternity, God planned to give the Apostles the Truth and Insight to spread the Word of God through out the world … and when John died (100) - God had no more interest in preserving His Church from doctrinal error? During the first 400 years there were several areas of doctrinal controversy that cried out for God to protect His Catholic Chruch from real doctrinal error. Here are just five examples:

Gnostics claimed that secret knowledge is what is needed to get to heaven
Arians denied Jesus’ divinity
Manichaean believed that there were two gods - one for good and one for evil
Donatus claimed that the sacraments could not be validly given by someone who had sinned
Pelagius believed one could get to heaven by working hard and not being in need of Grace

These were seious heresies for the early Catholic Church - and through the Divine intervention of the Holy Spirit, the Church Councils that were called addressed them and set forth the correct doctrine by correcting error.

He said the Spirit would lead them (the Apostles) into all truth; He did not at all say the church would be free of all error. Church history bears this out. Here’s what Christ actually said:John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."The Spirit, at His coming, did lead the Apostles into all truth. Subsequently He (the Holy Spirit) preserved “all truth” for future generations in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures - which are without error (inerrant).

Simply stated, you are greatly in error with your interpretation of both Scripture and history. What can you possible present to back up your statement? To claim that the, “…guide you into all truth…” was meant strictly for the Apostles He spoke to is wrong. Who was to lead all of these people that Christ was sending the Apostles into the world to baptize - once these Apostles died? What about Paul passing the ‘pastoral torch’ to Timothy and Titus - do you think these two ‘non-Apostolic’ (not one of the original 12 + Paul) bishops were left to wander around aimlessly because the Holy Spirit was NOT promised to them?

Just how do you think Christianity got to the 21st Century with all of this abandonment by God?

Christ never promised that His church would be without error. In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scriptures, through Peter, said that there would be false teachers among us who would introduce destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1). In fact, your interpretation of Jn. 16:13 is itself erroneous. You are stating something that the verse itself does not.

Previously, I gave you examples of 5 false teachers. There intent was to promote their own doctrine - they were examples of wolves that came to snatch and scatter the sheep - and Christ was quite clear about this. But, it was the Church (as evidenced by the Councils that correctly taught and condemned these wolves) that maintained the correct doctrine. So, if the Church teaches error - just how do you know that you are correctly reading/understanding Scripture? From what I have seen, there are some serious problems with just early history.

It’s the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures that are without error, not men, not your Church.
Just look around, Moondweller, and check out the real world of SS. Thousands of sects, cults, assemblies, missions, groups, etc. all claiming to be a church - and all claiming that they alone are interpreting Scripture correctly as they all come up with mutually exclusive doctrines. What kind of argument is there about a solid belief structure built upon Scripture when all of these groups claim it - and none of them can get together to come up with a unified belief expressing protestantism?

When dealing with the errors of the beliefs and traditions of the religious leaders of His day, Christ Himself always appealed to the Scriptures. For example, when confronting the belief (or, unbelief) of the Sadducees He said they were mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Hence we see in the Scriptures, through Christ Himself, the practical side of Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures were always the standard by which doctrines and traditions were to be evaluated - ever since Moses.

Moondweller, Christ was always quoting from the Old Testament - for the very practical reason that the New Testament books would not be written until about 67 years after His death. All of the books quoted by Christ are in the Old Testament Canon established by the Catholic Church in the 5th Century…when they established the Canon for the New Testament books.

Actually, how can something be a standard for anything before it is brought into existence. Just what do you think was happening to the early Catholic Church during the years 33 - 100? The time before the NT books were written. What standard could be used for these Christians - or, do you think God abandoned them, too?

They’re the Word of God. :doh2

God bless:

 

[joe370]

=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.

Agreed!

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.

I agree: “Where two or more are gathered in My name…” But will that include the many churches that do not exist today, but will exist in the future? Will they too be considered part of Jesus’ mystical Body once they are established, regardless of their beliefs? I hope they are!

Quote:
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.

