Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Hey Tom, you said:

Hi, Joe,

Now… maybe I have missed the boat here … but, judging from the length and pages of your last posts … it could be that you have been hanging around AJ for too long…

I am just hoping that he will actually answer one of my questions, like Jon does.

But let me address one thing you said that you may want to consider…

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Amen brother. Just because Christians can’t always agree, does not mean that we can’t/shouldn’t treat each other as Jesus would, if He were participating in this open forum. Jesus’ responses would be filled with love and charity!!!

The mental image I got after reading this is that Jesus is some kind of Divine “Warm Fuzzy”… the Good Shepherd with the lamb around His neck. And, while we are overcome with love when Christ responds to people like the deaf, blind, cripples - and even dead who are renewed by Christ. And, we see Christ’s great charity to the woman caught in adultery, the hungry who He fed with loaves and fishes and the paralytic whose sins he first forgave before curing him. But, let’s not forget, this is the same Christ who began (somewhat like John the Baptist did) with opening remarks like, “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees…” (Matt 23:13-24) This is the same Christ who formed a whip from cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple (John 2:15) - and even rebuked Peter, who He just appointed as leader of the Apostles and gave him the keys - by calling him Satan! (Matt 16:23)

There are some significant instances where our usual image of the “Warm Fuzzy” come in direct conflict with the actions taken by Christ. So the quesiton is: WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) Well, surely He would present the Truth and this Truth is His Church. - found directly in Scripture (Matt 16 - for your old buddy AJ).

For those who reject His Truth, Matt 25 has some interesting stories worth reading. Christ is a complex Person - and one who presents Himself to others in different ways. To those who sincerely want to know the Truth (like Nicodemous) Christ did what was necessary (teaching this old Pharisee at night because he was afraid of the criticism of the other Pharisees). To those who use the Law to distort its intent, He was quite different.

Being civil is expected behavior - but, within this context, we can argue for the Truth of Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) without being argumentative.

Absolutely, and I agree with you, and like you said, it’s always good to keep things non-confrontational. I think more can get done that way. Nothing good comes from a heated debate. It always ends badly! Is it always easy? Heck no, especially when people don’t answer your questions. Honestly, when I attempt to understand and endeavor to grasp counter positions, such as Aj’s, it just reinforces by beliefs. But other times it’s rather easy when dealing with brothers in Christ, like Jon, (I consider Aj a brother as well ). it’s just that Jon seems more open to possibilities. I wish we could both (Aj and I) - just relinquish our biases and remove our myopic glasses and argue our positions from the bible and a logical standpoint, but he won’t do it. Aj, if you read this post will you give it a shot and stop regurgitating quotes from the Lutheran Confessions, and simply work from sacred scripture and logic? Brother, you don’t see me throwing quotes from the CCC at you! What ya say?

 

[joe370]

Josiah, you said:

Actually, a Catholic asked that question. The Catholic wanted to know that. My reply was that we must begin by regarding the teacher as accountable. It is at this very first step that The Catholic Church disagrees with all others; it is here - at this first step - that we depart.
The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE that is exempt from this question, and that one is itself. Alone, exclusively. Self alone insists that self alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway) and that self alone is infallible. Thus self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the question the Catholic asked. Thus, he/she MAY ask that question of anything or anyone (indeed, for the sake of truth, must!) but in the case of self alone, self is to be simply accepted with docility - as God speaking.

OK…Let’s assume that the CC is as you say, and move on! How can we know if a teacher is doctrinally correct or incorrect, regardless of the church to which they belong? Keeping in mind that you said: the bible as the Christians norm norma, cannot arbitrate and it cannot determine anything!!!

 

[joe370]

Jon you said:

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 would the Holy Spirit’s job be if we did?

**I have been pondering your words but I just can’t agree with you, as much as I want to. For example, you and I agree on some things but not other things, and no doubt we will never agree, as long as we defer to the authority of our respective church leadership, and therefore unity remains an impossibility for you and I, with respect to the the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most people will never give up their beliefs, based on the beliefs/teachings of their church Pastors, no matter how amicable and non-confrontational the brotherly or sisterly relationship is. I don’t think the job of the HS is contingent upon us, as Christians. The HS (GOD) - can absolutely, without any doubt, guide His church into all truth, in spite of the human race and their terribly flawed/sinful nature, due to their rejection of God’s grace. Am I wrong??? **

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6144160]

Are you saying that the sin of man somehow limits God from guiding HIS church into all truth? If God can do anything, then logically, God could get around this problem?

Joe,
Sure He could, and He will. He could have secured our salvation without the death of His Son, too. One of the areas of agreement between us, at least to some extent, is the belief that we have free will. Lutherans believe the regenerate have free will to reject God’s gift of reconciliation through the suffering, death and ressurction of His Son.
Both at once, the sad and joyful thing about the Church is that it is populated by sinful human beings. We mess things up. We misunderstand and misinterpret. We allow our petty pride to keep us divided. God will overcome that. Pray it happens soon.

All the teachers that convoked at the council of Nicaea were sinners, but sin did not interfere with the guidance of the HS. Are you saying that the holy spirit could not/cannot guide Jesus’ church into all truth (be it east or west) - once Jesus’ church split in the 11th century? I can’t get my head around that reasoning! The great east - west schism somehow thwarted the HS’s divine mission of perpetuity, to guide Jesus’ church into all truth?

Again, I think your approach to this is far too temporal. He does guide / is guiding His Church into all Truth. What I’m saying is that because of human sin which has wounded His Church and caused schism and division between us, not one organization - not yours or mine, or east or west - can undeniably claim to be that true organization. Of course, and again, I view the Church as the communion of saints, all the believers in Christ.

