Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

Exempt from norming??? What are you talking about??? I really wanted to understand your perspective, but sometimes, somethings just aren’t meant to be.

The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is incapable of error (in official/formal matters of faith and morals). It alone claims that it alone is INFALLIBLE in such matters. The entire issue of infallible is that it is thus unaccountable. The line of thought in The Catholic Church is: I cannot error, therefore, I am not accountable. Thus, the whole issue of norming (the process of determining if a doctrine is true or false) is moot in the exclusive case of one: myself.

Excusing itself alone from examination, it substitutes docilic acceptance. For example, Catholic Catechism # 87: Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Let’s examine it’s alternative to its exemption of self from accountability, examination, norming (by any rule/canon). First, sadly, the quoted Scripture is a falsehood (and I’m certain The Catholic Church knows that - it is the only time I think the Catholic Church is purposely being dishonest). Jesus NEVER said ANY SUCH THING to any Apostle - individually or collectively, so the whole implied Apostolic Succession thing just fell. But what is it alone demanding of all, since it alone exempted itself alone from examination regarding its teachings? You are to accept them “with docility.”

What have all the Catholics here (and in similar threads) been arguing? NOT for a better norma normans/ rule/ canon. NOT for a better process of arbitration. But WHY they think The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from this examination of its doctrines. THAT is what The Catholic Church’s position is. An attempt to justify self excluding self, it is NOT an alternative process of norming, it’s just an attempt to justify ONE exempting ONE (self) from the whole issue of whether what is taught is correct. “Accept it with docility, as God speaking.” My study of the LDS and the cults powerfully revealed that this is not only simply an evasion of the issue of correctness, but it can be dangerous. Very dangerous.

Over and over, God warns us of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. And He never exempted The Catholic Church from that. Christ praised the Ephesians for regarding their teachers the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands for itself alone. Christ praised them for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing them and ultiamately for finding them false (Revelation 2:2). All with no mention of The Catholic Church being infallible/unaccountable - exempt from norming cuz it exempts itself.

.

 

[joe370]

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.

That’s a weak defense. The Bible does NOT say that God is leading The Lutheran Church either. Reality check!!! The claims of The Lutheran Church come from one and only one source: itself, through its interpretation of the bible via the Lutheran Confessions!!! Don’t you want to at least attempt to find some sort of resolution, or do you just want to censure the CC? If that is all you want to do, I will have to take a pass!

Aj, please answer this question directly: help me find the church that is being guided into all truth, until the end of time???

 

[joe370]

1. I don’t know that The Holy Spirit “guides” any geopolitical/physical/institutional organization, all the cases I know God is leading PEOPLE.

You have responded with this over and over. Is this what we should expect from now on???

1. While God always leads infallibly,

Leads which people 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 have responded with this over and over. Is this what we should expect from now on???

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.

You have responded with this over and over. Is this what we should expect from now on???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

There have been few people that I have disagreed with more then AJ. And when it comes to evasion and circular argumentation, few can hold a candle to him… But, in my opinion, you do him a disservice by putting words (albeit his own that all of us have basically committed to memory!) in his mouth. If the argument were made that this is a straw-man type of argumentation, I could not argue against they type of statement!

Serioulsly, all he has done for the last dozen posts is to copy and paste the previous statements that were already wordy, repititious, and tedious with circular reasoning. He has shown no mercy with overloading the system with these anit-Catholic, tedious, and repititious statements. Those who are still reading his tedium must be wondering why he bothers … but, he does - and there are the abundant fruits of his own logical dismanteling. Which brings me to the point of my post - as bad as he is - please do not put words in his mouth. You can dismantel his arguments at your leisure! Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who is doing all of he heavy lifting that we need to be thankful for.

Go for it!

God bless

Monte, you said to Josiah: This is an excellent question that Aj will never answer. Instead of answering the question, he will simply say things like:
I concur - AJ has questions from me that are still pending, he has either talked his way around ( with the dillusion he answered them) or just ignored all together. Oh and don’t forget he usually brings in his ‘girfriend’ to every post he makes … “Norma Norman”…!

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:

I insist:

He then says:

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:

 

[AmericanJosiah]

joe:

The Bible does NOT say that God is leading The Lutheran Church either.

