Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=joe370;6140177]If you 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, then, do you believe that the HS is guiding a bunch of churches into all truth, while the rest remain unguided? How can I know who is right and who is wrong?

I think the Holy Spirit is trying. Again, sin often interferes with hearing that guidance, or at least rightly understanding it.

Even if I could, certainly you wouldn’t leave the LC - right? Have you belonged to the Lutheran church your whole life?

I am a cradle Lutheran. My dad was a Lutheran pastor. I am admittedly aculturated as Lutheran. Our style of worship, our piety, etc. have agreat influence on me, that is true.
That is not to say that I couldn’t leave, if like you, I felt guided to do so. As you have read, my Lutheranism is very much rooted in its catholicity, much less in its protestantism. Rightly practiced, Lutheranism is reformational, not protestant, in my view. Such that, the reformation in incomplete, unfinished without unity.

"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, according to Josiah?

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."

He has yet to respond; What are your thoughts?*

Well, clearly it ends up being people who use scripture to determine the validity of doctrine. This is true even in the CC, though it also uses Tradition. I won’t speak for Josiah, but I interpret what he meant is that the practice of bible alone doesn’t say or determine anything, and if so, I would agree with that view of SS. We still rely on teachers and teachings to, well, teach.
As for who has the authority, I have often said that were there to be a true ecumenical council, or if the Orthodox accepted papal infalliibility and unversal jurisdiction, and the patriarchs were again in true union, I would defer to that unity as a true sign of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we each must determine where we find Truth taught, as no other body or teaching is maintained as it was in the early Church.

Jon, do you believe that the RCC Pastors (all fallible teachers) - defined the Trinitarian doctrine and that this doctrine is an infallible doctrine (free of error)? If so - WHY???

It wasn’t just the RCC. It was the whole of the Church.

If they got it wrong about things such as purgatory, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, the true presence, (I know you believe) - the filique, the chair of Peter, infallibility regarding faith or morals ONLY, then logically speaking, they could have been wrong about the Trinity, which was rejected by some Christians of that century, from within? After all, nowhere in the bible does the bible tell us that Jesus and the holy spirit are one. As a matter of fact, the holy spirit was not initially part of the doctrinal formula; the HS was added later.

All of the teachings of Rome that you mention, except the real presence, so substitue Transubstantiation, are defined by Rome since the schism. Trinity is held by the whole Church since the early councils. Get Orthodoxy to accept these later teachings in council, and you haave more credibility as “infallible”

Jon

Agreed. There can be mutual agreements but only one truth regarding any one doctrine - correct?

Some things ought not be doctrine -marian beliefs, etc. -correct?

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

Your question is this: So, how do we know if the teacher is correct?
Now let me try to answer it…

We know if the teacher (of religion) is correct or in error by comparing what they say with established and published Scripture and Tradition. We only know if something is crooked insofar as we know what is straight. Lutherans believe that Christ is God - and so do Catholics! So, if someone were to teach that Christ is NOT God we would know that there is an error. We know there is an error because we can validate what they taught with what is contained in Scripture and the Councils of the Church (Lutherans believe in the Apostles’ Creed…and that is not Scripture!) Such a teacher would fail such a validation.

We have an objective source (a measuring tape) to judge how long an object claims to be. If you were to go and buy a yard of material and the clerk measured out 34 inches - you would have every right to complain because this is 2 inches short of what you required.

One who teaches that Christ is NOT present (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist is teaching error. How do we know this? We compare what Christ said (John 6) that unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, you have no life in you. We look to the Synoptic Gospels of the Last Supper where Christ told His Apostles to “Take and eat, this is My Body” and we look to the Councils of the Catholic Church in proclaiming that Christ is indeed present in the Eucharist. So, in answer to your question, how well a teacher conforms in their teaching to established doctrine is the measure of their being correct in their presentation.

I hope this answered your question.

.

1. Note the question that was asked.
2. Note my reply.
3. You didn’t address the question asked, you are simply doing what The Catholic Church does - suggesting that there is one (exclusively) that is exempt from the question.

This thread is about an embrace rule/canon in norming. Actually, AJ, it isn’t. A defense of SS can be made in several different ways. You have happened to have chosen one - but, this does not exhaust the topic.

1. Read the question I addressed. The question is not if you have authority to teach (you must think you do because here you are teaching - in this thread). AJ, people just do not ‘teach’ - there must be approved content. This is not only true for religious topics but for every discipline. If one is to teach geography, one must be knowledgeable in the subject matter - as opposed to one just coming before a class and saying something about geography.
2. Authority has nothing to do with infalliblity/unaccountability. You are starting to slip into your repititions, again, AJ. We are talking about the teaching of religious (as opposed to secular) content. One can say that Florida is an island all day long - but, this is not the case. The consequences for such an error are probably not serious…especially, if you checked a map first. One can also say, however, that the Eucharist is just a memorial service involving bread and wine and nothing more. This is really quite different because now the very Words of Christ are being repudiated and denied. That is a problem that can have eternal consequences.

I have various authorities in job, believe me, I’m not regarded as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole arbiter, whatever I say is God speaking. But yes, I do have authority to do what my job description says I am to do. you are slipping more, AJ. Using yourself as the reference is a problem - and for several reasons. The issue before us is that Christ promised the Catholic Church that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - it can teach no error in Faith and Morals. I can well understand why you are not regarded as infallible - but, this does you are even claiming such a distinction. In the case of the Catholic Church, how can Christ promise eternal victory for His Church and not protect it from error? It just can not happen.

1. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church to do anything. He never even mentioned it (or any other denomination). About anything. For anything. Not once. Ever. Sorry, AJ, but, you really should re-read Benedictus2’s many responses where she corrects you repeatedly for this error. If you really want somethng to think about, try this: Christ never authorized the Lutheran Church to do anything - and we could both agree on that! Just who do you think Christ was talking to? The Apostles - and their successors. Guess what - we find Paul passing on the torch to Timothy and Titus to be his successor in Scripture. There is also Holy Tradition that backs this up, too.

IMHO, the error you are making is assuming that if ONE is in agreement with only ONE (self) ergo self must be infallible/unaccountable. Ooooops…, now you have fallen off the deep end again with your repition. Sorry, but I will just stop here… Most of us have this alrady committed to memory…

God bless

.

 

[joe370]

=joe370;6140177]
If you 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, then, do you believe that the HS is guiding a bunch of churches into all truth, while the rest remain unguided? How can I know who is right and who is wrong?

I think the Holy Spirit is trying. Again, sin often interferes with hearing that guidance, or at least rightly understanding it.

/QUOTE]

Are you saying that the sin of man somehow limits God from guiding HIS church into all truth? If God can do anything, then logically, God could get around this problem? All the teachers that convoked at the council of Nicaea were sinners, but sin did not interfere with the guidance of the HS. Are you saying that the holy spirit could not/cannot guide Jesus’ church into all truth (be it east or west) - once Jesus’ church split in the 11th century? I can’t get my head around that reasoning! The great east - west schism somehow thwarted the HS’s divine mission of perpetuity, to guide Jesus’ church into all truth?

E

ven if I could, certainly you wouldn’t leave the LC - right? Have you belonged to the Lutheran church your whole life?
I am a cradle Lutheran. My dad was a Lutheran pastor. I am admittedly aculturated as Lutheran. Our style of worship, our piety, etc. have agreat influence on me, that is true.
That is not to say that I couldn’t leave, if like you, I felt guided to do so. As you have read, my Lutheranism is very much rooted in its catholicity, much less in its protestantism. Rightly practiced, Lutheranism is reformational, not protestant, in my view. Such that, the reformation in incomplete, unfinished without unity.

If you feel with all your heart soul and mind that the Lutheran church is the house of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, then I would hope that you would never leave the Lutheran church. I agree with the following: “Rightly practiced, Lutheranism is reformational, not protestant, in my view.” However, ML was protesting certain teachings of the CC.

"

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, according to Josiah?

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."

He has yet to respond; What are your thoughts?
Well, clearly it ends up being people who use scripture to determine the validity of doctrine. This is true even in the CC, though it also uses Tradition. I won’t speak for Josiah, but I interpret what he meant is that the practice of bible alone doesn’t say or determine anything, and if so, I would agree with that view of SS. We still rely on teachers and teachings to, well, teach.
As for who has the authority, I have often said that were there to be a true ecumenical council, or if the Orthodox accepted papal infalliibility and unversal jurisdiction, and the patriarchs were again in true union, I would defer to that unity as a true sign of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we each must determine where we find Truth taught, as no other body or teaching is maintained as it was in the early Church.

So what you are saying, I think, is that determining doctrinal truths such as the Eucharist, being literal or symbolic can be known because the early church that comprised both the church of the East and the church of the west, believed in the true presence, but teachings such as the filique and Purgatory cannot be known until the EOC and the CC unite as one in every way regarding doctrinal truths?

Quote:
Jon, do you believe that the RCC Pastors (all fallible teachers) - defined the Trinitarian doctrine and that this doctrine is an infallible doctrine (free of error)? If so - WHY???
It wasn’t just the RCC. It was the whole of the Church.

Jon, Isn’t Eastern conciliarism just a substitute for universal papal jurisdiction? The following is an excerpt from an article that I read and I did confirm its accuracy; let me know what you think:

Continued…

 

[joe370]

"Turn now to the role of the papacy in the proceedings of the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325). For background, we should glance briefly at two events in the third century involving Alexandria and Antioch, then the second and third most important sees of the Catholic Church. Alexandria was regarded as a Petrine see because it was founded by Peter’s protégé, Mark, and Peter himself had been the first bishop of Antioch, before moving to Rome.

According to the fourth-century historian Eusebius, Patriarch Dionysius of Antioch (died ca. 264) wrote to Pope Xystus II asking about rebaptism. He asked for advice from the Pope, he said, “for fear I am acting mistakenly.” Later the Patriarch wrote to Xystus’s successor, Pope Dionysius, informing him that the Sabellian heresy had appeared in his patriarchate. (This trinitarian heresy so emphasized the unity of the Godhead as to deny a distinction of divine Persons.) The Pope also wrote to two of his Egyptian bishops, emphasizing our Lord’s humanity. Certain persons in the see of Alexandria (perhaps those two bishops) reported to the Pope that Patriarch Dionysius was tending toward heretical views.

The Pope wrote the Egyptian bishops a letter detailing the errors of Sabellianism and what was later called Arianism and condemning them. He designated the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) as an appropriate safeguard of orthodox Christology. Note that sixty and more years before the Council of Nicaea, Pope Dionysius anticipated the Council’s work in condemning Arianism and in selecting the appropriate theological concept for the Church’s Christology.

