Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Everyone does not undeniably believe that all the PC’s comprise the church of Matthew 16. Matthew 16 does not mention the CC or the myriad PC’s.

Right. Matthew 16 is irrelevant to our discussion. It says NOTHING about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. It says NOTHING about anyone or any organization being infallible or unaccountable or exempt from norming. It says NOTHING about any one or any organzation or any denomination being right cuz it alone says that it alone is.

Quote:
However, the early church fathers (actual disciples of the apostles) - do mention the CC
You seem to be confusing the snippets that The Catholic Church chooses from the writings it chooses as it interprets - with what is stated in Matthew 16.

Actually, the earliest ones used the adjective “catholic” in the only way that existed - as an adjective. It’s sad (and misleading) when some translate their words and imploy a trick of modern English grammar by capitolizing the adjective and the word “church” so as to imply some connection to a denomination that much latter would use that moniker for itself. But again, it’s moot. Jesus said NOTHING about your denomination - or mine or any other. He promised it NOTHING. He authorized it for or about or concerning NOTHING. There’s NOTHING in Matthew 16 that indicates that The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming - alone right cuz it alone so says that it alone is.

As I was reading this it occurred to me that your automatonic responses are out of your control. You have been sufficiently programmed. Dude, you are like the terminator, which is one of my favorite shows. LOL…I ask again:

Help me use God’s inerrant, holy, written word, which is the final “Rule” (straight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” that serves as the final Standard, Plumb-line for Christians to evaluate the position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine?

I know you said that this final standard “cannot arbitrate or determine anything,” (which begs the question: why is it the final standard) - but I am still asking you to use your norm (the final standard for all Christians) - to evaluate the accurate/correct position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine, so that you can help my niece (a Lutheran who believes in the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist) - have a better understanding of this very important doctrine! Perhaps she will believe you since you are rabidly anti-Catholic, as she has become.

I say again: you don’t need to keep sharing your diatribes of the CC with me; I get it! Plus, it is irrelevant to the thread. I can’t learn from you if you won’t answer this very important question about norming and the Eucharistic doctrine. You keep saying: I hope that helps; Aj, it never does; it never helps me to understand your defense of SS, especially if you won’t use your norm to resolve the issue of the Eucharistic doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

Nah, he’s a good Catholic Joe.

But I do not believe that the Catholic Church - in the modern sense of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is exclusively the Church Catholic, or exclusively the organization that Christ founded at Pentecost.

Well, when you follow that time line out from Matt 16 to the 12th Century - what is the organization that is being persecuted by the Roman Empire for several hundred yerars? What is the name of the organization doing everyting in the name of Christ? It is the same Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as its leader.
The leadership of the Bishop of Rome. There is no doubt that he was considered first among equals. But unversal jurisdiction and infalliblity (when speaking ex cathedra) are NOT the types of leadership expressed in the early Church. Is it not true that this remains the central issue that divides east and west?

This is really a technical area Jon - and, I am not sure we are on the same page on this one. Basically the Confession seems to indicate a belief in the Real Presence as believed by Catholics. The issue, here, however, is not a belief as such - but, the ability of your ministers to validly perform the Holy Mass. This Power was delegated to Christ to His Apostles - and passed down from the Apostles to their Successors. To the best of my belief, Luther, Calvin and almost all of the other reformers specifically broke with the Bishop of Rome and the communion with all of the biships. (There may be an issue with the Anglicans shortly after the separation… but, that is no longer an issue.) Additionally, while some sects of the same denomination believe in one item (like the Real Presence) my understandig is that some Lutherans believe it is only a rememberance.

And so do some Catholics - see the latest polls on this question. But you and I would agree that what some in the laity believe is not necessarily the teachig of the Church. I would say that for a Lutheran to claim only a symbolic remembrance, is to distinguish himself from orthodox Lutheran teaching, as it is a central tennant of Lutheranism - could we coin it as being a “buffet Lutheran”? I’ll be even more firm - if one does not believe in the real presence, one is not a Lutheran.
As for validity, this is an issue that divides us in an assymetrical way; we recognize yours, you don’t recognize ours. And there has been quite a bit of dialogue regarding it.
Let’s just say that, while we would welcome Catholic recognition of our clergy, we don’t view it as necessary, and I don’t believe it would be an issue that would divide, were other issues that divide us reconciled.

I guess the real focs of my comment is that we all can not be on the same Team if we all believe different things. If there is a problem with the way I explained Lutherans not having a priesthood directly traceable back to the Apostles - take a look at the way Catholics look at the Sacrament of Confession. The basis for this is John 20 - Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on them and gave them the Deligated Authority of God to forgive or not forgive the sins of men .I do not think Lutherans believe this requirement of Christ for men to go to Caholic Priests to have sins forgiven

I think we view Confession / Holy Absolution equally important, though not in the same way. Private and corporate confession / Absolution to a pastor/confessor are very much a part of our Tradition, using the same scriptural basis for it.
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Certainly, there is disagreement on our team, and we should all look to our coach, the Holy Spirit, for guidance in bringing us back together.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6174977Hi, JonNC,

This is where I get lost…

I’ll try to clarify, Tom.

Another way of expressing this question is that the issue is between position “A” or position “B” (but, I still do not follow you on this matter of Chrst founding the Church on Petecost - Christ had really already ascended into heaven…)

His Spirit.

