Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

The point was that if one agrees with The Catholic Church on the doctrine of the Trinity, one MUST agree with it on all other points. I disagreed. Read again what I posted.

.

Do you agree that the CC taught infallibly regarding the Trinity? If the CC spoke fallibly at the council of Trent, then surely the CC could have spoke fallibly at the councils of Athanasius, Nicaea and Ephesus - right or wrong?

 

[joe370]

Josiah, I said:

How can I know what truth is when different PC’ have conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and none of them can teach infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus???

To which you said:

1. Realize at least as much of the same issue applies to The Catholic Church. Remember: it is in agreement ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with itself, alone - and then only currently and officially and only in those matters that itself exclusively currently regards as necessary to agree upon.

This did not answer my question! Please answer the question.

1. You have raised the issue of norming - the very issue The Catholic Church evades by insisting that it itself alone is correct because it itself alone so declares that it self alone is. IF one is infallible and incapable of error then he/she/it would be exempt from accountability, such being moot in that case - but of course, it doesn’t permit an investigation of the conditional clause, it alone simply claims that it alone is.

This does not answer my question! Please answer the question.

1. As a Catholic, you are not to ask if The Catholic Church is correct. Read its Catechism for you, # 87 for starters. For if you were a non-Catholic, you would embrace accountability (not just for all OTHERS than The Catholic Church but also The Catholic Church, with none exempting self alone). Two things would be needed: A norma normans (the issue of this thread) and then the arbitration according to it.

This does not answer my question! Please answer the question.

As a Lutheran, you are not to ask if the Lutheran Confessions is correct. The Lutheran Confessions (written by men who were self appointed) - are seen as secondary norms, or as true declarations of the doctrines of Holy Scripture, which all who would call themselves Lutheran must confess and teach, if one wants to belong to the Lutheran church(es). For this reason the confessional Lutheran Church demands of all its public teachers and ministers a bona-fide subscription to all its Confessions as the pure and unadulterated declarations of God’s Word. (They call this a “quia” subscription – that is, all Lutherans must subscribe to the Confessions “because” they are truly scriptural. Lutherans believe that Holy Scripture is the deciding norm and is absolutely necessary. The Bible decides what is true or false doctrinally speaking. The Confessions (your authority) - are the distinguishing norm, and are only relatively necessary, but absolutely necessary if one wants to belong to the LC. The Lutheran confessions determine whether or not a person has correctly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. Again, a Lutheran is never to ask if the Lutheran Confessions are the pure and unadulterated declarations of God’s Word. They must accept it with docility.

All Lutheran doctrine (teaching) is to be taken from Holy Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions are very explicit on this point. “. . . the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.” (S.A. Part II, The Mass, 15, Tappert page 295.) “We receive and embrace with our whole heart the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which teachers and doctrines are to be judged.” (F.C., Th. D., sum., 3, Triglot, p. 851) Holy Scripture is the only source and the absolute norm of our faith.

The bible judges no one; God does the judging. Now, if the Word of God is the only true standard by which doctrines are to be judged, who has the authority to interpret the Word of God outside the Lutheran Confessions? If the Word of God is the only true standard by which doctrines are to be judged, then logically speaking, a Pastor is unnecessary and all Lutherans need only defer to the only true standard by which doctrines are to be judged - sacred scripture?

If the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel," then why in the world do you have anything to do with the Lutheran confessions that were not even established by angels?

Back to my original question: How can I know what truth is when different PC’s have conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and none of them can teach infallibly (without error) - regarding the teachings of Jesus???

 

[benedictus2]

In one sense, I agree with AJ. We discussed this in part on the Ask a Lutheran thread, and while a bit off topic here, it is worth discussion. If we are to determine if there is a single communion which is specifically the one Christ established on Pentecost, I would say it does not exist in the form that it did the first millenium.

It’s not supposed to. At that time, we did not have an estabilshed canon, people were still trying to work out doctrines, Trinity included, etc. etc. It was still a baby then. It is not supposed to remain in that state.

