Defense of Sola Scriptura

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Let me jump right to the heart of the matter…

Tom, you know I hold the CC in high esteem, and I know you are honest and sincere, and this is from your heart and strength of faith, but you haven’t answered the original question:
***“help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust” *** Those wonderful men of the Magisterium are teachers! How can I know for certain that they are to be trusted over the others, not even talking about the western reformers for now?

Let me try the historical approach first …

Looking for honest teachers, implies honest content that has been established and has been taught. The Councils of the Catholic Church have established as doctrine - and teach to this very day the articles of faith we know as the Apostle’s Creed. Prior to these elements being defined as articles of faith - they were just out there…with no requirement to believe. But, it does not end there.

Look at the Seven Sacraments (Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick) the CC has always taught these from her earliest days as is recorded in with the ECF. There has been no change in the content of what has been taught to this very day.

So, let’s pause right here and just look at this - Peter made a major profession of faith under the direct inspiration of God the Father and Christ founded His Church on a weak and sinful man! That man - and his successors - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, came up with the doctrine that defines the Catholic Faith. That same doctrine is taught today. If you are looking for faithful teachers - then you can look to consistent doctrine that has been taught by them all the way through history. No protestant group can make this claim.

If your concern is that you think the CC and the EOC are in schism and neither can be trusted - so be it! There is a schism. And, while I am confident I know who left who - that is not the issue. The issue, at least as I appreciate it, is that if the question in your mind is between these two groups - then it can not be between any other protestant group. This greatly narrows down the field…considering the several thousand of groups out there already!

We have consistent doctrine taught by faithful teachers - with the God-Granted Guarantee that the no error in Faith or Morals will ever be taught. Now, I don’t know about you … but, I don’t remember I say saw a guarantee about anything - much less - from God! You just can’t get any better then this.

God bless

 

[joe370]

=joe370;6163063]Jon, you said:

I can give you 50 examples of teachers belonging to different PC’s, subject to the measure of scripture, who vehemently disagree with one another, only on certain things of course. They all defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for determining and evaluating doctrinal truth, yet they all come away with something different. We know that the infallible word of God is not the problem and that there can only be one truth regarding any one doctrine, so the problem must be the teachers of these 50 churches - correct?

Hi Joe. Correct!! Ground we’ve already covered. And one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Antioch.

Covered but not resolved, wouldn’t you agree? Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that established the RCC (just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church. My inability to do this as a former Lutheran was pivotal to my journey back home. The same applies to the EOC, as opposed to the offshoots of the EOC. My goal as a former Lutheran was to find the one church of Matthew 16, regardless of the eventual schismatic success of the evil one. Ultimately it came down to 2 churches for me: the EOC and the CC, and when I stopped buying into the whole protestant petra/petros debacle, I came to realize that Jesus did indeed build His church on Kepha. He built His church on the confessor, not the confession of Kepha, and Jesus Christ of course is the Divine Kepha and Cornerstone.

Continued…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6169927]Covered but not resolved, wouldn’t you agree?

Of course.

Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that established the RCC (just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.

I can say without doubt that Jesus the Christ established the Church, which includes the RCC.

My inability to do this as a former Lutheran was pivotal to my journey back home. The same applies to the EOC, as opposed to the offshoots of the EOC. My goal as a former Lutheran was to find the one church of Matthew 16, regardless of the eventual schismatic success of the evil one. Ultimately it came down to 2 churches for me: the EOC and the CC, and when I stopped buying into the whole protestant petra/petros debacle, I came to realize that Jesus did indeed build His church on Kepha. He built His church on the confessor, not the confession of Kepha, and Jesus Christ of course is the Divine Kepha and Cornerstone.

Were I to concede to the Church built on the rock, St Peter, not the rock, his profession of faith, I am still not narrowed to one true Church, but two (speaking hypothetically here).
How can this be? And at least in this one area - that of St. Peter - I think the EOC position is more convincing, certainly since the Bishop of Rome declared infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra) without a true ecumenical council.