1. Sola scriptura, by itself, cannot be simplistically charged as the sole cause of division within the Church, as the Great Schism is between bodies that claim scripture and Tradition

.
As I understand it, Sola Scriptura - by definition - is simplistically charged (at least that would be the functinal defition of this heresy.)

Simplistic.

Were Orthodoxy and Rome to achieve complete unity, I would see that as the undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit within HIs Church, and would seek to join that unity.

In our own life times we can see the efforts of John Paul II and Benedict XVI trying to accomplish just that.

And I thank God for it. In fact, Benedict XVI seems to have a level of interest and even affection for Lutherans, as JP II did the east. This is encouraging. There is no doubt that it has been Rome that has spearheaded the ecumenical movements of the last 60 years.

Without that, I am steadfast in the belief that the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture, and is, indeed, a catholic document.

And this is where I get lost - being convinced that either position “A” or “B” is valid - but can not distinguish between then - you apparently claim that position “C” is the one you are going with! … You know: Luther never claimed to be God, never performed miracles, and never rose from the dead. For 1500 years the Sacraments and doctrines of the Church were defined and defended - and then the reformaiton where most (and some cases all) of these beliefs - inspired by the Holy Spirit were just thrown out. After identifying validity in the Catholic Church and the Easter Orthodox Church… you go with neither. And, I do not understand your explanaiton based SS that you don’t seem to agree with!

Tom, the bolded is hyperbole, and you know it. Read the Augsburg Confession, and tell me how it throws out most if not all of the Holy Spirit’s inspired beliefs.
The balance is a legit question. I am not convinced that either “A” or “B” is correct. If I were I could not stay where I am. All I simply said is that were the Holy Spirit move to bring “A” and “B” to unity, I could not deny that event.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Lutherans do ask this question. I would distinguish between verbatim and explicit. Trinity is clearly explicit, though not verbatim. The Eucharist (Real Presence) is explicit and verbatim in scripture, however neither Transubstantiation nor Sacramental Union are explicit. All we know is He said , “This is my body”.

Marian doctrines - perpetual virginity, IC, Assumption, can be said to be implicit in scripture, but certainly not explicit. Therefore, the conscience of the believer should not be bound to them. They are a matter of personal piety, and neither those who believe them nor those who don’t should be condemned. After all, these beliefs are not needed for salvation.

As for invocation, there is little that is even implicit, even in the D-C’s, though its long practice in west and east leaves me reluctant to condemn it. Surely, though, it ought no be required - and that was the main complaint of the Lutheran reformers -the requirement.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

OK… Aren’t you curious?

 

[Monte1945]

Yes, of course… how does “any” church decide they have the infallible truth?

The Catholic Church claims the same right to decide this as any other chruch does…
from what they feel God revealed about Himself through the Scriptures AND the
Traditions…

It is not an argument, it is a claim. you either accept it by faith or you don’t…

[QUOTEAmericanJosh:Actually, no denomination has changed it’s positions more than the RCC one. Do you actually believe that every single one of the 2,875 points of The Catholic Catechism was exactly the same in 31 AD? If so, I’d SURE like to see you document that. But again, how does one not changing their official teachings (which does apply to Lutheranism but not to Catholicism) indicate that self alone is exempt from accountablity because self alone is infallible and incapable of error (at least in matters of faith and morals)?

I don’t know of any which as been “changed” but I will accept that there is a progression of Truth from the beginning of the OT to the NT. God has revealed Himself as building
from one truth to the next as man’s growth of His Grace will allow man to understand.
God did NOT stop revealing his truth when the chruch stopped putting her scripture
in the now known bible. You limit God’s work with your idea that God is contained
“only” within the Truths of the bible… And can not reveal His truths from within
man’s ability to think and TALK… If that is so, then why have sermons? The first
think Jesus said to his Apostles, was to “come and See” the last thing was to
go and TELL". Of course if you list your idea of Salvation only in relating to
your eternal destiny then of course the bible is all you need.
But if one understsands that one has a responsablitity of " working out that salvation with fear and trembling" then one goes to the chruch for other reasons than reading a book to get that self assurance that God isn’t mad at them and will condemn then to the hell fires.

But if one goes to the church with the idea that there is an (name removed by moderator)uting of a divine
nature in one and that one must develop that new nature with the Graces of God
then the bible isn’t the only need one has in order to be in the “will of God” for their
life. Then that person has to lean towards the Grace of God through the Sacraments
in order to obtain his degress of the Holy Spirit which are infused within his human
nature as a "real’ substance which is “added” to one’s nature.

The bible is merely one aspect of a way to add to one’s divine nature given to one
as an Adolpted Son of God. But there are other ways and those other ways must
be applied in order to have the acitity of that new nature… lived out.

The bible is not the only means to God’s Truth revealed. This is where you differ
with Catholics… The bible is the inspired word of God. and it has it’s place
but it is not the only place or way to the revealed God… There is preaching.

Yes, but Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. About anything. At any time. Not once. Not ever. And “being with” does not equate to "being unaccountable.

You seem to have a hang up with word Catholic… is this also saying that he did not promise the apostles of that time, anything? And if he did, what church was that?.
I don’t recall any others being there. Who were the people who did create the Christian church of that time? You know the catholic church didn’t wander away from another church and create their own… as yours did. You seem to want to put the Catholic
church as some group which just popped up AFTER all of the bible events took
place and sort of took over… from the original group… and didn’t leave any sign of
the original group left in the annals of history… Where is the originals and what was the name of that church?