The ministry of that Church, indeed that Church itself, is wounded by schism and separation, and all of us share in the sin of separation that defies Christ’s command of unity. Is the Bishop of Rome part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes. Are Lutherans, as a part of the western Church part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes.

Yes but separated. Do you think it Christ intended for the Body of Christ to be so broken up?

Well, you know, Joe, that I will say that, as an evangelical Catholic (Lutheran), my Church is founded by Christ, because my Church is the one Christ established, as is yours.

How can that be when Christ established only one Church and it is quite obvious that Lutherans and Catholics do not have the same beliefs?

How can you say that your church was founde by Christ when it was Martin Luther who started it? I mean this is simple historical fact.

That is a different discussion then “which denomination”? {/quote]
But Christ did not intend for denominations.

We are all one Church, Joe, wounded by human sin, schism and separation, but one Church. And I believe the most important steps toward unity is to recognize that we share in the sin that divides His Church, and also in Christian love, recognize the Holy Spirit in each other.

But we are not one Church. Schism means fragmentation. A broken something is not one whole something.

A broken vase was once a vase but now it is no longer a vase.

Is this what God intended? What has Christ WILLED? It is clear from scritpure that Christ willed for there to be only one church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It’s not. I was simply and quickly responding to the diversion, with a call to return to the subject of this thread.

1. I don’t have to “work around Scripture,” the Catholic Church does. It is the one claiming that Jesus founded itself, but - obviously - there’s nothing in Scripture that says that, in fact, Scripture never so much as even mentions it. About anything. For anything.

1. Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” anything. Let’s see if we can try this AGAIN. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines. It doesn’t SAY anything, it’s not a teaching.

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

H-E-L-L-O…the thread is a defense of SS, the question invovles how you can read the words of Scripture and come up with all of these ideas about Christ NOT founding His chruch on Peter (Matt 16) NOT actually founding a Church at all (back to Matt 16) … and the issue is (heads up, AJ) how does your praxis approach void the very clear words of Christ? Now that is the quesiton - just answer it… and stop with the evasion.

1. The evasion was an attempt to divert this thread into a discussion of The Catholic Church’s claim that it was founded by Jesus - as if that has anything whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. As I posted, I addressed the questions quickly - with a call to not hijack the thread (a rule violation, I believe) and return to the issue before us.

No. This thread is not about hermeneutics (individual or collective).

No. This thread is not about arbitration (individual or collective, infallible/unaccountable or not).

This thread is about Sola Scriptura. Let’s try again: Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It’s not a hermeneutical principle, it’s not a polity of arbitration.

The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all the cults) rejects it - NOT because any have a better norma normans (they don’t) or an alternative process of norming (they don’t). They reject the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans because they reject norming for ONE (self exclusively), each alone insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and incapable of error - thus there is one (self) that is exempt from accountability and the entire issue of norming (including what will serve as the norma normans) - thus your attempt to divert this thread into the issue of The Catholic Church insisting that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable (in official matters of faith and morals anyway). But friend - self alone excluding self alone from accountability has NOTHING to do with norming OR with with correct.

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.

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.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6121894]It’s not supposed to. At that time, we did not have an estabilshed canon, people were still trying to work out doctrines, Trinity included, etc. etc. It was still a baby then. It is not supposed to remain in that state.

What I mean by not the same is that it is not undivided, as it was in the 1st millenium. It was that undivided Church that did those things that you mentioned, that we agree upon. The Bishop of Rome today, is not in communion with the other patriarchs, and there is division in the western Church.

Yes but separated. Do you think it Christ intended for the Body of Christ to be so broken up?

Of course not! That is why I emphasized the wounded nature of the ministry, and that our separation - east, west, protestant, Catholic - is a sin that we all share. And it is not the fault of the Holy Spirit. It is our fault, all of us. The division of east and west is a thousand years old! The division between Catholic and Lutheran approaches 500 years. 500 years! And in that time we have not been able to reconcile? It should be a common confession, this sin of division, for all of us, every communion, every week, until Christ’s call for unity is complied with.

How can you say that your church was founde by Christ when it was Martin Luther who started it? I mean this is simple historical fact.

My denomination is part of the Church founded by Christ - the Christian Church.