If you feel with all your heart soul and mind that the Lutheran church is the house of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, then I would hope that you would never leave the Lutheran church. I agree with the following: “Rightly practiced, Lutheranism is reformational, not protestant, in my view.” **However, ML was protesting certain teachings of the CC. **

Well, first, he was pleading with Rome to realize the abuses done in his (the pope’s) name.

So what you are saying, I think, is that determining doctrinal truths such as the Eucharist, being literal or symbolic can be known because the early church that comprised both the church of the East and the church of the west, believed in the true presence, but teachings such as the filique and Purgatory cannot be known until the EOC and the CC unite as one in every way regarding doctrinal truths?

Close. I think it is more difficult to do so. I would also expect that a true ecumenical council now would need to include bishops of other western communions, at least those willing to participate.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, Isn’t Eastern conciliarism just a substitute for universal papal jurisdiction? The following is an excerpt from an article that I read and I did confirm its accuracy; let me know what you think:

I think the writer compares apples and oranges here. That the east recognized the pope as first among equals, that the often turned to him for guidance is true. For me to deny his role in the early Church would reject the history of the Church. But the papal primacy of that time and that since the schism are different. Again, were the east to accept - at any level - the pope’s position and reconcile, or were Rome to accpt the east’s view of the pope’s role and reconcile, it would for me be a clear sign of the influence of the HS.

=joe370;6144171]Jon, if Martin Luther believed in the IC then why don’t you? ML said:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

I generally accept all of the marian doctrines, in a similar way to Luther’s. The difference is that. since scripture does not require it, neither do Lutherans. Example: No where in scriputre, even the D-C’s, are we required to invoke or believe in invocation of the Blessed Virgin or the saints for intercession (and I understand the difference between that and “worship” in the modern sense, and do not condemn the practice on idolatry grounds - what Catholics do is not idolatry!) Why then does the CC bind the consciences of believers to believe that the saints can here and respond to our individual requests of intercession?

Ahhh, but you did not answer the question. There can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine - RIGHT? The problem is, (if you are right) - we just don’t know where to find ALL truth, post east - west schism???

Ok. A question for you; can Truth be described in different ways? For example: the Eucharist. Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, most Anglicans beleive in the real presence. The real presence is Truth for all of us. It is supported by the ECF’s and confirmed by scripture. Agreed?
Your doctrine of transub, mine of sacramental union, the Orthodox metabole, are all human expressions of what we all believe - that upon consecration the bread and wine are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. Why, then, do we condemn each other for explaining it in different ways?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon you said:

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 would the Holy Spirit’s job be if we did?

**I have been pondering your words but I just can’t agree with you, as much as I want to. For example, you and I agree on some things but not other things, and no doubt we will never agree, as long as we defer to the authority of our respective church leadership, and therefore unity remains an impossibility for you and I, with respect to the the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most people will never give up their beliefs, based on the beliefs/teachings of their church Pastors, no matter how amicable and non-confrontational the brotherly or sisterly relationship is. I don’t think the job of the HS is contingent upon us, as Christians. The HS (GOD) - can absolutely, without any doubt, guide His church into all truth, in spite of the human race and their terribly flawed/sinful nature, due to their rejection of God’s grace. Am I wrong??? **

I’m sorry you feel that way, Joe. But just to go a little deeper. Since Vatican II, Lutherans and Catholics on national (U.S. and Germany individually) and global levels, have been involved in dialogue that, 100 years ago, would have been unthinkable. The tone of Christian love and respect would shock someone lifted into our time from 1535 - 1935.
I would contend that it is this new view of each other, before the dialogue actually started, that has led to some remarkable convergences. Yes, I truly believe that prayers of blessing for each other, and prayers of Christian unity open our eyes to the Holy Spirit in each other, and makes agreements possible, because of the work of the Holy Spirit. Here He is guiding us into All Truth. Here is is bridging our differences. I thank God that He led John XXIII and those who have followed him into this movement of ecumenism.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Actually I think I misspoke. I do agree with your reasoning. What is happening now surely was unthinkable from the 16th century to the 20th century, no doubt about that. I definitely think that the CC, the EOC and the churches established by the very men that spearheaded the Protestant reformation, (as opposed to offshoots) - are more open to dialogue, and that the prayers of unity of all Christians can, without doubt, open our eyes to the Holy Spirit in each other, making conciliar agreements more possible, because of the work of the Holy Spirit; we are of the same mind friend!!! However, as Christianity cascaded the centuries, from the 16th century to now, Jesus’ Mystical Body has fractured to the point of total disfigurement, due to men breaking away from the reformed churches of the 16th century and establishing their own reformed churches, and no doubt men will continue to establish new reformed churches based on their unique interpretation of their bibles as their exclusive norm or authority. Authority has been utterly usurped by self proclaimed Christian Pastors with a bible in hand, again as their one and only source authority, claiming that their brand of Christianity is the God inspired dissemination of truth, of their reformed church of preceding reformed churches, established by Jesus Christ. I see this as very problematic and quite possibly irreversible and it appears to be the corollary of the man-made doctrine sola scriptura, at least to me anyway. I guess that is what I meant when I said: “people will never give up their beliefs, based on the beliefs/teachings of their church Pastors, no matter how amicable and non-confrontational the brotherly or sisterly relationship is.” I could be wrong though.

