Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=joe370;6136437]Jon, if Jesus is the builder of His church, then certainly we should all want to belong to His church regardless of some of the bad people who strive to (unwittingly or not) - corrupt Jesus’ church? Is there a reason why I should strive to belong to the Lutheran church as opposed to the CC? Of course I ask with the deepest respect? Most of my own family members belong to PC’s. I am the black sheep in this family. LOL…

There were reasons you felt guided to leave the Lutheran Church. If the Holy Spirit has guided you into the Catholic Church, then I pray He blesses you there. There has not been that call for me. I believe that the His special grace - sanctifying grace- is available in both. So, the long way around, the answer is not partiularly, although I believe that the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture.

You are the first non-Catholic to admit that to me, I mean, other than me as a former Lutheran.

Remember, when I say the Catholic Church, I do not mean those in communion with Rome exclusively.

Can the holy spirit guide all churches (regardless of church affiliation) - into ALL truth? Hmmm…Sure, and we would all have the same set of truths regarding any one doctrine, but sadly, that is not the case, for the simple fact that there are so many conflicting truths in the myriad churches. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is moving in His one, holy catholic church, comprised of all Christians regardless of church affiliation, in ways that lead to conflicting truths. Don’t you find that to be a tough pill to swallow? **I don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding a bunch of churches to believe in one interpretation of say, the Eucharist, and a bunch of churches to believe in another interpretation of the Eucharist. **I believe that the HS is still guiding the church of the ECF’s into all truth until the end of time, and that some man-made churches have adopted the same beliefs of the church built by God, while others have adopted either the beliefs of the reformers or one of their successors, or have adopted beliefs based on their own unique interpretation of the holy bible, which is a big no-no.

I don’t believe that, either. Again, would you say that the Church Triumphant has been led into All Truth?

Quote:
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?

I agree, but you didn’t answer the question. I can’t let you off the hook that easy. LOL…

No. You have not proved to me that Orthodoxy is not the True Church, or that the Bishop of Rome is not the schismatic. Again, though, you are talking about an organization. Josiah and I see the Church as the Augsburg Confession does.

Then surely that includes all Christian churches such as the 7th day Adventist church, or the Mormon church or any cultic Christian assembly of 2 or more gathered in Jesus’ name - correct?

With all respect to other groups, I think the Trinity is a benchmark for what is called Chrstianity. That said, this is not for me to know. I question their teachings, not God’s choice regarding them. But if the Catholic Catechism can see clear to allow the possibility of people who do not even believe in Christ to be saved, then at least no less for Mormons, etc.

So, the church that does not administer the sacraments, (be it 7 or 2) - is not included - right? Also, the Word preached at these multifarious assemblies often preach a different gospel message (truth) - and their members believe their Pastors. For example, the church to which my sister belongs preaches/teaches that baptism by water is not biblical and is a man-made tradition of the “evil” CC. Can we say: where the word is preached, there is the church, and include the many church Pastors who have discarded the beliefs of the Lutheran church or the CC, who have discarded the Sacraments and preached a different gospel? They all claim to be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

See my previous answer.

Jon, can truth be compromised in the name of ecumenism? If not then it’s doubtful that unity will be restored to Jesus’ Body the church, which seems to be more disfigured than His actual body that hung on the cross. Very disheartening, no doubt to our Savior.

No way should truth be compromised for a false unity. But it is not an all-or-nothing scenario, either. There can be mutual agreements on those things that are, or are not, Church dividing.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So if any particular ecclesial group does not declare their teachings to be without error, how can they be expected to be trusted to be without error?

IMHO, one is not “without possibility of error” because the self same alone claims such for the self same alone. THAT’S the foundamental disagreement between us. Yes, we all realize (and knew before this thread was even created) that The Catholic Church must reject Sola Scriptura as it must ANY rule/canon/norma normans because it alone insists that it alone is exempt from norming, since it alone declares that it alone is infallible (in issues of doctrine) and thus accountability is moot in the case of just one - itself. Again, it’s NOT that The Catholic Church rejects accountability - it passionately insists upon it for everything and everyone ELSE - it only excludes itself. And it’s NOT that it has a better alternative to the rule/canon/norma normans of Scripture, it doesn’t, it’s just that ANY and ALL such is moot in the case of just one: itself.

Where you and I disagree is that I find zero connection between self excluding self from accountability and self alone being infallible.

What you label “trust” (the required “accept whatever I myself exclusively say with docility”) is what is obviously just a circumvention of accountability of one for one - self.

