Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continues from the post above…**

Early Christian Meetings:

Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.

The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod and in no sense ecumenical (and it’s authority unclear), it says that “uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches.” While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a “canonical book” since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded.

The Council of Hippo (393) Again, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting specifically stating exactly what that canon is. It’s our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It’s the now familiar 27. This is the FIRST TIME any church body has had an official statement. IF this is a meeting of the specific, particular Catholic Church (and that’s a whole other issue), then THIS is the FIRST CASE of The Catholic Church doing ANYTHING at all. By this time, Scripture has been in existence for 300-1800 years! And what is embraced as such has been settled - for OT books often for many, many centuries (again, most of the Bible) and for the NT mostly for nearly 200 years and for all of it for at least 50 years.

As my Catholic teachers said, The Catholic Church ACKNOWLEDGED or AFFIRMED the Scriptures, obviously it didn’t “give” them or form them. Not any part of it - OT or NT. Officially acknowledging or affirming something is unrelated to writing or causing them. I can announce that the sun came up this morning - even give you the exact time that it did. That’s entirely unrelated to my giving you the sun or causing it to rise. Apples and oranges.

Augustine (352-430): “…the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.

Continues in next post, to get back to the subject:

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob the Builder has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

**Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura. **

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

Of course, any may claim that self alone is right cuz self alone says self alone is - and thus exempt one - self - from accountability and examination. But this is not an alternative praxis (better or worse), it is just self exempting self from such. “Just accept whatever I say with docility cuz I declare that I’m right so I am.” IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects the embrace of God’s Scripture as the rule/canon (Sola Scriptura) NOT because it has a better alternative rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a better approach to norming (it doesn’t). It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming for the same reason it rejects any and all other alternatives - because it rejects norming. It simply circumvents the entire subject of norming (and thus what will serve as the rule/canon in such), itself alone exempting itself alone from accountability. Since it alone insists that it alone is infallible and it CANNOT err (in matters of official doctrine and morals anyway), ergo it is unaccountable. The whole issue of whether it is correct is moot since itself alone insists that itself alone CANNOT be anything but correct. It’s norming it rejects since it alone regards it meaningless, irrelevant, moot in the case of ONE - itself (exclusively).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

I see that you still believe that a gallon is appropriate when an half-ounce would do… But, let me see what I can do to help you with some of these issues…

.Early Christian Meetings:

Hold it right there, AJ… I realize you really are not interested in identifying them as meetings of the Catholic Church … but, if you are going to be going back into history, you really need to call everyone by their proper name. Truly, to read your lengthy post, I had the impression there was just a group of local guys and some out-of-towners who were gathering at the 3rd Century equavalent of Starbucks to discuss any old topic that they wanted to chat about. Just passing the time between heresies and persecutions… You do realize that by 363AD the Roman Empire had been in full fledged and active persuit of all those who followed Christ - and they were known as Catholics since 104AD in a letter describing them by Ignatius of Antioch.

Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.

AJ…I am surprised at you… you brush over this entire matter by saying it was already in place - and that IS NOT the case when it comes to the Canon. What you fail to realize is that the Sacred Writers were not the only guys with pen and ink during this time. There were people who wrote inspirational and Godly items…but, these were not inspired! There were people who wrote prayers… but, these were not determined to be inspired. And there were people, like the modern day computer hackers, who apparently had their own agenda and wrote mischief in an effort to discredit Christ and His Chruch (and that would be the Catholic Church).

Who do you think makes the determination on what is valid and what isn’t? I can tell you right now - and you can’t deny it - that it wasn’t the Lutherans! So, who do you think did all this? It really was the Catholic Church Honest! And, just to be clear - it isn’t that the Catholic Church WROTE the Scripture (you were so clever to identify that it was not around when Moses came down with the 10 Commandments…) but the Catholic Church DETERMINED what was Holy Writ and what wasn’t. And, ultimately, there hangs the tale.

The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod A ‘regional synod’ of what … ? The Catholic Church gathered together its Bishops and UNDER THE GUIDANCE of the Holy Spirit made binding regulations. It amazes me just how DISMISSIVE you are when you want to gloss over some thing AJ. This should be a tip off to your own conscience - you are not really being honest in the way you have addressed this matter.

and in no sense ecumenical (and it’s authority unclear), it says that “uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches.” While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a “canonical book” since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. Again, this dismissiveness is getting the better of you, AJ - the rules were for the entire Catholic Church. They were the ‘ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH’ - they were the ones being guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ - and they were not Lutherans! They were also not endorsing SS because there was no SS yet in place! Think about that for a minute.