A promise Jesus never gave to The Catholic Church or to any apostle or any successor thereof or to any denomination. Contrary to what The official Catholic Catechism wrongly states.
And again, The Catholic Church’s attempt to exempt just one (itself) from accountability is NOT an alternative approach to norming, it’s just self exempting self from such.

He certainly promised someone didn’t He? where are they? what happened to them?
He said, “I shall always be with you until the end of time”… so if it isn’t the Catholic]
chruch which one was it? I don’t know of any other church than the catholic chruch which was around then and still is now.

 

[moondweller]

We are not in agreement regarding the following?

According to the Scriptures, the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18) is made up of all true believers baptized into it (the body of Christ) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:13) since Pentecost (Acts 1:5). Since Pentecost there is, and always will be, only one church, and “being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:20-21).

According to your Church, what are you required to believe that the “one church” is, Joe?

As I said to Aj, Christians belonging to the CC are scriptura advocates as well, (just not sola scriptura advocates) - and they definitely defer to the authority of sacred scriptura, just as the early ecumenical councils did, and just as the Catholic church does today, and just as Protestants do, and we believe that Jesus left us with an authoritative interpreter of the authoritative, inerrant word of God, just as Protestants do.

I don’t know of any Protestants who say Jesus left us with “an” authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Nor do Catholics defer to the authority of the Scriptures, but rather to the “teaching authority” of their Church (Magisterium) which claims for itself infallibility, which you refer to as “the Church.”

If the word of God is inerrant, then certainly an inerrant interpreter, which is impossible without the guidance by the holy spirit, just makes sense - right?

No. The Word of God (the Scriptures) is inerrant because it’s God’s Word, it’s theopneustos (God-breathed)- according to the Scriptures. All men (as individuals), especially Christians, are, and will be, held accountable to God’s Word, not the interpretation of His Word by men. For instance, Adam was accountable to God’s Word, and God’s Word alone; not Eve’s (or Satan’s) interpretation of it (Eve distorted God’s Word and Satan denied it - read the account).

What your “Church” has done is make itself the ultimate authority over the hearts and minds of men by claiming itself infallible in all matters pertaining to doctrines and morals which you, a member of that institution, must accept with docility. In the Catholic Church (not EO) it’s the Magisterium (its teaching authority) that has all power of authority and can, by that self-proclaimed power, introduce even extra-biblical doctrines which its lower echelon clergy and laymen must accept with docility:“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” (see the CCC on the Magisterium).The crux of the problem is that there is no Divine Revelation that states that Christ has provided for His church “infallible” interpreters of Scripture. The Catholic Church (not the church, catholic) has merely asserted infallibility and requires its “faithful” to accept it (its claim) with docility.

Whoever you decide that to be is up to you of course; are we in agreement.

I do not appoint over me infallible interpreters of Scripture, or my faith in general. So, you see, we’re not in agreement.

No one man’s interpretation, or the interpretation of any one church leadership, (regardless of church affiliation) - of the Christians one and only authority, (God’s Word) - should be considered by any true believer, the ONLY true reflection of truth regarding any one doctrine?

Did you not read the CCC on this?“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church ALONE.”

So, the mistake I am making is putting my trust in the teachings and interpretations of the CC, instead of putting all my trust in God’s Word - is that correct?

You can answer that for yourself.

Oops, I apologize! However, you did not answer the question. What is your answer? Will you always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the interpretation of the church to which you belong

If I do that then I am not appealing to the Scriptures but men as my sole authority.

or will you simply appeal to sacred scripture via your own interpretation?

I have the Scriptures, I am accountable to them. However, Christ has given to His church teachers for the equipping of the saints and building up the body of Christ unto maturity (Eph. 4:10-12). I have the writings of many teachers as well (none infallible) from which to compare with my own studies of the Scriptures.

But when one understands that the Object and foundation of “the faith” which has now come (see Gal. 3:22-26) is Christ and not one’s Church, the truths concerning salvation and the church Christ Himself is building, as revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures, become quite evident, as do the errors of men and their religious institutions (by whatever name they might identify them). It’s through the God-breathed Scriptures that true believers are led into all truth. The way God has preserved His inerrant Word in this world for all generations since Moses.

 

[moondweller]

tqualey:

moondweller:

James wasn’t agreeing with anyone at that point, he was making a judgment, a judicial decision:

Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,...

Just stop right there, Moondweller,and just look how you are (with apparent intent) misstating the sequence of what is actually written in Acts 15 of your own abridged Bible!

Acts 15: 7-12 Peter has reviewed the issue (circumcision) before the council and renders the decision that it is not required. (The matter is finished - there is no one arguing for circumcision any more. James is not recorded as having spoken so far.)

Acts 15: 13-21 James agrees with the decision made by Peter about circumcision. James _ still speaking- (v 16-18) then quotes Amos 9 12-14 in what appears to be a Messianic sense of Christ’s return. This is not a reference to abolishing circumcision. James is not providing a scriptural basis for Peter’s decision. Peter made the decision under the direction of the Holy Spirit - this is a totally new diretion being established by God.