IMHO, a true teacher welcomes the light. He/she/it encouraged, invites, indeed insists on being accountable. That teacher will subject himself to a rule/canon/norma normans other than himself/itself - one above and beyond all parties, and to an arbitration not limited to self. He/she/it welcomes the light and encourages all to examine everything in the light. After years of studying the cults, the central theme - the common denominator there - is that such teachers hide in the dark, he/she/it (whether it be the leader or the leadership or the cult itself) will insist that while ALL OTHERS are accountable and potentially errant, there is a single, exclusive, particular exception - self. Self alone declares self alone to be the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter. Self alone declares self alone to be infallible and incapable of error (at least in official matters of doctrine) - and thus there’s ONE that is unaccountable, and that’s self, exclusively. But what I found is that such is entirely, completely, absolutely unrelated to that self being correct. Much less infallible. It’s simply one exempting one from the entire question - and that one is always itself. It’s CIRCUMVENTION the issue of truth. It’s EVADING the entire issue of norming (including, obviously, WHAT will serve as the norma normans/rule/canon in norming). IMHO, self declaring: “I’m correct so when I say I’m correct ergo I must be correct so I’m correct” is just a circle - created for one and only one reason: to exclude self alone from accountability. The only permitted option is to accept what ONE says - self - “with docility” (usually as God Himself speaking). It’s a CIRCUMVENTION of truth and has nothing to do with it. Again, false teachers MUST hide behind self-claims and self-exclusions and enormous claims of self for self in order to evade accountability. But, IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light.

.

 

[Newbie2]

So “norming” is breaking away and establishing a new norm?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So “norming” is breaking away and establishing a new norm?

Of course not, “norming” is the process of determining if a position is correct; in theology, it’s especially if a doctrine is correct.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in such.

.

 

[Newbie2]

Beg to differ.

Catholic Authority has it’s roots in Scripture and Tradition. It is not a matter of the Roman Catholic Church one day waking up and saying, “Yep, we’re right because we say we’re right”, which is about what I hear you as saying, if I’m not misunderstanding.

Catholics do not believe that the Catholic Church gave herself Authority, rather that it was given to her by Christ himself. Whether or not you or anyone else accept that Scriptural or Traditional evidence is another matter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

I have tried on seveal occasions to get you to make a practical application of your praxis position and you just keep avoiding it … I just do not think you are trying very hard, AJ… So, let;s try again…

Of course not, “norming” is the process of determining if a position is correct; in theology, it’s especially if a doctrine is correct.

But, the issue here is that only people can make a determination. While many items in Scripture are quite clear - Moses receiving the 10 commandments, (Exodus 34:28) and Christ telling His listeners that unless they eat His Flesh and drink His Blood they have no life in them (John 6:47-59) some dispute them. How is this resolved - obviously, going to the Bible will not solve this matter because the very words of the Bible are in dispute. (Now, I am guessing, but it seemls like there are those who would say that the words are clear, it is that we do not believe them because they do not conform to the way we want to believe!)

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in such.

AJ, the entire idea of a praxis is to make a practical application to an idea. How do we resolve the Command to worship on the Sabbath - when Lutherans (and Catholics, too!) worship on Sunday? What is the practical application of behavior here? Are the 7th Day Adventists correct?

And, in your enthusiasm for answering that quesiton - what is the praxis for Christ telling people that they are to eat His Flesh? Christ used a series of nine different statements comparing himself to bread that is to be eaten. A praxis must address this issue in a behavioral manner - so, tell me, how do you do this?

God bless

.

 

[Cinette]

I love Catholic Answers because one learns much from almost everybody - both Catholics and non-Catholics. It is important and healthy to debate and share but…

I find it beautiful to be concise and articulate, to express oneself in few words, not to be repetitive or confusing. In this busy modern world we have computers to accelerate the processing of information and there is google and other means to obtain data.

However on these threads we find people who go round and round and round. When a point is contested successfully and irrefutably why cannot we get to the next point. Can we not avoid repetition and repetition and repetition!!!

Sola Scriptura is an interesting subject which has been debated many many times and I suppose sometimes we forget that we are debating with new people and that is OK - in that case we need to be repetitive but how about long-windedness???!! Being articulate and concise requires skill but it makes for much more interesting interaction don’t you think?

Love you all
Cinette

 

[joe370]

If the infallible HS is guiding Jesus’ church leadership and safeguarding the deposit of faith, then infallible truths (error fee) - can be known and defined.

Of course.

So, you agree with the following: “If the infallible HS is guiding Jesus’ church leadership and safeguarding the deposit of faith, then infallible truths (error fee) - can be known and defined?” Well, that’s a start. Help me find this church leadership, and let’s assume it’s not to be found in the CC.

IF there are 6 billion purple people eaters living on Mars, then yes - there are purple people eaters living on Mars. I hope you see the entire irrelevance to truth in your perfect circle.

