Defense of Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter ntisawesome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
*Here is something.

St Ignatius of Antioch (25-110 AD) was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (60-155 AD) and knew the Apostle John, wrote, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” He said this in about the year 95 AD.
Actually, it’s:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.”

It’s not where the bishop is but it’s where Christ is. This is more consistent with Scripture as it says in Matt. 18:20:

“For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them.”
 
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church…it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. **Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.” **(*Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican 2, Unitatis Redintegratio, 21 November, 1964) *
👍
 
Richard in Christ,

We need to be careful here because you and I are going into territory that will divert the thread from the original topic. I will say a few things, however, and then give you the last word on the topic of salvation by faith alone.
Well, the way I see it the topic is “defense of Sola Scriptura” Which means the bible alone. Alone for what? Well to manifest to us the way of salvation and our little discussion seems absolutely germain to that topic, but I see our conversation reaching it’s conclusion soon anyways, so the point is moot.
Please take my comment about “short hand” in the way it was presented and recall the important quote from scripture that I gave in my original post that was not included in your response. In that post I said:
Quote:
I make this claim based upon the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In John 12:47-48 Jesus tells us very directly that:
If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
If we do not keep Jesus’s sayings we will be judged on the last day. If we reject Jesus and do not receive his sayings we will be judged on the last day. When scripture speaks of judgment on the last day, scripture is referring to heaven and hell. This point is clear by way of other passages such as that of the sheep and the goats.
Ok, Pax I think that we are close to resolution here. Consider this:

Rom.3:19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Paul is saying here that we are not cannot be justfied by the works of the law because the laws only purpose is to show us that we are sinners)

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (The law and the prophets is the term the early new testament people used to designate the word of God or the bible. but only the OT because the NT had not been written yet)

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (So, the righteousness of God is manefest to us in the word of God. The OT and this righteousness is the righteosness of Jesus and is available to us through faith)

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (We are all sinners, But redemption is available not by anything we do, but by faith in what He did.)

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.(Again the law is given for one reason and that is to show us that we are sinners The rest of the bible at this time {The Prophets} Shows us the solution to that sin problem, Jesus Christ Rev. 19:10… for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.)

Rom.4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (We are saved by faith in Jesus and His righteousness)

4Now to him that worketh (Tries to use the keeping of the law as a means of salvation)is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,(Jesus) his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.(By the righteousness of Jesus.)

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (The only way for our sins not to be imputed to us is through faith in Jesus Christ) Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Obviously, this passage and my comments point out that more is needed than faith alone because Jesus never says that you are saved by faith alone, but he does say that if you do not keep his sayings or if you reject him and do not receive his sayings that you will be judged on the last day.
Ok, I think this is the crux of our differences. I don’t think that I said that other things were not needed, If I did I apologize. It’s just saying that we are doing these things as a means of salvation is not how the bible says salvation is meted out. We are saved by faith in the atoneing blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ period. The keeping of the law and all these other things are a logical result of loving the Lord.
Jn.14: 15If ye love me, keep my commandments.
 
Hi Joe,
=joe370;6331690]
Following the 16th century Protestant Reformation (which of course reformed nothing)…
So, John Tetzel’s practices would be ok today? 😉
many churches were established, and they never once used the name “catholic” to identify their churches,
The early Lutherans always considered themselves catholic. They refer to the Church Catholic in the confessions. In fact, the name “Lutheran” has the same type roots as “Roman Catholic” - meant as a slur by opponents. I consider myself “evangelical catholic”.

Jon
 
Well, the way I see it the topic is “defense of Sola Scriptura” Which means the bible alone. Alone for what? Well to manifest to us the way of salvation and our little discussion seems absolutely germain to that topic, but I see our conversation reaching it’s conclusion soon anyways, so the point is moot.

Ok, Pax I think that we are close to resolution here. Consider this:

Rom.3:19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Paul is saying here that we are not cannot be justfied by the works of the law because the laws only purpose is to show us that we are sinners)

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (The law and the prophets is the term the early new testament people used to designate the word of God or the bible. but only the OT because the NT had not been written yet)

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (So, the righteousness of God is manefest to us in the word of God. The OT and this righteousness is the righteosness of Jesus and is available to us through faith)

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (We are all sinners, But redemption is available not by anything we do, but by faith in what He did.)