It doesn’t sound like there is a chance if there is a chance that any of 16th -21st century reformed churches could be the church built by Jesus, of Matthew 16? I never understood (as a former Lutheran) - how a reformed church built by man, could do what Jesus could not, if in fact a reformed church was/is necessary?

Based on your supposition, it could even be one of those future churches I was talking about, that could be the church of Matthew 16? Yes? LOL…Regarding the church of Antioch, it was called the CC by Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, in 107 AD. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year AD 107 and used the word “catholic”, he used it as if it were a word already in use everywhere, to describe Jesus’ one undivided Church . He also said:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

What about all those churches that do not believe Ignatius; are they part of the Mystical Body of Christ? Gosh, I hope so, but I do not know. This seemed like a pretty critical teaching Jesus.


All Christians believe that Jerusalem was the cradle of Christianity, but certainly not today, for only about 2% of that area are comprised of Christians. if men like Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of the apostle John, referred to Jesus’ church as Catholic then no doubt Jon believed it as well.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church… " — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

I don’t think that Ignatius was referring to any of the PC’s? I agree with you that the sin of man has divided Jesus’ church, in the 11th century and utterly fractured His church in the 16th through the 21 st century, and that the sin of man has caused many men/leaders within the CC to steer Jesus’ Church off course time and time again, but, the holy spirit is the divine compass forever guiding His church, and the HS will always bring His church back on course, and He usually does it with the most humble of people like Francis of Assisi who was a poor man who astounded and inspired Jesus’ Church by actually following all that Jesus said and did, joyfully, without limit and without a mite of self-importance, but of course the focus is always on the few who aspired to corrupt His church. His is a long story, but to sum it up, Jesus said to him from the cross in a neglected field-chapel of San Damiano:

*“Francis, go out and build up my house, for it is nearly falling down.”
*

Francis became the totally poor and humble workman of the disintegrating church built by Jesus, but he never dreamed of leave Jesus’ church, the house of the living God, and start another church, as many have done. I guess I just have faith that no matter what transpires in Jesus’ house, in the end Jesus’ word will be realized by all:

*" Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.” *

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Jon, if Jesus is the builder of His church, then certainly we should all want to belong to His church regardless of some of the bad people who strive to (unwittingly or not) - corrupt Jesus’ church? Is there a reason why I should strive to belong to the Lutheran church as opposed to the CC? Of course I ask with the deepest respect? Most of my own family members belong to PC’s. I am the black sheep in this family. LOL…

More likely, however, is that the one Church was the Catholic Church of the ECF’s and early councils, which we should be striving to reconcile, in response to Christ’s call for unity.

You are the first non-Catholic to admit that to me, I mean, other than me as a former Lutheran.

Quote:
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.

Can the holy spirit guide all churches (regardless of church affiliation) - into ALL truth? Hmmm…Sure, and we would all have the same set of truths regarding any one doctrine, but sadly, that is not the case, for the simple fact that there are so many conflicting truths in the myriad churches. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is moving in His one, holy catholic church, comprised of all Christians regardless of church affiliation, in ways that lead to conflicting truths. Don’t you find that to be a tough pill to swallow? I don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding a bunch of churches to believe in one interpretation of say, the Eucharist, and a bunch of churches to believe in another interpretation of the Eucharist. I believe that the HS is still guiding the church of the ECF’s into all truth until the end of time, and that some man-made churches have adopted the same beliefs of the church built by God, while others have adopted either the beliefs of the reformers or one of their successors, or have adopted beliefs based on their own unique interpretation of the holy bible, which is a big no-no.

Quote:
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.

I agree, but you didn’t answer the question. I can’t let you off the hook that easy. LOL…

“Where two or more are gathered in my name…”

Then surely that includes all Christian churches such as the 7th day Adventist church, or the Mormon church or any cultic Christian assembly of 2 or more gathered in Jesus’ name - correct?

…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!