Agreed, if there are 6 billion purple people eaters living on Mars, then yes - there are purple people eaters living on Mars. Now, if someone tells you that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist, does that mean that Jesus was really speaking in metaphor? If not, then use your norm and prove me wrong, and if you do, why should I believe you? It’s just you (self alone) declaring that you (self alone) - are correct - right? Help me find the church leadership that can arbitrate and determine what should be believed, just as the council of the RCC did when they defined doctrines as being infallible (error free)? -

Self alone declares that self alone is correct (even INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable), so self alone declares that self alone is correct. THUS, since self alone is correct then self alone must be correct when self alone declares that self alone is correct.

This is something new. LOL. If self alone CANNOT declare that self alone is correct, then this applies to all Protestant churches as well, and not one church, including the CC, is the church of Matthew 16, correct, for that church is being guided by the infallible holy spirit? OK, let’s assume that you are right! Help me find the church of Matthew 16 which is guided by the Holy spirit into all truth, until the end of time? If you give me the same answer (all churches comprise the one holy catholic church) - I won’t ask again, for the simple fact that that conflicts with what the bible says. The bible says that Jesus will guide His church into all truth, not guide several insular churches into different truths!

One more time: the church (comprised of all sinful, imperfect, fallible people) - built by God on Pentecost, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, is where truth can be found in it’s fullest. I will always believe this.

You certainly may BELIEVE whatever you want, but such doesn’t make it true.

The church (comprised of all sinful, imperfect, fallible people) - built by God on Pentecost, is NOT forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, and is NOT where truth can be found in it’s fullest?

Studied any of the cults?

I will when you give me the name of said cults!

And I would remind you that there is ZERO evidence that sinful humans always and INFALLIBLY follow God’s leading.

I totally agree with you. Boy that felt good to say to you. LOL. Many Christians (past, present and future) - belonging to the CC have failed to follow God’s lead. As far as infallibility, tell me why the Trinity is not a fallible doctrine, defined by the RCC leaders in council, who are all fallible people?

A

nd I remind you that God never promised ANYTHING to your denomination (or any other).

The CC was never called a denomination until the protestant reformation. It was just called the CC. If it was, prove it and I will concede? I do agree with you thought. Jesus promised to His one church as opposed to a denomination that He would send to His church the Holy spirit, to be with them forever, and guide them into all truth:

*But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
*

*And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever
It is simply the claim of self for self, exclusively. A circle of self-authentication. *

Do you believe Jesus?

The early councils of the RCC absolutely spoke with authority when defining things such as theotokos, the trinity, Jesus’ 2 natures. Were they guilty of the circle of self-authentication, or can we believe them for the simple fact that they derive their authority from Jesus Christ?

“I’m right so I must be right when I insist that I’m right.”

Was the RCC (that defined the Trinity) - and of course expected every Christian to believe this clarified doctrine, with docility, guilty of the words: “I’m right so I must be right when I insist that I’m right?”

Friend, my point is that has nothing to do with that one being right, that one is SIMPLY evading the question, circumventing examination, avoiding norming. Study the cults.

Did the RCC that defined the preceding doctrines, circumvent examination and avoid norming, or did they use norming or the Lutheran Confessions to resolve, arbitrate and determine theses error free doctrines?

It is MY view that a true teacher welcomes the light and encourages norming, and willingly submits to a rule/canon outside and above him/her/it

To whom does one submit, like the Christians did at the various councils that defined the preceding dogmas, to which you embrace?

…and an arbitration that is not limited to self.

Who can arbitrate? We know it’s not the CC or your norm, (with the exception of certain councils of the past) - by your own admission?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah
No. NO Lutheran is commanded by ANY Lutheran denomination to accept any point in any of the The Lutheran Confessions “with docility” or “as Jesus speaking.”

So, I don’t have to adhere to the Lutheran Confessions to belong to a Lutheran church? I can deny what is laid out in the LC’s and still be a member of the Lutheran church???

Yes or no? You did not answer the question?

NOR does ANY Lutheran denomination claim that it is the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter or infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error.

If the Lutheran church leaders are not the sole authority/interpreter and they cannot teach infallibly (even though the HS is guiding the Lutheran churches) - then their interpretation could be fallible (wrong) - right?

Instead of answering this question, you opted to say:

There is only one Christian denomination that declares for itself exclusively to be incapable of error, infallible, unaccountable - and insists that all just accept that (and whatever else it officially states) “with docility.” It’s yours. The LDS once did but dropped that about a century ago. It’s found in all the cults, of course (it’s foundational there) but there’s only one Christian denomination that does that. It’s yours.

First of all, it’s not my church; I did not build it; Jesus did. I just belong to it. Secondly, could you please answer the question:

If the Lutheran church leaders are not the sole authority/interpreter and they cannot teach infallibly (even though the HS is guiding the Lutheran churches) - then their interpretation could be fallible (wrong about their teachings, such as the Lutheran Confessions) - right?