The Council of Hippo (393) Again, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting specifically stating exactly what that canon is. It’s our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

Was this your final effort to just sweep this under your rug and move on with dismissing the contribution of the Catholic Church.? Really, AJ, you have to make some effort at internal consistency if you are going to hope to make a logical argument. The issue very briefly is that you had the Catholic Church before the Lutheran Chruch (by about 15 centuries as a matter of fact) - but, more specifically, you had the Catholic Church (as you have just been pointing out their councils and when they met) before there was an established Canon. So: from a simple chronological order, it is Catholic Church first and then Scripture - NOT the other way around. Deal with this and cut all the verbage that you are using to drown out this simple fact. This does not require faith - just the abilty to read and comprehend what took place in history. There were no Lutherans at this time to say - “SS is the way to go!”

If you can handle just that much, I would appreciate it. I really can not just carry the rest of your repititive and verbose post.

Oh, and this quote you give from St. Agustine (Augustine (352-430): "…the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.) is something I will have to research - it sounds like nothing from Augustine I have read. And, I am just a bit curious about these “Newly” discovered sermons…

God bless

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Early Christian Meetings:

Hold it right there, AJ… if you are going to be going back into history, you really need to call everyone by their proper name.

So, what part do you disagree with? That they were early or Christian or meetings?

I referred to each of them by their common name, the names I learned in The Catholic Church for them.

and they were known as Catholics since 104AD in a letter describing them by Ignatius of Antioch.

Lost me. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Yes, at least since then, Christians have been described by the adjective “catholic.” I still do. But I have no idea what you are reacting to. I didn’t say these meetings were not of Christians. I didn’t even say they were clearly not meetings of the specific Catholic Church (I don’t know if any eastern bishops were in attendance). Only that they are too late to have any relevance to the issue of The Catholic Church giving us all the material in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 (unless you think The Ten Commandments come from later than 31 AD). And certainly it has no relevance in terms of embracing such as Scripture - that was already the case long before The Catholic Church did ANYTHING - even if you regard these meetings as official actions of The Catholic Church.

What you fail to realize is that the Sacred Writers were not the only guys with pen and ink during this time. There were people who wrote inspirational and Godly items…but, these were not inspired! There were people who wrote prayers… but, these were not determined to be inspired. And there were people, like the modern day computer hackers, who apparently had their own agenda and wrote mischief in an effort to discredit Christ and His Chruch (and that would be the Catholic Church).

Okay. Are you saying that The Catholic Church wrote stuff NOT regarded as Scripture or canonical or norma normans? No debate from me there. What I said is that it’s historically impossible for The Catholic Church to gave given us the material of the Bible (the great majority of it predates even the claims of The Catholic Church for when it came into existence), and there’s zero evidence that The Catholic Church wrote even one letter of it. And it clearly had nothing to do with some materials being regarded as Scripture, it didn’t do ANYTHING about that. The first time it can even remotely be claimed to do ANYTHING in this regard, that issue was largely settled.

Who do you think makes the determination on what is valid and what isn’t? I can tell you right now - and you can’t deny it - that it wasn’t the Lutherans! So, who do you think did all this?

I’ll stand with St. Augustine. God.

One thing no one can deny - it sure wasn’t The Catholic Church!

the Catholic Church DETERMINED what was Holy Writ and what wasn’t.

So, The Catholic Church told the Israelites that those Ten Commandments were Scripture around 1400 BC. What Pope would that have been?

And The Catholic Church told Jesus that He was in fact referecning Scripture the 50 times He did so. What Pope told Jesus what was and was not Scripture so that He was correct those 50 times?

Friend, look again at the history. You have important men, men you honor, saying what the people regard as SCRIPTURE. And not a one of them says, “Because The Catholic Church has told them so.” Yes, I realize, in the very late 4th century, there is a meeting that listed the 27 NT books. You may regard that as a specific and exclusive meeting of The Catholic Church if you like. But OBVIOUSLY, it didn’t give a single word of Scripture. And it didn’t determine what was or was not Scripture (so that those Hebrews at Mount Sinai would know). It ACKNOWLEDGED them. Apples and oranges.

They were the ‘ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH’ - they were the ones being guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ - and they were not Lutherans! They were also not endorsing SS because there was no SS yet in place! Think about that for a minute.