The Pope wrote to Patriarch Dionysius, told him of the allegations against his orthodoxy, and asked for an explanation. Eastern Orthodox apologists tell us the Pope had no jurisdiction over other bishops. Here the Pope is calling on the second most important bishop of the Christian world to defend his orthodoxy. Did Patriarch Dionysius deny the Pope’s authority to bring him on the carpet, so to speak? Not at all. He welcomed the Pope’s inquiry and quickly wrote an explanation which the Pope accepted as satisfactory.

In the third century Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, denied the personhood of the Logos, saying that only the divine Wisdom had become incarnate. In 264 the bishops of Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor convened in synod and condemned Paul’s heresy. Because he persisted in his errors, a second and then a third synod met, and finally he was deposed and excommunicated. Domnus was named as replacement, but Paul refused to vacate the episcopal residence. The bishops appealed to Emperor Aurelian, who was in Antioch at that time. It would have been simple for the Emperor to settle the matter then and there and order Domnus installed as patriarch of Antioch. Instead, he asked Rome to decide who should be patriarch. Rome chose Domnus, and he was installed.

Note that this was a controversy among Eastern bishops, and it involved the rightful occupant of the third most important see in the Church, an Eastern see. Why did Aurelian turn to Rome for a decision? Why would he have the controversy settled in a way that would be a staggering affront to the Eastern bishops and to their authority . . . unless they recognized the pope’s universal jurisdiction. That they did. None objected. The matter was settled. " Roma locuta est" (Rome has spoken).

An examination of the Council of Nicaea starts with the fact that the Arian question which provoked the council had been resolved by the popes a century and more earlier. In the second century Pope Victor excommunicated Theodotus, an early exponent of the heresy later called “Arianism.” As noted above, Pope Dionysius condemned the heresy later associated with Arius’s name and settled on the key theological term later adopted by the Council of Nicaea. Early in the fourth century the heresy condemned by Victor and Dionysius burst forth again in the teaching of Lucian of Antioch. Under the impetus of his pupil Arius, a priest of Alexandria, the heresy spread throughout the East like wildfire.

 

[joe370]

A reminder. All the significant heresies of the early centuries of the Church arose and flourished in the East. Often these heresies were espoused by the emperor of the East. At one time or another, and in some instances frequently, the Eastern patriarchal sees were occupied by heretics. Easterners were adept at creating heresies, but lacked the dominical authority to resolve them. In every single instance, it was the papacy that had to come to the rescue.

What should a pope have done in response to this fresh outbreak of heresy in the early fourth century? Another papal pronouncement would not resolve the issue. The popes had already condemned this heresy. The Arians, backed by the Emperor and influential Eastern bishops, were intransigent. No pope could separate them from their error.

Nor was it feasible for the papacy simply to issue a statement excommunicating all bishops who taught contrary to the doctrine enunciated by Rome. For one thing, a pope would need to know who were the unfaithful bishops. For another, the papal commission from Christ is first of all to “strengthen the brethren” if possible, not cast them out.

Papal infallibility involves divine assistance that preserves a pope from error when he does speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals. That divine assistance does not dispense him from the necessity of using human means to determine how a particular doctrinal problem is to be solved. Those human means include study, reflection, widespread consultation with the bishops, and sometimes a council of bishops.

The Arian heresy originated in the East. It was therefore appropriate to summon the bishops of the East to express their judgment on the matter. A pope had already spoken. If the bishops spoke after him, it would not be the act of superiors, but of subordinates. The effect of their pronouncement would be to accept the pope’s decision as the norm.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).

Assisted by two papal priest-legates, Vito and Vincentius, Hosius of Cordova presided at the Council of Nicaea. It is reasonably certain that Pope Sylvester had designated Hosius, as well as the two legates, to represent him.

Hosius and the legates were the first to sign the decrees of the Council. In fact, says historian Luke Rivington, the Graeco-Russian liturgy, in the office for Pope Sylvester, speaks of him as actual head of the Council of Nicaea: “Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O Initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples.”

The Council of Nicaea condemned the teachings of Arius as b.asphemy and accepted the word homoousios (“of one substance”) as the appropriate term for the relation of God the Father and God the Son. The result of the council, according to Gillquist, was that “the Orthodoxy of Athanasius had prevailed at the Council.” The orthodoxy of whom? Where did Athanasius get his “Orthodoxy”? From Pope Victor, who a century and a half earlier had condemned the teaching of Theodotus, a doctrinal ancestor of Arius, and from Pope Dionysius, who sixty years earlier had condemned what was called later the Arian heresy and who fixed the term homoousios as a key to authentic Christology.

Meyendorff ignores the repeated, clearly attested exercise of papal universal jurisdiction which we have seen in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. He declares that, except for the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the papacy “had no decisive influence upon the trinitarian and christological debates raging in the East” in the early centuries. Instead, the ultimate ecclesial authority was “the conciliar agreement of the episcopate.” The facts are otherwise. Only the successor of Peter could and did “strengthen the brethren” and bring about the triumph of orthodox christology."