 

[joe370]

=joe370;6136437]Jon, if Jesus is the builder of His church, then certainly we should all want to belong to His church regardless of some of the bad people who strive to (unwittingly or not) - corrupt Jesus’ church? Is there a reason why I should strive to belong to the Lutheran church as opposed to the CC? Of course I ask with the deepest respect? Most of my own family members belong to PC’s. I am the black sheep in this family. LOL…

There were reasons you felt guided to leave the Lutheran Church. If the Holy Spirit has guided you into the Catholic Church, then I pray He blesses you there. There has not been that call for me.

Can’t argue with that logic. I too pray He blesses you at the Lutheran church, just as I do with my sister, my dad and my niece, who all belong to different churches, and they do not believe that their churches are Catholic in the way you believe. They believe that it doesn’t matter which church Christians belong to, as long as it’s not the RCC. If I were to bring up the CCC (like you do with the Lutheran confessions) - they would recoil as if I just spoke blasphemously. Maybe it doesn’t even matter which church we belong to. But I highly doubt it.

I believe that the His special grace - sanctifying grace- is available in both. So, the long way around, the answer is not partiularly, although I believe that the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture.

Absolutely! Why do you believe that the Augsburg Confession (written by fallible men) - rightly reflects scripture, but do not believe that the CCC (written by fallible men) -rightly reflects scripture? Or, do they both rightly reflect sacred scripture?

Quote:
You are the first non-Catholic to admit that to me, I mean, other than me as a former Lutheran.
Remember, when I say the Catholic Church, I do not mean those in communion with Rome exclusively.

I know; you mean, I think, that the EOC and CC, prior to the split, was the church built by God - right?

Quote:
Can the holy spirit guide all churches (regardless of church affiliation) - into ALL truth? Hmmm…Sure, and we would all have the same set of truths regarding any one doctrine, but sadly, that is not the case, for the simple fact that there are so many conflicting truths in the myriad churches. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is moving in His one, holy catholic church, comprised of all Christians regardless of church affiliation, in ways that lead to conflicting truths. Don’t you find that to be a tough pill to swallow? I don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding a bunch of churches to believe in one interpretation of say, the Eucharist, and a bunch of churches to believe in another interpretation of the Eucharist. I believe that the HS is still guiding the church of the ECF’s into all truth until the end of time, and that some man-made churches have adopted the same beliefs of the church built by God, while others have adopted either the beliefs of the reformers or one of their successors, or have adopted beliefs based on their own unique interpretation of the holy bible, which is a big no-no.

I don’t believe that, either. Again, would you say that the Church Triumphant has been led into All Truth?

Oops, I forgot to answer that question. If you mean the church in heaven, enjoying a state of triumph, who’s battle with evil being over - distinguished from the church militant, then absolutely!!! I also believe that the triumphant church is full of Christians that do not belong to the CC, but sadly, in my experience, this sentiment is not reciprocated.

continued…

 

[joe370]

If you don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding a bunch of churches to believe in one interpretation of say, the Eucharist, and a bunch of churches to believe in another interpretation of the Eucharist, then, do you believe that the HS is guiding a bunch of churches into all truth, while the rest remain unguided? How can I know who is right and who is wrong?

Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
I agree, but you didn’t answer the question. I can’t let you off the hook that easy. LOL…
No. You have not proved to me that Orthodoxy is not the True Church, or that the Bishop of Rome is not the schismatic. Again, though, you are talking about an organization. Josiah and I see the Church as the Augsburg Confession does.

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

I said to Aj:
*

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Then surely that includes all Christian churches such as the 7th day Adventist church, or the Mormon church or any cultic Christian assembly of 2 or more gathered in Jesus’ name - correct?
With all respect to other groups, I think the Trinity is a benchmark for what is called Chrstianity.

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

That said, this is not for me to know. I question their teachings, not God’s choice regarding them. But if the Catholic Catechism can see clear to allow the possibility of people who do not even believe in Christ to be saved, then at least no less for Mormons, etc.

Amen brother; can’t argue with that.

Quote:
Jon, can truth be compromised in the name of ecumenism? If not then it’s doubtful that unity will be restored to Jesus’ Body the church, which seems to be more disfigured than His actual body that hung on the cross. Very disheartening, no doubt to our Savior.
No way should truth be compromised for a false unity. But it is not an all-or-nothing scenario, either. There can be mutual agreements on those things that are, or are not, Church dividing.

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

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Of course not, “norming” is the process of determining if a position is correct; in theology, it’s especially if a doctrine is correct.

But, the issue here is that only people can make a determination.

As I’ve replied numerous times now in this thread, that is called arbitration. That’s NOT the issue here. AGAIN, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation (norming) of doctrines.