1. Yes, the church was/is/ever will be one, holy and catholic - the communion of saints, the union of all believers. But it’s MY position that believers affirmed what is and is not Scripture, I think its YOUR position that The Catholic Church did at the Council of Carthage in 394 AD (Jesus evidently knew about this 360 years earlier, thus could quote from those books, and evidently Moses knew about this 1,800 years earlier too so that he knew those Tablets were Scripture).
2. I agree, NO Lutheran denomination is the communion of saints, but then no denomination is - and that includes The Catholic Church.
3. No, they were not embracing using Scripture normatively, but I’m not the one trying so hard to get this thread off topic by taking about how Moses knew those tablets were Scripture or how Jesus knew that all He quoted as Scripture was such. I’ve been discussing the process of norming and the first step of that - the embrace of a norma normans. I never claimed ANY Christian denomination wrote the Scriptures OR embraced them as such. I realize virtually all denominations (including yours and mine) has officially ACKNOWLEDGED that embrace, but that’s a whole other issue and moot here since there’s NOTHING unique about The Catholic denomination in that regard - most have done the very same thing. All of them (including The Catholic Church) after the fact.

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continued from the post above…

The issue very briefly is that you had the Catholic Church before the Lutheran Chruch (by about 15 centuries as a matter of fact) - but, more specifically, you had the Catholic Church (as you have just been pointing out their councils and when they met) before there was an established Canon.

Yes, while no one knows when The Catholic Church was founded, I do know when my denomination was: 1847. So what?

No, The Catholic Church is not older than the material of Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21. No, The Catholic Church didn’t tell Moses or the Hebrews or Jesus or the Apostles what was or was not Scripture - and yet they embraced it as such. They didn’t need any denomination in 394 telling them anything. And 394 was too late to have any significance to this issue. AT MOST, your denomination AFFIRMED or ACKNOWLEDGED Scripture. That’s entirely unrelated to the claim that it “gave” the Bible and everything in it. And it’s untirely unrelated to the issue of this thread.

So: from a simple chronological order, it is Catholic Church first and then Scripture - NOT the other way around.

Okay. Document that The Catholic Church was founded before 1400 BC and that IT is was told the Hebrews that those two tablets were Divine Scripture. And document for us all that The Catholic Church predates the preaching of Jesus so taht when Jesus refers to Scripture, it was The Catholic Church that told Him it was Scripture and THAT is the reason He so referred to it. And those fine men I quoted to say what the people embraced as Scripture, document for me that they had already been so informed of such specifically and solely by the particular Catholic Church. Otherwise, I find the claim impossible - and of course, moot to our discussion.

St. Agustine (Augustine (352-430): “…the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.)

God bless

… and also you.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Hoping we can get back to the issue of this thread…**

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing/ determining that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob the Builder has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

Of course, any may claim that self alone is right cuz self alone says self alone is - and thus exempt one - self - from accountability and examination. But this is not an alternative praxis (better or worse), it is just self exempting self from such. “Just accept whatever I say with docility cuz I declare that I’m right so I am.” IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects the embrace of God’s Scripture as the rule/canon (Sola Scriptura) NOT because it has a better alternative rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a better approach to norming (it doesn’t). It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming for the same reason it rejects any and all other alternatives - because it rejects norming. It simply circumvents the entire subject of norming (and thus what will serve as the rule/canon in such), itself alone exempting itself alone from accountability. Since it alone insists that it alone is infallible and it CANNOT err (in matters of official doctrine and morals anyway), ergo it is unaccountable. The whole issue of whether it is correct is moot since itself alone insists that itself alone CANNOT be anything but correct. It’s norming it rejects since it alone regards it meaningless, irrelevant, moot in the case of ONE - itself (exclusively).

I hope that helps and can get us back to the question of the most appropriate norma normans as we evaluate doctrines - including those of The Catholic Church

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

I think I found your format - as soon as you get close to the issue… you back away, repeat your ‘norming’ thesis and find something else to misuse. Really, now, AJ - if you are trying to defend SS, you must do better then this silly statments about the Catholic Church not being with Moses and wondering which Pope told Christ what to say Truly, let’s get serious - for I have yet to see you acknowledge the obvious.

.Yes, while no one knows when The Catholic Church was founded, I do know when my denomination was: 1847. So what?

Oh, there is a BIG SO-WHAT, in this item, AJ - and it goes like this: The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on Peter and you can find this in Matt 16, and it took place about the year 33AD. It is not an issue of “…no one knows…” but, who wants to step forward and ask the obvious question: “If Christ was not founding His Chruch on Peter - why did He say He was?”

No, The Catholic Church is not older than the material of Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.
This is where you start your distortion. Moses was at least 1,500 years before Christ, AJ. So, this is not what is being addressed. And, as I previously told you, the Catholic Church did not write the Books of the Bible. What the Catholic Church did was DETERMINE which Books were divinely inspired. They did this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - the same Spirit that Christ promised would be always with His Chruch (and, that is the Catholic Church). So, the Old Testament Books that were determined to be Inspired were all written before the birth of Christ. The New Testament Books were not even begun until at least 30 years after the death of Christ. The last NT Book was completed in the year 100. So, again I ask you to look around - there was about 67 years when there was an obviously functioning Church AND there was no completed NT - no completed Bible. By simple deduction the Church was founded BEFORE the first book in the NT was even begun - so, the Chruch is older then the Bible. But, don’t stop there…

This is not an age race on who is older - rather - it was the Chruch that determined the validity of the Books (the Canon), not Scripure that determined the validity of the Church.

