Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Tomster]

Absolutely! This is the fundamental issue which Joe always evades.

Speaking of fundamental issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315887&page=17

post #'s 246, 247, 248

 

[Tomster]

More fundamentally, where did Jesus promise that ANY institutional organization is or every would be INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, EXEMPT from accountablity and norming?

In fact, where did Jesus promise ANYTHING about ANYONE - individually or collectively - being INFALLIBLE?

Over and over and over, God warns us about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Where did He exempt The Catholic Church from that?

The entire rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church is the point the Catholics here are trying to make (in so doing, being good Catholic apologists): The Catholic Church alone is exempt from accountability and thus from norming, and whatever it says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” To justify self exempting self from the whole question of the truthfulness of what self teaches, replacing that simply with docilic acceptance of such.

IMHO, Joe seems to be confusing authority with infalliblity/unaccountability. They are entirely unrelated. I realize Joe (as a good Catholic) thinks that Jesus only authorized The Catholic Church to teach (btw, there’s ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever authorized The Catholic Church to do ANYTHING) - and thus he is not authorized to teach and should not be doing so here. But my puzzle over his position is that authority = infalliblity/ unaccountability. Nowhere is this true. I have authority to do my job, but I can assure you no one regards me as infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever I say God says, and it’s all to be accepted “with docility.” President Obama has GREAT authority, yet is Joe arguing that THEREFORE President Obama is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever he says Jesus says, and it’s all to be accepted with docility? I doubt it. I think he rejects the very argument he’s trying so hard to defend. The Christian PEOPLE who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church certainly have authority to teach. As do Christians who may or may not be registered in congregations that may or may not be legally affiliated with other denominations. But such authority does NOT mean they are unaccountable. Read Revelation 2:2. Read all the warnings about false teachers - such warnings would be absurd on God’s part if teachers were incapable of being false.

.

With regard to false teachers:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315887&page=17

Post #'s 246, 247, 248 if you would

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6198604]
Heck no; I totally agree with you. I am just trying to understand, what didn’t make sense to me as a former Lutheran, but no one will bite. They just say things like: this is a hermeneutic/exegetical issue.

Scripture cannot evaluate, determine and/or arbitrate anything on its own, and I just want MD or Josiah, any non-Catholic, to tell me, in their opinion, who HAS the God given right to evaluate/determine doctrinal truth, and WHY, but again, no takers.

Gee, Joe. This kinda hurts my feelings. I thought I bit pretty firmly. :bighanky:
If, indeed, we can agree that the authority was given to the Apostles, to be passed on to succeeding generations of Church leaders, the argument over succession aside, then we must admit that that authority, to the extent it was given to an institutional body, is now divided amongst us, east and west and within the west, because the Church is in schism.
There is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds those apostles.

Jon

 

[moondweller]

Speaking of fundamental issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315887&page=17

post #'s 246, 247, 248

Tomster, from the post you sent me to:"Scripture tells us to stick to the teachings of the Church and to not be swayed away by another teaching."Where does Scripture say to stick to the teachings of the Catholic church? Where does Scripture say anything about the Catholic church?

 

[joe370]

Hi there!

We have to make something clear here. The various Protestant/Evangelical denominations all consider themselves belonging to one Church headed by Christ. We are all of the same “religion.” Being in a different denomination is not the same as being in another religion.

 

[Third_Day]

=moondweller;6199921]Of all the “churches” mentioned in the N.T., Joe, which one does it say is appointed the “authority to teach?” Search out the letter Paul wrote to the church at Rome, did he say it was appointed the “teaching church?”

Paul tells Timothy that it is the Bishops duty to teach and to correct those that contradict the true teachings. Does the Baptist demonination have Bishops?

The Biblical fact is there is only one church Christ has been building since Pentecost

:
The first thing Peter did was replace Judas to fill the “office” of Bishop. The true Church must have Bishops.

the body of Christ, made up of all, individual, true believers, born again, saved and reckoned righteous through faith alone in Him

.
James, a Catholic Bishop says we **are not **saved by faith alone. James 2:24

And within this church there are teachers for the building up (unto maturity) of the body of Christ to attain to **the unity **of the faith (not to the conformity of a religion,

Exactly The “unity” which protestants will never have… Christ established a Church . He did not establish denominations which were established by men

Eph. 4:10-13). No church was ever given “the authority to teach.” Teaching is a gift, a function of some of the members within the church, the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-8). But there is no such thing as a “teaching church.”