 

[joe370]

If they got it wrong about things such as purgatory, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, the true presence, (I know you believe) - the filique, the chair of Peter, infallibility regarding faith or morals ONLY, then logically speaking, they could have been wrong about the Trinity, which was rejected by some Christians of that century, from within? After all, nowhere in the bible does the bible tell us that Jesus and the holy spirit are one. As a matter of fact, the holy spirit was not initially part of the doctrinal formula; the HS was added later.
All of the teachings of Rome that you mention, except the real presence, so substitue Transubstantiation, are defined by Rome since the schism. Trinity is held by the whole Church since the early councils. Get Orthodoxy to accept these later teachings in council, and you haave more credibility as “infallible”

Jon, if Martin Luther believed in the IC then why don’t you? ML said:

*It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
*

Quote:
Agreed. There can be mutual agreements but only one truth regarding any one doctrine - correct?
Some things ought not be doctrine -marian beliefs, etc. -correct?

Ahhh, but you did not answer the question. There can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine - RIGHT? The problem is, (if you are right) - we just don’t know where to find ALL truth, post east - west schism???

 

[joe370]

=joe370;6140166]Can’t argue with that logic. I too pray He blesses you at the Lutheran church, just as I do with my sister, my dad and my niece, who all belong to different churches, and they do not believe that their churches are Catholic in the way you believe. They believe that it doesn’t matter which church Christians belong to, as long as it’s not the RCC. If I were to bring up the CCC (like you do with the Lutheran confessions) - they would recoil as if I just spoke blasphemously. Maybe it doesn’t even matter which church we belong to. But I highly doubt it.
Thank you for your prayers for blessing. That we share the faith strongly enough to do this for each other - if all Christians did - then unity would be that much closer. How much easier wuld the Holy Spirit’s job be if we did?

Amen brother. Just because Christians can’t always agree, does not mean that we can’t/shouldn’t treat each other as Jesus would, if He were participating in this open forum. Jesus’ responses would be filled with love and charity!!! I agree with the first part, but I don’t think that the holy spirit is limited/ incapable of guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, just because some Christians are not ecumenically minded, and sometimes just downright antagonistic. I believe that God can and will guide Jesus’ church into all truth, and I just happen to believe that that church is the CC, but I could be wrong, but I believe it with every fiber of my being.

To recoil at the teachings of each other in the way you describe cuts off dialogue. To insult or bash each other, or attempt to speak for each other’s beliefs does the same. I’m happy you and I have aovided that.

I wish you could convince my sister. LOL…She is just basting in protestant propaganda/lies presented to her by her Pastor. Actually protestant is a misnomer; Pastor Brown refers to his church as a non protestant, non denominational church.

Quote:
Absolutely! Why do you believe that the Augsburg Confession (written by fallible men) - rightly reflects scripture, but do not believe that the CCC (written by fallible men) -rightly reflects scripture? Or, do they both rightly reflect sacred scripture?
In many ways they do, in some ways we speak the same truth using different semantics,

Agreed, as is the case with the EOC and the CC regarding Purgatory, original sin and the IC.

…and in some ways we don’t (then one or both of us are wrong).

That is what bothered me as a former Lutheran. If we can’t know with certainty, who is right or who is wrong, or if we are both wrong or both right, then what’s the point? Truth regarding the tough teachings remain elusive, even though the bible exclaims that the HS will guide Jesus’ church into all truth; doesn’t that bother you? If you are right then the bible is not infallible. The HS is either guiding Jesus’ church into all truth (which ever church that may be) - or He is not. If He is, then the bible can be trusted; if He is not, then the bible can’t be trusted. Or am I just missing a piece of the puzzle that would clear up this biblical contradiction?

Quote:
I know; you mean, I think, that the EOC and CC, prior to the split, was the church built by God - right?
Yes, as well as those of us who are Lutheran via our roots in the CC. (Not meaning to leave others out)

That is all I was trying to get Josiah to admit, to no avail of course. The church of Matthew 16, as far as he is concerned, cannot be found, and certainly the CC was not built by Jesus on Pentecost, nor was any other PC, according to him. That is illogical, as Spock would say. LOL…

Quote:
Oops, I forgot to answer that question. If you mean the church in heaven, enjoying a state of triumph, who’s battle with evil being over - distinguished from the church militant, then absolutely!!! I also believe that the triumphant church is full of Christians that do not belong to the CC, but sadly, in my experience, this sentiment is not reciprocated.
Well, with Lutherans it should be. But then, there are those that exclude us, as well.

As a former Christian belonging to the Lutheran church, I came to realize that sola scriptura paved the way for all this disunity in Christianity. The protestant reformation put authority smack dab in the hands of anyone via their interpretation of their bible, and anyone can start a church today and claim that their authority is derived from God. I could do it tomorrow… That’s crazy, don’t you think???

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
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 about their teachings, such as the Lutheran Confessions) - right?

AGAIN, we believe that GOD is infallible, no man (or collection thereof) is.

Again, I too believe that GOD is infallible, no (catholic) - man (or collection thereof) is. Are we finally in agreement?

The proclaimation that there is ONE (other than God) that is infallible is found in no Christian denomination except one - The Catholic Church. But the proclaimation of self alone for self alone has zero relevance to self being correct. Studied any of the cults?

Only the church built by Jesus, guided by the infallible holy spirit - agreed!

What you continue to reveal is that The Catholic Church has no alternative to the Rule of Scripture, no “better” rule/canon to suggest, no “better” concept of norming at all.

Scripture can determine nothing, can arbitrate nothing, by you own admission. This is done by people.