So, for the time being, and following Tom’s advice, I *“pray for the Grace of God to enlighten you into finding Him in your life every day.” *

Jon

 

[joe370]

Quote:
If the bible alone (sola scriptura) - is the yard stick (for these 50 churches) - for determining/evaluating the outcome of a certain doctrinal truths, then help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust? The teachers of Matthew 28…the teachers to which Jesus said:

“As the Father has sent Me, even so send I you.”

After all, Jesus Christ came to bear witness to the Truth, to the entire world, to the very ends of the earth, regarding everything He taught in the 1st century. Were these unique truths relegated to the apostolic age only, or has God provided a way for all Christians, regardless of the time period, to avail themselves of the same unique truths taught and believed in the apostolic age? If so, where can I go to find these singularly unique truths of Jesus Christ?

Even if the yard stick is scripture and Tradition, we have the same problem; "help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust?"

Jon, if the Lutheran church was the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, in the 1st century, on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as opposed to Martin Luther, in the 16th century, on the foundation of the Protestant reformation, rest assured, that would be the church to which I would belong!!! Even though I believe that scripture is absolutely a providentially inestimable yardstick for resolving doctrinal discrepancies, nonetheless, an arbitrator via providential guidance is absolutely and unequivocally needed as well, just as scripture absolutely needed an arbitrator in the early church at the various ecumenical councils. I believe that the holy spirit* (And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever) *- is the Divine yardstick by which truth can be measured/ascertained in Jesus’ established church, first through the apostles and then through their successors, in perpetuity, and I truly believe that this cohesive apostolic succession, (regardless of the century, or the abuses or the individual malefactors attempting to bankrupt Jesus’ church of Matthew 16 from within) - is the key to the preservation of doctrinal truth, safeguarded by the spirit of truth, Who is forever guiding Jesus’ ministers of reconciliation into all truth. If the inerrant word of God was God’s plan to be the Christians one and only benchmark by which all truth could be known, then certainly God would not have allowed doctrinal chaos to ensue, (which really didn’t take place until the PR) - regardless of the endless attempts of the devil to divide Christianity.

Jon, like I said before, I am positive that God can prevent the anti-Christ from causing doctrinal destitution, but only in the church of Matthew 16, and only regarding the fullness of truth! Certainly it’s possible (and biblical, that the holy spirit is guiding just one church, the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, when it comes to the fullness of truth, regardless of the havoc wreaked by the enemy. Jon, the holy spirit didn’t stop guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, upon the demise of the last apostle or the demise of their successors, did He? The holy spirit didn’t stop guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, upon the great East - West schism or the 16th century Protestant reformation - right? The PR was attempting to reform the abuses in certain parts of the CC; it wasn’t attempting to challenge doctrinal truth; that came later out of necessity and private/individual interpretation of the bible, frowned upon by the bible. Perhaps that is why the protestant movement, almost in its infancy, fragmented the Mystical body of Christ? The East - West schism, too, gave way to division in Christ’s Body, but it was infinitesimal compared to the titanic breach caused by the Protestant reformation, and I believe that that is because the EOC and the CC continue to share that apostolic pedigree, which include both sacred scripture and sacred tradition, the same tradition that served as the yardstick for almost 400 years, for including certain books in the canon and excluding certain books from the bound codified canon.

Initially the great schism was politically motivated and things such as the fillique and the use of unleavened bread were mere gambits for certain eastern men, but eventually these ploys became the crux of the matter and the very reason for the schism and the authoritative clash, but, for the most part, doctrinal unity is still quite intact, liturgical rites and cultural traditions notwithstanding. I guess my point is, according to the bible, the holy spirit will never stop guiding the church of Matthew 16, into all truth, and He will never stop safeguarding the only truths that really matter in the paradisiac grand scheme of things. It doesn’t mean that I am right; it’s just what I believe.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Quote:
If you suggest the Lutheran Church, (which only makes perfect sense) - then I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision? After all, those 50 church leaders will disagree with you (not on everything of course) - and their reasons will be biblically motivated, just as yours are. They defer to the same collection of books (outside the Lutheran Confessions of course) - as you do, and they tell me, based on their interpretation of the bible (the final norm for them, for determining and evaluating doctrine) - that truth can be found at their respective assemblies, from the very pulpits from which they preach.
I can only suggest to one who asks to listen to the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and compare - measure - what we teach to what scripture says. IOW, do not trust me or my decision. Again, the question goes both ways.