So, the church that does not administer the sacraments, (be it 7 or 2) - is not included - right? Also, the Word preached at these multifarious assemblies often preach a different gospel message (truth) - and their members believe their Pastors. For example, the church to which my sister belongs preaches/teaches that baptism by water is not biblical and is a man-made tradition of the “evil” CC. Can we say: where the word is preached, there is the church, and include the many church Pastors who have discarded the beliefs of the Lutheran church or the CC, who have discarded the Sacraments and preached a different gospel? They all claim to be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Jon, can truth be compromised in the name of ecumenism? If not then it’s doubtful that unity will be restored to Jesus’ Body the church, which seems to be more disfigured than His actual body that hung on the cross. Very disheartening, no doubt to our Savior.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
how can a Protestant be certain that he/she is being taught, by their Pastors, the truth as opposed to error?

Welcome (finally) to an issue related to this thread.

The issue you have is called “norming” in epistemology. I realize it’s moot in The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults) because each one of them (alone, exclusively) simply claims that there is one (exclusively) that is INCAPABLE of error (at least in some areas and under some conditions) - thus infallible and unaccountable, and exempt from the entire issue of norming.

The bible never tells anyone to norm in epistemology. That is a Lutheran tradition. I have responded to the whole matter of the CC claiming that there is one (exclusively) that is INCAPABLE of error. You keep reiterating the same thing so I will copy and paste some questions from an earlier post, to which you did not answer, and are issue related:

How can one embrace sacred scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines, when it cannot evaluate, arbitrate, or determine anything?

However, I do agree with you. Sola scriptura (the bible alone) - is not the study of the interpretation of written texts (hermeneutics) - and it is not arbitration; it is a collection of books inspired by God. Only people can study and interpret these books inspired by God and only people can arbitrate. Like you said: The bible alone doesn’t “say” or “determine” anything, (which is not entirely true) - it is a practice. Now that we have ruled out the bible as our sole arbitrator, (by your own admission) - and agree that the bible alone cannot arbitrate anything and can determine nothing without someone to study and interpret the holy bible, let’s see if we can determine who DOES have the God given authority to arbitrate, study and interpret sacred scripture, eg the correct interpretation of the Eucharistic doctrine?

I think that we are getting somewhere now! Jon, jump in when you can and help us out.

Each of them circumvents the entire issue by insisting: “I (alone) am right, ergo when I (alone) say I’m right, I’m right - thus I (alone) am right. And since I (alone) am right, I (alone) am exempt from accountability and norming.”

Can anyone be right if no one can claim to be right? You tell me that you are right about norming; why should I believe you if you can’t claim to be right? That seems to be your answer to everything and as I said, I responded to your claim and you have not responded back. Plus, like you said, it has nothing to do with the thread.

But when truth matters more than self (and the power of self), when humility is greater than ego, when self is willing to submit to the same as self demands of all others - then norming becomes relevant. And we came face-to-face with the two major issues in the process you describe: WHAT will serve as the norma normans (the sole issue of this thread) and HOW will it be determined if the said doctrine “measures up” to the “measuring stick” (arbitration).

If you are right, then there is no way to discover truth. If I am wrong then tell me which interpretation of the Eucharist is truth? Norming(the bible as the Christians only norm) - doesn’t work, and nowhere in the bible does it tell me that the bible is the Christians norma norms! If the bible was the Christians sole norm, they would have the same beliefs regarding any one doctrine. Like Math for example (your field) - there can be only one answer to any one problem, as is the case with the holy spirit, the spirit of truth; He only guides Jesus’ church into one truth regarding any one doctrine. Just as 2+2 =4, there can be only one infallible way to interpret the Eucharistic doctrine, and by your own admission the bible falls short when it comes to determining anything or arbitrating anything.

Now, I realize very well, that in the RCC and to a much lesser degree in the LDS (and of course in all the cults), since there is zero interest or willingness in norming, the issue becomes one of POWER (usually spoken of “authority”) and INFALLIBILITY (of course, embraced to circumvent accountability).

False as I have already pointed out, and irrelevant to the thread. But I have no problem with addressing non related issues.

But I remind you again: never does the Bible grant infallibility to anyone or any denomination - and that includes The Catholic Church.