No, The Catholic Church didn’t tell Moses or the Hebrews or Jesus or the Apostles what was or was not Scripture - and yet they embraced it as such. They didn’t need any denomination in 394 telling them anything. And 394 was too late to have any significance to this issue. AT MOST, your denomination AFFIRMED or ACKNOWLEDGED Scripture. That’s entirely unrelated to the claim that it “gave” the Bible and everything in it. And it’s untirely unrelated to the issue of this thread.

This is where you start to dodge and weave with outrageous statements, AJ. The idea of SS having any merit or validity must be determined by the very idea being presented in a logical manner and judged on its merits. SS fails these tests simply because it is a doctrine of men, it ignores the fact that the Catholic Church made the determination of which Books to include in the Canon - and this was based on guidance from the Holy Spirit and the Chruch’s Apostolic Tradition - not to be confused with the traditions of men that SS is obviously an excellent example.

Okay. Document that The Catholic Church was founded before 1400 BC and that IT is was told the Hebrews that those two tablets were Divine Scripture. And document for us all that The Catholic Church predates the preaching of Jesus so taht when Jesus refers to Scripture, it was The Catholic Church that told Him it was Scripture and THAT is the reason He so referred to it.
More silliness, AJ. This is not a logical argument - and you really need to stop repeating these nonsense statements… they are really getting dog-eared.

God bless

.

 

[benedictus2]

.
As has been noted, this is not only contrary to the teachings of The Catholic Church, but it’s historically IMPOSSIBLE and entirely absurd.

Absurd - only to someone incapable of exercising the grey matter and comprehend history.

Protestants tend to agree with The Catholic Church that GOD gave us His Scriptures. And one would hope it obvious that The Catholic Church did not write a single letter of it (much less book, but less everything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21). And since The Catholic Church itself doesn’t even CLAIM to have existed before 31 AD, therefore MOST of the Bible COULD NOT have come from it since it didn’t even exist! And while we often attribute NT books to various men (in the case of nearly one-third, we don’t know who was the penmen) NONE of those penmen was The Catholic Church - they were all PEOPLE. And there is ZERO evidence that they wrote what they did by command of and at the authorization of The Catholic Church, as an official agent of The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with it. Absolutely nothing.

Now, what SOME Catholics may MEAN by this very common claim is that in the very late 4th century, a meeting - which those same Catholics claim was a meeting specificly, solely of The Catholic Church (evidently, no Orthodox bishops present) officially and formally acknowledged the list of canonical books. That has NOTHING to do with “giving” us ANYTHING, it has to do with acknowledging a list of books. But historically, this was moot. The list was ALREADY accepted; as history shows and as all my Catholic teachers taught, those meetings ACKNOWLEDGED the list of books - it didn’t create or form or give it. They were a denomination officially acknowledging such for itself. You might not know that nearly all denominations have done EXACTLY THE SAME THING - there is nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - unique about what The Catholic denomination did - most have done EXACTLY the same thing. It has NOTHING to do with any specific denomination giving us all the material from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

Here is a simple analogy that should be easy to understand for you.

God is the author of your life. But God chose your parent (who were also created by God) to bring you into this world.

God is the author of Scripture. But God chose/ WILLED the Catholic Church into being so that through her, He will give the Bible to world. Not just the OT, the Jews kept that for the Jews they were not into evangelizing. But the Bible both OT and NT was given to the world via the Catholic Church from God as God intended.

There is ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church even existed in 1400 BC when the oldest Scripture was given, thus your statement that the Church gave it - and that would be The Catholic Church is simply impossible. You are off by AT LEAST fourteen centuries!

And there is zero evidence that the books that you are referring to (OT) would have come down to us gentiles were it not for the Catholic Church.
Take the blinders off, let some ray of light in and this will become apparent to you.

1. No one denies that The Catholic Church officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that itself alone determines should be agreed upon.

Wrong. She agrees with her creator, God. And that is all that matters. She is not here to conform to man. The protestants on the other hand are in the habit of pleasing man, rather than God that is why you have labelled certains sins as no longer sin.

Yup. It has a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Is THAT what you think Jesus prayed for? Self in current and official agreement with exclusively self in matters that self alone thinks self should agree on?