But that is the danger with sola scriptura. For example, when people belonging to the LC or the CC listen to the teachings of the Lutheran Church or the CC, and compare - measure - what the LC or the CC teaches, to what scripture says to them, there is the potential that scripture is saying something to them, to the contrary, leading them to believe that they have found the divinely inspired pot of truth at the end of the rainbow, fomenting discontent in their former churches, and a new lease to start a true church based on sacred scripture via their unique interpretation of the bible. This has been the down fall of sola scriptura, wouldn’t you agree?

Joe: “I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision” to join the Catholic Church?

Well, because the CC is the church of Matthew 16, unless of course you can prove otherwise? If you can, I will have to re-think things! And we all know what the bible says about the church of Matthew 16.

Quote:
Help me work through this doctrinal maze, or does it even matter anymore, like it did in the early church? Has God provided a way for all Christian of the 21st century to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, or has the sin of man through the work of the evil one, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity?
Yes, I believe there is a way, though I’m probably not the one to ask what that way is (though I like the idea of a truly ecumenical council, Josiah’s earlier scenario notwithstanding).

Why don’t you think that you are the one to ask, what that way is?

Look at the landscape of the Church Militant since the end of the first millenium, and the answer to your last question is obvious, but that does not me that the gates of Hell have or will prevail!!

God certainly provided a way for all Christians, from 11th century to thepresent century, to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, with a few minor differences, such as the filoque, leavened bread etc. Another example would be the way in which the EOC or the CC, (whichever way one wants to view it) - chose to define the same doctrine with subtle distinctions and variations, without actually changing the doctrine or abandoning it, such as original sin or Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

Doctrinal chaos might not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed, but the gates of hell are encroaching, and I am more and more convinced of this, especially when people tell me that I am guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, (most protestants). They don’t believe that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ, which, once eaten, leads to eternal life, as per John 6,

Now, Joe, answer for me the same questions.

Regarding the question: Has God provided a way for all Christian of the 21st century to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, or has the sin of man through the work of the evil one, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity?

Well, the evil one, since the Protestant reformation, (which put the bible smack dab in the hands of each and every Christian, making each Christian the final arbiter) - has, without doubt, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity, wouldn’t you agree? However, the church of Matthew 16, (the Catholic church) - built by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, I believe, is without doubt, in my mind, the divinely inspired pot of truth at the end of the rainbow, for the simple fact that no one can give me the historical name of the man who built (still building) - the CC, other than the man/God Jesus Christ, The CC, (as well as the EOC) - since Pentecost, has withstood the test of time in the face of tremendously calamitous opposition and strife, both from within and without, making the CC truly universal (catholic) - in the sense of time and space. The main reason why i chose the CC over the EOC is because of Matthew 16!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370m

Nice set of posts … but, please try for a bit more brevity… if you get like AJ - I don’t know what I will do…

But that is the danger with sola scriptura. For example, when people belonging to the LC or the CC listen to the teachings of the Lutheran Church or the CC, and compare - measure - what the LC or the CC teaches, to what scripture says to them, there is the potential that scripture is saying something to them, to the contrary, leading them to believe that they have found the divinely inspired pot of truth at the end of the rainbow, fomenting discontent in their former churches, and a new lease to start a true church based on sacred scripture via their unique interpretation of the bible. This has been the down fall of sola scriptura, wouldn’t you agree? i totally agree, Joe - one of the biggest issues is that, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, Scripture is not easy to correctly understand! There are all kinds of archic items, terms, expressions that the average person can easily mis-understand or just totally miss!

Well, because the CC is the church of Matthew 16, unless of course you can prove otherwise? If you can, I will have to re-think things! And we all know what the bible says about the church of Matthew 16. Sounds right to me, Joe!