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.(Again the law is given for one reason and that is to show us that we are sinners The rest of the bible at this time {The Prophets} Shows us the solution to that sin problem, Jesus Christ Rev. 19:10… for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.)

Rom.4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (We are saved by faith in Jesus and His righteousness)

4Now to him that worketh (Tries to use the keeping of the law as a means of salvation)is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,(Jesus) his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.(By the righteousness of Jesus.)

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (The only way for our sins not to be imputed to us is through faith in Jesus Christ) Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Ok, I think this is the crux of our differences. I don’t think that I said that other things were not needed, If I did I apologize. It’s just saying that we are doing these things as a means of salvation is not how the bible says salvation is meted out. We are saved by faith in the atoneing blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ period. The keeping of the law and all these other things are a logical result of loving the Lord.
Jn.14: 15If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Richard in Christ,

It sounds like we’re getting much closer. I think we have been in some areas speaking past one another.

God bless.
 
AmericanJosiah, where in the holy bible does it state that the holy bible is the Christians final authority?
It doesn’t. No one ever said it does.

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) / or as it’s technically called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). It is a PRAXIS (practice). Rather like Chrsitians worshipping typically on Sunday or priests not marrying in the Latin Rite RCC or typically driving on the right hand side of the road in the USA - its a PRACTICE, it’s what is seen as best to DO. Is it expressly TAUGHT in the Bible? No, very few practices are - and yet this doesn’t keep anyone from embracing them (you and I are discussing on the internet, there is no verse that says, "Christian shall do all discussions on the internet at a website called “Catholic Answers Forum.” Now, that said, it IS exampled in Scripture. From the time the very first Scripture appear (1400 BC on Mount Sinai), we have many, many examples of Scripture being used normatively.
I realize that the Holy Bible is God breathed, and I realize the holy bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, but who was/is charged with the commission (via the guidance of the HS in perpetuity) - to teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? I know it wasn’t me or you.
Sorry; I don’t have a clue what that has to do with the issue at hand. Do you embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Do you embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? If so, then you believe The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - no less than any other teacher. You’ve thus abandoned the insistence of The Catholic Church (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.) and embraced norming. The first question then becomes, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming among us now? Some think Scripture is (it’s known as “the Rule of Scripture” or “Sola Scriptura”). Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because each offers an alternative norma normans (none does) but because each rejects accountability in the sole, exclusive, particular case of itself alone, insisting instead that all just accept as correct whatever that self exclusively teaches “with docility.” “I’m right so I’m right, just accept whatever I alone say with docility, THAT is the best assurance that I’m right.”

.

.
 
Tradition and Scripture are not 2 entities standing opposed to one another. Scripture is part of Tradition. Tradition is the embodiment of Scripture. I am of the belief Tradition is Sola Scriptura in its fulfilment. What Catholic dogma cannot be justified upon a complete understanding of Scripture?
The more understanding I have of Scripture, the more appreciation I have of the gift which is the Catholic Church that God has entrusted upon us.
 
Hey Josiah…
Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
AmericanJosiah, where in the holy bible does it state that the holy bible is the Christians final authority?
It doesn’t. No one ever said it does.
OK…that is an excellent starting point. You concede that the bible is not the Christians final authority for resolving anything - got it! 👍
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)
But not the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences - got it! 👍
…or as it’s technically called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”).
But not the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences - got it! 👍
It is a PRAXIS (practice).
But not the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences - got it! 👍
Rather like Chrsitians worshipping typically on Sunday or priests not marrying in the Latin Rite RCC or typically driving on the right hand side of the road in the USA - its a PRACTICE, it’s what is seen as best to DO.
But not the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences - got it! 👍
Is it expressly TAUGHT in the Bible? No, very few practices are - and yet this doesn’t keep anyone from embracing them (you and I are discussing on the internet, there is no verse that says, "Christian shall do all discussions on the internet at a website called “Catholic Answers Forum.”
I totally agree with you Josiah!
Now, that said, it IS exampled in Scripture. From the time the very first Scripture appear (1400 BC on Mount Sinai), we have many, many examples of Scripture being used normatively.
They had authoritative teachers to interpret and evaluate scripture and resolve doctrinal matters regarding Scripture, when people were divided.