Peter didn’t make any decision, but relayed to the “Council” that God, who knows the heart, gave individual Gentiles the Holy Spirit, AS GENTILES, on the basis of personal faith (belief) alone (Acts 15:7-9). Which, of course, is the foundation of Pauline theology on justification (e.g., Rom. 3:24; 30; 4:1-6; 5:1-2, etc.) IOW, they were not required to first become Jewish proselytes, which would require circumcision and obedience to the Law.

James acknowledges what Peter previously stated and backs it up with the witness of SCRIPTURE, quoting the prophet Amos. It is true that the SCRIPTURE James quoted is not a reference to “abolishing circumcision,” that’s not the reason the “Council” convened. What the SCRIPTURE confirmed was that the Gentiles were to come into the church AS GENTILES, not Jewish proselytes which would require of them circumcision. THIS was the dispute of the Council, not “abolishing circumcision.”

James deferred to the authority of SCRIPTURE and based on SCRIPTURE made a judgment:Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles."We have here set before us a precedent for Christ’s church: The rule/canon/norma normans was/is SCRIPTURE. This is called “Sola Scriptura.” It’s all right there in black and white, Tom. Embrace the simplicity of it.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Catholic Church is currently and formally in agreement with The Catholic Church exclusively in all matters that The Catholic Church exclusively regards as good to be in agreement about.

Yes, of course… how does “any” church decide they have the infallible truth?

The Catholic Church claims the same right to decide this as any other chruch does…
from what they feel God revealed about Himself through the Scriptures AND the
Traditions…

Of course, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything (ego permitting), and you certainly may choose to simply accept “with docility” that such is true because the teacher of which alone claims that he/she/it is.

But Sola Scriptura is an aspect of NORMING. Norming is the embraced process of determining IF something is true. Norming does not ASSUME a teacher is correct simply because said teacher exclusively demands that said teacher exclusively cannot be wrong.

Bob the Builder builds a fense. He claims it is 6 feet tall. Now, yes, Bob CAN simply state: “I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I must be right - so just accept whatever I alone say with docility. Since I’m infallible and incapable of wrong, thus I’m unaccountable and it’s moot to subject me or what I said to norming.” You can, I suppose, simply do what Bob might require: accept with docility that he’s right, and leave it at that. Studied any of the cults? This rubric is prehaps the single most common denominator among them - this insistance that self alone is infallible, thus unaccountable, thus exempt from norming - just accept whatever “with docility.”

But, of course, God repeatedly warned us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, and those that lead many astray - AND GOD EXCUSES NO ONE, including The Catholic Church. And God does NOT say that one is excused if the self same alone excuses the self same alone. Now, if you reject the rubric that self alone is infallible if self alone so declares for self alone, and you accept that a true teacher welcomes the light and comes out into it, if you accept accountability - then you might be interested in whether Bob the Builder is CORRECT in his claim that the fense is 6 feet tall (especially if you paid him to build it that high, lol). If so, you have just entered the realm of norming: Norming - the process of determining if a position (doctrine in theology) is correct, valid, true.

The first issue in norming (it doesn’t matter what discipline) is the embrace of the mutually accepted rule (straight edge")/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). And the most sound is the most OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties, knowable to all and alterable by none, with a solid and broad acceptance as reliable. Perhaps you and Bob the Builder and your neighbor all agree to a Sears Measuring Tape as the embraced rule/canon. In that case, it would be the norma normans. In Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the embraced norma normans/rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines among us.

**
Continues in the next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing the post above…

Actually, no denomination has changed it’s positions more than the RCC one. Do you actually believe that every single one of the 2,875 points of The Catholic Catechism was exactly the same in 31 AD? If so, I’d SURE like to see you document that. But again, how does one not changing their official teachings (which does apply to Lutheranism but not to Catholicism) indicate that self alone is exempt from accountablity because self alone is infallible and incapable of error (at least in matters of faith and morals)?

.

The bible is not the only means to God’s Truth revealed. This is where you differ
with Catholics… The bible is the inspired word of God. and it has it’s place
but it is not the only place or way to the revealed God… There is preaching.

I never said that all revelation is found in Scripture. Nor is that any aspect of Sola Scriptura. However, I reject that a teacher is exempt from norming if the teacher so exempts himself alone; that a teacher’s views must be simply accepted “with docility” - exempt from norming - if the said teacher alone so insists in the case of the said teacher exclusively. I also reject that the teachers’ own views are the best canon to evuate if the teaching is correct - that has zero relevance to correctness, it only means that the teaching agrees with itself.

.Yes, but Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. About anything. At any time. Not once. Not ever. And “being with” does not equate to "being unaccountable.

.

You seem to have a hang up with word Catholic… is this also saying that he did not promise the apostles of that time, anything? And if he did, what church was that?

1. IF I posted that Jesus promised that The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is infallible and whatever it says, Jesus says - I just have a hunch you’d ask, “Where? Where did Jesus say that?” You’d be right to so ask! But when The Catholic Church claims this, and people ask, “Where? Where did Jesus say that?” Well, suddenly the question becomes silly…
2. Yes, Jesus DID promise the Apostles some things. Infallability/unaccountability wasn’t one of them, btw. But to say that President Obama was installed as President of The United States is to say that HE was so installed, it doesn’t mean taht I’m the President, does it?
3. All this is Catholics simply trying to apply the Catholic excuse, the “rationale” it alone tries to use for why it alone may exempt it alone from accountability, bypass the whole norming process, and INSTEAD, demand for self that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). Friend, this is NOT an alternative process of norming - it’s self alone exempting self alone from the whole question. This is NOT an alternative rule/canon in norming, it’s just self alone excusing self alone from any NEED for such. “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right - accept it with docility, and since I alone am right, I alone need no norming.”