I still have a problem embracing the notion that the HS could not guide the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, in spite of the schism of the 11th century and the break away churches of the 16th, 17th…21st century. In no way of course am I trying to call into question the sincerity, love and charity of these man-made churches, just the veracity of some of their doctrines, just as I would expect you to call into question the veracity of my conflicting teachings, if I were to start a church and charge myself with the divine commission to teach! Many Christians for the first 400 years broke away from the CC and and attempted (many times succeeded) - to instill in the minds of other Christians, belonging the CC, very harmful doctrine and insisted that their brand of Christianity was the genuine article, causing many Christians to leave the CC. Today we believe that these schismatic break away movements were in fact heretical movements and that the CC, rightfully so, quashed these heresies, through the guidance of the Holy spirit, preserving the salvific/redemptive truths of Jesus Christ, which were handed down to each successive generation by sinful, fallible men (sometimes very bad men, with their own monarchical agenda, who could not however alter the deposit of faith, if God is the benefactor, protector and guardian of truth) - who received their authority to teach, by their predecessors, who in turn received the baton from their predecessors, and this line of succession going all the way back to the apostolic age, (including men such as Timothy and Titus who received their office from Saint Paul, and passed it on to established authoritative presbyters/bishops of the church, everywhere they wen) - I think, is the key to preservation of truth. Surly, if the CC, through the guidance of the HS, could preserve the truth regarding the deposit of faith in the early church, in the face of schisms and break away movements, then the holy spirit can preserve the truth, regardless of the century, and regardless of schisms and break away movements, as long as binding succession remains intact.

Not to sound redundant, but isn’t there a chance that this binding succession of authority (via the divine power of God) - granted to men by predecessors (which is very biblical) - passed down through each successive generation, from someone who was vetted by someone who was also vetted, going all the way back to the apostolic age, is the key to the church’s successful commission and the preservation of all truth, again in spite of the schisms and break away movements, and in spite of the sinful, fallible people that comprise the CC?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

It occurred to me along time ago, that if the men that broke away from the church built by Jesus, (for whatever reason) - or the men who broke away from the various reformed churches, (for whatever reason) - and started new reformed churches, are to be trusted regarding their conflicting doctrines, then the holy spirit must be guiding these church leaders to believe what they are believing and teaching, which calls into question the veracity of the teachings of the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost and whether or not the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, which simply leaves us with a mish-mash of conflicting truths from self claiming self churches as Josiah would say, in the “one holy catholic church,” comprised of all churches, regardless of when the church was established and by whom, and of course all these church members defer to their one and only authority -the bible, through the lens of their respective church Pastors/teacher which seems to lead to nothing more than a doctrinal culdesac.

Perhaps I am wrong though; perhaps all truth in the fullest sense, preserved by the church, built by God, via the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, for the first 1000 years, has been lost to the changing winds of time, due to the sin of mankind, but it seems more probable that the bible via individual interpretation (not practiced in your church of course) - is the true malefactor, and quite possibly one of the most divisive doctrines Christianity has ever known, and in no way am I suggesting that Martin Luther propounded such a un-biblical doctrine. But, when I take into consideration the vast cosmos of the universe and visualize God’s ineffable power displayed therein, all doubt melts away, and, I truly believe that all truth being preserved in the church built by Jesus Christ, in spite of the never ending onslaught of the devil, is mere child’s play to God .

 

[JonNC]

It occurred to me along time ago, that if the men that broke away from the church built by Jesus, (for whatever reason) - or the men who broke away from the various reformed churches, (for whatever reason) - and started new reformed churches, are to be trusted regarding their conflicting doctrines, then the holy spirit must be guiding these church leaders to believe what they are believing and teaching, which calls into question the veracity of the teachings of the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost and whether or not the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, which simply leaves us with a mish-mash of conflicting truths from self claiming self churches as Josiah would say, in the “one holy catholic church,” comprised of all churches, regardless of when the church was established and by whom, and of course all these church members defer to their one and only authority -the bible, through the lens of their respective church Pastors/teacher which seems to lead to nothing more than a doctrinal culdesac.

Perhaps I am wrong though; perhaps all truth in the fullest sense, preserved by the church, built by God, via the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, for the first 1000 years, has been lost to the changing winds of time, due to the sin of mankind, but it seems more probable that the bible via individual interpretation (not practiced in your church of course) - is the true malefactor, and quite possibly one of the most divisive doctrines Christianity has ever known, and in no way am I suggesting that Martin Luther propounded such a un-biblical doctrine. But, when I take into consideration the vast cosmos of the universe and visualize God’s ineffable power displayed therein, all doubt melts away, and, I truly believe that all truth being preserved in the church built by Jesus Christ, in spite of the never ending onslaught of the devil, is mere child’s play to God .

I will consider and ponder your position, Joe. There have been few discussions I have enjoyed here more than ours lately.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It occurred to me along time ago, that if the men that broke away from the church built by Jesus, (for whatever reason) - or the men who broke away from the various reformed churches, (for whatever reason) - and started new reformed churches, are to be trusted regarding their conflicting doctrines, then the holy spirit must be guiding these church leaders to believe what they are believing and teaching, which calls into question the veracity of the teachings of the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost and whether or not the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth,

Your excellent question assumes two points:

1. Teachers may be wrong. Just because the Holy Spirit never leads falsely, that’s no guarentee that a teacher (or even corpus of such) never follows falsely. An infallible leader does not insure insure all infallibly follow.
2. All are to be held as accountable. None can simply exempt self alone from such.