It simply excludes itself exclusively from the entire question by declaring that it itself alone is correct - so it is. End of the issue.

Amen brother, end of issue, with one exception: they derive their authority from Jesus Christ, starting on Pentecost. You have yet to answer any questions presented by myself, tqualey, N2, or benedictus2, regarding sola scriptura or the norm. What’s going man?

Again, YES, a Lutheran teacher CAN be incorrect.

Just as a catholic can be incorrect.

Which is why all invite accountability and submit to a norm OUTSIDE self and an arbitration that isn’t just by self.

You have already stated that your norm cannot arbitrate or determine anything, so why would I submit to it? I want to submit to a norm OUTSIDE self - point me in the right direction???

IMHO, true teachers welcome the light, welcome accountability.

True teachers welcome the light, welcome accountability…understood!!! Point me in the direction of these true teachers! I am trying to follow your logic.

It is the false teacher that must exclude self alone from such, hiding in the dark behind walls of self-claims and self exemptions.

You really do copy and paste the same thing over and over, but that’s cool! Who are these false teachers? No doubt this will be the only question you answer and that answer will be: the CC, the LDS church and the cults, which you will not identify!!! I want to believe what you believe but you ain’t giving me nothin, as my old football coach use to say.

However, I am a ver patient man!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe,

Now… maybe I have missed the boat here … but, judging from the length and pages of your last posts … it could be that you have been hanging around AJ for too long…

But let me address one thing you said that you may want to consider…

Amen brother. Just because Christians can’t always agree, does not mean that we can’t/shouldn’t treat each other as Jesus would, if He were participating in this open forum. Jesus’ responses would be filled with love and charity!!!

The mental image I got after reading this is that Jesus is some kind of Divine “Warm Fuzzy”… the Good Shepherd with the lamb around His neck. And, while we are overcome with love when Christ responds to people like the deaf, blind, cripples - and even dead who are renewed by Christ. And, we see Christ’s great charity to the woman caught in adultery, the hungry who He fed with loaves and fishes and the paralytic whose sins he first forgave before curing him. But, let’s not forget, this is the same Christ who began (somewhat like John the Baptist did) with opening remarks like, “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees…” (Matt 23:13-24) This is the same Christ who formed a whip from cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple (John 2:15) - and even rebuked Peter, who He just appointed as leader of the Apostles and gave him the keys - by calling him Satan! (Matt 16:23)

There are some significant instances where our usual image of the “Warm Fuzzy” come in direct conflict with the actions taken by Christ. So the quesiton is: WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) Well, surely He would present the Truth and this Truth is His Church. - found directly in Scripture (Matt 16 - for your old buddy AJ).

For those who reject His Truth, Matt 25 has some interesting stories worth reading. Christ is a complex Person - and one who presents Himself to others in different ways. To those who sincerely want to know the Truth (like Nicodemous) Christ did what was necessary (teaching this old Pharisee at night because he was afraid of the criticism of the other Pharisees). To those who use the Law to distort its intent, He was quite different.

Being civil is expected behavior - but, within this context, we can argue for the Truth of Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) without being argumentative.

God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Hi, AJ,

Your question is this: So, how do we know if the teacher is correct?

Actually, a Catholic asked that question. The Catholic wanted to know that. My reply was that we must begin by regarding the teacher as accountable. It is at this very first step that The Catholic Church disagrees with all others; it is here - at this first step - that we depart. The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE that is exempt from this question, and that one is itself. Alone, exclusively. Self alone insists that self alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway) and that self alone is infallible. Thus self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the question the Catholic asked. Thus, he/she MAY ask that question of anything or anyone (indeed, for the sake of truth, must!) but in the case of self alone, self is to be simply accepted with docility - as God speaking.

We know if the teacher (of religion) is correct or in error by comparing what they say with established and published Scripture and Tradition. We only know if something is crooked insofar as we know what is straight.

So…

1. You are rejecting the position and epistemology of The Catholic Church (CCC 87, for example) and you reject that The Catholic Church is incapable of error in doctrine and official stances of ethics, and that it is not the sole authority or sole arbiter. Okay (welcome to Protestantism - I swam the river in that direction, too, some years ago, converting from Catholicism). You now regard it as accountable.
2. And thus you need a rule (“straight edge”). You need a canon (“measuring stick”). You need a norma normans (as it is called in epistemology). The issue of this thread (and the sole issue of Sola Scriptura) is WHAT best serves as that norma normans, the “straight edge” that you (in typical Protestant fashion) now insist is needed. The most sound one is going to be ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - especially the doctrine under review and the teacher thereof (whether that teacher be a person, group of persons, denomination, etc.; The Catholic Church, The LDS Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or any other teacher). Knowable to all, alterable by none (especially, the teacher of the position under review). The IDEAL in theology would be something inscripturated by GOD Himself - the very, written, readable, knowable words of GOD himself, since we all agree that GOD is the only infallible one and the only authority. And it would be IDEAL if that inscripturated words of God be knowable to all of us so that all parties KNOW what those words are. It would be IDEAL if those words are unalterable (especially by the party under review) - I know the words of Romans 3:23 and so do you, I can’t change them and nor can you. And it would be IDEAL if all parties accept such as reliable - with a solid historic and ecumenical embrace. The wonderful, blessed reality is, my friend, that ideal “straight edge” exists - it’s called Scripture. Embracing such as the “straight edge” is called Sola Scriptura.