The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles. (Eph 2:20)
The apostles appointed BIshops, deacons and presbyters in the Church. It was their job to teach. As Peter tells us "the untrained and unestablished’ twist Pauls letters to their own destruction.
Even Paul went to the Church (the apostles) to see if he was teaching correctly
Galatians 2:1-3

 

[joe370]

QUOTE]=joe370;6198604]
Heck no; I totally agree with you. I am just trying to understand, what didn’t make sense to me as a former Lutheran, but no one will bite. They just say things like: this is a hermeneutic/exegetical issue.

Scripture cannot evaluate, determine and/or arbitrate anything on its own, and I just want MD or Josiah, any non-Catholic, to tell me, in their opinion, who HAS the God given right to evaluate/determine doctrinal truth, and WHY, but again, no takers.

Gee, Joe. This kinda hurts my feelings. I thought I bit pretty firmly.

Oops…You did. I almost said: with the exception of Jon of course. I don’t know why I didn’t.

If, indeed, we can agree that the authority was given to the Apostles, to be passed on to succeeding generations of Church leaders, the argument over succession aside, then we must admit that that authority, to the extent it was given to an institutional body

Agreed.

…is now divided amongst us, east and west and within the west, because the Church is in schism.

Agreed. Jesus’ Mystical Body is divided due to the sin of man and individuals starting their own churches, basing their teachings on their interpretations of their bibles. This, I can easily prove.

There is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds those apostles.

So, that one church built by Jesus, (on the apostles and prophets) - that evaluated, arbitrated and made infallible (error free) - determinations regarding doctrinal differences in Jesus’ church, based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, no longer exists? I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree; nothing wrong with 2 brothers in Christ disagreeing.

Jon, I agree with you and Josiah that sacred scripture is the authoritative word of God and is absolutely indispensable and absolutely necessary: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome - But, by itself, sacred scripture cannot evaluate or arbitrate anything, unless of course the Bible is self-interpretive, (which I know you don’t believe) - and begs the question: why the need for pastors and ministers?

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 the same infallibility and accuracy, whether or not Jesus was speaking symbolically, in John 6, considering the fact that that one church founded by God and forever guided by the Holy Spirit, into all truth, no longer exists?

Who is to say that my sisters Pastor (hundreds of Protestant/evangelical Pastors) - is/are wrong regarding his/their symbolical interpretation of John 6, if in fact the bible is to be his/their final authority on the matter, via his/their hermeneutical/exegetical interpretation and evaluation of doctrinal truth? Based on that premise, all we can say to him is: my church leadership has zero authority to arbitrate on the matter of your interpretation of John 6. You could be right; you could be wrong. My church’s interpretation could be right or they could be wrong. Infallibly speaking, there is no longer anyway to say one way or the other, for the simple fact that there is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds the apostles???

Jon, in light of that premise, to whom should a Christian look for the correct interpretation of the bible, and the correct evaluation of doctrinal truth, since Sola Scriptura cannot do what teachers, (hermeneutically and exegetically speaking) - can do, but not with any absolute certainty?

If the CC, (any church for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what determines, in the end, whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect, since there is no singular representative church, instituted by Jesus Christ, that alone succeeds the apostles???

Jesus said, “When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

If the promises concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit and His perpetual guidance of Jesus’ church into all truth, in John’s Gospel, is not to be confined to the CC or the EOC or any church for that matter, regardless of affiliation, but is in fact absolutely granted to all believers, regardless of church affiliation, giving all believers, again regardless of church affiliation, an understanding of “all” revealed sacred truths, again through the perpetual guidance of the HS, then the Holy spirit is not guiding the one, holy, catholic (small c) - church into the same truths, or into all truth for that matter. What does that tell us about John 16:13???

All truth seems pretty definitive…

 

[joe370]

Of all the “churches” mentioned in the N.T., Joe, which one does it say is appointed the "authority to teach

?" Search out the letter Paul wrote to the church at Rome, did he say it was appointed the “teaching church?”

The Biblical fact is, Joe, there is only one church Christ has been building since Pentecost: the body of Christ, made up of all, individual, true believers, born again, saved and reckoned righteous through faith alone in Him. And within this church there are teachers for the building up (unto maturity) of the body of Christ to attain to the unity of the faith (not to the conformity of a religion, Eph. 4:10-13).

Hey MD, thanks for weighing in. Within Jesus’ fractured Mystical body, the church, comprised of teachers divided, (doctrinal speaking, ONLY) - the building up (unto maturity) of the body of Christ has NOT led to the unity of belief, again, doctrinally speaking. Of course the unity of faith in Jesus Christ has not been compromised, in the one church, comprised of all denominations. Help me find the teachers that I can rely on, doctrinally speaking, that have kept the church united in doctrine? Or is this unimportant??? Again, I know that we are all united in faith; that goes without saying. I see you as a brother in Christ and would never try to change your belief system; just trying to understand it.