.
A promise Jesus never gave to The Catholic Church or to any apostle or any successor thereof or to any denomination. Contrary to what The official Catholic Catechism wrongly states.

And again, The Catholic Church’s attempt to exempt just one (itself) from accountability is NOT an alternative approach to norming, it’s just self exempting self from such.

.

He certainly promised someone didn’t He? where are they? what happened to them?
He said, “I shall always be with you until the end of time”…

… this is a promise He gave to PEOPLE, not to any denomination (yours, mine or any other). And it’s not a promise to infallibity, unaccountability, and the exemption of one denomination alone from norming.

.

 

[joe370]

Moondweller, we know, with infallibility that 2+2=4.

Many Christians believe that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, in John 6. Can Christians know (without doubt) - with infallibility, whether or not Jesus was speaking symbolically, in John 6?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

Let’s take a moment out … and just look at what we have here. I am saying ‘x’ about the this section of Acts, and you are saying ‘y’. Both are mutually exclusive and draw totally different conclusions. And, this is the very same problem that SS encounters. No mischief, no other agenda - just as straight a reading as possible and look at the differences that we have both taken the time to identify, define, explain and debate.

This is not an insignificant matter. Scripture itself can not resolve the coflicts that its readers come up with. Which ‘other’ verses are going to be used (recall, this entire council was called because of the turmoil caused by the Judiazers over circumcision - and, in opposition to what you have said, the council met over circumcision (as the quintessential element of continued obedience to the Mosaic Law). To whom do we appeal? There are those who would say, “Well, that is your opinion and this is mine. We will just have to let it go at that.” But, there are others who would not agree with this - and take this to the Church for resolution, After all, Christ promised His Spirit to the Church to keep it free from error.

Peter didn’t make any decision, but relayed to the “Council” that God, who knows the heart, gave individual Gentiles the Holy Spirit, AS GENTILES, on the basis of personal faith (belief) alone (Acts 15:7-9). Which, of course, is the foundation of Pauline theology on justification (e.g., Rom. 3:24; 30; 4:1-6; 5:1-2, etc.) IOW, they were not required to first become Jewish proselytes, which would require circumcision and obedience to the Law.

James acknowledges what Peter previously stated and backs it up with the witness of SCRIPTURE, quoting the prophet Amos. It is true that the SCRIPTURE James quoted is not a reference to “abolishing circumcision,” that’s not the reason the “Council” convened. What the SCRIPTURE confirmed was that the Gentiles were to come into the church AS GENTILES, not Jewish proselytes which would require of them circumcision. THIS was the dispute of the Council, not “abolishing circumcision.”

James deferred to the authority of SCRIPTURE and based on SCRIPTURE made a judgment:Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles."We have here set before us a precedent for Christ’s church: The rule/canon/norma normans was/is SCRIPTURE. This is called “Sola Scriptura.” It’s all right there in black and white, Tom. Embrace the simplicity of it.

Actually, Moondweller, for the major reason I gave you in the beginning - it is simply wrong. And, with all respect, I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion from this passage.

God bless

 

[joe370]

Monte, you said to Josiah:

Yes, of course… how does “any” church decide they have the infallible truth?

This is an excellent question that Aj will never answer. Instead of answering the question, he will simply say things like:

“I reject that a teacher is exempt from norming if the teacher so exempts himself alone.”

Basically Aj is saying, in my opinion: Christian ministers/teachers belonging to the CC, ignore the bible (given to all by the CC) - as their one and only authority, which should be the Christians one and only divine tool used for norming, yet his norm can decide nothing, arbitrate nothing, by his own admission. Very confusing.

Aj insists:

…that a teacher’s views must be simply accepted “with docility” - exempt from norming - if the said teacher alone so insists in the case of the said teacher exclusively.

I insist:

The Lutheran Confessions must be accepted with docility if I want to belong to one of the Lutheran congregations. This is hypocrisy!

He then says:

“I also reject that the teachers’ own views are the best canon to evuate if the teaching is correct - that has zero relevance to correctness, it only means that the teaching agrees with itself.”

Which leaves Christianity with what? Well, that leaves Christianity with no one to evaluate if a teaching is correct - period. Absolutely ludicrous, if in fact the holy spirit is guiding the church built by God, into all truth, as per the bible.

I could also say: I reject that the views of the Lutheran church (or any church for that matter) - or, I reject that the views of the men who wrote the Lutheran Confessions, are the best way to evaluate if a teaching is correct, and that the Lutheran teachings have zero relevance to correctness and that it only means that the Lutheran teachings agree with itself; it only means that the Lutheran confessions agree with itself, which is the case.

Josiah insists:

To which I insist:

Each and every respective PC is currently and formally in agreement with each and every respective PC exclusively in all matters that each and every PC exclusively regards as good to be in agreement about.

This is a never ending cycle that leads to nothing but a major headache and zero resolution as to whether or not a teaching is correct (infallible) - or incorrect (fallible).

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
We are not in agreement regarding the following?

According to the Scriptures, the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18) is made up of all true believers baptized into it (the body of Christ) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:13) since Pentecost (Acts 1:5). Since Pentecost there is, and always will be, only one church, and “being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:20-21).
According to your Church, what are you required to believe that the “one church” is, Joe?