May I remind you as well: never does the Bible talk about norming! If I were say the CC taught erroneously vis-a-vis the Trinity, for the simple fact that no church leadership can speak infallibly regarding the teachings of God, then prove my hypothetical statement wrong? Use your norm to prove me wrong.

 

[joe370]

Even the verse The Catholic Church (MIS)uses in this regard speaks NOT of infallibility and isn’t addressed to The Catholic Church (or any other denomination or organization or physical entity) or even to any Apostle (correctively, individually - much less any supposed “successor” thereof).

For someone who gets peeved when others steer clear of the OP, you certainly are just as guilty. You seem obsessed with the CC and the LDS church. If the infallible HS is guiding Jesus’ church leadership and safeguarding the deposit of faith, then infallible truths (error fee) - can be known and defined.

Friend, I WISH life was as easy as self (alone) simply claiming that self (alone) is right - even INFALLIBLE - cuz self (alone) so claims for self (alone).

You mentioned that a few times already. Got it.

I then could state (even as dogma) that Josiah is the most handsome, intelligent and good person in the world; sinless, holy, perfect; and all I say is as God saying it - and it MUST be true cuz I said it and I say that what I say is true - ergo, it’s true.

But clearly you would be wrong because those words apply to me only. LOL…One more time: the church (comprised of all sinful, imperfect, fallible people) - built by God on Pentecost, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, is where truth can be found in it’s fullest. I will always believe this.

Studied any of the cults? Friend, they all have the same epistemology: and it’s all based on ONE (always self) being the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - self in some sense being especially protected and guided, self being exempt from accountability, self being “infallible” (actually, that claim of The Catholic Church is rare in the cults, most won’t go that far; the LDS dropped that nearly a century ago - it claims it will ultimately be “correct” but has dropped the “infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error” boast/claim/circumvention a long time ago).

Man, you sound like a broken record. LOL…Again, covered this already. Again, give me the name of these cults?

Quote:
To belong to the Lutheran church, must I accept, with doc

ility, the Lutheran Confessions as a “true exposition of Scripture,” which of course is UNDER Scripture and subject to Scripture? I have asked you quite a few questions about the tenets of the Lutheran Confessions and sola scriptura but I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Perhaps you have not gotten to them yet. Take your time.
Already addressed, several times.

Friend, IF you could find the same as Catholic Catechism #85 and 87 in ANY Protestant Catechism, you would have posted it. You have not because you cannot - it doesn’t exist. You won’t find that in ANY Christian denomination known to me (albeit in all the cults).

And there is a reason why the Lutheran church does not claim the same thing.

No. NO Lutheran is commanded by ANY Lutheran denomination to accept any point in any of the The Lutheran Confessions “with docility” or “as Jesus speaking.”

So, I don’t have to adhere to the Lutheran Confessions to belong to a Lutheran church? I can deny what is laid out in the LC’s and still be a member of the Lutheran church???

NOR does ANY Lutheran denomination claim that it is the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter or infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error.

There is a reason for that. If the Lutheran church leaders are not the sole authority/interpreter and they cannot teach infallibly (even though the HS is guiding the Lutheran churches) - then their interpretation could be fallible (wrong) - right?

Nor does any claim that The Lutheran Confessions are norma normans.

I already agreed with you. It is the bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Even the verse The Catholic Church (MIS)uses in this regard speaks NOT of infallibility and isn’t addressed to The Catholic Church (or any other denomination or organization or physical entity) or even to any Apostle (correctively, individually - much less any supposed “successor” thereof).

** If **the infallible HS is guiding Jesus’ church leadership and safeguarding the deposit of faith, then infallible truths (error fee) - can be known and defined.

Of course. ANY conditional sentence is “correct” if the condition is. But all you’ve done is circumvent the issue. IF there are 6 billion purple people eaters living on Mars, then yes - there are purple people eaters living on Mars. I hope you see the entire irrelevance to truth in your perfect circle. Self alone declares that self alone is correct (even INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable), so self alone declares that self alone is correct. THUS, since self alone is correct then self alone must be correct when self alone declares that self alone is correct. I think we understand that epistemology, but it is MY view that is moot to the issue of being correct and to the issue of this thread - which is the embraced norma normans in norming.