Oh but petal it is not self, except perhaps Christs own self because she is the Body of Christ.

Because that’s ALL that exists in The Catholic Church.

Actually not. But no matter how much we explain that to you it seems you have stuck your fingers to your ears so are unable to hear.

AT :LEAST the same can be said of all the other denominations. Heck, I typically agree with myself in all things that I currently think I should agree on, and yet I don’t see you yelling that THEREFORE I’m infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter.

Ah one more statement of truth. The other denominations do not agree. They are divided.

Well here is a very apt quote for you: The Holy Spirit unites the devil divides. Ponder that my friend.

1. I think you would benefit GREATLY by a solid study of cults.

And you would benefit greatly by studying History and scripture. Yes, scripture, that which is the subject of SS .

They ALL reject Sola Scriptura - because they all reject accountability.

Quite the contrary, they reject SS becuase they want to be accountable… to God.

SS accountability is to the every indivuals self. Which works well for those steeped in pride.

I am in FAR greater unity with my Calvinist friend under Sola Scriptura than you are with the Davidians rejecting Sola Scriptura

What a load of rubbish. You agree with your Calvinist point to a certain degree then you go west and he goes east. And everyone goes every which way according to the unholy trinity of me, myself, and I.
If you agree with him there would not be Calvinist, Lutherans and every shade of protestant under the sun.

 

[benedictus2]

. Actually, they both REJECTED that rubric. It is The Catholic Church that insists, demand this. Read your Catechism # 85. The Catholic Church designates that only one has this “right” to authoritatively interpret Scripture - and that one is (you guessed it)… itself. All must just accept whatever itself exclusively says - “with docility” (CCC 87). THAT is what Luther and Calvin questioned: the claim of self alone for self alone of unaccountability. If join with Luther in rejecting that self can designate self as the sole authoritative, unquestionable, infallible, unaccountable interpreter - then read your Catechism # 85 and 87. Your “issue” is not with Luther or Lutheranism, it’s with The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults).

Oh AJ that is just an outright lie and you know it (not surprising since you have lied before).

The CCC you are talking about was not even written up in Luther’s time so he could not reject any teaching in the CCC.

And SS is not rubric, it is doctrine.

And Luther and Calvin did see problems with it but they still went ahead with the self alone interpretation of the Bible. The one glaring testimony to the lie you have written above is the fact of the splintered protestant mess. If they did not glorify the self so much, you would all have the same understanding of the Bible but you don’t.

You really ought to read up on what you protestantism is all about. It seems you don’t even know about that too.

1. Jesus promised The Catholic Church nothing. He authorized it for nothing. He commanded it for nothing. He never so much as MENTIONED it.

Yes He did. He did not call it the Catholic Church. He simply called it MY CHURCH. Same thing.

1. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take your question here to the LDS (the largest and most vocal restitutionalist group).

Nope. LDS is protestant. Funny that you won’t recognize your separated brothers.

I agree. And He never so much as MENTIONED The Catholic Church. Not once. Ever.

Yes He did. He called her by her proper name MY CHURCH. That is why it is Catholic… Universal … because you cannot contain God.

God repeatedly and stearnly warned of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray,

Yes, and that is what may happen if they listen to you … be led astray.

and contrary to the claim of The Catholic Church, God never exempted The Catholic Church, never giving ANY denomination a “pass” on accountability

And we never said she is exempt. She is accountable to her creator… Jesus Christ. No more no less.

, never declaring ANYONE or ANY institution to be infallible,

Yes, He did. He said the gates of hell will not prevail.

I am beginning to think that you have not done a thorough reading of the gospels. Have you been stuck on Paul’s letters like the others that you forgot there is such a thing as the 4 gospels?

IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects the embrace of God’s Scripture as the rule/canon (Sola Scriptura) NOT because it has a better alternative rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a better approach to norming (it doesn’t).

She rejects it because it is illogical. And she grounds herself on reason. And rightly so.

 

[benedictus2]

The New Testament Canon
First Century:

1. The “heart of the Canon” is often regarded to be Paul’s epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (before 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul’s works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of “Paul’s letters” in this way, indicating a canonical status.

And here we have the infant Catholic Church

1. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as Scripture and as canonical. They were “published” together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

The Catholic Church again, still a baby at this stage.

By this point, we seem to have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. NOTE; THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS

.
Wong, No solid Canon at this stage. The first canon was mooted by Marcion and it was a heretical one and that was around 150 AD. But regardless, at this stage it is still the same Catholic Church… still a baby just a little bit older.

Second Century:
Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of “all of Paul’s epistles” authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of “all Paul’s epistles” and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

Still the same Catholic Church - again slightly older.

NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS.

**Well terribly wrong. It was the same Catholic Church all along. **

Third Century:
At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) says Christians accept 21 books: Paul’s 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian’s list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

Still the same Catholic Church - no other church at this stage (that will come later in the 1500 s)

The NT Canon seems pretty solid for 21 of the 27 books. NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.

All written by Catholics. Or to use your term “penned” by Catholics.

Fourth Century:
By this time, there seem to be an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only “debate” centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handful soon to be dropped.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as “spurious” - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God’s people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It’s our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as “associated with” but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Still the same Catholic Church doing all those deliberations.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS. IT HAS NOT SAID OR DONE ANYTHING AT ALL RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE.

Wrong. It was the Catholic Church from the Start.

 

[benedictus2]

.Early Christian Meetings:

Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.
The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod and in no sense ecumenical (and it’s authority unclear), it says that “uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches.” While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a “canonical book” since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded.
The Council of Hippo (393) Again, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting specifically stating exactly what that canon is. It’s our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).
The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It’s the now familiar 27. This is the FIRST TIME any church body has had an official statement. IF this is a meeting of the specific, particular Catholic Church (and that’s a whole other issue), then THIS is the FIRST CASE of The Catholic Church doing ANYTHING at all. By this time, Scripture has been in existence for 300-1800 years! And what is embraced as such has been settled - for OT books often for many, many centuries (again, most of the Bible) and for the NT mostly for nearly 200 years and for all of it for at least 50 years.

Still the same Catholic Church. Now much grown.

As my Catholic teachers said, The Catholic Church ACKNOWLEDGED or AFFIRMED the Scriptures, obviously it didn’t “give” them or form them.

Whoever your Catholic teachers were, they were ill informed. Or else you are lying again.

Augustine (352-430): “…the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.

Ah finally, rain breaking the drought. You have said something true here ( or rather Augustine did that).

That is what we have been saying from day one. That Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church in establishing the Canon of Scripture. That is why St Augustine said the Canon was established for her by the Holy Spirit. Because it was the Holy Spirit who guided her. And this just debunks your previous post. Now you have shown that the Catholic Church is clearly guided by the Holy Spirit. And she will always be guided by the Holy Spirit because that is Christ’s promise to her.

We rest our case.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2

Enjoyed reading your posts… Truly, AJ must have on ‘polarized blinders’ - any light that might have gotten through has been blocked!

I especailly liked your analogy:

Here is a simple analogy that should be easy to understand for you.

God is the author of your life. But God chose your parent (who were also created by God) to bring you into this world.

God is the author of Scripture. But God chose/ WILLED the Catholic Church into being so that through her, He will give the Bible to world. Not just the OT, the Jews kept that for the Jews they were not into evangelizing. But the Bible both OT and NT was given to the world via the Catholic Church from God as God intended.

His manipulation and distortion of history is truly disquieting to me. It honestly seems that there is nothing he will not manipulate to distort established fact. I really do find this quite sad and it indicates to me a blinded mind and a hardened heart.

Thank you for your posts - they are always a pleasure to read.

God bless

 

[Contarini]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

What do you mean by “absolutely true”? And why do you think that only an “infallible source” can tell you that something is “absolutely true”? And why is it important for religious teachings to be “absolutely true” (in whatever sense you give that phrase)?

I’m happy with plain old truth, myself, when I can get it.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Why are you interested in Fundamentalist responses particularly? Why not look at non-fundamentalist Protestants, who are likely to have more thoughtful positions and defend them more skillfully?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is only one Church that has an answer to every question

I have never found such a church. If I did I would know that it was false. Indeed, I would be inclined to call for an exorcist.

Thank God that your own glorious Communion does not have an answer to every question. Instead, it opens up lots of great questions which cannot be answered in this life, as any religious tradition worth its salt does.

Edwin

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by AmericanJosiah View Post
. Actually, they both REJECTED that rubric. It is The Catholic Church that insists, demand this. Read your Catechism # 85. The Catholic Church designates that only one has this “right” to authoritatively interpret Scripture - and that one is (you guessed it)… itself. All must just accept whatever itself exclusively says - “with docility” (CCC 87). THAT is what Luther and Calvin questioned: the claim of self alone for self alone of unaccountability. If join with Luther in rejecting that self can designate self as the sole authoritative, unquestionable, infallible, unaccountable interpreter - then read your Catechism # 85 and 87. Your “issue” is not with Luther or Lutheranism, it’s with The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults).

*85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
*

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted to the Lutheran confessions, right or wrong? Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the Lutheran Confessions, codified by a group of Lutheran theologians (Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Koerner) - yes or no?