God certainly provided a way for all Christians, from 11th century to thepresent century, (Don’t you mean the 1st Centry, Joe)
to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, with a few minor differences, such as the filoque, leavened bread etc. Another example would be the way in which the EOC or the CC, (whichever way one wants to view it) - chose to define the same doctrine with subtle distinctions and variations, without actually changing the doctrine or abandoning it, such as original sin or Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

now, this is where I had a problem, Joe…

Doctrinal chaos might not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed,
There is no ‘doctrinal chaos’ in the Catholic Church - and if you think there is… please tell me. If the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach without error on matters of faith and morals - there simply can not be ‘chaos’. For those PC that you see who teach “A” and “Non-A” - the chaos is both real and present to everyoe both inside and outside the church. The Gates of Hell have prevailed on them and the evidence is ‘doctrinal chaos’. Conversely, everything that taught by the CC in the 1st Century is taught exactly the same in the 21st Century.

but the gates of hell are encroaching, and I am more and more convinced of this, This is a tricky War we are in. The War has actually been won between God and the Devil. I think of us being in some kind of ‘clean up action’ - and that means that enemy snipers rather then a standing army will try to kill me, it means that the spectacle of the Devil being thrown out of Heaven by St. Michael - will be seen by me at my death - and, not before! ;-)Hi, Joe370

especially when people tell me that I am guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, (most protestants). They don’t believe that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ, which, once eaten, leads to eternal life, as per John 6, Well, Joe, they did not believe Christ either…and, that means you are in very good company.

Regarding the question: Has God provided a way for all Christian of the 21st century to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, or has the sin of man through the work of the evil one, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity? I do not see how anyone can say that the Devil has ‘thwarted’ Christ’s plans - Christ is God - His Divine Plan is our eternal salvation. How could this possibly have been ‘thwarted’?

Well, the evil one, since the Protestant reformation, (which put the bible smack dab in the hands of each and every Christian, making each Christian the final arbiter) - has, without doubt, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity, wouldn’t you agree? However, the church of Matthew 16, (the Catholic church) - built by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, I believe, is without doubt, in my mind, the divinely inspired pot of truth at the end of the rainbow, for the simple fact that no one can give me the historical name of the man who built (still building) - the CC, other than the man/God Jesus Christ, The CC, (as well as the EOC) - since Pentecost, has withstood the test of time in the face of tremendously calamitous opposition and strife, both from within and without, making the CC truly universal (catholic) - in the sense of time and space. The main reason why i chose the CC over the EOC is because of Matthew 16!

I am getting old on you … and falling asleept while tying to read your comments. let me call it a night - and get back to this tomorrow if you want me to.

God bless

 

[joe370]

Tom, you said:

Doctrinal chaos might not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed,
There is no ‘doctrinal chaos’ in the Catholic Church - and if you think there is… please tell me. If the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach without error on matters of faith and morals - there simply can not be ‘chaos’. For those PC that you see who teach “A” and “Non-A” - the chaos is both real and present to everyoe both inside and outside the church. The Gates of Hell have prevailed on them and the evidence is ‘doctrinal chaos’. Conversely, everything that taught by the CC in the 1st Century is taught exactly the same in the 21st Century.

I meant outside the CC.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Agreed, the Lutheran Confessions are not regarded as norma normans, so you can stop answering that question and please start answering my question, if you wouldn’t mind.

I’ve answered all your questions that concern the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in the evalution of doctrines (the subject of this thread; other subjects are not permitted).

You have not answered mine: which is to suggest what is a BETTER norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines of The Catholic Church - whatever you suggest other than Scripture, whatever it is you regard as MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE outside and above and beyond The Catholic Church and all other parties, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none (including The Catholic Church). All I’ve gotten is the RCC’s response of circumvention: The Catholic Church is exempt from the entire issue of norming (including what should best serve as the norma normans) because The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone is infallible and thus unaccountable (in official matters of faith and morals anyway), and therefore, exempt from norming. “I’m right so therefore I’m right when I say I’m right so ergo I’m right; just accept whatever I alone say ‘with docility’ - no norming by any rule is appropriate in the singular, exclusive, sole case of just one: me.” Okay, I understand that. We all do. But it’s NOT an alternative approach to norming (better or worse), it’s NOT a better rule/canon/norma normans (better or worse) it’s simply self alone exempting self alone from the entire issue, self circumventing accountability. Studied any of the cults?