Friend, I WISH life was as easy as self (alone) simply claiming that self (alone) is right - even INFALLIBLE - cuz self (alone) so claims for self (alone). I then could state (even as dogma) that Josiah is the most handsome, intelligent and good person in the world; sinless, holy, perfect; and all I say is as God saying it - and it MUST be true cuz I said it and I say that what I say is true - ergo, it’s true.

But clearly you would be wrong because those words apply to me only. LOL…One more time: the church (comprised of all sinful, imperfect, fallible people) - built by God on Pentecost, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, is where truth can be found in it’s fullest. I will always believe this.

You certainly may BELIEVE whatever you want, but such doesn’t make it true. Studied any of the cults? And I would remind you that there is ZERO evidence that sinful humans always and INFALLIBLY follow God’s leading. And I remind you that God never promised ANYTHING to your denomination (or any other). It is simply the claim of self for self, exclusively. A circle of self-authentication. “I’m right so I must be right when I insist that I’m right.” Friend, my point is that has nothing to do with that one being right, that one is SIMPLY evading the question, circumventing examination, avoiding norming. Study the cults.

It is MY view that a true teacher welcomes the light and encourages norming, and willingly submits to a rule/canon outside and above him/her/it and an arbitration that is not limited to self. It is the false teacher that must evade and avoid accountability, who must hide in the dark, who must insist that while ALL OTHERS are potentially wrong and thus accountable (because it must condemn all that disagree with self), there is ONE (and only one) exception: self. Self alone declares that self alone is infallible (at least in some things and under some conditions) and thus unaccountable in those areas - EXEMPT from the issue of whether self is correct; self alone MUST be cuz self alone says so.

Josiah:

Studied any of the cults? Friend, they all have the same epistemology: and it’s all based on ONE (always self) being the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - self in some sense being especially protected and guided, self being exempt from accountability, self being “infallible” (actually, that claim of The Catholic Church is rare in the cults, most won’t go that far; the LDS dropped that nearly a century ago - it claims it will ultimately be “correct” but has dropped the “infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error” boast/claim/circumvention a long time ago).

No. NO Lutheran is commanded by ANY Lutheran denomination to accept any point in any of the The Lutheran Confessions “with docility” or “as Jesus speaking.”
So, I don’t have to adhere to the Lutheran Confessions to belong to a Lutheran church? I can deny what is laid out in the LC’s and still be a member of the Lutheran church???

NOR does ANY Lutheran denomination claim that it is the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter or infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error.

There is a reason for that. If the Lutheran church leaders are not the sole authority/interpreter and they cannot teach infallibly (even though the HS is guiding the Lutheran churches) - then their interpretation could be fallible (wrong) - right?

There is only one Christian denomination that declares for itself exclusively to be incapable of error, infallible, unaccountable - and insists that all just accept that (and whatever else it officially states) “with docility.” It’s yours. The LDS once did but dropped that about a century ago. It’s found in all the cults, of course (it’s foundational there) but there’s only one Christian denomination that does that. It’s yours.

.

 

[Newbie2]

.

There is only one Christian denomination that declares for itself exclusively to be incapable of error, infallible, unaccountable - and insists that all just accept that (and whatever else it officially states) “with docility.” It’s yours. The LDS once did but dropped that about a century ago. It’s found in all the cults, of course (it’s foundational there) but there’s only one Christian denomination that does that. It’s yours.

.

So if any particular ecclesial group does not declare their teachings to be without error, how can they be expected to be trusted to be without error? Seems like, for example, if someone were to expect to be believed about a matter, “X” they would claim infallible authority on anything they officially said about “X” that they believed to be true.

Otherwise, if they didn’t have the “confidence”, for lack of a better term, in their authority on “X” to declare themselves correct on “X” without error, why should anyone believe their views on “X”?