BTW, I respectfully ask: by whose authority do you speak when you teach/advise and evaluate?

No church was ever given "the authority to teach

 

[ufamtobie]

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

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=JonNC;6202062]Gee, Joe. This kinda hurts my feelings. I thought I bit pretty firmly. :bighanky:
If, indeed, we can agree that the authority was given to the Apostles, to be passed on to succeeding generations of Church leaders, the argument over succession aside, then we must admit that that authority, to the extent it was given to an institutional body, is now divided amongst us, east and west and within the west, because the Church is in schism.
There is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds those apostles.

Jon

Jon,

(Mark 3: 24 -26) And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan be risen up against himself, he is divided, and cannot stand, but hath an end.

Jon, the Catholic Church is an institution built on Rock and it can not be devided, for if the Church is devided, it can not stand.

What keeps this House/Church of God undevided? The answer is: The succession of the Apostles. Without the Succesion of Aposltes the Gates of hell would of prevailed over it, with the death of the last original 12 Apostle. Therfore, there is a Singular represenitive institution that alone has the Authority of the 12 original Apostles and that One Institution is the Catholic Church and none other.

The Truth is the Catholic Church continues since then to the present day and it will continue after our death untill the end, we can thank the 12 Apostles and their Successors above all we thank Jesus Christ, for the Catholic Church and His Promise that the gates of hell will not prevail over it.

UfamTobie

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6202818]QUOTE

Agreed. Jesus’ Mystical Body is divided due to the sin of man and individuals starting their own churches, basing their teachings on their interpretations of their bibles. This, I can easily prove.

What about the sin of abuses by those in leadeship and representing the leadeship of the Church which caused men of conscience, dedicated to the Gospel, to stand up to these abuses, placing themselves in jeopardy of excommunication and, indeed their lives?
Would you agree that those sins are equally responsible? And of course, we are not talking about Church leaders of either of our communions today in this way. Our sin today is our inability to reconcile.

So, that one church built by Jesus, (on the apostles and prophets) - that evaluated, arbitrated and made infallible (error free) - determinations regarding doctrinal differences in Jesus’ church, based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, no longer exists? I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree; nothing wrong with 2 brothers in Christ disagreeing.

Not that it no longer exists, it just isn’t unified, and therefore its authority isn’t unified, to the extent that Christ conferred authority on an institution. And of course, we are only talking here about the Church Militant, aren’t we?

Jon, I agree with you and Josiah that sacred scripture is the authoritative word of God and is absolutely indispensable and absolutely necessary: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome - But, by itself, sacred scripture cannot evaluate or arbitrate anything, unless of course the Bible is self-interpretive, (which I know you don’t believe) - and begs the question: why the need for pastors and ministers?

Teachers and teachings are necessary, so is Tradition. But all of these are subject to scripture.

Many Christians believe that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, in John 6. Can Christians know (without doubt) - with the same infallibility and accuracy, whether or not Jesus was speaking symbolically, in John 6, considering the fact that that one church founded by God and forever guided by the Holy Spirit, into all truth, no longer exists?

My quote was, “There is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds those apostles.” That doesn’t say that the one Church doesn’t exist. But on John 6 - it is
metaphorical and symbolic, or at least would be, if it weren’t also predicting the Last Supper. The Last Supper narratives, and Paul’s repeat of them, eliminates all doubt as to the nature of what He was telling His audience in John 6. It is not John 6 (alone) that confirms the Eucharist, it is Christ’s own words that the Last Supper that confirm it.

Who is to say that my sisters Pastor (hundreds of Protestant/evangelical Pastors) - is/are wrong regarding his/their symbolical interpretation of John 6, if in fact the bible is to be his/their final authority on the matter, via his/their hermeneutical/exegetical interpretation and evaluation of doctrinal truth? Based on that premise, all we can say to him is: my church leadership has zero authority to arbitrate on the matter of your interpretation of John 6. You could be right; you could be wrong. My church’s interpretation could be right or they could be wrong. Infallibly speaking, there is no longer anyway to say one way or the other, for the simple fact that there is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds the apostles???

But isn’t that also true of Tradition? Does Orthodoxy have the authority to arbitrate any teaching that Rome has? You have touched on my point here,

continued

 

[JonNC]

Jon, in light of that premise, to whom should a Christian look for the correct interpretation of the bible, and the correct evaluation of doctrinal truth, since Sola Scriptura cannot do what teachers, (hermeneutically and exegetically speaking) - can do, but not with any absolute certainty?