As a layperson, when I officially joined the congregation, I was asked if I regarded LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM (it’s 8 pages long) to be a “CORRECT EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE.” I said that I do. Thus, I specificially said that I do NOT regard it as norma normans. It is, at most, norma normata.

Understood! Now, do I need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, **(which is not the norma normata) **

• to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Or, can I reject all of it or parts of it and still be a member of the Lutheran church(es)?

You seem to confuse many things: authority with accountability, denominational membership with truth. Many things… My congregation is a not-for-profit organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of California. Like any organization, it can establish whatever it wants for membership. It states that I need to accept Luther’s Small Catechism as a TRUE EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE, meaning that it is not the rule/canon/norma normans for anything related to doctrine - SCRIPTURE is. But, yes, to join that specific congregation, I need to agree that it is a “true exposition of such.” In so doing, I’m NOT declaring it to be infallible/unaccountable, I’m NOT declaring it to be the norma normans. This thread is not about whatever congregations, schools, colleges, clubs, youth groups, Bible study fellowships, internet websties or anything else may or may not require for membership, it’s about what it is embraced norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

joe370;6170436I:

meant outside the CC.

Look, we all know that The Catholic Church alone officially and currently agrees with The Catholic Church alone in all matters that The Catholic Church alone currently states is necessary to agree upon. Yes, it has a unity of one: itself with itself.

Okay, so what? AT LEAST the same can be said of every other denomination. Heck, I currently and officially agree with myself in all matters that I think it’s good to agree with me about - and you ergo stating that I’m thereby exempt from accountablity/norming, infallible because I alone agree with I alone?

Thus continues the ATTEMPTS to explain WHY The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability (and thus norming and the issue of the rule/canon in such - the issue of this thread). But friend, self alone exempting self alone from the whole issue is NOT a better alternative approach to the issue - it’s the circumvention of such by self alone for self alone. It’s not a better rule/canon for such, it’s just excluding self from the whole issue of whether what is doctrinally taught is correct.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

But that is the danger with sola scriptura.

As stated long ago, while the rule/canon is inerrant, the arbiters are not infallible. No praxis, known to me, is without a possibility of flaw. But, my study of the LDS and of the cults revealed POWERFULLY to me that self simply exemption self from accountablity - and instead simply requiring all to accept whatever self alone says “with docility” is a far, far, far more dangerous praxis.

It is telling that in the various threads at this website on this, no one yet has offered a better praxis of norming or a better rule/canon, the “apologetic” instead is that of The Catholic Church, it is simply circumventing the whole issue by The Catholic Church exempting The Catholic Church from the whole issue of norming of its teachings. Self alone exempting self alone from norming is not an alternative method of norming; self exempting self alone from any rule/canon outside and above itself is not a better norma normans; it is just evading, exempting, circumventing itself alone from the whole issue.

Well, because the CC is the church of Matthew 16, unless of course you can prove otherwise? If you can, I will have to re-think things! And we all know what the bible says about the church of Matthew 16.

Yes, we do. I’ve studied it extensively. In both Greek and English translations. And what we all know is:

• It never so much as mentions The Catholic Church or any other denomination.
• It never authorizes The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Whatsoever.
• It never promises The Catholic Church anything whatsoever about anything whatsoever in any way, form or nature at all.
• It never states that any person, organization, congregation, denomination is infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error.

The Catholic Church alone has it’s own unique interpretation of somethings in this chapter, which it alone declares MUST be correct because it’s correct so when it says it’s correct, ergo it’s correct so it’s correct. But such is simply the “spin” of The Catholic Church alone for the Catholic Church alone - as all obviously note as they read the actual words there.

Doctrinal chaos might not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed, but the gates of hell are encroaching,

Gates are defensive, not offensive…

The promise was given to the church, not to The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

Yes, The Catholic Church currently and officially agrees with just one - itself. I’m not following you how that indicates that it is conquering hell.

You seem to be forgetting that The Catholic Church has many dogmas that are surprisingly new and unique to it and it itself alone (and those are the primary ones that divide us and you). One of the other old denominations, the one yours broke off from, has no DOGMA of The Infallible Papacy, Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Assumption of Mary, etc. If the ancient “apostolic church” teaches as it always does, then why doesn’t yours teach as the church always have - which does not include those things? IF you were Oriental Orthodox, your argument MIGHT have a tiny, tiny, oh so very tiny point. But as a 21st century Catholic? Nope.