Those two admissions on your part are the very crux of the issue before us. Because we have one - The Catholic Church - insisting that while teachers CAN be wrong, there’s one (alone, exclusively) that CANNOT (wanna guess which one?). And while all MUST be held accountable for what it teaches, there is ONE that need not be so held but rather whatever it says is to be accept with docility (wanna guess which one?). If what you say is correct, then The Catholic Church is not what it alone claims for itself alone, and it is accountable. You have just admitted The Catholic Church to the process of norming, and the first issue becomes this: WHAT will serve as the best norma normans for this process?

which simply leaves us with a mish-mash of conflicting truths from self claiming self churches as Josiah would say, in the “one holy catholic church,” comprised of all churches, regardless of when the church was established and by whom, and of course all these church members defer to their one and only authority -the bible, through the lens of their respective church Pastors/teacher which seems to lead to nothing more than a doctrinal culdesac.

1. As you well know, I never said that the church that is “one, holy and catholic” is comprised of “all churches.” You seem stuck in your very institutional paradigm. What I have been saying is that the church is PEOPLE (not denominations). Again, I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the corpus, community, communion, assembly, family of Christians is PEOPLE.
2. As you know, I never suggested that denominational presidents/popes/presiding bishops are the sole authority or sole arbiter or are infallible/unaccountable. That’s YOUR position, not mine.

it seems more probable that the bible via individual interpretation (not practiced in your church of course) - is the true malefactor, and quite possibly one of the most divisive doctrines Christianity has ever known,

Individual interpretation is not a doctrine, anyway. It’s a praxis found in all the cults and in The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 (consider # 87 with it). It is the most extreme form of individual interpretation found anywhere in Christianity, it is the most classic, clear case of self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter (infallible and unaccountable in such).

But the issue of this thread is not hermeneutical principles or practices. The issue is what should serve as the norma normans/rule/canon in the evaluation of doctrines. You have yet to suggest an alternative to Scripture - what you insist is MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE outside and above all parties, MORE ecumenically embraced as reliable.

.

 

[moondweller]

If the Church that He was about to build is not free from doctrinal error then the gates of hell would have prevailed which means He is not able to keep his promise.

The Holy Spirit’s leading into all truth does not preclude teachers rising up within the the church and teaching erroneous doctrines. As I said, history bears this out. It’s the reason councils convened, and they looked to the Scriptures as their objective source. It wasn’t based on popular vote else we’d all be clinging to Arianism today.

His apostles are the beginning of His Church. Come Pentecost, His Church was born.

His Apostles are a part of the church, they’re not THE church. You keep talking about “the Church” as if it’s some kind of separate entity from the body of Christ. What you call the infallible “Church” is your “Magisterium.” An ecclesiastical hierarchy which claims for itself infallibility and requires all members of its religious institution to accept it with docility.

Actually Church History bears OUR position out as I have explained above.

What you “explained” was your own theory of infallibility. A theory not backed up by historical facts.

Yes, but you still have the problem of the canon. At the time of the formation of the canon, there were other writings. As a matter of fact Marcion was the first to come up with a cannon and he came up with gnostic canon.

Can you tell me when the majority of the churches ever accepted Gnostic writings as Scripture?

The word “canon” has a twofold meaning. It refers to the list of Books that met certain tests, or rules, and thus were considered authoritative and canonical. But “canon” also means that the collection of canonical Books becomes our “rule of life.” The word comes from the Greek word: kanon, which refers to a measuring instrument (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16). The very moment the Holy Spirit penned His Holy Writ through certain men the church Christ was building had its “canon,” its “measuring instrument.” The early church writers, in fact, quoted from those writings profusely.

After Christianity was accepted as a legitimate “religion” in the Roman Empire, men officially recognized those specific writings which form the N.T. “canon” of Scripture, but the churches possessed those writings and used them as a canon (“rule of life”) since the first century. They were copied and distributed to the various churches quite quickly.

So if you say that the apostles were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, how do we know that those who determined the canon were also guided by the Holy Spirit? Was Marcion guided by the Holy Spirit?

One of the tests for the New Testament canon was that the Book had to be written by an Apostle or backed up by an Apostle, hence, apostolic authority. Jesus said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit, when He came, would lead them into all truth. The source of that “truth” then is not the Apostles, but the Holy Spirit Himself. The Same who inspired the N.T. Scriptures through which that “truth” would be preserved for subsequent generations and would become the divine “canon” (rule of life, divine measurement) for the church Christ has been building since Pentecost.

As for Marcion, he attacked the very Scriptures the Holy Spirit Himself inspired. Why would you ask if the Spirit Himself would lead someone to attack His own writings?

Yes He did. Because Christ is the Truth. The Church is His Body. It cannot be any other way.

You’re presenting a false doctrine based on a false, mystical interpretation. The church Christ is building is not, nor does not, become Christ Himself. The Scriptures do not present His church in such a mystical manner. But that Christ is “head of the church, He Himself the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). There’s a fundamental separation between Christ Himself and the body which He Himself saves. Christ does not save Himself.

Exactly! Gnosticism as in Marcion as I mentioned above. And how do we know which one is true? We go back to the apostles to those Christ has appointed.

We can’t go back to the Apostles - they’re dead. But we do have their teachings preserved for us in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. The way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. Even Christ Himself constantly appealed to them as an absolute authority over Israel.

But you really just do not get it. We know that the Bible is inerrant because the Church said so. If the Church is not infallible, then we have not way of knowing whether the Bible is inerrant.

What a silly statement. You’re actually making God’s Word subordinate to mere men. You’re emulating Marcion’s error.

So I ask you the same question that i have asked others before - How do you know know that Scripture is God breathed? And don’t reply with 2 Tim because that only refers to the OT. When 2Tim was written, 2Tim was not considered scripture yet. We only that 2 Tim is scripture because the Catholic Church said so.