If the CC, (any church for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what determines, in the end, whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect, since there is no singular representative church, instituted by Jesus Christ, that alone succeeds the apostles???

I don’t have an answer to your question, quite frankly. I was raised in, and since then have regularly chosen to turn to the Lutheran Confessions as a tradition that rightly reflects scripture and speaks His truth. You, OTOH, have chosen to seek His truth in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jesus said, “When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

If the promises concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit and His perpetual guidance of Jesus’ church into all truth, in John’s Gospel, is not to be confined to the CC or the EOC or any church for that matter, regardless of affiliation, but is in fact absolutely granted to all believers, regardless of church affiliation, giving all believers, again regardless of church affiliation, an understanding of “all” revealed sacred truths, again through the perpetual guidance of the HS, then the Holy spirit is not guiding the one, holy, catholic (small c) - church into the same truths, or into all truth for that matter. What does that tell us about John 16:13???

Joe, you’re thinking temporal again.
Are you willing to say that if I, as a baptized Lutheran, have a living faith as the result of grace, follow His commands, confess my sins, and work out my salvation in fear and trembling (sanctification), will be saved and join the Church Triumphant? And if so, will the Holy Spirit then have led me into all Truth? (I’l even let you claim that it only happens because it is under the umbrella of the Holy Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.)

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

More fundamentally, where did Jesus promise that ANY institutional organization is or every would be INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, EXEMPT from accountablity and norming?

In fact, where did Jesus promise ANYTHING about ANYONE - individually or collectively - being INFALLIBLE?

Over and over and over, God warns us about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Where did He exempt The Catholic Church from that?

The entire rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church is the point the Catholics here are trying to make (in so doing, being good Catholic apologists): The Catholic Church alone is exempt from accountability and thus from norming, and whatever it says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” To justify self exempting self from the whole question of the truthfulness of what self teaches, replacing that simply with docilic acceptance of such.

IMHO, Joe seems to be confusing authority with infalliblity/unaccountability. They are entirely unrelated. I realize Joe (as a good Catholic) thinks that Jesus only authorized The Catholic Church to teach (btw, there’s ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever authorized The Catholic Church to do ANYTHING) - and thus he is not authorized to teach and should not be doing so here. But my puzzle over his position is that authority = infalliblity/ unaccountability. Nowhere is this true. I have authority to do my job, but I can assure you no one regards me as infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever I say God says, and it’s all to be accepted “with docility.” President Obama has GREAT authority, yet is Joe arguing that THEREFORE President Obama is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever he says Jesus says, and it’s all to be accepted with docility? I doubt it. I think he rejects the very argument he’s trying so hard to defend. The Christian PEOPLE who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church certainly have authority to teach. As do Christians who may or may not be registered in congregations that may or may not be legally affiliated with other denominations. But such authority does NOT mean they are unaccountable. Read Revelation 2:2. Read all the warnings about false teachers - such warnings would be absurd on God’s part if teachers were incapable of being false.

.

Absolutely! This is the fundamental issue which Joe always evades.

Sola Scriptura concerns the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in NORMING - that issue of determining if a doctrine is correct, true, valid. The Catholic Church rejects it because it rejects norming (and thus all aspects of it), insisting instead, substituting for the issue of correctness, that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

The epistemology of this should be immediately recognized as supremely dangerous (even without a study of the cults or dictators or some criminals or others that also remove self alone from accountability), and should immediately be recognized as having nothing whatsoever to do with whether what that one teaches is correct, it’s obviously an “end run,” a circumvention, an evasion of that issue (always for self alone since such always desires to repudiate all others - and thus MUST regard THEM as accountable). It’s a profoundly unwise and unsound rubric. And it’s NOT an alternative approach to norming - it’s the rejection of such for self alone. And it’s NOT an alternative rule/canon for such - it’s the rejection of the need for such for self alone. “I don’t need no norming cuz I alone can’t be wrong.”

IF we listen to the stern warnings of God about false teachers (and note He never exempted The Catholic Church from that), IF we agree with Jesus’ praise in Revelation 2:2 (for example), IF we regard humans as sinners and thus as fallible, IF we reject the rubric that self alone should exempt self alone from accountability and alone claim for self alone that self alone is incapable of error, then we have embraced accountability - and the norming that requires. And the first question would be: WHAT is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for such? THAT is the issue addressed by Sola Scriptura.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Third_Day]

E=AmericanJosiah;6203912]Sola Scriptura concerns the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in NORMING - that issue of determining if a doctrine is correct true, valid

, How can you know what is true and valid? Are you personlay infallible?