Now, what does any of this have to do with a denomination being infallible, unaccountable, incaptable of being wrong in matters of faith and morals, and thus self alone may exempt self alone from norming - and thus the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans in that process?

If you have studied the LDS and the cults, how do you support your view that the best approach to determining truth among all teachers is for a teacher to simply exempt himself from the question of whether he is correct and just accept what he alone demands: that all accept whatever he alone says “with docility?”

.

 

[joe370]

It is telling that in the various threads at this website on this, no one yet has offered a better praxis of norming or a better rule/canon, the “apologetic”

Aj the praxis of norming, rule/canon cannot determine anything, cannot arbitrate anything - right???

instead is that of The Catholic Church, it is simply circumventing the whole issue by The Catholic Church exempting The Catholic Church from the whole issue of norming of its teachings. Self alone exempting self alone from norming is not an alternative method of norming; self exempting self alone from any rule/canon outside and above itself is not a better norma normans; it is just evading, exempting, circumventing itself alone from the whole issue.

What does this commentary have to do with defending SS???

 

[joe370]

The promise was given to the church, not to The Catholic Church.

Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please.

 

[joe370]

Aj you said:

Yes, we do. I’ve studied it extensively. In both Greek and English translations. And what we all know is:

Wow, you can read koine Greek?

• It never so much as mentions The Catholic Church or any other denomination.

• It never so much as mentions The Lutheran Church or any other denomination.

• It never authorizes The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Whatsoever.

It never authorizes The Lutheran Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Whatsoever.

• It never promises The Catholic Church anything whatsoever about anything whatsoever in any way, form or nature at all.

** It never promises The Lutheran church or any PC Church anything whatsoever about anything whatsoever in any way, form or nature at all.**

**Help me find the church of Matthew 16. Remember it’s not the CC and it’s not any of the PC’s because Matthew 16 makes no mention of either of them. This is my last shot at hopefully understanding your position.
**

• It never states that any person, organization, congregation, denomination is infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error.

**One last time then i am done: is the infallible holy spirit guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible? If so, then the church of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth - right?
**

The Catholic Church alone has it’s own unique interpretation of somethings in this chapter, which it alone declares MUST be correct because it’s correct so when it says it’s correct, ergo it’s correct so it’s correct. But such is simply the “spin” of The Catholic Church alone for the Catholic Church alone - as all obviously note as they read the actual words there.

**The PC’s have their own unique interpretation of somethings in this chapter, which the PC’s declare MUST be correct because the PC’s are correct so when the PC’s say they are correct, ergo the PC’s are correct so the PC’s are correct. But such is simply the “spin” of The PC’s alone for the PC’s alone - as all obviously note as the PC’s read the actual words there.
**

 

[joe370]

Aj, you said:

But, yes, to join that specific congregation, I need to agree that it is a “true exposition of such.” In so doing, I’m NOT declaring it to be infallible/unaccountable, I’m NOT declaring it to be the norma normans.

So, to join a specific Lutheran congregation, I need to agree with docility the Lutheran confessions, and that it is a true exposition of norma normans???

Of course in doing so, I’m NOT declaring it to be infallible/unaccountable, I’m NOT declaring it to be the norma normans. Understood!!!

 

[joe370]

Regarding your off topic comments:

The Infallible Papacy is a complete misnomer. Doctrinal infallibility (error free doctrines like the Trinity, the Eucharist and Theotokos) - ** is derived from the Infallible holy spirit ONLY.** I understood this even as a former Lutheran.

Transubstantiation by definition means, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before, and was indeed believed by the church for the first 300 years of Christianity. You don’t believe in the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Eucharist through the power of the HS?

The Immaculate Conception was believed by Martin Luther, the founder of your church. You don’t believe the founder of your church?