2 Tim. 3:16 states that ALL Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed). IOW, 2 Tim. 3:16 testifies to 2 Tim. 3:16’s Divine origin. 2 Tim. 3:16 became Scripture the moment it was penned through Paul. And ALL Scripture is theopneustos and ALL men are accountable to it. Especially Christ’s church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, you said:

Actually, a Catholic asked that question. The Catholic wanted to know that. My reply was that we must begin by regarding the teacher as accountable. It is at this very first step that The Catholic Church disagrees with all others; it is here - at this first step - that we depart.
The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE that is exempt from this question, and that one is itself. Alone, exclusively. Self alone insists that self alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway) and that self alone is infallible. Thus self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the question the Catholic asked. Thus, he/she MAY ask that question of anything or anyone (indeed, for the sake of truth, must!) but in the case of self alone, self is to be simply accepted with docility - as God speaking.

OK…Let’s assume that the CC is as you say, and move on! How can we know if a teacher is doctrinally correct or incorrect, regardless of the church to which they belong? Keeping in mind that you said: the bible as the Christians norm norma, cannot arbitrate and it cannot determine anything!!!

You BEGIN by seeing your question as legit: that teachers are accountable.
That would include The Catholic Church.

You’ve now embrace the norming process, INCLUDING for all teachings of The Catholic Church.
The first issue then is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans?

Of course, a norma normans needs to be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties - including The Catholic Church. It needs to be knowable to all, alterable by none. It needs to have a solid, broad based acceptance as reliable/trustworthty by all parties - including but not limited to The Catholic Church. I’ll ask yet again, do you have a candidate for this? Something MORE inspired by God than Scripture? Something MORE outside and above all parties than Scripture? Something more knowable by all and atlerable by none than Scripture? Something more broadly, historically and ecumenically embraced among Christians than Scripture? The Catholic Church doesn’t. It simply rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects norming (according to ANY rule/canon/norma normans) in the exclusively, solitary, single case of just one (itself). RCC: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right, thus I’m right; it’s moot to ask if I’m right since I am.” Thus, ANY rule/canon/normans is moot. It’s not that The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura so much as it simply rejects accountability (in some issues anyway) for itself. Exclusively.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

I will say this much for you… you did hit one nail squarely on the head!

The Holy Spirit’s leading into all truth does not preclude teachers rising up within the the church and teaching erroneous doctrines. As I said, history bears this out.

You did fine here - 100%! A classic example of the point you have made here is Fr. Martin Luther. Indeed - not only a Catholic Priest, but a University Professor! And, look how he not only comes up with numerous docrtinal errors - but leaves the Church of Jesus Christ and founds one based on Luther’s understanding of himself.

I will only deal with your first paragraph because, as I see it, most of the error is located there and the other paragraphs are basically there to reinforce your first paragraph.

It’s the reason councils convened, and they looked to the Scriptures as their objective source.

And, here is your first error, Moondweller. Let’s take a look at the very first church council - the Council of Jerusalen - and that can be found in Acts 15. Now, this is really a very instructive Chapter on the workings of the Earch Catholic Church. The Council of Jerusalem took place about the year 50AD. (Now, as a matter of history, NONE of the New Testament had yet been written - so, the only scripture that could be “looked to” was the Old Testament.)

Acts 15: 1-24 give a very clear picture of what took place. The Judiazer’s position was repudiated - and scripture was not used by Peter to make the decison!

Now, as I appreciate the matter, the Council of Jerusalem - being the first Council of the Catholic Church, not only resolved the matter before them (circumcision is not required) but, also that Peter makes the decision (the Pope being the leader of the Church) and James responds in agreement - there is no requirement for circumcision. The only verses in the Old Testament that I am familiar with - clearly establish the need for circumcision (fom Abraham on) and following the Mosaic Law in its totality. These are no longer required - and, this represents a radical departure - and a demonstration that scripture was not the basis for this decision, but rather the Power of the Holy Spirit enlighted and empowered these early followers of Christ. The Pharisees who had converted to Christ - but, still wanted to have all converts follow the Mosaic Law in addition to the requirements of Christianity, suffered a stinging rebuke.

It wasn’t based on popular vote else we’d all be clinging to Arianism today.
You are right! The Holy Spirit does not count the ‘Yeas and Neys’ when it comes to doctrine - this is why the Gates of Hell (Matt 16) will not prevail. Unfortunately, I do not understand what it is you mean by us being Arians today… do you think the Holy Spirit was not at work protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error?

His Apostles are a part of the church, they’re not THE church. When Christ founded His Church, (please re-read Matt 16) there were just the 12 Apostles there! God the Father selected Peter to be the leader - and inspired him to answer Christ’s question correctly! Only 12 and Peter was placed in charge. Hones. Read it yourself.

You keep talking about “the Church” as if it’s some kind of separate entity from the body of Christ.
I think you will find we look at the Chruch as much bigger then you are describing. We think of the Church on Earth - what you are trying to describe… the Church Suffering - those who have died in the Love of Christ but still have sin that must be purged from their souls (Purgatory) and then we have those who have died in the Love of Christ who are with Him right now and forever more in heaven - the Church Triumphant!,

What you call the infallible “Church” is your “Magisterium.” An ecclesiastical hierarchy which claims for itself infallibility and requires all members of its religious institution to accept it with docility.What you “explained” was your own theory of infallibility. A theory not backed up by historical facts.

Actually, Moondweller, when Christ told the Apostles He would not leave them, when He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and when the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost it was all based on the Power of God. I don’t know how you look at this - but, our God is an awesome God! He can really have His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) withstand the Gates of Hell.

Can you tell me when the majority of the churches ever accepted Gnostic writings as Scripture?