AGAIN, Sola Scripture is not arbitration. Embracing Scripture (that praxis) doesn’t say or teach or determine anything - anymore than driving on the right side of the road in the USA teaches or determines anything. IT’S A PRAXIS.

AGAIN, yes, norming involves two main aspects: The embrace of a common rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is technically called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). In civilized societies, we often have a praxis called The Rule of Law - where the Law is the norma normans. In theology, some embrace The Rule of Scripture (“Sola Scriptura.” Bob the Builder builds a fense. He says it’s 6 feet tall. IF you care about truth, IF you care if his position is correct, then you have just entered the realm of norming. The FIRST issue you must address is WHAT will be used as the canon (“measuring stick”), WHAT will be the rule in the determination? THAT is the sole issue before us: WHAT will be the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines - yours, mine, everyone’s.

How do we resolve the Command to worship on the Sabbath - when Lutherans (and Catholics, too!) worship on Sunday?

AGAIN, you are skipping the first issue in norming and the ONLY issue of this thread: WHAT will we embrace as the rule/canon/norma normans.

THIS is the issue that divides us. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture, it rejects using Scripture as the canon. It does so NOT because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t - as the Catholics in this thread and elsewhere have made abundantly clear - no alternative at all has been suggested, better or worse). It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects norming, thus it rejects any and all norms. It insists that while ALL are accountable and potentially wrong, it makes one exception: itself. It alone insists that it alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway), it alone insists that it alone is infallible and thus unaccountable. It alone insists that it alone is the sole authority, sole interperter and sole arbiter. From the CC’s perspective, since there is ONE who is infallible (self, exclusively) then it’s moot to even ask is ONE (self) is correct. Rather, whatever one (self) says is the “rule” for correctness. Self will look in the mirror exclusively at self to see if self agrees with self, and if so, then self is correct - but even this is moot since OF COURSE self alone is correct since self alone declares that self along cannot be wrong, thus when self alone declares that self alone is correct, ergo, self alone IS correct.

Now, yes, The Catholic Church DOES embrace accountability (and norming) FOR ALL OTHERS - it exempts only one: itself, exclusively. ALL OTHERS will be normed, and yes it has a rule/canon of sorts for that, and yes you guessed it: self. If others totally agree with self, then they are correct.

FIRST, all need to embrace accountability - or the issue of this thread is moot. The Catholic Church does, for ALL but ONE: itself. It alone exempts it alone.

SECOND, we need to agree on a commonly embraced rule/canon/norma normans. This The Catholic Church rejects, because it rejects accountability. It doesn’t have a better alternative than Scripture as such, it doesn’t have a different theology of Scripture. It’s just the whole issue is moot in the case of ONE, insists one - The Catholic Church, and that one is itself. IF there is ANY “rule” or “canon” it will accept, it is simply itself, whatever itself says is the rule/canon for whether what it says is correct.

THIRD, once the first two are embraced, we need to develop a commonly embraced process of arbitration - addressing HOW we together will determine if a teaching “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon, the norma normans)? Here, The Catholic Church insists that it is the sole arbiter, it alone will determine if teachings are correct (including its own) based on whether these teachings are in full and current agreement with the teachings of itself. IMHO, self determining if self agrees with self as no relevance whatsoever to self being correct - it simply a circumvention of the issue, not a sound praxis of norming.

I WISH arbitration was as easy as each teacher (person, congregation, denomination, etc. - INCLUDING The Catholic Church) could just declare self INCAPABLE of being wrong - and thus self is correct. Studied any of the cults? But such is actually just a circumvention of the issue, not addressing it. Self agreeing with self has no relevance to self being correct (self USUALLY agrees with self, lol). If you want to start a thread on arbitration - the process the 2.1 billion Christians should use to determine which teacher(s) are correct on what teaching, I’d be interested in that. But of course, that’s beyond the permitted realm of this thread.

God bless

… and also you.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If the Lutheran church leaders are not the sole authority/interpreter and they cannot teach infallibly (even though the HS is guiding the Lutheran churches) - then their interpretation could be fallible (wrong about their teachings, such as the Lutheran Confessions) - right?

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

What you continue to reveal is that The Catholic Church has no alternative to the Rule of Scripture, no “better” rule/canon to suggest, no “better” concept of norming at all. It simply excludes itself exclusively from the entire question by declaring that it itself alone is correct - so it is. End of the issue.

Again, YES, a Lutheran teacher CAN be incorrect. Which is why all invite accountability and submit to a norm OUTSIDE self and an arbitration that isn’t just by self. IMHO, true teachers welcome the light, welcome accountability. It is the false teacher that must exclude self alone from such, hiding in the dark behind walls of self-claims and self exemptions.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding a bunch of churches to believe in one interpretation of say, the Eucharist, and a bunch of churches to believe in another interpretation of the Eucharist, then, do you believe that the HS is guiding a bunch of churches into all truth, while the rest remain unguided? How can I know who is right and who is wrong?