I
realize that the Holy Bible is God breathed, and I realize the holy bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, but who was/is charged with the commission (via the guidance of the HS in perpetuity) - to teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? I know it wasn’t me or you.
Sorry; I don’t have a clue what that has to do with the issue at hand.
Ok…but please answer the question. PM me if you don’t feel comfortable discussing it here at this thread? 👍

Continued…
 
Do you embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Do you embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
Yes…just as all Protestant church leaders teach doctrine.

Do you believe that the Holy spirit is forever guiding the catholic church (small c - which includes all churches) - into all truth, at least truth revealed to the Apostles?

If
so, then you believe The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - no less than any other teacher.
Yup…For example, if the CC started teaching that Baptism by water is unnecessary or that the Eucharist is just a symbol, etc. etc. then the CC, doctrinally speaking, would be accountably deficient. Regarding the accountability of each and every CC leader, be it a priest, bishop, cardinal, they are all to be held accountable for their respective actions, just as we all should be held accountable. If you are saying that they claim otherwise, then I would have to strongly disagree. I don’t trust the teachings of the CC because the leaders of the CC are unaccountable or accountable, I don’t trust the teachings of the CC because the leaders of the CC are fallible (which they ALL are) or sinful (which they ALL are). I trust the teachings of the CC because I believe what the bible says about the CC, founded by Jesus, regarding the perpetual guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe what I believe regarding the CC then simply give me the name of the man that founded the CC and when, and I will say to you: I am sorry; I was wrong!!!. 👍
You’ve thus abandoned the insistence of The Catholic Church (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.) and embraced norming.
That is so silly…You are saying to me: Joe, if you believe that the CC is to be accountable for the doctrine they teach, then you must be embracing norming? Even if that was the case, norming, by your own admission is not my (your) - final authority. I am asking you to identify that final authority, since it’s not the bible and it’s not norming. 👍
The first question then becomes, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming among us now?
Each and every Christians interpretation of their bible… :rolleyes: LOL…
Some think Scripture is (it’s known as “the Rule of Scripture” or “Sola Scriptura”).
No where in the holy bible does the holy bible say that Scripture is “the Rule of Scripture” nor is “Sola Scriptura” ever mentioned. What the holy bible does say about sacred scripture is: Scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, but, I ask again: who was, and still is, charged with the commission (via the guidance of the HS in perpetuity) - to teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? I know it wasn’t me or you.
Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because each offers an alternative norma normans (none does)
Again, nowhere in the holy bible does the holy bible say that Scripture is “the Rule of Scripture” nor is “Sola Scriptura” ever mentioned. Even if I agree with you and say: the bible is the Christians final rule, yardstick etc. etc., the bible is still not the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences…for evaluating and teaching, by your own admission. Who or what has the final authority, if not the holy bible? :confused: If you insist to say that this is unrelated to the thread then simply PM me and let me know. 👍
…but because each rejects accountability in the sole, exclusive, particular case of itself alone, insisting instead that all just accept as correct whatever that self exclusively teaches “with docility.” “I’m right so I’m right, just accept whatever I alone say with docility, THAT is the best assurance that I’m right.”
So, no one accountable Protestant church has the exclusive authority to resolve doctrinal disputes?

No one accountable Protestant church has the right to evaluate doctrine and teach, with infallibility, regarding only the doctrinal truths revealed by Jesus, to His Apostolic church? :confused:
The RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) which reject accountability (according to you) - in the sole, exclusive, particular case of itself alone, insisting instead that all just accept as correct whatever that self exclusively teaches “with docility” - have zero exclusive authority to resolve doctrinal evaluate doctrine and teach disputes?
Hmmm…:confused: Well, that leaves us with the holy bible as the Christians final authority, which you reject, which leaves us with absolutely no authoritative arbiter to evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences! Let’s assume that you are right and I am wrong!!! Josiah, who or what has the final authority to evaluate and resolve matters when people are divided, doctrinally speaking?