Lutherans, mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me,” faithfully receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in the form of the Lutheran Confessions? Yes or no?

Again, all Christians belonging to the CC are ready and willing to receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms, which simply means that all Catholics are ready and willing to be taught; are teachable, and are willing to yield to supervision, direction, or management, just as all Protestants are willing to yield to supervision, direction, or management. As I said before: This is very biblical and is the reason why the CC has remained one and united for almost 2000 years, in spite of the internal corruption that has left its nasty mark. The Devil hates Jesus’ Mystical Body, but the Devil will never succeed at destroying Jesus’ Mystical Body. The devil has won some battles but in the end, we all know who wins the war! The CC is not not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. Cherry-picking the CCC seems a bit of a disservice to everyone don’t you think?

The CCC also teaches that many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, and that the holy spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.

Would you say the same about the CC, which by your own admission was not built by Jesus?

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity. CCC 819

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Aj, every PC demands that a Christian must defer to their church authority regarding their church charter (eg, the Lutheran Confessions) - and if one doesn’t, one is excluded from their assembly, and as I said before: The CC embraces all Protestants as brothers and sisters and believes that salvation is possible for both catholics and protestants.

Josiah, I ask again: Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when it it was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST, with the exception of the CC - correct?

If the Bible is the Christians clear and sufficient norm, rule of faith, all by itself (as per the Westminster confession), isn’t the need for an additional document (Lutheran Confessions) - a contradiction in terms?

Regarding statements of faith (Lutheran Confessions) - assuming extra-Biblical authority, spelling out the limits of belief and even what conclusions the Lutheran church(es) must draw as the Lutheran Confessions examine the Scriptures through the lens of men such as Martin Luther and company who wrote this extra-Bibilical doucument, is certainly a big no-no if it is for the CC. Where do they get their Apostolic authority to do this?

Jesus Christ prayed that the faithful “all be one” (Jn 17:21), and Scriptures emphasize the need for doctrinal unity over and over again (Jn 10:16, Eph 4:3-6, 1 Cor 1:10, Rom 15:5, etc.), and surely this unity will always be unattainable as long as your platform that no church leadership can teach infallibly (free of error) - regarding faith or morals ONLY, is accepted as fact. Did the CC teach infallibly or fallibly at the various ecumenical councils (to which you acknowledge as truth) - regarding such things as the Trinity, the 2 natures of Jesus or the Theotokos?

 

[benedictus2]

.

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence.

And this is where you go wrong.

Your degree is physics and you use maths as the norm. That is because maths is maths (outside of physics but a tool used in physics).

By saying that Scriptura Alone should be the norm for Scripture, then you are in effect saying, your degree is physics and what we use as norm is physics.

Or another example: The book is Macbeth. The norm to get get a full understanding of Macbeth is Macbeth Alone. Get my drift? So how absurd your proposition is?

To get a full understanding of a book you need to go to the author. The norm has to be something OUTSIDE OF THAT which is being normed.

But of course you can say but the Author is God so how do you do that. Well you go to the one God used to write the book.

 

[JonNC]

Josiah, I ask again: Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when it it was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST, with the exception of the CC - correct?

Joe,
I feel the need to clarify this one question without qualification.

1. Lutheranism in general, and the LCMS (of which both AJ and I are members) specifically, state clearly that Catholics are Christians.
2. To deny that the Catholic Church, led by the Bishop of Rome, is not part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church established at Pentecost would be to deny truth, and history.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

And this is where you go wrong. Your degree is physics and you use maths as the norm. That is because maths is maths (outside of physics but a tool used in physics).

1. All disciplines (known to me, anyway) has at least SOME concern for whether positions within it are correct. Thus, norming is a part of all disciplines. It is generally NOT accepted that truth simply is the opinion of one so stating it. “I’m right - infallible, incapable of error, and who when I say I’m right ergo I’m right, thus all must accept with docility whatever is my position” is generally not accepted as sound epistemology. Of course, we see it (quite foundationally) in all the cults and it was a key aspect of the LDS until about 100 years ago. Compare it to CCC # 87 for starters.
2. Yes, norming (the evaluation of positions for correctness, validity) typically involves two key aspects - the rule/canon/norma normans (the standard, plumbline) and the arbitration according to it (thus the first step is to determine the rule/canon/norma normans). It’s generally regarded that the more objective (knowable to all, alterable by none), the more OUTSIDE all parties, the more universally accepted and embraced as reliable, the better. For theology, the IDEAL would be something written by God - the inscripturated words of God himself, knowable to all, alterable by none, with a solid and historical ecumenical embrace (including by all parties involved in the arbitration), OUTSIDE all parties (particularly the one holding/promoting the position under review). Christians believe that ideal actually exists, it’s call Scirptures. And we think it’s the most sound norma normans. The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints strongly disagrees.