1. You must BEGIN by holding the teachers accountable for what they teach, by NOT doing what your teacher demands of you in Catholic Catechism # 87.
2. I disagree with you that The Holy Spirit leads denominations. I believe the Holy Spirit leads PEOPLE.
3. I disagree with you that since God infallibly leads, ERGO people will always and infallibly follow (at least if each so claims that each alone does). In my studies of cults, I found the obvious: the central theme and common denominator in them all: self (the leader, corpus of leaders - or simply the singular cult as such) insists that God “infallibly” leads (not all claim exclusively self) and there is ONE that “infallibly” follows - and you can always guess which one that is. All this is done to underpin one thing: the exemption of one (self) from accountibility, and the demand of self that all accept whatever one (self) says “with docility.” In other words, don’t ask the question you raised, well in the case of ONE: self. IMHO, this isn’t addressing whether what self says is correct, it’s forbidding the question in the case of one: self.

I said to Aj:

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

Again, as I replied several times, by arbitrating the issue according to that rule/canon…

Again, let’s say a friendly man in blue pulls you over. He claims you were speeding when you were driving 60 MPH. Now, there is a sign right next to you. A big, square, white sign with big, black numbers and letters that proclaims: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” Now, you are correct, the SIGN doesn’t say you were speeding - the sign is made of metal and has no mouth - it CANNOT speak. And it doesn’t have a brain, you are correct, it CANNOT determine that you were speeding or not. BUT, it CAN serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for that determination (and it will - whether you like it or not - because America embraces The Rule of Law). Now, it’s possible that the subject won’t be obvious and some arbitration will be needed - but that arbitration will be according to The Rule of Law (that pesky sign!) and that arbitration will NOT be limited to you - you appointing you as the sole arbiter or whether you were speeding or not (made moot since you have declared that there is one - and only one - yourself, that CANNOT violate any driving laws because there is ONE - yourself- who is an infallible driver).

…

 

[Shannon9791]

1. I disagree with you that The Holy Spirit leads denominations. I believe the Holy Spirit leads PEOPLE.

…

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can lead people to teach something that is infallible?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe,

Your patience is light-years ahead of mine…

Not only nicely worded - but, a pleasure to read!

Keep up the good work

God bless

So, you agree with the following: “If the infallible HS is guiding Jesus’ church leadership and safeguarding the deposit of faith, then infallible truths (error fee) - can be known and defined?” Well, that’s a start. Help me find this church leadership, and let’s assume it’s not to be found in the CC.

Agreed, if there are 6 billion purple people eaters living on Mars, then yes - there are purple people eaters living on Mars. Now, if someone tells you that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist, does that mean that Jesus was really speaking in metaphor? If not, then use your norm and prove me wrong, and if you do, why should I believe you? It’s just you (self alone) declaring that you (self alone) - are correct - right? Help me find the church leadership that can arbitrate and determine what should be believed, just as the council of the RCC did when they defined doctrines as being infallible (error free)? -

This is something new. LOL. If self alone CANNOT declare that self alone is correct, then this applies to all Protestant churches as well, and not one church, including the CC, is the church of Matthew 16, correct, for that church is being guided by the infallible holy spirit? OK, let’s assume that you are right! Help me find the church of Matthew 16 which is guided by the Holy spirit into all truth, until the end of time? If you give me the same answer (all churches comprise the one holy catholic church) - I won’t ask again, for the simple fact that that conflicts with what the bible says. The bible says that Jesus will guide His church into all truth, not guide several insular churches into different truths!

The church (comprised of all sinful, imperfect, fallible people) - built by God on Pentecost, is NOT forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, and is NOT where truth can be found in it’s fullest?

I will when you give me the name of said cults!

And I would remind you that there is ZERO evidence that sinful humans always and INFALLIBLY follow God’s leading.

I totally agree with you. Boy that felt good to say to you. LOL. Many Christians (past, present and future) - belonging to the CC have failed to follow God’s lead. As far as infallibility, tell me why the Trinity is not a fallible doctrine, defined by the RCC leaders in council, who are all fallible people?

A

The CC was never called a denomination until the protestant reformation. It was just called the CC. If it was, prove it and I will concede? I do agree with you thought. Jesus promised to His one church as opposed to a denomination that He would send to His church the Holy spirit, to be with them forever, and guide them into all truth:

*But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
*

*And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever
It is simply the claim of self for self, exclusively. A circle of self-authentication. *

Do you believe Jesus?

The early councils of the RCC absolutely spoke with authority when defining things such as theotokos, the trinity, Jesus’ 2 natures. Were they guilty of the circle of self-authentication, or can we believe them for the simple fact that they derive their authority from Jesus Christ?