All churches regardless of denomination, comprise the one Mystical Body of Christ, to which He is the head and savior. Something tells me that you don’t feel the same about the CC? MD, will the non-denominational churches established in the future, be considered part of the catholic church? Technically, you not only, do not belong to my church but you reject my church, and my church has been going by the name catholic for 2000 years. The 16th century protestant movement gave way to new churches that rejected the CC. Tell me, why should I refer to those churches as catholic?

As I said to Aj, Christians belonging to the CC are scriptura advocates as well, (just not sola scriptura advocates) - and they definitely defer to the authority of sacred scriptura, just as the early ecumenical councils did, and just as the Catholic church does today, and just as Protestants do, and we believe that Jesus left us with an authoritative interpreter of the authoritative, inerrant word of God, just as Protestants do.
I don’t know of any Protestants who say Jesus left us with “an” authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Nor do Catholics defer to the authority of the Scriptures, but rather to the “teaching authority” of their Church (Magisterium) which claims for itself infallibility, which you refer to as “the Church.”

MD, Christians belonging to the CC defer to the authority of the bible, after all, it is the word of God, but the bible cannot determine anything, cannot arbitrate anything, cannot interpret itself, cannot decide what a Christian must or must not believe. Jesus left us with a teaching church, even if you don’t believe it to be the CC (guided by the holy spirit until the end of time) - to determine, arbitrate, interpret, decide, evaluate and maintain doctrinal integrity. If you do not agree with this then I guess are little debate is at a stand still.

If the word of God is inerrant, then certainly an inerrant interpreter, which is impossible without the guidance by the holy spirit, just makes sense - right?
No. The Word of God (the Scriptures) is inerrant because it’s God’s Word, it’s theopneustos (God-breathed)- according to the Scriptures. All men (as individuals), especially

MD, by who’s authority do you have the right to say no, to me? Is the authority of your bible? The Word of God is inerrant because it’s God’s Word, written by very fallible/errant people and safeguarded by very fallible/errant successors. How can I know that these fallible, errant apostles, and their disciples (Luke and Mark) - wrote infallibly/inerrantly? How can I know, with certainty, that their fallible successors through the early centuries, (until the CC codified the bible in the 4th century) - preserved and safeguarded the correct infallible/inerrant writings of the apostles? After all, they are all fallible people prone to err just like the rest of us. If, as many protestants insist, the CC botched, erred and made up things, then certainly they could have fouled up regarding the correct inclusion/exclusion of the books in the bible? Or, was this an impossibility?

Christians, are, and will be, held accountable to God’s Word, not the interpretation of His Word by men.

So why the need for teachers (pastors and minister) - who interpret the Word of God for other Christians? If you are right, then everyone should simply defer to their interpretation of their bibles, for the simple fact that no Christian is to be held accountable to the interpretation of the Word of God, by any protestant Pastor - correct?

The crux of the problem is that there is no Divine Revelation that states that Christ has provided for His church “infallible” interpreters of Scripture.

That is because God has NOT provided for His church with “infallible” interpreters of Scripture. No man is infallible! God provided for His church with the Infallible Holy Spirit, Who infallibly guides, according to the inerrant word of God, Jesus’ church into all truth, regardless of the century. Jesus’ established church, guided by the Infallible HS, teaches infallibly in spite of the fact that Jesus’ church is comprised of all fallible, errant people. If you do not believe this, then truth regarding any one doctrine remains inaccessible???

The Catholic Church (not the church, catholic) has merely asserted infallibility and requires its “faithful” to accept it (its claim) with docility.

Taking lessons from Aj I see, or vice versa. LOL… Covered this subject already.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

“I reject that a teacher is exempt from norming if the teacher so exempts himself alone.”

Basically Aj is saying, in my opinion: Christian ministers/teachers belonging to the CC, ignore the bible (given to all by the CC) - as their one and only authority, which should be the Christians one and only divine tool used for norming, yet his norm can decide nothing, arbitrate nothing, by his own admission. Very confusing.

No, what I said is what I said (I wonder why some Catholics have problems with that concept?). What I said is EXACTLY what I mean, basically or otherwise. I reject that a teacher is exempt from norming if the teacher so exempts himself.

That is, of course, what The Catholic Church does. It rejects any norming for one (and exclusively one): itself. And thus all aspects of such (including WHATEVER might be the embraced rule/canon in such). Rather, it alone simply declares that it alone is infallible and incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals) and thus unaccountable, exempt from the whole issue of norming. “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I must be right, so just accept whatever I alone say with docility; I’m right so I don’t need no norming.” I reject that epistemology.

The Lutheran Confessions must be accepted with docility if I want to belong to one of the Lutheran congregations. This is hypocrisy!

Show me where ANY PROTESTANT Catechism says that ANY TEACHER (person, Confession, denomination) must be accepted “with docility” as “Jesus speaking” (Catholic Catechism # 87).

No, there’s NOTHING about The Lutheran Confessions being infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error because the self same so self claims for self alone. And theres’ NOTHING in them about being the rule/canon/norma normans FOR ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

All organizations can establishes membership requirements. A membership requirement is not an infallible/unaccountable statement of dogmatic fact, it’s just a membership requirment. We are to AGREE that the Small Catechism is a “true exposition of Scripture” NOT that it’s the norma normans (we just agreed that SCRIPTURE is that), NOT that it’s infallible/unaccountable (in which case it would not need to be a true exposition of anything), and there’s nothing about “docility.”