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continues the post above…**

Lutherans believe that Christ is God - and so do Catholics! So, if someone were to teach that Christ is NOT God we would know that there is an error. We know there is an error because we can validate what they taught with what is contained in Scripture and the Councils of the Church (Lutherans believe in the Apostles’ Creed…and that is not Scripture!) Such a teacher would fail such a validation.

So, you are proposing a rule/canon/norma normans that seems to have 3 parts:

1. Scripture.
2. Ecumencial embrace (not just one or a few denominations embrace it)
3. The Ecumenical Creeds.

That’s not Sola Scriptura exactly, but PERSONALLY, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with that. Of course, everything that divides Lutherans and Catholics would, by that rule, likely reveal Lutheranism correct and Catholicism WRONG. Do we find the following DOGMAS of the CC taught in Scripture and the Ecumenical Creeds and are they embraced as such ecumenically (rather than exclusively by The Catholic Church): The Infallibility of the Roman Pope, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception? Nope. They “fail” your rule.

Now remember, for a rule/canon/norma normans to have any usefulness at all, such must be OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - especially the teacher under review. Let’s say a friendly man in blue stops you and states you were speeding. Accepting as you know do (revealing a conversion to Protestantism, lol) that ALL are accountable and not correct simply because self alone declares that self alone CANNOT be wrong, then we need that “straight edge” again. But if you and policeman point to the big, square, white sign AND IT IS BLANK - with just a dotted line and the instructions (each fill in whatever speed limit you like) then you can just get out your marker than fill in something a lot more than what you were driving. Nope, to have any value in norming, the rule/canon must be ABOVE and BEYOND both you and the cop, knowable to you both, alterable by neither of you. Now…

The “straight edge” that The Catholic Church permits in evaluating ALL OTHERS (remember: it demands that ALL be accountable for what is taught, but it alone insists there be ONE exception to this accountability, this evaluation, this process of norming: itself. Why? Because itself insists that itself is infallible, incapable of error, and thus such is moot in the case of just one - itself. Exclusively. Hold all OTHERS accountable, evaluate THEM, but the RCC insists whatever it alone says is just to be accepted. With docility. As God speaking. But here’s the “straight edge” it permits for all OTHERS:

1. The Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and currently interpreted by The Catholic Church. It is, essentially, what The Catholic Church teaches.
2. The Scriptures, but not as written in words in any book or on any page (knowable, unalterable) but “in the heart” of just one - The Catholic Church, and as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church.
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church, all pledged to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church - the rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations of The Catholic Church.
   These 3 TOGETHER and INSEPARATELY are the only “straight edge” The Catholic Church permits in evaluating teachings. But YOU may not arbitrate this issue, yup - The Catholic Church permits only one to do that - itself. Friend, it’s simply self looking in the mirror at self. Self always looks like self. But even here, this “straight edge” may NOT be used to evaluate CATHOLIC positions - only NONcatholic ones, since all NON-Catholic teachers are accountable and thus to be meansured by the measuring stick (or sticks in the RCC case). But the RCC is not. It exempts just one from this. Itself.

Most would reject this epistemology, that “correctness” be determined according to the rule of whether all others agree with one who simply states that that one MUST be correct. I can just say, “I’m correct, so when I say that I’m correct, ergo I’m correct. Thus correct is whatever I say, and wrong is anything varient to that. I am above and excluded from accountablility because I’m correct, but all others MUST be held as accountable because I say they are not exempt, and the rule to use to judge is they are correct is if they agree with one (oh, me).” Not only is that epistemology rejected in ALL disciplines, but my study of the cults convinced ME it’s not only entirely useless but actually quite dangerous. We need a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE and BEYOND and ABOVE all parties, with NO ONE AMONG US simply excluding self alone from accountability or the process before us.

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Part 3 of 3, continuing the post above…

The issue before us is that Christ promised the Catholic Church that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - it can teach no error in Faith and Morals.

Of course, if one reads the words in Scripture (rather than The Catholic Church alone “reading” the Scripture “in the heart” of itself exclusively as “interpreted” exclusively by itself), then it’s OBVIOUS that Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never authoritzed it for anything. I think we all know that. But, yes - for self to exempt self from accountability, SOME “justification” for this needed. It’s always the same. In the RCC, in the LDS, in all the cults. But the claim is unaccountable since The Catholic Church exempts itself from accountability - including in it’s insistence of itself exclusively being unaccountable, you must accept it “with docility.” Friend, AGAIN, such is not a better alternative process of norming, it is not an alternative norma normans - it’s just ONE exempting ONE from the whole issue and process, and yup, that one is ALWAYS self whether it be the RCC or LDS or any of the cults. It’s a CIRCUMVENTION, an EVASION of accountability (for one - self), NOT a better process of norming. I reject that self excluding self from accountability is a sound process of accountability. Self insisting that self alone CANNOT be wrong thus self is correct is a useless epistemology (at best - as my study of the cults revealed).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

AJ

This repose of yours totally misses the point, but I guess that is your game.

Best wishes on getting the answers you really need.

God bless

.

Actually, a Catholic asked that question. The Catholic wanted to know that. My reply was that we must begin by regarding the teacher as accountable. It is at this very first step that The Catholic Church disagrees with all others; it is here - at this first step - that we depart. The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE that is exempt from this question, and that one is itself. Alone, exclusively. Self alone insists that self alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway) and that self alone is infallible. Thus self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the question the Catholic asked. Thus, he/she MAY ask that question of anything or anyone (indeed, for the sake of truth, must!) but in the case of self alone, self is to be simply accepted with docility - as God speaking.