I really do not know exactly what you are asking here, Moondweller. By definition, the Gnostic writings were never inspired, were never considered inspired and ultimately had as their core belief that only secret knowledge is what it will take to get to ‘heaven’. Christ proclaimed loudly He was God, that He founded His Church on Peter and that this Church is the vehicle God has chosen for us to be with Him in Heaven. If you decide to take another vehicle … you are are on your own…and, that could well prove eternally risky!

God bless

 

[joe370]

Hey Josiah…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Josiah, you said:

Actually, a Catholic asked that question. The Catholic wanted to know that. My reply was that we must begin by regarding the teacher as accountable. It is at this very first step that The Catholic Church disagrees with all others; it is here - at this first step - that we depart.
The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE that is exempt from this question, and that one is itself. Alone, exclusively. Self alone insists that self alone CANNOT err (in official matters of faith and morals anyway) and that self alone is infallible. Thus self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the question the Catholic asked. Thus, he/she MAY ask that question of anything or anyone (indeed, for the sake of truth, must!) but in the case of self alone, self is to be simply accepted with docility - as God speaking.

OK…Let’s assume that the CC is as you say, and move on! How can we know if a teacher is doctrinally correct or incorrect, regardless of the church to which they belong? Keeping in mind that you said: the bible as the Christians norm norma, cannot arbitrate and it cannot determine anything!!!

You BEGIN by seeing your question as legit: that teachers are accountable.
That would include The Catholic Church.

Agreed!

You’ve now embrace the norming process, INCLUDING for all teachings of The Catholic Church.
The first issue then is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans?

The bible as opposed to any corpus of teachers - got it!!!

Of course, a norma normans needs to be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties - including The Catholic Church. It needs to be knowable to all, alterable by none. It needs to have a solid, broad based acceptance as reliable/trustworthty by all parties - including but not limited to The Catholic Church.

Got it. It also needs one knowable interpretation for any one doctrine, for Jesus, through the guidance of the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, only taught/teaches one truth regarding each of His teachings - correct? Help me find the accountable corpus of interpreters of the bible; you know, like the corpus of interpreters that convoked at the council of Nicaea?

I’ll ask yet again, do you have a candidate for this?

Yes I do, but you said that my candidate is an unaccountable self claiming self church which insists the following: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right, thus I’m right; it’s moot to ask if I’m right since I am.” So, perhaps you can answer your own question? Do you have a candidate for this since the CC is not an option?

Something MORE inspired by God than Scripture? Something MORE outside and above all parties than Scripture? Something more knowable by all and atlerable by none than Scripture? Something more broadly, historically and ecumenically embraced among Christians than Scripture?

The historical Ecumenical council of Nicaea and Atanasius, (embraced by the Lutheran confessions) - comprised of teachers/leaders, arbitrated and determined such doctrines as the Trinity, 2 natures of Jesus, Theotokos, were/are embraced by all Christians with docility; scripture determined nothing and can determined nothing, again, by your own admission, making people the final authority (norm) - vis-a-vis doctrine, as opposed to the holy bible - correct?

The Catholic Church doesn’t. It simply rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects norming (according to ANY rule/canon/norma normans) in the exclusively, solitary, single case of just one (itself). RCC: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right, thus I’m right; it’s moot to ask if I’m right since I am.” Thus, ANY rule/canon/normans is moot. It’s not that The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura so much as it simply rejects accountability (in some issues anyway) for itself. Exclusively.

Which brings me back to the original question that you did not answer:

“OK…Let’s assume that the CC is as you say, and move on! How can we know if a teacher is doctrinally correct or incorrect, regardless of the church to which they belong? Keeping in mind that you said: the bible as the Christians norm norma, cannot arbitrate and it cannot determine anything!”

 

[joe370]

Hey Josiah…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
It occurred to me along time ago, that if the men that broke away from the church built by Jesus, (for whatever reason) - or the men who broke away from the various reformed churches, (for whatever reason) - and started new reformed churches, are to be trusted regarding their conflicting doctrines, then the holy spirit must be guiding these church leaders to believe what they are believing and teaching, which calls into question the veracity of the teachings of the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost and whether or not the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth,

Your excellent question assumes two points:

1. Teachers may be wrong. Just because the Holy Spirit never leads falsely, that’s no guarentee that a teacher (or even corpus of such) never follows falsely.

Well, then surely your reasoning should be applied to the Ecumenical council that defined the Trinity as an infallible doctrine (free from error) -Yes? If so then maybe the churches that deny the Trinity are in fact right?

An infallible leader does not insure insure all infallibly follow.

I know; the holy spirit does. People are not infallible. The HS is infallible, and the HS is forever guiding the the church comprised of all fallible people.

1. All are to be held as accountable. None can simply exempt self alone from such.

Agreed. None can simply exempt self alone from accountability.

Those two admissions on your part are the very crux of the issue before us. Because we have one - The Catholic Church - insisting that while teachers CAN be wrong, there’s one (alone, exclusively) that CANNOT (wanna guess which one?).

If the unaccountable self claiming Catholic church, that claims, according to you: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right, thus I’m right; it’s moot to ask if I’m right since I am” is not to be trusted, then that same church that infallibly defined the dogma of the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ and Theotokos, (expected to be believed and embraced by all Christians, with docility) - cannot be trust either - correct?

Nowhere in the bible does the bible tell me or you that the holy spirit and Jesus are of one substance, or that Mary is “God bearer” (Theotokos). The bible as your norm fails under the slightest scrutiny regarding these doctrines, again, defined by people/teachers of the CC. If these doctrines are error free then the CC leaders convoked and defined infallibly - yes or no?

And while all MUST be held accountable for what it teaches, there is ONE that need not be so held but rather whatever it says is to be accept with docility (wanna guess which one?).