EXACTLY! In fact, I see nothing to indicate that God leads ANY denomination. As far as I can tell, God leads PEOPLE.

But where I disagree with your premise is that since God leads people, ERGO all people always, consistently INFALLIBLY follows and thus God holds them as unaccountable for all they say, do, teach. AGAIN, where did you ever get that idea??? God infallibly lead Adam and Eve. Did Adam and Eve constantly and perpetually and infallibly follow God? Did God regard them as unaccountable for what they said or did? Where do you get the idea that since God infallibly leads, ergo there is an infallible following? God lead all those Jewish kings we all learned about in Sunday School. Did they all, constantly and perpetually and infallible follow God? Did God regard them as unaccountable for all they said and did? This is an odd premise you have…

BUT, you are TRYING to justify why The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming - insisting that it alone is infallible and incapable of error (at least in some things under some conditions) - thus it exempts it alone from examination, accountability, norming. It replaces it with a demand of itself alone that whatever it says be accepted with docility, as God speaking. But that’s NOT an alternative approach to norming (better or not), it’s the CIRCUMVENTION of such by self for self.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

While God always leads infallibly,…

Leads which people infallibly???

All believers. Who do you think God is deceiving and leading falsely? Who do you believe God lies to?

But again, just because God leads (and God CANNOT lead wrongly), where do you get your fundamental premise that ERGO, The Catholic Church alone MUST infallibly follow and be regarded as unaccountable for its teachings? Did God lead Adam and Eve? Do you think He lead them to falsehood and error and wrong, or do you think He lead them right? If you think God didn’t sin and lead them right, then do you think that Adam and Eve ergo MUST have infallibly followed and God did not hold them accountable for what they did? Where do you get this idea that if God leads, we must INFALLIBLY follow and God holds us unaccountable for what we do and say because He leads us?

I realize, you are TRYING to justify why The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability and norming for what it teaches, replacing that with a demand that all it says is just accepted “with docility” as Jesus speaking. But that’s NOT an alternative approach to norming or a better, more sound norma normans for such. It’s just self alone exempting self alone from the whole question of correctness. For self exclusively, anyway.

.

 

[joe370]

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.

So, the CC is no better than the worse of the Protestant denominations - it has a unity of just one: itself alone with itself alone - got it. Now, out of all these respective self appointed churches, including the CC, which have isolated unity of just one: itself alone with itself alone, where can all truth be found? Where can the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost be found? Where can the church to which Jesus said: you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth - be found in the world today???

I’m at a loss to know why that proves The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error, and exempt from accountability/norming.

I’m at a loss as to why you are obsessed with the CC when this thread is not about the CC; it’s about defending SS???

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.

So where does that leave us regarding doctrinal truth, if all churches, including the CC, are guilty of what you are saying?

Jesus said, ‘When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. He is truth essentially in himself, and he is the one who leads Jesus’ church into all truth. Help me find this church, even if it’s not the CC???

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah
While God always leads infallibly,…
Leads which people infallibly???
All believers. Who do you think God is deceiving and leading falsely? Who do you believe God lies to?

God deceives no one and God certainly does not lead falsely. All believers you say. So God is infallibly leading some believers to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and some believers to reject this belief? You said all believers!!!

But again, just because God leads (and God CANNOT lead wrongly), where do you get your fundamental premise that ERGO, The Catholic Church alone MUST infallibly follow and be regarded as unaccountable for its teachings?

If you want to discuss this, start a different thread and I will be happy to answer your question, again.

Did God lead Adam and Eve?

Not the way He is leading His church. Not after their fall.

Do you think He lead them to falsehood and error and wrong, or do you think He lead them right?

He lead them right; they chose to not follow his lead.

If you think God didn’t sin and lead them right, then do you think that Adam and Eve ergo MUST have infallibly followed and God did not hold them accountable for what they did?

People can do nothing infallibly. Jesus’ church is guided by the infallible HS; ergo, fallible people belonging to His church can be trusted.

Where do you get this idea that if God leads, we must INFALLIBLY follow and God holds us unaccountable for what we do and say because He leads us?

You got the wrong guy I am afraid.

I realize, you are TRYING to justify why The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability and norming for what it teaches, replacing that with a demand that all it says is just accepted “with docility” as Jesus speaking.