The Catholic Church rejects it because it rejects norming (and thus all aspects of it), insisting instead, substituting for the issue of correctness, that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

Jesus said to His Church “he who hear you hears me. he who reject you reject me”, he did not say “he who hears Martin Luther hears me, he who rejects Martin Luther rejects me”

IF we listen to the stern warnings of God about false teachers (and note He never exempted The Catholic Church from that),

He does exempt His Church from teaching error. He said he would send His Church the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. Not “some” truth but “all " truth. The Holy Spirit tells us that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. He told the Church " he who hears you hears me”

IF we agree with Jesus’ praise in Revelation 2:2 (for example), IF we regard humans as sinners and thus as fallible

,
Humans yes, but not His Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That is the gospel

IF we reject the rubric that self alone should exempt self alone from accountability and alone claim for self alone that self alone is incapable of error, then we have embraced accountability - and the norming that requires. And the first question would be: WHAT is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for such? THAT is the issue addressed by Sola Scriptura.

Can you explain this more clearly. Thank you

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Sola Scriptura concerns the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in NORMING - that issue of determining if a doctrine is correct, true, valid

1. Where did I say “infallible?”
2. The question you ask is one only Protestants may ask. The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone from that question - and the accountibility and norming it would suggest. Instead, it lays aside that question by itself exclusively insisting rather that itself exclusively just be accepted “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87 for starters.
3. IF you accept that teachers have the capacity to be wrong (whether such be Martin Luther or Joseph Smith or Billy Graham or Pope Benedict or St. Francis or Jim Jones or Mary Baker Eddy or The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or The Southern Baptist Convention or…), then you must regard them as accountable. And you’ve just entered the realm of norming (an aspect of such is the topic of this thread). You’ve also jsut left The Catholic Church since it does not permit you to do such, but requires that you exempt it from such and just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

The Catholic Church rejects it because it rejects norming (and thus all aspects of it), insisting instead, substituting for the issue of correctness, that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

.
Jesus said to His Church “he who hear you hears me. he who reject you reject me”, he did not say “he who hears Martin Luther hears me, he who rejects Martin Luther rejects me”

1. Luther never claims that He did.
2. Of course, Jesus never said that to The Catholic Church, either. It’s just self alone claiming such for self alone - Jesus never said any such thing.
3. It’s truly SAD that, in it’s strong, foundational need to exempt itself from accountability, The Catholic Church looses a lot of credibility at this point. Normally, I regard the CC as profoundly sincere, but here’s where we have no choice but to conclude otherwise. Officially (in the Catechism and elsewhere), it repeatedly insists that Jesus said these words “TO THE APOSTLES.” It then tries to connect a whole long chain of “dots” (all it’s own creation), primarily it’s claim of Apostolic Succession, to claim that whatever is promised to the Apostles is ERGO a promise made exclusively, solely to The Catholic Church. It’s a long (and absurd) trip, connecting all those self-created “dots” to get there - but it’s KEY to it’s whole claim. But it’s all based on a falsehood (and I cannot see how it is not intentional and known): Jesus never said those words to the Apostles - individually or collectively. The whole “house of cards” - that whole big, long, “lets connect the dots” argument crumbles at the very first, foundational point. Jesus never said that to any Apostle. The Church is wrong. The Catechism is wrong. Sad when apologetics are knowingly, willingly based on a falsehood. I’m truly saddened by that, beccause I have a profound love and respect for The Catholic Church.

IF we listen to the stern warnings of God about false teachers (and note He never exempted The Catholic Church from that),

.

He does exempt His Church from teaching error. He said he would send His Church the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. Not “some” truth but “all " truth. The Holy Spirit tells us that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. He told the Church " he who hears you hears me”

Friend, come on…

1. Where did Jesus exempt The Catholic Church from error and accountability? Friend, let’s be real here. We both know Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. Come on.
2. Yes, Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit and He would guide us. And yes, clearly the Holy Spirit would do so infallibly, for GOD cannot err. But where in the heck do you get the idea that ERGO, THEREFORE, there is just one (The Catholic Church) that MUST infallibly follow and it along MUST thereby be unaccountable? It’s a common Catholic apologetic, but one of the most absurd. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Did they THEREFORE infallibly follow? Did God regard them as unaccountable for what they said and did? Your whole premise is not only illogical and denied by all we know, but it’s clearly unbiblical.
3. No, Jesus NEVER told The Catholic Church “whoever hears you hears me.” Not even by the whole, contrived, absurd “let’s - connects - all - my - dots” argument of The Catholic Church: sadly, tragically, the whole house of cards is build on an error that The Catholic Church repeatedly makes - and it MUST know is just plain false. Those of us who, in Catholic training, bothered to actually LOOK UP the verse instantly noted the falsehood. Truly tragic, I think.