That’s like the 50th time you have asked that question. The answer is: the CC and the EOC and every other PC, if I want to belong to said churches. If I reject the Lutheran Confessions I cannot belong to the Lutheran church. The difference between the CC and the numerous Lutheran churches is that the CC believes that their defined doctrines are error fee doctrines, taught by our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, or does the LC claim the same thing?

If what you say is correct, then The Catholic Church is not what it alone claims for itself alone, and it is accountable. You have just admitted The Catholic Church to the process of norming, and the first issue becomes this: WHAT will serve as the best norma normans for this process?

You bet! Just as you have admitted! Jon too. The Lutheran and CC (comprised of people/teachers) -are the arbitrators who determine outcomes; the bible as your norm can determine nothing, arbitrate nothing, by your own admission. Therefore your norm fails to deliver. I really tried to understand your position but your follow through is seriously deficient/lacking. I walk away embattled and confused, just as a fledgling Christian would.

Quote:
which simply leaves us with a mish-mash of conflicting truths from self claiming self churches as Josiah would say, in the “one holy catholic church,” comprised of all churches, regardless of when the church was established and by whom, and of course all these church members defer to their one and only authority -the bible, through the lens of their respective church Pastors/teacher which seems to lead to nothing more than a doctrinal culdesac.

1. As you well know, I never said that the church that is “one, holy and catholic” is comprised of “all churches.” You seem stuck in your very institutional paradigm. What I have been saying is that the church is PEOPLE (not denominations). Again, I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the corpus, community, communion, assembly, family of Christians is PEOPLE.

When in the preceding did I say anything about denominations? You said that all Christians, the corpus, community, communion, assembly, family of Christians, PEOPLE, regardless of church (again, I did not mention denominations) - affiliation, make up the “one holy catholic church.”

continued…

 

[joe370]

1. As you know, I never suggested that denominational presidents/popes/presiding bishops are the sole authority or sole arbiter or are infallible/unaccountable. That’s YOUR position, not mine.

As anyone can see, I never made that claim. You have clearly demonstrated that no one has the sole authority or is the sole arbiter regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, which renders the dogma of the Trinity potentially fallible, as some Church leaders believe/teach - Right???

Quote:
it seems more probable that the bible via individual interpretation (not practiced in your church of course) - is the true malefactor, and quite possibly one of the most divisive doctrines Christianity has ever known,
Individual interpretation is not a doctrine, anyway. It’s a praxis found in all the cults and in The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 (consider # 87 with it). It is the most extreme form of individual interpretation found anywhere in Christianity, it is the most classic, clear case of self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter (infallible and unaccountable in such).

Sola scriptura is a doctrine. Please give me your definition of the man-made doctrine, sola scriptura and I will compare it to Martin Luther’s definition. Individual interpretation is a praxis found in the Catholic Church??? That is silly, unless of course you are referring to the CC leaders/teachers, and the Lutheran church leaders through the lens of the Lutheran confessions, do the same thing! I am utterly shocked that you would even make such an absurd claim for the 3rd time. I not only read Catechism # 85 and # 87, but I actually quoted it here at this thread and the other thread, and they say nothing about individual interpretation of the bible as a praxis found in the CC. We have been over this already.

But the issue of this thread is not hermeneutical principles or practices. The issue is what should serve as the norma normans/rule/canon in the evaluation of doctrines. You have yet to suggest an alternative to Scripture - what you insist is MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE outside and above all parties, MORE ecumenically embraced as reliable.

Over and over and over, people have asked you to use your norma normans/rule/canon to evaluate doctrine, such as the true doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist, and you simply come back with: the norma normans/rule/canon cannot arbitrate or determine or evaluate anything. For the last time: If the norma normans/rule/canon cannot arbitrate or determine or evaluate anything then what is my next step at determining and evaluating the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist so that my niece (who belongs to one of the Lutheran churches) - will finally come to believe as you believe? Help me help her, find the truth regarding this very important doctrine???

 

[moondweller]

Hi, Moondweller,

I will say this much for you… you did hit one nail squarely on the head!

Actually, tqualey, just about everything you responded to in my post was out of context with the content of my post. So if you’d like to go back and try again (keeping it in context with what I wrote), I’ll in turn respond. Until then… :tiphat:

 

[tqualey]

You wish, Moondweller!

Just as a reminder, the ‘context’ is the ‘Defense of Sola Scriptura’ - and actually, the 'defenses have been shreded for what they are: a human tradition.

I only took your first paragraph, copied and pasted it and then responded as best I could. As I see it, the burden is on you to respond - not evade.

So, let’s see if you can re-work that dismissive response and actually come up with a ‘defense’. I selected the First Council because it was in your abridged Bible - and one you could reference without any effort. My suggestion would be to look how the issue of circumcision - actually, the first doctrinal division in the Catholic Church - was resolved. And, as you see, it was not resolved by a ‘SS’ response. Imagine that… better yet, just read the words.

God bless

Actually, tqualey, just about everything you responded to in my post was out of context with the content of my post. So if you’d like to go back and try again (keeping it in context with what I wrote), I’ll in turn respond. Until then… :tiphat:

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Sola scriptura is a doctrine.

Again, in the formal sense, a doctrine is a TEACHING, generally one regarded as necessary. A praxis is something done, a practice, a proceedure, a policy, what is done. “Toyota’s are good cars” is a teaching (if it was a formal one regarded as necessary to accept, it would be a doctrine). “I’m driving my Toyota” is a praxis, a practice, what is done.

Sola Scriptura is using Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines (norming). “Using” is a verb. I’m not sure what part of this continues to allude you.