But Christ did not intend for denominations.

Correct. He didn’t intend Schism, either. And frankly, he did not intend abuses that might lead to division.

But we are not one Church. Schism means fragmentation. A broken something is not one whole something.

My point,exactly. The one true Church, the one you spoke of earlier when you were writing about deciding on doctrine and canon, was not fractured by schism and division.

A broken vase was once a vase but now it is no longer a vase.

But the Holy Spirit can mend that vase, and His job will be easier when we recognize Him in each other.

Is this what God intended? What has Christ WILLED? It is clear from scritpure that Christ willed for there to be only one church.

Then we agree. Nothing you or I said implied otherwise. So, how can we work together to allow the Holy Spirit to heal our Lord’s Church?

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, I ask again, only because you have not answered the question, which is cool, if you don’t want to answer it directly. Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when each respective church was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST on Pentecost, with the exception of the CC?

Off topic, a diversion - but you’ve asked this same question several times.
And I’ve answered it each time.

Once more, then can we return to the subject of this thread?

No, there is ZERO evidence that Jesus founded ANY denomination (including The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the claims of each alone for each alone notwithstanding). Not mine, not yours, not any. Again, I believe that Jesus founded is the church that is one, holy and catholic - the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. Again, all Christians known to me are PEOPLE, and as far as I can tell, only people CAN be Christians. Thus, the communion of Christians, the mystical union of Christians, the gathering of Christians - the church - would be PEOPLE.

Can we now turn to the issue of norming - including the doctrines of The Catholic Church - and the most sound norma normans for doing do?

In other words, it is your contention that all the insular churches in the world today were established by God on Pentecost, even the reformed baptist church being built in my neighborhood, as we speak?

I kept answering this, but you keep asking it.
Why do you want to divert this into a discussion of denominations?

No. God didn’t found, establish, form or otherwise begin ANY denomination. At Pentecost or any other date since Creation.

This thread is not about denominations OR any alone claiming for self alone to be “infallible/unaccountable.” I am WELL AWARE that all the cults exempt one (self) from accountablity (and thus the issue of this thread) by claiming that God established self and make a long chain of remarkable claims based on that - all with the intent of establishing self alone as the sole authority, infallible/unaccountable - to be accepted with docility. We all know that. But this thread is not about self exempting self from accountability or the way the RCC, LDS as well as all the cults do that.

Jesus said: I will build my church, not churches. He had only one holy universal church in mind

I agree. I don’t think the unity for which He prayed is for one mega denomination. Nor do I think it was that each self being in formal, current agreement with one - self alone, a unity of ONE: self alone with self alone. Which is the only “unity” in The Catholic Church.

I disagree with you that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is infallible/unaccountable and incaptable of error - and thus exclusively exempt from norming.

how can you call all of the man-made churches (including the CC if you are right) - the one universal church

AGAIN, I don’t. I call them man-made congregations and denominations. AGAIN, I have nothing against such man-made institutions (I am registered in a congregation and it is legally affiliated with a denomination). But the world’s millions of congregations and thousands of denominations are not the one, holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. Never was, isn’t now, never will be.

Regarding statements of faith and belief (Lutheran Confession) - which is clearly an extra-Biblical authoritative body of work, 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, (as opposed to the Apostles) - who wrote this extra-Biblical document(s), is it not a violation of SS (the bible alone)?

We’ve been all over this a few times now. No. The Lutheran Confessions are not norma nromans. The sole norma normans in Lutheranism is Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions are embraced by Lutherans because we believe that such is a “true exposition of Scripture” thus UNDER Scripture and subject to Scripture. They are - at most - norma normata, but not norma normans. All this has been explained to you by Jon and I several times now.

Again, 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? Yes or no?

AGAIN, yet again, I agree that the Trinity is sound. It does not mean that The Orthodox Church is infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming, the sole authority and we must accept with docility whatever it says whenever it says it. Do you agree with President Obama that there are 50 US States? If you do, does that make President Obama the sole authority, infallible, unaccountable, incaptable of error and you must accept whatever he says “with docility?” AGAIN, I disagree with your rubric that if one is right at one point, that single must MUST be right at ALL points and exempt from accountability - but all others are not so presumed or exempt.