IF we agree with Jesus’ praise in Revelation 2:2 (for example), IF we regard humans as sinners and thus as fallible

Humans yes, but not His Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

… round and round we go…

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues from the post above

IF we reject the rubric that self alone should exempt self alone from accountability and alone claim for self alone that self alone is incapable of error, then we have embraced accountability - and the norming that requires. And the first question would be: WHAT is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for such? THAT is the issue addressed by Sola Scriptura.

.
Can you explain this more clearly. Thank you

Let’s say you believe what God said and that teachers MAY be wrong - and WE are to watch out for them. Remember: He never exempted ANY human or ANY organization or ANY institution or ANY church body or ANY denomination or ANY body from this warning.

Let’s say you agree with Jesus (and thus disagree with the foundational requirment of The Catholic Church) and with His praise of the Ephesians for regarding teachers as fallible, capable of error, and thus subjecting them to norming (the evaluation of what they teach is true, correct, valid), and for being the arbiters of that and finding them to be FALSE. Let’s say you agree with that.

Then, when The Catholic Church teaches doctrine, it is accountable for such. Just as much as it regards all OTHERS as accountable for what they teach. Now, some Catholics like to say, “But this is SOLELY before God on Judgement Day” - okay, I “get it” but as a Catholic, they may not take that stand (and be a Catholic) because The Catholic Church embraces accountablility (for OTHERS) and norming RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW - it repudiates, condemns, rejects, excommunicates those that it found as wrong, right here and right now. It has not hesitated to burn such at the stake or to split itself over such. It does NOT agree that this aribration is limited to God or to Judgement day. It is to happen HERE and NOW. ALL teachers, it insists, are accountable and are to be evaluated (normed) NOW. But it alone exempts one from this, just one - itself. Exclusively. Is that good epistemology? Is that sound? Does self exempting self from the issue of whether self is correct, is that a sound indication that what self alone teaches is thereby correct? Studied any of the cults? In the view of non-catholics, this is invalid and has NOTHING to do with The Catholic Church being correct. In our view, true teachers welcome the light and walk into the light - knowing that truth is revealed by such. And for teachers of truth, it’s truth that matters - not their power or control or authority or lording it over others as the gentiles do. It’s the FALSE teacher who must hide in the dark, evade accountability and the norming that requires, circumventing the issue of correctness, evading all norming for self - and in its place, imposing that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.”

1. IF you think human teachers should be held accountable, then ALL must be. ONE just exempting self alone from such is NO idenication that that ONE is right (in fact, it’s a pretty good reason to suspect he’s not!). Evaluating whether a doctrine is right or not is called “norming.” My degree is in physics. I cannot submit a paper to a respected scientific journal and say, “All I say is right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right - just accept it with docility.” I would be laughed at - and SHOULD be. Especially if any regarded truth with any respect whatsoever. “Norming” is the issue of whether a formal position (doctrine in theology) is correct, valid, true.
2. The FIRST issue in norming is to agree on a commonly embraced standard. In epistemology, this is called the “rule” (the word means “straight edge”) or “canon” (the word means “measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the *“norma normans” *(latin for “the norm that norms things”). In my field, this is math and observable evidence. The rule/canon is most sound when it is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties (not just the views of self as the rule for the views of self; what Josiah thinks is an unsound rule for what Josiah thinks). It should be KNOWABLE to all (objective) and ALTERALBE by none of the parties. And it shoiuld be regarded as sufficiently reliable for the intended purpose. In theology, the IDEAL rule/canon would be the very inscriputrated words of God Himself since all see God as the final and infallibly authority - the written words of God. Such would be knowable to all (I can read the words of Romans 3:23, so can you, so can everyone) and alterable by none (I can’t change those words, neither can you). And such is regarded as reliable (in fact, usually as inerrant). THAT would be absolutely ideal!!! Soli Deo Gloria, THAT exists! It’s called Scripture. Those that embrace THAT rule in norming call that “Sola Scriptura.”
3. The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and all cults) rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t), but because it rejects NORMING (and thus everything connected with it - including using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans). It alone exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming. It alone circumvents the whole issue of whether its doctrines are correct by insisting that whatever it says (officially in matters of faith and morals) is INFALLIBLE - and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming (by ANY rule). “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m just right. Accept it with docility.” Non-catholics reject that epistemology. My own study of the cults and of the LDS lead me to reject it - and that became ONE of the reasons why I left The Catholic Church.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ufamtobie]

What about the sin of abuses by those in leadeship and representing the leadeship of the Church which caused men of conscience, dedicated to the Gospel, to stand up to these abuses, placing themselves in jeopardy of excommunication and, indeed their lives?
Would you agree that those sins are equally responsible? And of course, we are not talking about Church leaders of either of our communions today in this way. Our sin today is our inability to reconcile.