Was the RCC (that defined the Trinity) - and of course expected every Christian to believe this clarified doctrine, with docility, guilty of the words: “I’m right so I must be right when I insist that I’m right?”

Did the RCC that defined the preceding doctrines, circumvent examination and avoid norming, or did they use norming or the Lutheran Confessions to resolve, arbitrate and determine theses error free doctrines?

To whom does one submit, like the Christians did at the various councils that defined the preceding dogmas, to which you embrace?

Who can arbitrate? We know it’s not the CC or your norm, (with the exception of certain councils of the past) - by your own admission?

Continued…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

It has become a bit tiresome to identify all of the self contradictory statements you can make in one post (and, this is when you do not go on to a 2nd, 3rd and 4th page! ) So, let’s see what we have here…

1. You must BEGIN by holding the teachers accountable for what they teach, by NOT doing what your teacher demands of you in Catholic Catechism # 87.

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

If the idea that pastors can lead their congregations astray - you are correct! Look what Fr. Martin Luther did!! If a priest is teaching error, and this becomes known, the priest will be corrected - as was Luther.

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church derives directly from Christ’s Great Commission telling His Apostles to baptize all nations. So, the actually BEGINNING is traced from Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to Peter and the Apostles - all the way to today’s Benedict XVI. Now, you have repeatedly claim that this is, ‘self affirming self affirmig self…’ and this is how consistent doctrine comes about. What is the opposite? All of protestantism - ‘self disaffirming self repudiating self splintering from self…’ and we have all of these mutually exclusive doctrines - from a God they claim to worship Who has told us that He is Way (not ways), Truth (not multiple and contradictory statements) and the Life (not the death associated with repudiating Christ and His Church).

I think the big error you are making here lies in Matt 7:16 - By their fruits you will know them. For example, who has a unified doctrine on the Eucharist - (John 6) the Catholic Church or the protestants who can not seem to make up their mind what is involved? Who has a unified doctrine that Christ gave the Apostles the delegated power to forgive sin (John 20) or the protestants who claim it is not needed or they ‘just go to God’? Look at your group is itself splintered form other Lutherans. The fruit of error is chaos and this is what you are looking at - even with your jaundiced eye.

**

1. I disagree with you that The Holy Spirit leads denominations. I believe the Holy Spirit leads PEOPLE.
   That’s interesting … sort of like the government saying it is taxing corporations and not people … just who do you think pays the taxes and who do you think raises the prices to cover the taxes: people. This is simply an artificial distinction - God is not leading buildings, books or anything else - He is leading people who agree to be lead. The people the Holy Spirit lead were in the locked room on Pentecost Sunday - and after His miraculous apparance in firey tongues, these frail and sinful men burst forth from hiding and bold preached the Word of God. As you read Acts you see how changes were made to fit circumstances (the appointment of deacons) and all went out preaching and baptizing other people who formed the infant Catholic Church… not the Lutheran Church.
2. I disagree with you that since God infallibly leads, ERGO people will always and infallibly follow (at least if each so claims that each alone does). In my studies of cults, I found the obvious: the central theme and common denominator in them all: self (the leader, corpus of leaders - or simply the singular cult as such) insists that God “infallibly” leads (not all claim exclusively self) and there is ONE that “infallibly” follows - and you can always guess which one that is. Edited for brevity. IMHO, this isn’t addressing whether what self says is correct, it’s forbidding the question in the case of one: self.

This is a little harder to address, AJ, because of your rambling…! I really think the response lies in what I have told you in #1 and #2 above. God promised to keep the Gates of Hell from triumphing - not from denting, discoloring, maring, or defacing - and the Catholic Church has had an abundant set of examples of sinful men who have been in all leadership positions. But, you know, with the Great Deceiver trying so hard to crush this Catholic Church, you’d think with a 2,000 year history, he would have succeeded by now - unless of course, it was actually protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

God bless

…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

So, how do we know if the teacher is correct?

.

1. You must BEGIN by holding the teachers accountable for what they teach, by NOT doing what your teacher demands of you in Catholic Catechism # 87.

.

First, let’s look at CCC #87: 87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms

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

This thread is about an embrace rule/canon in norming.

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church derives directly from Christ’s Great Commission telling His Apostles to baptize all nations.

1. Read the question I addressed. The question is not if you have authority to teach (you must think you do because here you are teaching - in this thread).
2. Authority has nothing to do with infalliblity/unaccountability. I have various authorities in job, believe me, I’m not regarded as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole arbiter, whatever I say is God speaking. But yes, I do have authority to do what my job description says I am to do.
3. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church to do anything. He never even mentioned it (or any other denomination). About anything. For anything. Not once. Ever.