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread: WHAT serves as the best norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church).

.

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC
First, let me complement you on a well written post. Your ideas are clearly express and without repitition. Agreement, as you may guess, is another matter…… but, as I see it, the purpose of CAF is dialogue. So, let me try my hand at responding to some of your ideas. I will only work with your opening comments for now…

Agreement, Tom, or lack thereof, is the sad state of Christianity today, caused by our shared sin.

JNC … If we are to determine if there is a single communion which is specifically the one Christ established on Pentecost, I would say it does not exist in the form that it did the first millenium.
TQ… This is an interesting concept and one that deserves a thorough evaluation. Just look around you - while secular trappings of the Christmas season may still remain - the Church is still very much aware of Christ’s arrival in Flesh upon this earth. And, how is it He came? In the form we identify Him as the Crucified Christ or the Resurrected Lord? No. As a weak and helpless babe about to be carried off to Egypt by the Holy Family in fear for their lives!

I agree, but I was speaking of the Church’s unity. The Church lacks that unity - east and west, and within the west.

The ministry of that Church, indeed that Church itself, is wounded by schism and separation, and all of us share in the sin of separation that defies Christ’s command of unity. Is the Bishop of Rome part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes. Are Lutherans, as a part of the western Church part of that catholic Catholic Church? Yes.
What I would submit, is to look at Peter himself. Plain characterizations would have probably used the terms like, brash, boastful, rough manner, lacking in education, vain, cowardly (he struck an possibly unarmed servant with a sword, ran away, denied Christ 3x to a servant girl, was conspicuous by his absence at Calvary), and initially doubted the Resurrection. There are hardly leaderhip traits - then or today! But, you know what, Samuel picked David when Jesse, his own father, sent him out to tend the sheep and not even to be part of the festivities! God chooses in ways we can not even imagine.

Would St. Peter approve of a thousand year schism between his chair in Rome, and his chair in Antioch? Or the other patriarchs? This is where the one true Church does not resemble any communion today, including the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Use SS, if you like, and you will clearly see the weakened (especially weak even when contrasted with the Apostle John) But, you notice that it was not John who was given the Selection and Inspiration of God the Father - only Peter was. There was God’s Plan unfolding before our very eyes. Now, were there popes who followed Peter’s earthly example - oh, yes - and while none have publicly denied Christ, they have committed every other sin and public scandal available to them! In looking at the relationship between Christ and Peter - don’t you think Christ was fully aware of the short-comings of all of Peter’s successors.

You will note that that after the Resurrection, when Christ was asking Peter if he loved Him - three times - Christ did not say, “You know, Peter, you are not quite up for this job and I think I am going to give it to someone else!” Nope. Christ re-affirmed Peter’s mission to feed both lambs and sheep. God really does have a Plan - and His Plan is going through, whether we agree with it or not.

Even this view of St. Pater is disputed, not as a result of sola scriptura, but between communions that claim to share Holy Tradition! And in many ways, it is this dispute, the extent of the power and primacy of the pope, that is cause of much of the division today.
This is not how Christ envisioned His Church.
AJ is right when he says that Christ may not have established a mega-denomination, but I am coming to the mind that how the other patriarchs, independent, but in communion with each other, may be more in line with Christ’s intent.

Ultimately, when it comes to our association as Christians, we can be in on the playing field - working for the establishment of the Kingdom of God through the Church Christ founded on Peter (Matt 16) or we can be somewhere in the tent. Your choice is before you.

I think you’ll find that there are Christians of all stripes on the playing field. In fact, virtually all of us are fighting the same “opponent”, the evil one himself. Of course, we could probably run up the score on him were we working together better.

As you know, Tom, I always appreciate our discussions, as I do my new dialogue partner Joe370.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

What I mean by not the same is that it is not undivided, as it was in the 1st millenium. It was that undivided Church that did those things that you mentioned, that we agree upon. The Bishop of Rome today, is not in communion with the other patriarchs, and there is division in the western Church.