You and I agree that (A) - the holy bible does not have the FINAL authority, for you said: the bible does not have the final authority. No one ever said it does.

You insist that (B) - no one exclusive church leadership, in the world today, has the final authority to evaluate and resolve matters (doctrinally speaking) - when people are divided.

That leave us with an option (C).

What is that third option??? 🙂
 
Hi Joe,

So, John Tetzel’s practices would be ok today? 😉

The early Lutherans always considered themselves catholic. They refer to the Church Catholic in the confessions. In fact, the name “Lutheran” has the same type roots as “Roman Catholic” - meant as a slur by opponents. I consider myself “evangelical catholic”.

Jon
John Tetzel, acceptable, debatable - post V2 some Catholics might consider him orthodox;)

V2 was careful not to use the term “Roman Catholic”:cool:
The early Church was careful not to use the term “Christian Church”

Ecumenism seeks to unite the Lutheran (among others) with the Catholic Church.
Will the Masons come on board, are they already here?:rolleyes:
 
40.png
joe370:
Let me add one thing. I earnestly believe that all churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ to which Jesus Christ is the Savior. However, that was not part of God’s original plan, according to the bible; the Mystical Body of Christ was suppose to be comprised of just one church, according to the holy bible - right?
I do not believe that all “churches” comprise the “mystical Body of Christ,” to which Christ Himself is the Savior. But that the “church” (singular) which Christ said He Himself would “build” (Matt. 16:18), and has been building since Pentecost (to this very hour), also called the “body of Christ” (Rom. 12:5; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18), is indeed one, holy, eternally redeemed, sanctified church. Christ is not called the Savior of “churches,” but the Savior of "the body, which is the “church,” of which He is the Head (Eph. 5:23). And since it is said that He is “Savior” of the “body” (as the Scriptures say) then ALL members of this “body” (which is “the church”) are indeed eternally SAVED. The “church” Christ Himself is presently building, through the work of Holy Spirit, is comprised of ALL and ONLY the “saved” down to this present generation (how one is “saved” must be the subject of another thread - and there’s been many already).

Though there is “the church,” the true mystical “body of Christ,” to which He, Christ Himself, is its Savior (in the true, personal sense of the word), Scripture also recognizes “churches.” These being local assemblies comprised of both believers and unbelievers, saved and unsaved; and in some cases no believers at all, hence, totally apostate.

From the beginning there were “churches.” Jesus Himself addressed seven of them in Asia Minor through the Spirit (Rev. 2:7; 11; 17; 29; 3:16; 13; 22). There were churches throughout the areas of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), churches in the region of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 1:2), churches of Asia (1 Cor. 16:19), churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1), churches of Judea (Gal. 1:22), etc. You get the idea. Though there is only ONE “church” which Christ Himself is building, to which He IS her Savior (since it’s comprised only of the saved), there has been from the beginning many “churches” recognized by Christ and the Apostles as revealed in the Scriptures.

The “church” Christ is presently building, and of which He IS the Savior, is not described as an earthly institution but rather a heaven-bound congregation (Jn. 14:6) of which she is already a citizen (Phil. 3:20-21, NASB). In Scripture, the church/body/bride of Christ is fundamentally and spiritually different than the “churches.”

According to history, after the union of church and state, there arose five great centers of Christianity: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, headed by five so-called “Patriarchs” (Bishops), all of equal authority and having full control over his own Province. But after the division of the Roman Empire into East and West (a.d. 395), the “Patriarchs” of Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria gradually came to acknowledge the leadership of Constantinople; and this began the struggle for the Leadership of all “Christendom” between the Bishop of Rome (West) and the Bishop of Constantinople (East). The Council of Chalcedon, however, gave the of Bishop of Constantinople equal prerogatives with the Bishop of Rome. But with the fall of the Western Empire the Bishop of Rome gradually became the commanding figure in the West. Pope Nicolas I (858-867) was the first Pope to wear a crown and to promote his claim of Universal Authority and used to great effect the “Pseusdo-Isidorian Decretals,” a literary forgery which made the “Papacy” appear to be something complete and unchangeable since the beginning.