Purgatory - The witness of the Fathers to the fact of such purification after deathis beyond doubt; their explanation of the purifying process has as much validity as the reasons advanced by each one, which I can provide. One thing is certain: the ancient Church never accepted the belief that in each and every instance the eternal beatitude of the just began immediately after death. In addition, prayers and other good works were offered for the departed souls as a matter of common practice. Why, if every soul goes immediately to heaven or hell? There can be no doubt of the evidence of the widespread belief of a purgative interim, of the early Church, as shown by many of the Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ephraem, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Great, and as evidenced by the early church liturgy. It demanded the existence of a state after death in which the souls of the just would be fully purified from any remains of sin before entering heaven.

The assumption of Mary is the logical result of the Immaculate Conception, again believed by ML.

Clearly the ancient church did include those things?

 

[joe370]

Jon, I said:

Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that established the RCC (just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.

To which you said:

I can say without doubt that Jesus the Christ established the Church, which includes the RCC.

Seriously, that was a good sleight of hand way of answering the question, and no doubt the way I would have answered the question as a former Lutheran, but, you really didn’t answer the question. At the risk of beating a dead horse: I can give you the name of the man who founded each and every respective Protestant church and when, and his name is not Jesus, (although I do consider these man-made churches part of the mystical Body of Christ to which Jesus is the head and savior). Will you give me the name of the man who founded the RCC, and if that name is not Jesus Christ, I will agree with you that one of those 50 churches among so many others, could be the Catholic Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Aj, you said:So, to join a specific Lutheran congregation, I need to agree with docility the Lutheran confessions, and that it is a true exposition of norma normans??? Of course in doing so, I’m NOT declaring it to be infallible/unaccountable, I’m NOT declaring it to be the norma normans. Understood!!!

Good, I’m glad you finally understand. But, no, I know of only ONE denomination that requires all to accept whatever it officially says “with docility” - as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, as God Himself speaking. Read your Catechism # 87. If you could find the same in ANY Protestant Catechism, I’m certain you would have quoted it. You haven’t because you can’t.

In agreeing that something is a “true exposition of Scripture,” one is agreeing with a position. Obviously, undeniably, the expression “true exposition of Scripture” clearly indicates that the Confessions are NOT the norma normans. And there is nothing about “infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error, whatever it says is what God Himself says, this is the norm for the evaluation of all positions.” There’s no comparison to the epistemology of The Catholic Church - which is quite unique in this regard. Again, IF you could find the equal of CCC 87 in ANY Protestant Catechism, you would have quoted it. You haven’t. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The Catholic Church has no alternative praxis for norming of it’s doctrines and dogmas (better or worse), it has no alternative to embracing Scripture as the norma normans (better or worse). It alone simply exempts itself alone from the whole issue of whether what it officially and formally says is correct, circumventing norming and accountability for exclusively one - itself, and replacing it with self alone declaring that self alone is “infallible” and “incapable of error” and thus it alone is exempt from accountability and all norming. It rejects Sola Scriptura for the same reason the LDS and all the cults do; they reject norming for self exclusively, thus reject all aspects of it - including whatever might be the most sound rule/canon for such. “I alone am right so ergo I’m right when I say that I alone am right, so just accept whatever I alone say “with docility” - when I speak, God speaks, cuz I say so.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

The promise was given to the church, not to The Catholic Church.

Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please. Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please.

Yes. You’ve asked this question several times before and I’ve always answered it exactly the same way, every time. Jesus never promised anything to ANY denomination. Yours, mine, or any other.

You directed me to Matthew 16. I noted what everyone, undeniably, knows as they read the words there. In English or in Greek. Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything - at any point. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Jesus never said The Catholic Church is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from accountability. Jesus never said that Peter was infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming. Jesus never mentioned any successors to or of anyone - in any regard, concerning any issue. As we all know, the claims of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone come from The Catholic Church alone - Matthew 16 says none of it. Obviously. What we have is the “spin” of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone from the “Scripture” in the heart of itself alone (CCC 113) as interpreted by itself alone (CCC 85) which it exempts from accountablity or examination and insists that you accept “with docility” (CCC 87) which it seems you do. I understand all that, but clearly, obviously, Matthew 16 says no such thing.

is the infallible holy spirit guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible? If so, then the church of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth - right?