“I also reject that the teachers’ own views are the best canon to evuate if the teaching is correct - that has zero relevance to correctness, it only means that the teaching agrees with itself.”

Which leaves Christianity with what? Well, that leaves Christianity with no one to evaluate if a teaching is correct - period.

No, it just means that I reject the rubric of self alone designating self alone as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - all according to whether self alone agrees with self alone. Studied any of the cults?

Absolutely ludicrous, if in fact the holy spirit is guiding the church built by God, into all truth, as per the bible.

1. The Bible does NOT say that God is leading The Catholic Church. Reality check: It never so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. About anything. Concerning anything. For anything. It never promises it anything, about anything. It never authorizes it for anything, about anything. The claims of The Catholic Church come from one and only one source: itself.
2. I don’t know that The Holy Spirit “guides” any geopolitical/physical/institutional organization, all the cases I know God is leading PEOPLE.
3. While God always leads infallibly, I just don’t know where you get the idea that ERGO one denomination exclusively and consistantly infallibly follows. Where does the Bible say that? God infallibly lead Adam and Eve, did they always infallibly follow? God lead each of the kings we read about in the Book of Kings, did all of them always infallibly follow? And where in the world did you get the idea that if God leads someone, He thus holds them unaccountable for what they think, say and do? Did God hold Adam and Eve unaccountable since He infallibly lead them? Let’s say God DOES exclusively lead The Catholic Church (how He would do that is beyond me, but let’s pretend), what it the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church infallibly following, being regarded as unaccountable and exempt from norming?

You know, God over and over again warned us about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and He NEVER exempted The Catholic Church from that. Or any other teacher, denomination, etc.

Each and every respective PC is currently and formally in agreement with each and every respective PC exclusively in all matters that each and every PC exclusively regards as good to be in agreement about.

Yes, the BEST you can say about The Catholic Church in that regard is that it’s no better than the worse of the Protestant denominations - it has a unity of just one: itself alone with itself alone. I’m at a loss to know why that proves The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error, and exempt from accountability/norming. Friend, I am in current and formal agreement with myself in all matters that I currently think it’s good to be in agreement about, is it your view that ERGO I must be infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability/norming? If not, then your apologetic just failed. We all know The Catholic Church agrees with one and only one: Itself, exclusively. Self agrees with self only. AT LEAST as much can be said for any and all denominations; The Catholic Church is no better and often worse than other denominations in that regard.

.

 

[joe370]

Whoever you decide that to be is up to you of course; are we in agreement.
I do not appoint over me infallible interpreters of Scripture, or my faith in general. So, you see, we’re not in agreement.

We will never be in agreement for the simple fact that you believe that the word of God is self-interpretive. One more time: infallible people do not exist. The Infallible Holy Spirit alone is to be given all the credit for guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, as opposed to fallible truth.

No one man’s interpretation, or the interpretation of any one church leadership, (regardless of church affiliation) - of the Christians one and only authority, (God’s Word) - should be considered by any true believer, the ONLY true reflection of truth regarding any one doctrine?
Did you not read the CCC on this?

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church ALONE.”

I agree with the CCC. MD, who, in your mind, has been entrusted with the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God? I am really trying to understand your position!!! Please just answer the question directly.

However, you did not answer the question. What is your answer? Will you always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the interpretation of the church to which you belong
If I do that then I am not appealing to the Scriptures but men as my sole authority.

So, you will always appeal to sacred scripture via your own interpretation???

However, Christ has given to His church teachers for the equipping of the saints and building up the body of Christ unto maturity (Eph. 4:10-12). I have the writings of many teachers as well (none infallible) from which to compare with my own studies of the Scriptures.

To which non-fallible teachers (church) - do you defer for the equipping of the saints and building up the body of Christ unto maturity?

But when one understands that the Object and foundation of “the faith” which has now come (see Gal. 3:22-26) is Christ and not one’s Church, the truths concerning salvation and the church Christ Himself is building, as revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures, become quite evident, as do the errors of men and their religious institutions (by whatever name they might identify them). It’s through the God-breathed Scriptures that true believers are led into all truth. The way God has preserved His inerrant Word in this world for all generations since Moses.

MD, the God breathed scriptures, (through no fault of God’s word; only the errors of men) - has failed miserably to lead believers into all truth…into the same truth regarding any one doctrine. The bible is not to blame for all this doctrinal chaos and disunity. MD, who or what is to blame?

 

[joe370]

No, what I said is what I said (I wonder why some Catholics have problems with that concept?). What I said is EXACTLY what I mean, basically or otherwise. I reject that a teacher is exempt from norming if the teacher so exempts himself.

Exempt from norming??? What are you talking about??? Catholics do not exempt themselves from deferring to the bible; they just realize that the bible cannot determine or arbitrate or evaluate anything, by your own admission. Please expound!!! This will be my last attempt. I really wanted to understand your perspective, but sometimes, somethings just aren’t meant to be.

 

[joe370]

The Lutheran Confessions must be accepted with docility if I want to belong to one of the Lutheran congregations. This is hypocrisy!
Show me where ANY PROTESTANT Catechism says that ANY TEACHER (person, Confession, denomination) must be accepted “with docility” as “Jesus speaking” (Catholic Catechism # 87).