For example, who has a unified doctrine on the Eucharist - (John 6) the Catholic Church or the protestants who can not seem to make up their mind what is involved?

IMHO, the error you are making is assuming that if ONE is in agreement with only ONE (self) ergo self must be infallible/unaccountable. Friend, yes, of course, we all know that The Catholic Church is officially and currently in agreement with just one in all maters that The Catholic Church currently thinks it good to agree upon, and that one is itself. Exclusively. So what? Why is that so significant to you? AT LEAST as much is true for every single other denomination on the planet. Heck, I officially and current agree with me on everything that I current think there should be agreement upon - just like The Catholic Church, but are you posting here that ERGO I MUST be infallible, unaccountable, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and all must accept whatever I say “with docility” as God speaking? Are you aware that MOST teachers currently and officially agree with themself - the WORSE you can say is that they are like the Catholic Church - in agreement with self alone but no other: a unity of ONE - self alone with self alone. How does that indicate infallibility/unaccountability for that one?

I disagree with you that The Holy Spirit leads denominations. I believe the Holy Spirit leads PEOPLE.

I disagree with you that since God infallibly leads, ERGO people will always and infallibly follow (at least if each so claims that each alone does). In my studies of cults, I found the obvious: the central theme and common denominator in them all: self (the leader, corpus of leaders - or simply the singular cult as such) insists that God “infallibly” leads (not all claim exclusively self) and there is ONE that “infallibly” follows - and you can always guess which one that is. Edited for brevity. IMHO, this isn’t addressing whether what self says is correct, it’s forbidding the question in the case of one: self.

This is a little harder to address, AJ. I really think the response lies in what I have told you in #1 and #2 above. God promised to keep the Gates of Hell from triumphing - not from denting, discoloring, maring, or defacing.

God promised The Catholic Church nothing. The verse you are referring to was a promise giving to PEOPLE, not any denomination (including yours and mine).

But again, I disagree with you on some fundamental points:

That accountability and the need for norming are simply moot if one alone insists that one alone (self) is exempt from it . That is NOT an alternative (and certainly not better) approach to norming, it’s an exemption of self from such.

Yes, we all know how The Catholic Church attempts to evade norming, and thus why it rejects The Rule of Scripture (and any other). We all know it very well, and the Catholics here have done a fine job of articulating the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. And sure, if all the claims are true then they are true (as is always the case with claims), but it’s still just a circumvention of the issue NOT addressing it; it’s just evasion NOT a better alternative. “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I must be right - so just accept it with docility.” We all understand epistemology of The Catholic Church (and how it tries to justify it). But it’s NOT a discussion of norming or the most sound rule/canon for such; it’s not a discussion of this topic. It’s just self alone exempting self alone from the entire issue. It’s NOT a better approach, it’s evading ANY approach, it’s not a better norma normans, it’s self rejecting ANY for self.

God bless …

… and also you.

.

 

[Shannon9791]

.

1. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church to do anything. He never even mentioned it (or any other denomination). About anything. For anything. Not once. Ever.

.

Jesus never authorized scripture to do anything either.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6140166]Can’t argue with that logic. I too pray He blesses you at the Lutheran church, just as I do with my sister, my dad and my niece, who all belong to different churches, and they do not believe that their churches are Catholic in the way you believe. They believe that it doesn’t matter which church Christians belong to, as long as it’s not the RCC. If I were to bring up the CCC (like you do with the Lutheran confessions) - they would recoil as if I just spoke blasphemously. Maybe it doesn’t even matter which church we belong to. But I highly doubt it.

Thank you for your prayers for blessing. That we share the faith strongly enough to do this for each other - if all Christians did - then unity would be that much closer. How much easier wuld the Holy Spirit’s job be if we did?
To recoil at the teachings of each other in the way you describe cuts off dialogue. To insult or bash each other, or attempt to speak for each other’s beliefs does the same. I’m happy you and I have aovided that.

Absolutely! Why do you believe that the Augsburg Confession (written by fallible men) - rightly reflects scripture, but do not believe that the CCC (written by fallible men) -rightly reflects scripture? Or, do they both rightly reflect sacred scripture?

In many ways they do, in some ways we speak the same truth using different semantics, and in some ways we don’t (then one or both of us are wrong).

I know; you mean, I think, that the EOC and CC, prior to the split, was the church built by God - right?

Yes, as well as those of us who are Lutheran via our roots in the CC. (Not meaning to leave others out)

Oops, I forgot to answer that question. If you mean the church in heaven, enjoying a state of triumph, who’s battle with evil being over - distinguished from the church militant, then absolutely!!! I also believe that the triumphant church is full of Christians that do not belong to the CC, but sadly, in my experience, this sentiment is not reciprocated.

Well, with Lutherans it should be. But then, there are those that exclude us, as well.

Jon