Putting words in my mouth. Well that doesn’t help.

But that’s NOT an alternative approach to norming or a better, more sound norma normans for such. It’s just self alone exempting self alone from the whole question of correctness. For self exclusively, anyway.

Norming fails every time to decide, arbitrate or evaluate anything. If this is all we are going to do, well, it’s just not worth my time or your time. Hopefully you will answer some of my SS questions instead of obsessing about the CC.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Leads which people infallibly???

All believers. Who do you think God is deceiving and leading falsely? Who do you believe God lies to?

God deceives no one and God certainly does not lead falsely. All believers you say. So God is infallibly leading some believers to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and some believers to reject this belief? You said all believers!!!

You agree: God leads all people.
You agree: God ALWAYS leads correctly, truthfully, infallibly.

Where you have yet to explain is your premise that ERGO, THEREFORE, all people MUST infallibly follow? Again WHERE do you get this idea from? And that since God leads, ERGO he regards us as unaccountable, exempt from norming?

Did God lead Adam and Eve?

Not after their fall.

How about before the Fall. Because they DID fall! So they were NOT infallibly follow, even though you agree God infallibly lead.

Do you think He lead them to falsehood and error and wrong, or do you think He lead them right?

He lead them right; they chose to not follow his lead.

So, NOW you are saying that it does NOT follow that since God infallibly leads, we MUST infallibly follow. I think you just disagreed with your own premise.

I think you just destroyed your own position.

I NEVER denied that God leads Christians, and that includes the 1.1 billion Catholics now living (not to mention those no longer living), I just disagree with your whole point that THEREFORE, The Catholic Church infallibly follows God and ergo is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming.

.

Norming fails every time to decide, arbitrate or evaluate anything.

I see. You just have decided that it’s not only moot to regard The Catholic Church as accountable, but all other teachers, too. I see. Well, at least you are consistent, I’ll give you that. The Catholic Church, the LDS, Jim Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, The Methodist Church, me, you - we ALL can just exempt ourselves from any examination, we ALL can just say “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, thus I’m right - so just accept whatever I say with docility, as God speaking.” (Catholic Catechism # 87, etc.). I think you threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Jesus said, ‘When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. He is truth essentially in himself, and he is the one who leads Jesus’ church into all truth. Help me find this church, even if it’s not the CC???

I realize you are TRYING hard to justify why The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability and the norming this thread addresses. I realize you are TRYING to justify why The Catholic Church alone should circumvent the whole issue of whether it’s dogmas are correct by replacing that issue with the requirement of itself alone taht all just accept whatever it says “with docility.”

Let’s look at the verse (nice bit of Sola Scriptura, btw). What does it say? That the Spirit of trueh will guide you into all truth. Okay, does it promise The Catholic Church anything? Obviously not. Does it promise that all will infallibly follow the Spirit? Obviously not. Is it saying that The Catholic Church is exempt from issues of truth? Nope. Is it saying that The Catholic Church alone is infallible? Unaccountable? Incapable of error? Well, all who can read know the answers…

If Jesus promised this to “The Unknown Denomination,” then your question might have some relevance. But the verse doesn’t say, “The Spirit of Truth will lead a yet-to-be-named denomination into all truth and that yet-to-be-named denomination will infallibly follow the Spirit into that Truth so that that yet-to-be-name denomination will be infallible and exempt from norming.” The “you” here is a PERSONAL pronoun, addressed to PEOPLE, not to some unknown, unnamed denomination. I realize that Catholicism is founded on a strong, strong sense of individualism and institutionalism; it’s difficult to think outside that Catholic box, but this verse isn’t about some mysterious denomination you gotta somehow “find” so that it can exempt itself from examination of its teachings.

IMHO, a true teacher (even a false one but sincere!) welcomes the light, because truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must exempt self from investigation, examination, accountability, nomring. Who must replace such with the demand of self for self that all self alone says must simply be accepted “with docility,” “as Jesus speaking.”

If we accept God stern and common warning about false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray (and not He did NOT exclude The Catholic Church from this), if we accept Jesus’ praise of the Ephesians for doing the opposite of what The CAtholic Church demands, if we accept accountability - then you have just embracing norming. FOR ALL. Including The Catholic Church. And the first question becomes: WHAT will serve as the rule/ canon/ norma normans for this determination of correctness? The Catholic Church has no alternative to Scripture, but it rejects it nonetheless in that role because it rejects norming. Well, for just itself. Exclusively.