The east west schism has more to do with territory than doctrine. Protestant / Catholic divide has to do with doctrine.

Of course not! That is why I emphasized the wounded nature of the ministry, and that our separation - east, west, protestant, Catholic - is a sin that we all share.

But is it just sin or the protestants departure from truth. One can sin and still acknowledge what is true so yes, hypocritical. The problem with protestantism is that they now have erroneous doctrnie.

And it is not the fault of the Holy Spirit. It is our fault, all of us.

Our sin is our fault. But consider this: Christ did not promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all goodness or into all sinlessness but into ALL TRUTH.

If this is the promise, then how come we come up with difering interpretations of the Bible? Is the Christ incapable of keeping that promise? We come up with the question that if the Holy Spirit is guiding us all into all truth, then which one is the truth when it comes to Eucharist, Baptism, 'Divorce, Salvation, etc,etc.

The division of east and west is a thousand years old! The division between Catholic and Lutheran approaches 500 years. 500 years! And in that time we have not been able to reconcile? It should be a common confession, this sin of division, for all of us, every communion, every week, until Christ’s call for unity is complied with. [/qutoe]
That is really evading the issue. The division comes from differing apprehension of “Truth”. If we all believed in the same doctrines, there would be no division. So it always come down to what is true?

My denomination is part of the Church founded by Christ - the Christian Church.

Separated. Your denomination was founded by Luther. This is so easily proved by a cursory examination of history. Do you think that it is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that led Luther to start his own church. Are denominations what Christ had in mind?

Correct. He didn’t intend Schism, either. And frankly, he did not intend abuses that might lead to division.

But I do not deny the abuses. But you see this is what protestants get so wrong time and time again. Luther, was completely right about denouncing abuses. He was completely wrong about starting his own church and coming up with His own set of doctrines by himself.

Around about the time of Luther came St Ignatius of Loyola. Perhaps if he had read St Ignatius’s discernment of spirits then he would have realized that the devil is quite capable of perverting ones good intentions and has used his initial zeal for reform of practice in the church and perverted that to its end by suggestiing reform of doctrines. There was certainly a dire need for reform of practice, but never a need to reform doctrine.

As Peter Kreeft wrote in his conversion story, even in the darkest moments of the Church, while some of her members had certainly not lived up to her teaching, the church never lowered her teaching to her practice.

And this is what we see happening in Protestant churches a lowering of the teaching to be in line with practice. Truth has been lost. What is sin is now no longer a sin because the bar has been lowered.

Coming up with SS opened up the floodgates of division and that is why now you have thousands of different denominations. Why churches has allowed themselves to be evangelized by the world instead of them evangelizing the world.

 

[benedictus2]

It’s not. I was simply and quickly responding to the diversion, with a call to return to the subject of this thread.

Hey AJ, I am still waiting for you to give me a good explaination on SS being the praxis and come up with an explanation of John 6.

If you truly believe all those lengthy posts about SS being the rule for determning doctrine, how come the silence regarding my question? It seems Joe and TQualey has asked you the same thing.

How about answering my question and that answers all our questions, hmmm?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Josiah, I ask again, only because you have not answered the question, which is cool, if you don’t want to answer it directly. Do you believe that all Christians, regardless of the church to which said Christians belong, or when each respective church was established, comprise the one holy catholic church, BUILT BY JESUS CHRIST on Pentecost, with the exception of the CC?

Off topic, a diversion - but you’ve asked this same question several times.
And I’ve answered it each time.

Once more, then can we return to the subject of this thread?

No, there is ZERO evidence that Jesus founded ANY denomination

Again I agree! There is ZERO evidence that Jesus founded ANY denomination.

(including The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -

So, the CC is a denomination and the Lutheran church is not?

the claims of each alone for each alone notwithstanding). Not mine, not yours, not any. Again, I believe that Jesus founded is the church that is one, holy and catholic - the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. Again, all Christians known to me are PEOPLE, and as far as I can tell, only people CAN be Christians. Thus, the communion of Christians, the mystical union of Christians, the gathering of Christians - the church - would be PEOPLE.

Did Jesus Christ build the CC (comprised of people) - and the Lutheran church (comprised of people) - yes or no?