Nicolas undertook to interfere in the affairs of the “Eastern Church.” He excommunicated Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople) who in turn excommunicated him. The division between East and West followed (869), and completed in 1054. Up until then all Ecumenical Councils were held near or in Constantinople, and in the Greek language. The Council of Constantinople was the last Ecumenical Council. From that time forward the “Greek church” and “Western church” had their own Councils, and the chasm deepened with the western dogma of “Papal Infallibility.” The West took the moniker “Catholic” (claiming for itself catholicity), and the East took the moniker “Orthodox” (claiming for itself orthodoxy), each excluding the other. Hence, the beginning of "The Catholic Church" and the “Orthodox Church” as we know them now (“Protestantism” was western only and its roots were theological not political).

So, in short form, this is how the history of the “churches” evolved with men (obviously God allowed it). Meanwhile Christ was still building His “church” (His body to which He Himself is the true Head and true Savior), calling it out from both Jews and Gentiles, individually, through personal faith in Him alone - even to this very hour. “Churches” will continue to go their direction (even complete apostasy, according to the Scriptures). But for now Christ Himself still continues to build His church (singular) until she is to be taken up to be with Him (1 Thess. 4:15-18). From the beginning the true church has been uniquely heaven-bound.
 
MD, you said…
I do not believe that all “churches” comprise the “mystical Body of Christ,” to which Christ Himself is the Savior.
I do…
But that the “church” (singular) which Christ said He Himself would “build” (Matt. 16:18), and has been building since Pentecost (to this very hour), also called the “body of Christ” (Rom. 12:5; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18), is indeed one, holy, eternally redeemed, sanctified church.
There is not but one isolated, autonomous church in the world today. There are many! The churches founded by men in the 16th, 17th…21st century also comprise the Mystical (albeit fractured) - Body to which Jesus is the head and savior.
Christ is not called the Savior of “churches,” but the Savior of "the body, which is the “church,” of which He is the Head (Eph. 5:23).
Exactly. 👍 However, I still believe that the churches founded by people as opposed to God on Pentecost, comprise Jesus’ Mystical Body. For example the church established by Martin Luther, Zwingli, Knox and Calvin were obviously not founded by God, on Pentecost, in the 1st century, in Jerusalem. I am just being historically factual. If you want to believe that all Protestant churches were founded by Jesus on Pentecost, in Jerusalem in the 1st century, that’s cool. 👍
 
“One cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ. Hence, in the absence of such blame, if they freely wish to embrace the Catholic faith, they have no need to be absolved from excommunication…”

“…Although these (Eastern) Churches are separated from us, yet they possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore some sharing in liturgical worship, given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged”

(Ad Totam Ecclesiam, 14 May, 1967)
 
Richard in Christ,

It sounds like we’re getting much closer. I think we have been in some areas speaking past one another.

God bless.
Ok, Pax, having had a few days to evaluate our little discussion, do you see the inescapable theological corner we have painted ourselves into? All the scriptures you quote that tells us of the things needed for salvation are from the bible. Right? All the passages that I quote that talk of faith in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice and Him being the substitute for our sins, are taken from God’s word the bible. Right? So, unless you can show that there is something else that we need for our salvation, I think that we, you and I have demonstrated pretty conclusively that everything that we need for our salvation is contained within the leaves of sacred scripture (sola scriptura) and I would add that this is what Jesus was talking about when He said to Peter Matt. !6:19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and Luke 6:47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. Jesus is saying that THE WORD that He has given to us is all sufficient to manifest Him to us and therefore is all we need for our salvation.
 