Jon, yeah, its me again brother, I am back. lol

Jon, the Greatest Sin of abuse done by The Church was the betrayal of Judas, yet the Church Still stands, none other sin of abuse can compare to it, that an Original Apostle who ate and drank and saw the Miracles that Our Lord performed, and still betrayed Jesus Christ.

My point is, Jesus gave the care of His church to sinful Men, and from time to time there would rise perhaps another Judas to some lessor degree. Jon, you must Trust that Jesus Christ, is in charge of His Church and Knew of all the abuses that would occur, for Jesus knows all things.

Jon, you talk about unjustice caused by the leaders of the Catholic Church over the centuries, sins that were forgiven, Remember Peter the Rock even betrayed Our Lord 3 times but he ask for forgivness and it was granted to him. When God forgives the sinner God does not remember that sin no more, and here you go bringing up the past sins, that were forgiven.

Jon, Yes, satan will try to enter the Catholic Church but as you know he can not prevail over it! Yes, leaders of the Church can be attacked and won over by satan, like Judas, but the Authoritive Teachings can not be attacked and won over, for the Authoritive Teachings, this is protected by the Guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Jon, lets say a family of 12 and one of the twelve a brother is a bad apple that causes chaos in that family/Church …Should another brother of the twelve then leave because of the chaos of that one brother or should he stay and fix the problem from with in, like many of the Good Saints did or should he pack up and go out and start a new family/church?.. Truth is one should not leave the Church and start a new one, because the one who left believes that the First Church was prevailed by the gates of Hell, and shame on him/them who believes thus. Truth is that the First Church can not be prevailed by the gates of hell, and there is no need to ever start a new one.

Jon, the sin today is the inability for those who don’t want to be a part of the Catholic Church with its Fullness of Grace. Jon, The Catholic Church will never bend to another church teaching, it can’t! The Holy Spirit would not allow it. And the gates of hell knows this to be true, but it does not stop from attacking the Chrurch and grabing a few people here and there but never the Catholic Church Authority, Never!

Ufamtobie

 

[Third_Day]

=

AmericanJosiah;6204364]1
Yes, Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit and He would guide us.

Where? Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles not you.
“When the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you (Peter, James, John, Matthew etc) into all truth”
He did not promise to guide you (AmericanJosiah)

And yes, clearly the Holy Spirit would do so infallibly, for GOD cannot err

.
SInce you claim he guides you are you infallible?

But where in the heck do you get the idea that ERGO, THEREFORE, there is just one (The Catholic Church) that MUST infallibly follow and it along MUST thereby be unaccountable?

Because the apostles are the Church and they handed down that authority by appointing Bishops through the laying on of hands as scripture cleary shows. Have you read Acts, the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus?

It’s a common Catholic apologetic, but one of the most absurd. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Did they THEREFORE infallibly follow?

The Church is Divinely instituted, Adam and Eve are merely human

No, Jesus NEVER told The Catholic Church “whoever hears you hears me.”

Jesus said that to those HE appointed. He said “I will be with you (Peter, James, John, Matthew,etc) till the end of the world.” They are the visible Church. That shows apostolic succession. How do you explain the early Church Fathers?

Clement of Rome AD 80 Letter to the Corinthians
CHAPTER 44 – THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”

Ignatius of Antioch ." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.”

Irenaeus
“The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said” (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 4

“The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles…”

Cyprian of Carthage

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5 [A.D. 251]).

…

.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Jon, in light of that premise, to whom should a Christian look for the correct interpretation of the bible, and the correct evaluation of doctrinal truth, since Sola Scriptura cannot do what teachers, (hermeneutically and exegetically speaking) - can do, but not with any absolute certainty?

If the CC, (any church for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what determines, in the end, whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect, since there is no singular representative church, instituted by Jesus Christ, that alone succeeds the apostles???