Can we now turn to the issue of norming - including the doctrines of The Catholic Church - and the most sound norma normans for doing do?

I thought this thread was a defense of sola scriptura? Who is norma? LOL…Jon to you feel that Josiah has answered my question?

 

[bridgeforsale]

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.

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?

Thanks,

-nt

sola scriptura actually doesn’t say that – it only says the bible is infallible, and anything that contravenes the bible must be wrong (which, in the view of most protestants who hold this view, includes numerous Catholic worship practices and theological concepts).

Of course to hold to a doctrine of sola scriptura (in a true sense) requires a rejection of science, not to mention commen sense (so good choice )

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, the CC is a denomination and the Lutheran church is not?

Well, The Catholic Church is a denomination, Catholicism is not.
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is a denomination, Lutheranism is not.
But Jesus founded none of these.

Did Jesus Christ build the CC (comprised of people) - and the Lutheran church (comprised of people) ?

Jesus built no denomination. God does give faith to people, adding them to His church - thus building His church, but this has nothing to do with denominations, yours or mine or any other.

I thought this thread was a defense of sola scriptura?

That’s my understanding

Here is my post on this:

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

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hey AJ, I am still waiting for you to give me a good explaination on SS being the praxis and come up with an explanation of John 6.

Let’s try this again…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It is not hermeneutics and it is not arbitration. It doesn’t “say” or “determine” anything, it is a practice.

As far a whether John 6 is in accord with John 6, I find it pretty likely that it would generally be arbitrated that it is, I don’t understand how it cannot be.

.

 

[joe370]

In other words, it is your contention that all the insular churches in the world today were established by God on Pentecost, even the reformed baptist church being built in my neighborhood, as we speak?

I kept answering this, but you keep asking it.
Why do you want to divert this into a discussion of denominations?

You have never answered the question directly, not once. You simply say things like: No. God didn’t found, establish, form or otherwise begin ANY denomination. At Pentecost or any other date since Creation. Clearly you have a reason for not answering so I will digress. Plus you are right; this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

This thread is not about denominations OR any alone claiming for self alone to be “infallible/unaccountable.” I am WELL AWARE that all the cults exempt one (self) from accountablity (and thus the issue of this thread) by claiming that God established self and make a long chain of remarkable claims based on that - all with the intent of establishing self alone as the sole authority, infallible/unaccountable - to be accepted with docility. We all know that. But this thread is not about self exempting self from accountability or the way the RCC, LDS as well as all the cults do that.

If none of the PC’s can teach infallibly (without error) -the way the CC did at the council of Ephesus, Athanasius and Nicaea, then how can a Protestant be certain that he/she is being taught, by their Pastors, the truth as opposed to error? To belong to the Lutheran church, must I accept, with docility, the Lutheran Confessions as a “true exposition of Scripture,” which of course is UNDER Scripture and subject to Scripture? I have asked you quite a few questions about the tenets of the Lutheran Confessions and sola scriptura but I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Perhaps you have not gotten to them yet. Take your time.

Quote:
Jesus said: I will build my church, not churches. He had only one holy universal church in mind

I agree. I don’t think the unity for which He prayed is for one mega denomination. Nor do I think it was that each self being in formal, current agreement with one - self alone, a unity of ONE: self alone with self alone. Which is the only “unity” in The Catholic Church.

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

When 2 churches (leaders of each respective church) - disagree with one another, and both defer to the bible as their norma normans (authority) - to define and establish their doctrines, and refuse to back down vis-a-vis their unique perspective regarding said doctrines, what is the next step at resolving the matter? Or, do we just accept both teachings as truths, imparted by the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, to each respective assembly of Christians that make up the “one, holy catholic church?”

Where in the bible does the bible tell me that the bible is the norm for resolving doctrinal issues? Where in the bible does the bible tell me that the Lutheran confessions is a “true exposition of Scripture?”

I disagree with you that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is infallible/unaccountable and incaptable of error - and thus exclusively exempt from norming.