.

 

[joe370]

Aj, I asked you a simple question:

So God is infallibly leading some believers to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and some believers to reject this belief? You said all believers!!!

To which you said:

Where you have yet to explain is your premise that ERGO, THEREFORE, all people MUST infallibly follow? Again WHERE do you get this idea from?

Again, you refuse to answer a simple question. Again, I have already said that people don’t always follow God’s lead. You, as usual, did not answer a very simple question. So, I ask again, the following questions:

Does God infallibly lead most PC’s and evangelical churches to reject the true presence in the Eucharist and the CC, the EOC and some Lutheran churches, to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist? Or, our some churches simply not following God’s lead? That’s 2 different interpretations of 1 doctrine. There can only be one correct interpretation. Remember you said God leads all Christians, regardless of church membership) - into truth!

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.

Instead of answering these questions you would rather engage in the following:

Originally Posted by Josiah
Do you think He lead them to falsehood and error and wrong, or do you think He lead them right?
He lead them right; they chose to not follow his lead.
So, NOW you are saying that it does NOT follow that since God infallibly leads, we MUST infallibly follow. I think you just disagreed with your own premise.

I think you just destroyed your own position.

As I have said already, people don’t always follow Jesus’ lead. My premise is, as it always has been.

I NEVER denied that God leads Christians, and that includes the 1.1 billion Catholics now living (not to mention those no longer living), I just disagree with your whole point that THEREFORE, The Catholic Church infallibly follows God and ergo is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming.

Your statement simply ignores what I have said, and everyone else here at this thread.

Norming fails every time to decide, arbitrate or evaluate anything.

I see. You just have decided that it’s not only moot to regard The Catholic Church as accountable, but all other teachers, too.

Where did I say that? I said: the bible as the Christians only norm fails every time to decide, arbitrate or evaluate anything, by your own admission. Teachers are required. Help me find the teachers who can determine, evaluate and arbitrate doctrinal matters? The bible as your norm, without teachers, can do nothing, again, by your own admission.

I see. Well, at least you are consistent, I’ll give you that. The Catholic Church, the LDS, Jim Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, The Methodist Church, me, you - we ALL can just exempt ourselves from any examination, we ALL can just say “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, thus I’m right - so just accept whatever I say with docility, as God speaking.” (Catholic Catechism # 87, etc.). I think you threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

I am afraid I can no longer continue down this rabbit hole with you. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Looking forward to your answers to my questions.

Again, you are the one that said the bible (your norm) - cannot decide, evaluate or arbitrate anything. If you don’t answer the preceding questions, then I will just assume that you can’t.

 

[joe370]

Aj, I said:

Jesus said, ‘When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. He is truth essentially in himself, and he is the one who leads Jesus’ church into all truth. Help me find this church, even if it’s not the CC???

I realize you are TRYING hard to justify why The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability and the norming this thread addresses. I realize you are TRYING to justify why The Catholic Church alone should circumvent the whole issue of whether it’s dogmas are correct by replacing that issue with the requirement of itself alone taht all just accept whatever it says “with docility.”

It’s like you are not even reading what I wrote. I said: even if it’s not the CC. Tom is right; you refuse to answer a question directly; you simply skirt the issue.

Let’s look at the verse (nice bit of Sola Scriptura, btw).

Thank you. Actually, thank the CC; it was the CC that gave you your bible, or was it the Lutheran church?

What does it say? That the Spirit of trueh will guide you into all truth. Okay, does it promise The Catholic Church anything? Obviously not. Does it promise that all will infallibly follow the Spirit? Obviously not. Is it saying that The Catholic Church is exempt from issues of truth? Nope. Is it saying that The Catholic Church alone is infallible? Unaccountable? Incapable of error? Well, all who can read know the answers…

It is saying: When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth. Again, if Jesus was not referring to the CC, then which church (assembly of believers) - is being guided into all truth?

If Jesus promised this to “The Unknown Denomination,” then your question might have some relevance.

You just totally ignore everyone. Jesus founded a church, not a denomination.