By saying that Scriptura Alone should be the norm for Scripture, then you are in effect saying, your degree is physics and what we use as norm is physics.

Of course, no one on the planet has said anything of our sort. Obviously.

Once again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. Scripture is not the norma normans for Scripture (obviously) anymore than Chuck Smith is the norma normans for Chuck Smith, that would not only be absurd but would render the entire process moot since it would simply be self looking at self. Compare that absurdity with “the three-legged-stool” in the RCC and LDS. No, Sola Scriptura rejects using the doctrine as the norma normans for the self-same since that has nothing to do with norming, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self.

Or another example: The book is Macbeth. The norm to get get a full understanding of Macbeth is Macbeth Alone. Get my drift? So how absurd your proposition is?

Actually, that’s similar to the Catholic and LDS view that the best norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines of self is the doctrines of self. Sola Scriptura rejects that.

To return to the illustration: Bob the Builder is contracted to build a wall 6 feet tall. He has completed said wall and claims it is 6 feet tall. THAT, then, becomes the position under review. Yes, you’re right - we could just use Bob’s claim as the rule/canon for Bob’s claim (the RCC and LDS approach) but what I’ve suggested is that we embrace a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE and ABOVE Bob and I and my next door neighor and all otehr parties involved. Perhaps we embrace a Sears Measuring Tape as the rule/canon/norma normans. It’s outside and above us all, knowable to all and alterable by none of us, we all accept it as being reliable for this purpose. We’ll use that. That, then, becomes the embraced rule/canon/norma normans. It is not the wall, it is not Bob’s opinion, it is not my opinion - it is a rule/canon outside, above, beyond all of us, knowable/unalterable, embraced by us all. THAT will be the rule/canon as we turn to step two - to see if the wall measures up (arbitration) to the measuring stick (canon).

Of course, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture (and all alternatives) because it rejects accountability - the entire issue of norming. RCC: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right ergo I’m right. Just accept whatever I say with docility.” Sola Scriptura is rejected because norming is rejected (well, for one - itself, alone, exclusively).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, I ask again: Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when it it was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST, with the exception of the CC - correct?

AGAIN, I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE. And I believe that the community or communion or gathering or assembly of Christians is also PEOPLE. Thus, the church is people. Christian people. They are one, holy and catholic. The are the communion of saints.

I see zero evidence that Jesus founded any denomination, and that includes The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the insistence of both of them to the contrary). Jesus founded the church, not ANY denomination - mine, yours, or any other. That doesn’t make denominations bad (I strongly support community, cooperation and accountability - thus congregations and the denominations they may form) but Jesus didn’t found any, and such are not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

Jesus Christ prayed that the faithful “all be one” (Jn 17:21), and Scriptures emphasize the need for doctrinal unity over and over again (Jn 10:16, Eph 4:3-6, 1 Cor 1:10, Rom 15:5, etc.), and surely this unity will always be unattainable as long as your platform that no church leadership can teach infallibly (free of error) - regarding faith or morals ONLY, is accepted as fact. Did the CC teach infallibly or fallibly at the various ecumenical councils (to which you acknowledge as truth) - regarding such things as the Trinity, the 2 natures of Jesus or the Theotokos?

1. I think you are confusing authority with truth. Studied any of the cults? Just because one says one is “infallible” has ZERO relevance to that one being correct. Apples and oranges.
2. I think you are confusing self being in unity with self with Christian unity. We all know that The Catholic Church is in full agreement (officially and currently anyway) with ONE - itself (at least in all matters that itself alone currently regards as necessary to be in agreement upon). It has a unity with only one - itself. Is THAT what you think all those Scriptures call for? You DO realize that all other denominations can say AT LEAST as much. Heck, I’m officially, formally and currently in agreement with myself in all matters that I myself think I should agree on, am I therefore infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error and you should just accept “with docility” whatever I say?
3. Again, you seem to be confusing truth with authority. Yes, I agree with The Catholic Church (and thousands of other denominations) on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ. BTW, The Catholic Church is in agreement with The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod on that, too. But just because one is right in a matter is entirely moot to the issue of infalliblity or unaccountablilty to their being right in ALL matters. President Obama said there are 50 States in the USA. Do you think that is correct? IF so, MUST he also be correct in EVERYTHING he thinks and says and does, is he right in defending abortion on demand? Is he ergo infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, you must accept “with docility” whatever he says since he was correct about the USA having 50 States? Friend, you are confusing issues.

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread.

.