You disagree with me? I’m shocked! LOL… I never said: if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is infallible/unaccountable and incapable of error - and thus exclusively exempt from norming. If I did, then that would include every man made church. I said that the church (“I will build my church”) - built by God ( comprised of people/leaders) - on Pentecost, guided by the Infallible HS can teach infallibly because of the power/guidance of the HS as opposed to the fallible people/leaders that comprise the house of the living God, and if you are right and all churches regardless of who established them or when, make up the one, holy catholic church then the holy spirit is not doing a very good job - wouldn’t you agree?

Aj, (btw, I hope you don’t mind me calling you AJ) - does the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, guide one assembly of believers into one set of truths and another assembly of believers into another set of truths?

Can truth regarding all that Jesus taught be found at any one particular assembly of Believers, or are these truths scattered about, along with some un-truths at the various churches that make up the “one holy catholic church?”

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Quote:
how can you call all of the man-made churches (including the CC if you are right) - the one universal church

AGAIN, I don’t. I call them man-made congregations and denominations.

OK…I am following you thus far!

AGAIN, I have nothing against such man-made institutions (I am registered in a congregation and it is legally affiliated with a denomination). But the world’s millions of congregations and thousands of denominations are not the one, holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. Never was, isn’t now, never will be.

And… you lost me again! If the world’s millions of congregations and thousands of denominations are not the one, holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers, then please identify the one, holy and catholic church comprised of the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers? Jon, perhaps you could help me out here; what am I missing? I really want to grasp what you are saying Josiah but it ain’t registering my friend. I never believed that even as a former Lutheran.

Quote:
Regarding statements of faith and belief (Lutheran Confession) - which is clearly an extra-Biblical authoritative body of work, 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, (as opposed to the Apostles) - who wrote this extra-Biblical document(s), is it not a violation of SS (the bible alone)?

We’ve been all over this a few times now. No. The Lutheran Confessions are not norma nromans. The sole norma normans in Lutheranism is Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions are embraced by Lutherans because we believe that such is a “true exposition of Scripture” thus UNDER Scripture and subject to Scripture. They are - at most - norma normata, but not norma normans. All this has been explained to you by Jon and I several times now.

And yet your suppositions/conclusions still escape me. If the sole norma normans in Lutheranism is Scripture, then shouldn’t you just stick with scripture, just as all non-Lutheran Protestants, that belong to the “one, holy catholic church” - do?

Why do you believe that the Lutheran Confessions is a “true exposition of Scripture?” No sarcasm intended; never!!! I truly want to understand why you believe this with such conviction!

If you are right then surely the Lutheran Confessions should be embraced by all Christians, (not just Lutherans) - as the “true exposition of Scripture?” Yes???

By who’s authority did these men write the Lutheran Confessions? You have yet to answer this question asked by Myself and N2. It is a simple question!

Quote:
Again, 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? Yes or no?

AGAIN, yet again, I agree that the Trinity is sound.

Sorry for the repetition, but your answer does not compute. LOL…I agree; the doctrine is sound! However, the NT never identifies the holy spirit and Jesus as one; you believe this because the RCC believes it and defined it, in a climate where many Christians were still rejecting the dogma, so many centuries ago. Now, we just take it for granted.

Back to my original question: 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? Yes or no? Clearly you can see that you really don’t answer my questions for the most part. For example, I didn’t ask you if the infallible teaching of the Trinity was sound!

It does not mean that The Orthodox Church is infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming, the sole authority and we must accept with docility whatever it says whenever it says it.

Again, I never said that the members of the CC are infallible/unaccountable. Every church possesses authoritative leaders/teachers and the members of these churches must accept with docility, the teachings of said leaders/teachers. Do you agree or disagree? For example, if I want to belong to your church I must defer to the Lutheran Confessions and accept this body of work as a true exposition of Scripture, with docility - correct?

Do you agree with President Obama that there are 50 US States? If you do, does that make President Obama the sole authority, infallible, unaccountable, incaptable of error and you must accept whatever he says “with docility?” AGAIN, I disagree with your rubric that if one is right at one point, that single must MUST be right at ALL points and exempt from accountability - but all others are not so presumed or exempt.