…But the verse doesn’t say, “The Spirit of Truth will lead a yet-to-be-named denomination into all truth and that yet-to-be-named denomination will infallibly follow the Spirit into that Truth so that that yet-to-be-name denomination will be infallible and exempt from norming.”

Nope! Also, Jesus said nothing about norming. He said that the holy spirit, who is infallible, will guide Jesus’ church into all truth.

The “you” here is a PERSONAL pronoun, addressed to PEOPLE, not to some unknown, unnamed denomination.

The “you” here is a PERSONAL pronoun, addressed to Jesus’ fledgling apostolic church, and Jesus promised that he would be with his apostolic church forever, and His church would be forever guided into all truth. Help me find that church?

I realize that Catholicism is founded on a strong, strong sense of individualism and institutionalism

The CC was built on Peter, the rest of the apostles, and the prophets. It was not founded on a strong, strong sense of individualism and institutionalism.

it’s difficult to think outside that Catholic box

It’s impossible to think rationally inside your box; trust me, I have tried.

but this verse isn’t about some mysterious denomination

Agreed, including all the denominations out there in the world today, built on the foundation of the protestant reformation. Aj, if that includes the EOC and the CC, then help me find the church of Matthew 16. You already said that the CC and the Lutheran church are denominations that were not established by God, so help me find the church founded by God? This isn’t rocket science.

…you gotta somehow “find” so that it can exempt itself from examination of its teachings.

You believe that the CC exempts itself from examination of its teachings? OK…Who should be examining the CC’s teachings???

IMHO, a true teacher (even a false one but sincere!) welcomes the light, because truth is revealed in the light.

All protestant church teachers claim to be doing just that, and they all claim to possess the truth revealed in that light. Help me find the church that is forever guided by the HS, where truth is revealed in the light???

It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must exempt self from investigation, examination, accountability, nomring. Who must replace such with the demand of self for self that all self alone says must simply be accepted “with docility,” “as Jesus speaking.”

I would be a complete moron to continue with this charade of a debate. If you answer my SS related questions I will continue…

 

[Jean_1958]

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

I usually tell others that no where in the Bible does it support Sola Scriptura since Protestants are BIG on the fact that it MUST be in Scripure to do or believe it. They usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as a way to justify Sola Scriptura, however, the verse reads as follows: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” That is true, but none of it translates into the Bible alone. Also, when that was wriiten the books behind Timothy had not been written yet. Not to mention, a Bible had not even been composed at the time.

 

[CMatt25]

An interesting and long thread. But don’t we all have to begin with our own interpretations based on how we feel led by the Holy Spirit and then go from there? Don’t Catholics when first checking Scripture to make certain the Church is true, have to first interpret the Church was built upon Peter and being given the keys was something greater than simply the power to bind and loose? And then with that interpretation in hand their faith follows and neither the early nor future Church could err in doctrine. While others may interpret the Church was built upon Peter’s declaration of Christ being the Messiah with all disciples having equal power since the other disciples were given the power to bind and loose as well. And then their faith may take a different path. Obviously the Spirit would not lead 2 people on different paths. But who is to really say who is right or wrong on their beliefs?

 

[moondweller]

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?

Infallibility is an attribute. Determining an “accurate interpretation” of Christ’s words in John chapter six is very possible, but this is not a matter of Sola Scriptura, but rather hermeneutics and exegesis. Hermeneutics being the study of the principles of interpretation, and exegesis consisting of the actual interpretation, the bringing out of its (the text’s) meaning. IOW, hermeneutics establishes the principles by which exegesis is practiced. Your question really does not directly pertain to the topic being discussed in this thread: Sola Scriptura.

Until you understand this AJ’s posts will not cease to fly over your head.

 

[moondweller]

tqualey:

This is not an insignificant matter. Scripture itself can not resolve the coflicts that its readers come up with.

I disagree, but this is not the concern nor issue of “Sola Scriptura,” the topic of this thread.

After all, Christ promised His Spirit to the Church to keep it free from error.

Where does Jesus promise the Spirit to a “Church,” and where does He say for the purpose of keeping it (that Church) error free?

 

[moondweller]

joe370:

All churches regardless of denomination, comprise the one Mystical Body of Christ, to which He is the head and savior.