The Infallible Holy Spirit is not “guiding” any denomination; I’m not sure God “guides” any legal/geopolitical/institutional entities - as far as I can tell, He leads people. But yes, He always leads correctly. Now, the question you evade is this: Do all people infallibly, consistently FOLLOW God’s lead - to such a degree that each person is infallible/unaccountable in this regard? God infallibly lead Adam and Eve, did they ergo infallibly do His will - constantly, without accountability for whatever they did or said? God infallibly lead the Jewish State during all that time we read about in the books of Kings in the OT, did all infallibly follow Him so that God held none of them accountable? You seem to be assuming (with zero rationale or foundation) that if God infallibly leads, ergo all infallibly follow. I have no idea where you got that from - certainly not from the Bible.

What you are TRYING so very, very hard to do is “justify” The Catholic Church alone simply exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability and the entire issue before us - norming. Self alone circumventing the entire issue of whether self alone is correct by self alone simply declaring that self alone is - and thus self alone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and exempt from norming. Your argument IS the Catholic position. It has no alternative normative process - better or worse, it alone just exempts it alone from any process and replaces it with self alone insisting that self alone is right cuz self alone so declares - and insisting that all just accept whatever “with docility.” This is entirely unrelated to self being correct, only that self won’t permit self from being held accountable or being examined. It alone won’t permit what it insists must be done with all others.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I think you have a good point there…

Jon, I said:

Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that established the RCC (just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.

Jon, I too, would be interested in the answer to this… Really. So, any time you are ready… let’s have it.

God bless

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah

The promise was given to the church, not to The Catholic Church.
Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please. Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please.

Yes.

The promise of Matthew 16 made to Peter (I will build my church) - was given 2 the CC and all of the PC’s? Just want to clarify for all!!!

You’ve asked this question several times before and I’ve always answered it exactly the same way, every time. Jesus never promised anything to ANY denomination. Yours, mine, or any other.

The way in which you answer the question makes no sense to me. Please do not mention the word denomination again; I have already agreed that Jesus did not establish a denomination!

You directed me to Matthew 16. I noted what everyone, undeniably, knows as they read the words there.

Everyone does not undeniably believe that all the PC’s comprise the church of Matthew 16. Matthew 16 does not mention the CC or the myriad PC’s. However, the early church fathers (actual disciples of the apostles) - do mention the CC, but make no mention of the Lutheran church, which is unheard of until the 16th century.The Lutheran church founded by ML in the 16th century was not established by Jesus in the 1st century. Even if you say the same about the CC, it does not negate what I have said about the Lutheran church(s). It just means that Jesus founded neither the CC or the LC.

In English or in Greek.

Let’s stick with English; I have a Greek Lexicon.

J

esus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything - at any point. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Jesus never said The Catholic Church is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from accountability. Jesus never said that Peter was infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming. Jesus never mentioned any successors to or of anyone - in any regard, concerning any issue. As we all know, the claims of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone come from The Catholic Church alone - Matthew 16 says none of it. Obviously. What we have is the “spin” of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone from the “Scripture” in the heart of itself alone (CCC 113) as interpreted by itself alone (CCC 85) which it exempts from accountablity or examination and insists that you accept “with docility” (CCC 87) which it seems you do. I understand all that, but clearly, obviously, Matthew 16 says no such thing.

I have already covered this and you choose to ignore or respond to it, so I will do the same with your platitudes!

Quote:
is the infallible holy spirit guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible? If so, then the church of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth - right?

The Infallible Holy Spirit is not “guiding” any denomination

Why you keep saying this I will never understand. Please stop referring to denominations as if I am referring to denominations. Jesus did not found a denomination; Jesus founded a church.

Either the infallible holy spirit is guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible, or the HS is not? If so, then the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth.

I’m not sure God “guides” any legal/geopolitical/institutional entities -

I made no mention of any legal/geopolitical/institutional entities.

…as far as I can tell, He leads people.

This is the umpteen time you have pointed out the obvious. No need to do it again.

But yes, He always leads correctly.

1. Help me find the church (not denomination) - the assembly of people that Jesus always leads correctly?
2. Can these people be found in the CC, as well as one of the Lutheran churches, one of the baptist churches, the pentecostal church, the 7th day Adventist church, the EOC, or all of the churches, regardless of affiliation? Please just answer the question; no need to censure the CC in the process.

continued…