I don’t have an answer to your question, quite frankly. I was raised in, and since then have regularly chosen to turn to the Lutheran Confessions as a tradition that rightly reflects scripture and speaks His truth. You, OTOH, have chosen to seek His truth in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Many people were raised as Baptists, (former Baptist, Michael Forrest for example) - and have regularly chosen to believe that a symbolic interpretation of John 6 rightly reflects scripture and speaks Jesus’ truth. You, OTOH, have chosen to seek His truth in communion with the Pastors of the Lutheran church and I have chosen to seek communion with the Bishop of Rome. Who or what arbitrates/determines, in the end, whether or not the arbitration, evaluation, determination and interpretation of the Baptist church, the CC and the LC, regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect? Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit of course, working from within Jesus’ church, but which church in the one, holy catholic church? I can give you 50 examples right off the bat, of doctrinal disunity from within the one, holy catholic (small c) church. The Holy spirit cannot be responsible for all that disunity, for the HS is the spirit of truth, temporally speaking or otherwise. The Baptist church and the Lutheran church cannot both be right regarding the Eucharist. There must be an answer, a way, to resolve the matter, and a very important matter I might add considering the fact that Jesus said that our eternal lives depended on it:

*Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. *

Quote:
Jesus said, “When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

If the promises concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit and His perpetual guidance of Jesus’ church into all truth, in John’s Gospel, is not to be confined to the CC or the EOC or any church for that matter, regardless of affiliation, but is in fact absolutely granted to all believers, regardless of church affiliation, giving all believers, again regardless of church affiliation, an understanding of “all” revealed sacred truths, again through the perpetual guidance of the HS, then the Holy spirit is not guiding the one, holy, catholic (small c) - church into the same truths, or into all truth for that matter. What does that tell us about John 16:13???

Joe, you’re thinking temporal again.

That is because I am a temporal being, as opposed to a spiritual being.

continued…

 

[joe370]

Are you willing to say that if I, as a baptized Lutheran, have a living faith as the result of grace, follow His commands, confess my sins, and work out my salvation in fear and trembling (sanctification), will be saved and join the Church Triumphant?

Yes!!! I am willing to say that about any Christian regardless of church affiliation. Jon, would you say the same about all those Christians (embracing a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, including half my family) - who do NOT believe Jesus when He said: *“Amen, Amen I tell you. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” *

If yes, then perhaps doctrinal truth is irrelevant and all one has to do in the end is say: if I, as a baptized Christian, have a living faith as the result of grace, follow Jesus’ commands (laid out by my church leaders/teachers/Pastors) - confess my sins, and work out my salvation in fear and trembling (sanctification) - then I will be saved and join the Church Triumphant? Maybe my sister and my father are right when they tell me: Joe, belief that Jesus is our savior is all that matters; the rest is just fodder for the Catholic propaganda machine. However, doctrinal truth seemed pretty important to Jesus. After Jesus spoke and repeated the preceding words 6 times I believe, as Michael stated: all of the people applauded and said, “Yes, of course! Brilliant! We believe, we believe!” Right? Wrong. They walked away, and Jesus let them walk away, for He would not compromise doctrinal truth, for Jesus is truth and there can be only ONE truth regarding any one doctrine.The question is: where can one go to find truth? Is truth to be found in the holy bible via individual interpretation/evaluation, which is the case in every church, even the CC if Josiah is correct? Is truth scattered amid the myriad churches or can truth still be found at one assembly of believers, just as it was prior to the great east west schism, by your own admission? I believe that the Holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, as per the holy bible. Is that church the EOC, the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, the Catholic church, the Methodist church, the Pentecostal church, one of the Evangelical churches or one of the non-denominational churches, or my sisters church, my dads church, etc. etc. - well, that is the 6400 dollar question every Christian must answer for themselves. Certainly the Holy spirit is not guiding each assembly of believers in different directions, doctrinally speaking. As far as faith in Jesus as our one and only Savior, we as Christians, regardless of church affiliation are one and united!!!

…And if so, will the Holy Spirit then have led me into all Truth?

Doctrinally speaking, many would say no. For your doctrinal truths are different than their doctrinal truths.

(I’l even let you claim that it only happens because it is under the umbrella of the Holy Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.)

Jon, I don’t believe that it is all about claiming that it only happens because it is under the umbrella of the Holy Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, unless a person truly believes it. But I also don’t believe that doctrinal truth is impossible to gauge. I believe that the Holy spirit is still Infallibly working from within the church, and will never stop Infallibly working and guiding and safeguarding doctrinal truth, if the bible is in fact doctrinally true. For me it was/is about finding the church founded by God and forever guided by the HS into all truth, as opposed to partial truths or half truths, and my arduous journey, ultimately led me to the Holy Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Different strokes for different folks.

If I believed that doctrinal truth had/has been scattered to the wind due to the sin of man, I would not be a Christian today.

“*For nothing is impossible with God.” Luke 1:37 *