From where do you get the notion that the mystical body of Christ is made up of denominational churches (Catholic, EO, RO, Coptic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.)? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many,” contextually, he wasn’t referring at all to “churches” but individual believers. It’s PEOPLE who are, by the Holy Spirit, baptized into the “body of Christ,” which is the church Christ is presently building (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).

Something tells me that you don’t feel the same about the CC?

I don’t “feel” that about any “church.” There are some Catholics who are in the body of Christ, many are not. There are some Lutherans in the body of Christ, many are not. Same for EOs, ROs, Coptics, Baptists, etc. There could be whole churches not in the body of Christ. The true “body of Christ” is comprised of true believers only, regardless of Church affiliation. You keep asking for “the infallible Church” in which to trust. No such “Church” exists.

MD, will the non-denominational churches established in the future, be considered part of the catholic church?

Only individual, true believers make up the church (catholic), the “body of Christ.” There are no Denominations in the “body of Christ.” There are no "Catholics, “EO,” “RO,” “Coptics,” “Lutherans,” “Baptists,” etc. in the “body of Christ.” Never will be.

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.

Early on the church Christ is presently building was called by men “catholic” (universal). But at the time of the “schism” the West adopted the name “Catholic,” and the East adopted “Orthodox.” So, technically, men in the West excluded the East by claiming exclusive catholicity, and men in the East excluded the West by claiming exclusive “orthodoxy.” This wasn’t the work of the Holy Spirit, but men.

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?

“Catholic” (meaning “universal”) was a description given of the church Christ is presently building by men (you won’t find that adjective in Scripture). The West adopted it as its moniker. There’s only one denomination called “The Catholic 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.

The “faithful” belonging to the CC defer to the authority of the Magisterium of the CC, which, it claims “alone” has the authority to interpret the Scriptures. However, Sola Scriptura is not about interpreting the Scriptures, or determining what a Christian is to believe based on said interpretation.

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.

According to the Scriptures, Christ has not left His body without teachers for “the equipping of the saints for the work of service” and “to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). Scripture does not say He has left us a “teaching church.” Those are your words.

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?

If the writing of Scripture had been left to mere men, then all your doubts are possible. But Scripture (not men) is theopheustos (God-breathed) and according to God-breathed Scripture God Himself testifies that “I am watching over my Word to perform it” (Jer. 1:12). For the true believer, such doubts are unwarranted.

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.

Yet your Magisterium claims that attribute of itself. “Regardless of the century” because that truth in which He guided them concerning “the mystery of Christ,” and “the unfathomable riches of Christ” were preserved for all generations in Holy Writ (see Eph. 3:1-10), just as He’s done since Moses. Which is what Sola Scriptura is all about. You continually confound Sola Scriptura, Hermenuetics and Exegesis (as well as Illumination).

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
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?

Infallibility is an attribute. Determining an “accurate interpretation” of Christ’s words in John chapter six is very possible, but this is not a matter of Sola Scriptura, but rather hermeneutics and exegesis.

It is a matter of SS. You and Aj come back with the exact same responses, almost verbatim. Prove to me that SS works by illustrating how Christians can know (without doubt) - with infallibility, whether or not Jesus was speaking symbolically, in John 6?

Hermeneutics being the study of the principles of interpretation, and exegesis consisting of the actual interpretation, the bringing out of its (the text’s) meaning.

Exactly. Who can I trust to interpret John 6, to bring out its meaning.?

IOW, hermeneutics establishes the principles by which exegesis is practiced. Your question really does not directly pertain to the topic being discussed in this thread: Sola Scriptura.

Yes it does. Please just humor me and answer the question. Jon, if you read this post, does my question, in your opinion, directly pertain to the topic being discussed in this thread, which is: defending Sola Scriptura?

Until you understand this AJ’s posts will not cease to fly over your head.

Well, I never claimed to be the smartest guy. Please just answer the question.

 

[joe370]

MD, one more time: to whom should I look for the correct interpretation of the bible since Sola Scriptura cannot do what hermeneutics and exegesis can??? Let’s start with the correct interpretation of the Eucharist.

 

[joe370]

That is because God has NOT provided for His church with “infallible” interpreters of Scripture.

Last time MD: infallible interpreters do not exist. The infallible holy spirit guides fallible teachers into all truth.