There is not but one isolated, autonomous church in the world today. There are many!
Just because YOU can’t see it and have no idea of it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”"
 
Ok, Pax, having had a few days to evaluate our little discussion, do you see the inescapable theological corner we have painted ourselves into? All the scriptures you quote that tells us of the things needed for salvation are from the bible. Right? All the passages that I quote that talk of faith in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice and Him being the substitute for our sins, are taken from God’s word the bible. Right? So, unless you can show that there is something else that we need for our salvation, I think that we, you and I have demonstrated pretty conclusively that everything that we need for our salvation is contained within the leaves of sacred scripture (sola scriptura) and I would add that this is what Jesus was talking about when He said to Peter Matt. !6:19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and Luke 6:47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. Jesus is saying that THE WORD that He has given to us is all sufficient to manifest Him to us and therefore is all we need for our salvation.
Richard in Christ,

Once again, I am still of the position that the bible “is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”[2 tim 3:16-17]. This passage is the clearest and most encompassing statement in the bible concerning scripture itself. The statement makes no claim concerning scripture being “all sufficient for salvation.” Scripture does, however, make other statements concerning the church that tell me that the Church is an important player in our salvation. Scripture also speaks of tradition and those statements tell me that tradition is an important player in our salvation.

Scripture is materially sufficient but the material of scripture tells me that there are things like tradition and the church that are important to salvation as well as scripture itself. This restrains me from saying that scripture is “all sufficient for salvation.”

God bless.
 
.
Do you embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Do you embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
.

Yes…

.

Then you are now abandoning your apologetic for just accepting whatever is taught “with docility” “as God speaking” (CCC 87, etc.).
Do you believe that the Holy spirit is forever guiding the catholic church (small c - which includes all churches)
… actually, “catholic” doesn’t include ANY churches.

Yes, I believe God is guiding the church. I disagree with you, however, that followers cannot do otherwise than to infallibly follow God’s lead. Have you read Genesis Chapter 3? That, in and of itself, would lead you to agree with me.
so, then you believe The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - no less than any other teacher.
.

Yup…For example, if the CC started teaching that Baptism by water is unnecessary or that the Eucharist is just a symbol, etc. etc. then the CC, doctrinally speaking, would be accountably deficient. Regarding the accountability of each and every CC leader, be it a priest, bishop, cardinal, they are all to be held accountable for their respective actions, just as we all should be held accountable.

I didn’t ask you if you believe individuals registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church are accountable to The Catholic Church - we all know they are, they are all required to just docilicly accept WHATEVER it and it itself exclusively teaches, as God speaking. I asked about The Catholic Church, do you beleive it is accountable for what it teaches?
I trust the teachings of the CC because I believe what the bible says about the CC, founded by Jesus, regarding the perpetual guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe what I believe regarding the CC then simply give me the name of the man that founded the CC and when, and I will say to you: I am sorry; I was wrong!!!.
Give me the name of who founded St John’s Lutheran Church in Orange, CA. If you can’t, then it must be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and you must just accept whatever it says with docility. Frankly, you’re just going back to your original position: ALL teachers are fully accountable for the doctrine they teach - right here, right now - The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church is, The Syrian Orthodox Church is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is, The United Methodist Church USA is, The Greek Orthodox Church is, Martin Luther is, John Calvin is, I am - but The Catholic Church makes ONE remarkable and absolute exception to all of this: itself.
The first question then becomes, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming among us now?
.

Each and every Christians interpretation of their bible… LOL…

You didn’t answer the question.

Again, YOU are the one insisting that the best epistemology is for self to designate self as the SOLE, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of the Bible, and WHATEVER that ONE says is just to be accepted as correct “with docility.” You are the one defending (and oddly rebuking) that epistemology. You keep reversing our positions. It’s YOUR teacher with # 85 in its Catechism, NO OTHER proclaims such for itself alone, your rebuke applies only to the one who are attempting to defend.
Some think Scripture is (it’s known as “the Rule of Scripture” or “Sola Scriptura”).
.

No where in the holy bible does the holy bible say that Scripture is “the Rule of Scripture” nor is “Sola Scriptura” ever mentioned.

Where did ANYONE say it was or it did?

What IS taught is that teachers are accountable, what IS praised is holding teachers accountable, and what IS exampled is using Scripture normatively.