Were back to President Obama - OK! Again, I would believe that President Obama could speak without error regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ ONLY, if in fact the holy spirit was sent to him on Pentecost, to be with him forever, (which clearly implies successors) - and I would accept with docility, the teachings of President Obama, just as you accept, with docility, the Lutheran confessions as a true exposition of sacred scripture. However, this is not the case.

Notice that you did not answer my question regarding the Lutheran Confessions!!!

If the CC could be wrong about many points then logically, there is a chance that they could have been wrong about this point (Trinity) - yes or no?

continued…

 

[joe370]

Let’s see if we can return to the issue of this thread: WHAT serves as the best norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church).

OK…The Lutheran Confessions. Just kidding. LOL… AJ, if the holy bible serves as the best norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines (including those of every PC and the Catholic Church), then perhaps you can prove it by answering the question asked by benedictus, regarding the Eucharist:

Doctrine to be assessed/evaluated: Eucharist ( whether it is the Real Body and Blood of our Lord (Catholic view) or it is only symbolic (Protestant view).

Norm: Sola Scriptura.

Now, tell me using SS, which doctrine of the Eucharist is correct: that it is literal or it is symbolic.

Note: According to you, by using your norm we should be able to arrive at the correct doctrine.

GO…

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by benedictus2 View Post
Hey AJ, I am still waiting for you to give me a good explaination on SS being the praxis and come up with an explanation of John 6.
Let’s try this again…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It is not hermeneutics and it is not arbitration. It doesn’t “say” or “determine” anything, it is a practice.

As far a whether John 6 is in accord with John 6, I find it pretty likely that it would generally be arbitrated that it is, I don’t understand how it cannot be.

Could you re-phrase the following; i am not understanding you:

“As far a whether John 6 is in accord with John 6, I find it pretty likely that it would generally be arbitrated that it is, I don’t understand how it cannot be.”

the bible alone is the praxis (translation of an idea into action; a practice) - of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines?

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

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

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

 

[joe370]

Jon, you said:

We are all one Church, Joe,

I agree. But not one and united in belief I must sadly concede, right?

…wounded by human sin, schism and separation, but one Church.

Will that include the many churches that do not exist today, but will exist in the future? Will the grandfather clause apply to them as well? LOL…

And I believe the most important steps toward unity is to recognize that we share in the sin that divides His Church, and also in Christian love, recognize the Holy Spirit in each other.

Amen brother… Jon is there a chance, no matter how unlikely to most Protestants, that Jesus actually kept the church which He built, one and united in belief and doctrine, and that that church was/is the CC, and that all other PC’s established by someone other than Jesus, remain in communion with the CC, but not in full communion, for the simple fact that they are not one and united with the CC vis-a-vis belief and doctrine, and are therefore part of the one, holy CC to which Jesus is the Head and Savior?

Certainly God has the power/means to accomplish this in spite of the sin of man that divide Christianity? For someone to claim that the sin of man could somehow prevent God from preserving HIS truths in the church established by His Son, which each Christian must be armed with to be saved, seems to limit God in a way, don’t you think?

We both agree that Jesus’ established church of the west and of the east, and of the north and of the south, (in other words universal in time and space) - for the first 1000 years of Christianity was in fact the CC. If no other churches (PC’s) - for the first 1000 years of Christianity existed then doesn’t it stand to reason that the CC is the church of Matthew 16, or is Josiah right and locating Jesus’ established church is impossible?

 

[joe370]

Well, The Catholic Church is a denomination, Catholicism is not.

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is a denomination, Lutheranism is not.
But Jesus founded none of these.

 

[joe370]

Aj, you said:

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.

Are you being serious? Jon, do you agree with this line of thinking? If it is 6 feet tall, everyone would measure it, and agree - period! You are over-complicating this; why, I do not know. Aj, what are we to use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”), now that we know that the bible cannot arbitrate or determine anything by your own admission? Let’s get down to the bare-bones and figure this out, instead of regurgitating the same quotes from the Lutheran Confessions. You don’t see anyone here doing the same with the CCC, do you? Let us all remove our biases and view things through the lens of logic.