Now, I have agreed with you, occasionally, Protestants have used the word “doctrine” in connection with Sola Scriptura - if you dig enough, you can find some examples. But they are using the term in an informal, loose sense of anything good and right. Traditionally, the term is used more formally (and correctly).

I will compare it to Martin Luther’s definition.

Okay. Quote Luther. Quote where he specifically defines “Sola Scriptura” He wrote MUCH and maybe you can find something, but I want to see the specific quotes. I’ll then comment IF you can find him formally defining that specific praxis differently than I have.

Individual interpretation is a praxis found in the Catholic Church??? That is silly

I agree, but it’s in your Catechism. Read # 85. The Catholic Church alone is designating The Catholic Church alone as the sole authoritative interpreter. Read on to # 87 and you learn that it alone declares that the interpretations of it alone are to be accepted “with docility” as God speaking. It’s the most radical, extreme form of individual interpretation found in any Christian denomination (although typical in all the cults).

If the norma normans/rule/canon cannot arbitrate or determine or evaluate anything then what is my next step at determining and evaluating the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist

AGAIN: The issue would need to be arbitrated. If the Rule of Scripture is embraced, then that would be the canon embraced in such. AGAIN: norming has TWO basic parts - WHAT will serve as the canon (“measuring stick”) and the ARBITATION (does the issue under review measure up to the measuring stick). We’ve been over this many, many times. The Rule of Scripture deals with the first (and only the first) issue - what is used as the rule.

The RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture in arbitration. Why? Not because it has an alternative (better or worse) - it doesn’t. But because it rejects accountability (and thus the whole issue of norming) in the exclusively case of just one: itself. Self alone declares that self alone is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter; infallible and thus unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error in matters of faith and morals and thus the whole issue of norming is moot in the case of just one - self. It is NORMING it rejects (for itself exclusively), Sola Scriptura is rejected simply because it is a part of that. I disagree with you that if self alone declares self alone to be infallible/unaccountable - self thus is. But we are off topic (again): the issue here is what is the most sound norma normans in the process norming (which, of course, the RCC and LDS reject for self alone)?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by moondweller View Post
Actually, tqualey, just about everything you responded to in my post was out of context with the content of my post. So if you’d like to go back and try again (keeping it in context with what I wrote), I’ll in turn respond. Until then… The Holy Spirit’s leading into all truth does not preclude teachers rising up within the the church and teaching erroneous doctrines. As I said, history bears this out.

Clearly Tom has answered your question! He said:

A classic example of the point you have made here is Fr. Martin Luther. Indeed - not only a Catholic Priest, but a University Professor! And, look how he not only comes up with numerous doctrinal errors - but leaves the Church of Jesus Christ and founds one based on Luther’s understanding of himself.

I agree with you as does Tom: “the Holy Spirit’s is leading into all truth does not preclude teachers rising up within the the church and teaching erroneous doctrines. As I said, history bears this out.” However, the Holy spirit will, nonetheless, guide Jesus’ church into all truth, as per the holy bible, regardless of such divisive and heretical movements - correct?

It’s the reason councils convened, and they looked to the Scriptures as their objective source.

And, here is your first error, Moondweller. Let’s take a look at the very first church council - the Council of Jerusalen - and that can be found in Acts 15. Now, this is really a very instructive Chapter on the workings of the Earch Catholic Church. The Council of Jerusalem took place about the year 50AD. (Now, as a matter of history, NONE of the New Testament had yet been written - so, the only scripture that could be “looked to” was the Old Testament.)

Acts 15: 1-24 give a very clear picture of what took place. The Judiazer’s position was repudiated - and scripture was not used by Peter to make the decison!

Now, as I appreciate the matter, the Council of Jerusalem - being the first Council of the Catholic Church, not only resolved the matter before them (circumcision is not required) but, also that Peter makes the decision (the Pope being the leader of the Church) and James responds in agreement - there is no requirement for circumcision. The only verses in the Old Testament that I am familiar with - clearly establish the need for circumcision (fom Abraham on) and following the Mosaic Law in its totality. These are no longer required - and, this represents a radical departure - and a demonstration that scripture was not the basis for this decision, but rather the Power of the Holy Spirit enlighted and empowered these early followers of Christ. The Pharisees who had converted to Christ - but, still wanted to have all converts follow the Mosaic Law in addition to the requirements of Christianity, suffered a stinging rebuke.

Again, Tom clearly answered your question. They did not look to the Scriptures as their sole objective norm. If they did then where did they get the idea that the Christ and the holy spirit are one: of the same substance? In Scripture there is no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. As per the Lutheran confessions, the Biblical teaching, concerning the Holy Trinity, is this: Within the Godhead we find three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are three distinct persons but only one God, three Persons not three Gods. The bible does not mention any of this; the bible does not tell us that Jesus and the holy spirit are one. The Lutheran confessions also states that that it is important to note that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible but was used by the early church (the CC) - to describe what the Bible teaches. The yardstick was not the Scriptures alone, or the Lutheran confessions, as the Christians final arbiter; it was the Ecumenical councils of the CC.
Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius, as many protestants such as yourself are opposed to certain teachings of the CC today. Should I side with you as many did with Arius? Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after the fact. The idea of the Trinity was only adopted by the CC three hundred years after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; to trust our Lord Jesus Christ is to trust the CC, if you trust that the Trinity, Jesus’ 2 natures, and Theotokos are indeed infallibly defined. The New Catholic Encyclopedia rightfully states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” Clearly the bible alone as your norm, or the bible seen through the lens of the Lutheran Confessions, is of no help in determining the veracity of the Trinitarian dogma.