What is NOT ever found is so much as even a mention of The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything, or in any regard at all. NEVER does ANY use it’s teachings as normative or declare its teaches as infallible/unaccountable. NEVER
Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because each offers an alternative norma normans (none does) but because each rejects accountability in the sole, exclusive, particular case of itself alone, insisting instead that all just accept as correct whatever that self exclusively teaches “with docility.” “I’m right so I’m right, just accept whatever I alone say with docility, THAT is the best assurance that I’m right.”
.

So, no one accountable Protestant church has the exclusive authority to resolve doctrinal disputes?

No one accountable Protestant church has the right to evaluate doctrine and teach, with infallibility, regarding only the doctrinal truths revealed by Jesus, to His Apostolic church?

You are imposing the RCC assumption upon others who don’t share it.

IF you actually want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. As you know, this one is about the embraced norma normans in norming.

You seem to be confusing self declaring self to be correct because self declares that self CANNOT be incorrect with that self being correct. Spend some time studying the LDS and the cults, especially in the area of epistemology, it will be very helpful to you.
You and I agree that (A) - the holy bible does not have the FINAL authority, for you said: the bible does not have the final authority. No one ever said it does.
What I posted is the Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming of doctrines among us.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects accountability (in the sole, exclusive, singlar and particular case of it and it itself alone; it insists upon it for all OTHERS), and thus it rejects norming for its doctrines and all associated with norming (including WHATEVER might serve in the role of norma normans). Rather, all are to lay that aside and just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as God speaking.” You have yet to offer any defense of this epistemology in determining the correctness of teachings. You have yet to offer any better norma normans (nor can you since The Catholic Church rejects any and all - for itself anyway)

.
 
Josiah, you refuse to answer my question regarding who or what has the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences when they arise, so there is really no reason for me to continue until you respond to that question. Your answer is: it’s unrelated; start another thread, even though I asked you to simply PM your answer to me, so that I could understand where you are coming from, but you refused. OK…I will start a thread and no doubt you will refuse to answer the question there, even though we know what the answer is, for you: the Lutheran Confessions, because you already admitted that the bible is not the final authority for arbitrating, evaluating and resolving anything.

You said, no doubt because I asked you to give me the name of the man that founded the CC, which you have yet to do:
Give me the name of who founded St John’s Lutheran Church in Orange, CA. If you can’t, then it must be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and you must just accept whatever it says with docility.
The word Lutheran doesn’t tell you? Are you being serious? :confused: It wasn’t Jesus Christ in the 1st century, that’s for certain. I don’t have to accept whatever it says (Lutheran Confessions) - with docility, for Jesus Christ commanded me to obey the church that He founded, and until you give me the name of the man that founded the CC, I will be sticking with JC.

Jesus said to just one church, and it wasn’t one of the Lutheran churches, and that is why I left the Lutheran church; they expected me to obey the Lutheran Confessions with docility, and I refused, and therefore was no longer welcomed:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus never left the church that He founded on earth, according to the bible. Again, if it’s not the CC then prove it and I will leave the CC, just as I left the LC.
Frankly, you’re just going back to your original position: ALL teachers are fully accountable for the doctrine they teach - right here, right now - The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church is, The Syrian Orthodox Church is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is, The United Methodist Church USA is, The Greek Orthodox Church is, Martin Luther is, John Calvin is, I am - but The Catholic Church makes ONE remarkable and absolute exception to all of this: itself.
Your premise is: unless the CC admits that they are teaching fallibly regarding the doctrinal truth, revealed by Jesus, to His fledgling church, in the first century, then the CC is not being accountable. Under this model, no one isolated, autonomous church, in the world today, is capable of teaching infallibly, (error free) - regarding the doctrinal truths revealed by Jesus to His hand picked Apostles, including the Apostles, which makes the bible untrustworthy/fallible.

Like you said: ALL teachers **(especially the apostles) **- are to be fully accountable for the doctrine they teach. If the bible (doctrinal truth) - is the infallible word of God then the same standard (applied to the CC) - must apply to authors that penned the word of God, which renders the word of God, quite fallible, (just as the church founded by God is fallible) - and therefore, if your premise is correct, then I do not have to accept whatever the Bible says, with docility! :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top