I cannot belong to the Lutheran church unless I accept the Lutheran confessions as the accurate reflection of the bible. That is a fact, and that is docility!!!

Definition of docility:

Readily trained or taught; teachable.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

All churches regardless of denomination, comprise the one Mystical Body of Christ, to which He is the head and savior. Something tells me that you don’t feel the same about the CC?

No denomination comprises the body of Christ. All Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the mystical union of all Christians would be PEOPLE. The assembly or gathering of Christians would be PEOPLE. The church is people. Not a denomination or collection of denominations. A denomination has no heart, no soul - it’s a geopolitical/economic/physical/institutional organization.

Christians belonging to the CC defer to the authority of the bible

1. Catholics are to accept “with docility” whatever The Catholic Church states (officially, formally anyway, in matters of faith and morals). The Catholic Church recognizes one authority (besides God): itself. You just be subject to it. As unto God. CCC 87.
2. Yes, The Catholic Church acknowledges Scripture as an infallible teacher and sourse. Our doctrine of Scripture is identical. But, friend, it’s not the Scripture of words on pages, the Scripture The Catholic Church recognizes as authoritative is the Scripture IN THE HEART OF ITSELF (CCC 113) AS INTERPRETED BY ITSELF (CCC 85) - the MEANING that it alone gives to the Scripture in the heart of itself alone - THAT is the Scripture it recognizes as having authority. It’s functionally authority far under itself. As some Catholics here have tried to convey, Scripture is just a product of The Catholic Church. As Joseph Smith said, “The Church doesn’t need the Bible, the Bible needs the Church.”

Jesus left us with a teaching church

Yes, Christians are to teach. But where I disagree with you is ERGO, one teacher may simply designate himself/herself/itself exclusively as infallible, unaccountable, exempt form norming cuz self alone so insists for self alone.

I have the authority to do my job. I assure you, only you would conclude that THEREFORE, I’m infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable for all that I think, say and do, exempt from any norming; when I speak, Jesus is speaking.

I have a very good friend who works as a teacher. She has teaching authority. But she is NOT regarded by parents or the principle or the School Board or the State of California or the Courts as INCAPABLE of wrong, INFALLIBLE, the sole one exempt from accountability (only her!), when she speaks - Jesus does.

IMHO, a true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, excuse himself from examination, insist that he alone be unaccountable, demand that all just accept with docility whatever he alone says.

Is the authority of your bible? The Word of God is inerrant because it’s God’s Word,

Yes. Here’s how The Handbook of the Catholic Faith puts in (page 136): “The Bible is the very word of God and there can be no greater assurance of credence. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible! God inspired the penmen to write as He wished so that it’s words are His. It is authoritative because of its author, who is none other than God.” I agree.

But the question is this: Is one teacher EXEMPT from the issue of norming/accountability for his teachings if that teacher alone so exempts himself alone? It is a valid, sound and good epistemology for the teacher under review to just exempt himself (exclusively) by insisting: I’m right, so when I say I’m right, ergo I must be right so I’m right - thus it is moot to investigate if I’m right, just accept WHATEVER I say WITH DOCILITY!" (Compare to The Catholic Catechism # 87 and to “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle/prophet Bruce McConkie, and pretty much every cult).

IF you do accept accountability, IF you do care that God Himself repeatedly told us to watch out for false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, IF you agree with Jesus who praised the Ephesians for regarding their Christian teachers as accountable, for testing them and for finding them false, then you have just embraced norming - the process of determining if a doctrine (including those of The Catholic Church) are correct/valid/true. And friend, the first issue in norming is to embrace the rule/ canon/ norma normans for such - the issue of this thread is if Scripture is the most sound rule in norming. The Catholic Church has no alternative, just the insistance that it alone be excuded from the issue and instead just have whatever it says accepted “with docility.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

That is because God has NOT provided for His church with “infallible” interpreters of Scripture. No man is infallible! God provided for His church with the Infallible Holy Spirit, Who infallibly guides, according to the inerrant word of God, Jesus’ church into all truth, regardless of the century. Jesus’ established church, guided by the Infallible HS, teaches infallibly in spite of the fact that Jesus’ church is comprised of all fallible, errant people.

Even if all that whole thing had a OUNCE of anything to substantiate it, it’s baseless. WHERE in the world did you get the idea that since God infallibly leads, there’s one that will infallibly follow? Certainly not from Scripture or human experience or philosophy or anywhere I can think of. God infallibly lead Adam and Eve, did they ERGO infallibly follow? Did God regard them as unaccountable and incapable of error? WHERE did you get this idea that since God cannot err in His leadership, THEREFORE just one - The CAtholic Church CANNOT err in its following?

.

 

[joe370]

“I also reject that the teachers’ own views are the best canon to evuate if the teaching is correct - that has zero relevance to correctness, it only means that the teaching agrees with itself.”
Which leaves Christianity with what? Well, that leaves Christianity with no one to evaluate if a teaching is correct - period.
No, it just means that I reject the rubric of self alone designating self alone as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - all according to whether self alone agrees with self alone. Studied any of the cults?

I know that you reject the rubric of self alone designating self alone as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - all according to whether self alone agrees with self alone. Got it! No need to mention it again. And I will study the cults when you name them.

**If it does NOT leave Christianity with no one to evaluate whether a teaching is correct (infallible) - then who can correctly evaluate, determine and arbitrate on doctrinal matters of the bible? **