So…

1. You are rejecting the position and epistemology of The Catholic Church (CCC 87, for example) and you reject that The Catholic Church is incapable of error in doctrine and official stances of ethics, and that it is not the sole authority or sole arbiter. Okay (welcome to Protestantism - I swam the river in that direction, too, some years ago, converting from Catholicism). You now regard it as accountable.
2. And thus you need a rule (“straight edge”). You need a canon (“measuring stick”). You need a norma normans (as it is called in epistemology). The issue of this thread (and the sole issue of Sola Scriptura) is WHAT best serves as that norma normans, the “straight edge” that you (in typical Protestant fashion) now insist is needed. The most sound one is going to be ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - especially the doctrine under review and the teacher thereof (whether that teacher be a person, group of persons, denomination, etc.; The Catholic Church, The LDS Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or any other teacher). Knowable to all, alterable by none (especially, the teacher of the position under review). The IDEAL in theology would be something inscripturated by GOD Himself - the very, written, readable, knowable words of GOD himself, since we all agree that GOD is the only infallible one and the only authority. And it would be IDEAL if that inscripturated words of God be knowable to all of us so that all parties KNOW what those words are. It would be IDEAL if those words are unalterable (especially by the party under review) - I know the words of Romans 3:23 and so do you, I can’t change them and nor can you. And it would be IDEAL if all parties accept such as reliable - with a solid historic and ecumenical embrace. The wonderful, blessed reality is, my friend, that ideal “straight edge” exists - it’s called Scripture. Embracing such as the “straight edge” is called Sola Scriptura.

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[Monte1945]

It is important to establish whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, it is very important to take it seriously. God is all powerful, but there ARE some things He cannot do. He cannot contradict himself because there is only one truth, only one thing can be true at a time. So if anyone says something, and offers it to be equal to the Word of God, it is imperative to make certain that it fits in with what God has already said in the Bible.

Well, one has to believe one way or the other… One saids it is their way and the other saids it isn’t…

Jesus said, when he was accused of doing his work from the power of the devil…

To judge him by his works to see if they are of God or the devil.

Sounds like a good way for me…

Lets see… We have thousands of different doctrines being taught by thousands of different churchs as to what each thinks the same bible teaches…

Then we have the Catholic church which has not just taught the same doctrines
from the bible their members wrote and preserved… but that the Catholic church
and it’s system is the oldest form of government the world has ever had.

All of the other so called Great Nations have failed… but the Catholic church
is still here teaching the very same doctrines orally and from within the bible
both.

“Lo and I shall be with your always…until the end of time”…

I think the “Work” of the Catholic Church is where I will put my Faith and trust.

And I think I will just accept by faith what Jesus said to the Apostles

“He who hears you hears me”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Monte1945

Well said!

God bless,

Well, one has to believe one way or the other… One saids it is their way and the other saids it isn’t…

Jesus said, when he was accused of doing his work from the power of the devil…

To judge him by his works to see if they are of God or the devil.

Sounds like a good way for me…

Lets see… We have thousands of different doctrines being taught by thousands of different churchs as to what each thinks the same bible teaches…

Then we have the Catholic church which has not just taught the same doctrines
from the bible their members wrote and preserved… but that the Catholic church
and it’s system is the oldest form of government the world has ever had.

All of the other so called Great Nations have failed… but the Catholic church
is still here teaching the very same doctrines orally and from within the bible
both.

“Lo and I shall be with your always…until the end of time”…

I think the “Work” of the Catholic Church is where I will put my Faith and trust.

And I think I will just accept by faith what Jesus said to the Apostles

“He who hears you hears me”.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Lets see… We have thousands of different doctrines being taught by thousands of different churchs as to what each thinks the same bible teaches…

Yes, it is true that The Catholic Church has a unity of just one - self with self.
The Catholic Church is currently and formally in agreement with The Catholic Church exclusively in all matters that The Catholic Church exclusively regards as good to be in agreement about. So what? How does that indicate that The Catholic Church is infallible and unaccountable - or even correct? AT LEAST the same can be said of every other denomination. Heck, I officially and currently agree with me in all matters that I currently regard as good to agree upon, do you therefore conclude that I am ergo infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and thus the only one to be exempt from accountability?

Then we have the Catholic church which has not just taught the same doctrines
from the bible their members wrote and preserved.

Actually, no denomination has changed it’s positions more than the RCC one. Do you actually believe that every single one of the 2,875 points of The Catholic Catechism was exactly the same in 31 AD? If so, I’d SURE like to see you document that. But again, how does one not changing their official teachings (which does apply to Lutheranism but not to Catholicism) indicate that self alone is exempt from accountablity because self alone is infallible and incapable of error (at least in matters of faith and morals)?

“Lo and I shall be with your always…until the end of time”…

Yes, but Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. About anything. At any time. Not once. Not ever.

And “being with” does not equate to “being infallible/unaccountable.”

“He who hears you hears me”.

A promise Jesus never gave to The Catholic Church or to any apostle or any successor thereof or to any denomination. Contrary to what The official Catholic Catechism wrongly states.

And again, The Catholic Church’s attempt to exempt just one (itself) from accountability is NOT an alternative approach to norming, it’s just self exempting self from such.

.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I am really going to sound like a broken record here. The burden of proof rests on the protestants because they they did not come up with the Bible. This is a position that protestants just fail to get time and time again.

Protestants came to the scene 1500 years later. The NT was already writen by the Church and the Bible canonized by the Catholic Church.

To illustrate.

Let us say Shakespeare was debating with someone the finers points of Mcbeth. The other person says, well we have to go strictly by Macbeth what you mean by Mcbeth. That is ridiculous because Mcbeth was written by Shakespeare.

Where can one provide such evidence apart from the Holy Scriptures whose author is the Holy Spirit, God Himself?

Well duh, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the word of God.

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.

Welll duh again, before scripture there was only tradition as far as the NT goes. That is why when the Catholic Church decided on what ought and ought not to belong in the Bible they measure it against tradition.

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.

Well duh again, the only reason you know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAID.

For example, the 10 Commandments would have been worth little if they were written by Moses alone with no direction from God.

Yes, but you only know that the OT should be part of scripture because the Catholic Church included it in the Christian canon. Remember, the Jews are not into evangelizing, they confine themselves to Jews. If not for God establishing the Cahtolic Church, we gentiles will not know about the ten commandments.

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.

You will get far in your understanding if you will be able to answer this one question.

How do you know that the Bible is indeed the word of God? I bet 100% you will not be able to give a correct answer.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

If the Church that He was about to build is not free from doctrinal error then the gates of hell would have prevailed which means He is not able to keep his promise.

He calls the devil the father of lies - if He allows error into His Church then that means His church has been taken over by the devil. Do you think He will allow that? If that happens then that means He can’t keep His promise and that means He is not God.

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.

His apostles are the beginning of His Church. Come Pentecost, His Church was born.

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.”

Actually Church History bears OUR position out as I have explained above.

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).

Yes, but you still have the problem of the canon. At the time of the formation of the canon, there were other writings. As a matter of fact Marcion was the first to come up with a cannon and he came up with gnostic canon. Only in the 3rd Century did the church come up with the canon. The apostles were long dead by then.

So if you say that the apostles were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, how do we know that those who determined the canon were also guided by the Holy Spirit? Was Marcion guided by the Holy Spirit?

Christ never promised that His church would be without error.

Yes He did. Because Christ is the Truth. The Church is His Body. It cannot be any other way.

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).

Exactly! Gnosticism as in Marcion as I mentioned above. And how do we know which one is true? We go back to the apostles to those Christ has appointed. Without this guarantee, we have no way of knowing which one is indeed true, which means that God has left us to muddle about in uncertainty. God is now like that.

In fact, your interpretation of Jn. 16:13 is itself erroneous. You are stating something that the verse itself does not.

Actually it is your interpretation that is wrong because of your failure to understand that the Church came to birth at Pentecost. I explained that to you above.

It’s the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures that are without error, not men, not your Church.

But you really just do not get it. We know that the Bible is inerrant because the Church said so. If the Church is not infallible, then we have not way of knowing whether the Bible is inerrant.

There is a serious flaw in logic which you just don’t see.

So I ask you the same question that i have asked others before - How do you know know that Scripture is God breathed? And don’t reply with 2 Tim because that only refers to the OT. When 2Tim was written, 2Tim was not considered scripture yet. We only that 2 Tim is scripture because the Catholic Church said so.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

LOL
See now how ridiculous your position is? Someone actually asked you a very valid question and as usual you have none / nada/ zilch of a reply.

The question was: Using SS as the norm, how does one arrive at the truth. Because if SS is a good and valid norm it should help us arrive at the truth. It has nothing to do with humility.

That you cannot give a good answer means that SS is invalid, unusable, not applicable, riduclous as a norm for determining doctrine.

 

[Cinette]

Yes, it is true that The Catholic Church has a unity of just one - self with self.
The Catholic Church is currently and formally in agreement with The Catholic Church exclusively in all matters that The Catholic Church exclusively regards as good to be in agreement about. So what? How does that indicate that The Catholic Church is infallible and unaccountable - or even correct? AT LEAST the same can be said of every other denomination. Heck, I officially and currently agree with me in all matters that I currently regard as good to agree upon, do you therefore conclude that I am ergo infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and thus the only one to be exempt from accountability?

Actually, no denomination has changed it’s positions more than the RCC one. Do you actually believe that every single one of the 2,875 points of The Catholic Catechism was exactly the same in 31 AD? If so, I’d SURE like to see you document that. But again, how does one not changing their official teachings (which does apply to Lutheranism but not to Catholicism) indicate that self alone is exempt from accountablity because self alone is infallible and incapable of error (at least in matters of faith and morals)?

Yes, but Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. About anything. At any time. Not once. Not ever.

And “being with” does not equate to “being infallible/unaccountable.”

A promise Jesus never gave to The Catholic Church or to any apostle or any successor thereof or to any denomination. Contrary to what The official Catholic Catechism wrongly states.

And again, The Catholic Church’s attempt to exempt just one (itself) from accountability is NOT an alternative approach to norming, it’s just self exempting self from such.

.

*The Catholic Church is N O T a denomination!

You should study history and ask God to take the prejudice out of you. Then you would be more reasonable and open to the truth. Like this, you do not do yourself justice my friend.

God bless you
Cinette:thumbsup:*