Defense of Sola Scriptura

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I think this is a most interesting point…

Covered it already, however that is an interesting thought. Based on your reasoning, false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray could in fact be found in every church, regardless of denomination, including the CC, rendering doctrinal truth unrecognizable. Surely the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the HS, the spirit of truth, into all truth, can be trusted, doctrinally speaking, in spite of the false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that try to lead many astray, as was the case in the early Catholic church in the east, where heresy reared its ugly head? If not, then these false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, could very well be responsible for the Trinitarian dogma, rendering its veracity uncertain right or wrong?

None of the PCs that I know of have looked at their own founder - e.g., Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, etc. and said, “You know this guy was a false teacher!” We see how Luther tried to remove Scripture he did not agree with, how Calvin got totally hung up on predestination - as long as he was predestined to heaven, the hell with the rest…and Henry, well, as long as another wife was possible, why not make the necessary doctrinal accommodations? None of this is Christ.

Josiah use SS (scripture alone) - to evaluate, determine and define doctrinal truth regarding the Eucharist? Once you do that for me (if you do that) - I guarantee you that I can find brother or sister in Christ, belong to one of the PC’s who use also SS to do the very same thing, and that brother or sister in Christ will adamantly disagree with your interpretation/evaluation. Who is right; who is wrong, and more importantly, who or what has the God given authority to arbitrate and settle the matter, once and for all. I say,that it is the church (not a denomination) - of Matthew 16. One of the churches/assembly of believers (not a denomination) - that comprise the holy catholic (small c) - church must be the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, or, is the one (in faith only) - holy catholic (again, small c) - church forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, just different doctrinal truths? Perhaps faith that Jesus is our savior is all that matters, and doctrinal unity is inconsequential???

As I see it, this is the heart of the matter! One on side the argument is that the CC is monolithic so it obviously must be false, and the other is the PCs are in total division, but that is OK because we can all make our own decisions as to what Truth really exists. In brief, these arguments have neither grounding or solid roots - they spring from the mind of man and are strictly of human tradition. The very fact that there are >20,000 PCs out there should tell someone really interested in knowing what is going on that they would not live long enough to find the True Chruch by going to each one of these one at a time on every Sunday! The confusion would probably lead to a form of insanity assuming their GPS held up for that long!

I totally believe that the one, holy catholic (again, small c) - church is one and united when it comes to faith in Jesus Christ. We are all one in faith, but not one in doctrine. And it was Christ Himself Who prayed for unity.

God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The Foundational Question:

Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? It something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace it with the demand of self that whatever self says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example).

Norming:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology) in the norming of doctrines. That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

You know, I think T Moore has a good question for you - and, I am looking forward to reading your response. Now, while contemplating your answer … here is something I am interested in?

The Scriptures mislead no one. They’re the Word of GodJesus authored no Scriptures.Jesus authored no Scriptures.SS is not about teaching, nor the authority to teach. Jesus did, however, constantly appeal to the Scriptures in His teaching.I think you miss the point.This is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue, not SS. Ah, there’s the rub…

You see, while Scripture will mislead no one - you must know what to do with what is clearly written before your very eyes … or else you have eyes that see not, and a mind that does not understand…(Matt 13:14) Here is an item for you - when the Three Wise Men came to Herod to find out where the new born King of the Jews was to be born - Herod did not know. Ah, but, he did know where to get the answer! So, once he has the answer, he gives it to the Wise Men to set out to find the Christ Child and worship Him. Herod could have had these three arrested - and armed with the information he already possessed seek out every male child two years and under and murder them! But - and here is the issue: he did not know what to do with the information in his own possession. For whatever reason (Will of God comes to my mind!) Herod did nothing that would have furthered his plan to kill Christ.

Scripture did not mislead - but, it certainly did not give him what he wanted.

There is just too much in Scripture to say - SS is the way to go for deciding everything! Actually, it decides nothing - every decision must be made by a man. The most important decision to be made is: will you follow Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Matt 16) or follow one my by flase prophets and teachers who Christ warned us about?

God bless

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, did not Christ appeal to only the OT?

Are you perhaps suggesting the O.T. is not Scripture? It’s kind of a pointless question since the N.T. didn’t exist at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. I think you’re trying to evade the point I was making.

What sort of method would be used to determine the books that we have accepted in the NT were inspired? If the NT is the infallible Word of God, and an instrument/church was used to make the determination of what is inspired, what would that make the instrument the Holy Spirit used?

Men, not a church, recognized the inspired writings. And they did so based on specific criteria. Their recognition/acceptance didn’t make them “inspired” (theopneustos, “God-breathed”), they were so the very moment they were penned.

what would that make the instrument the Holy Spirit used?

If I recognized a certain truck on the road, based on certain and specific criteria, to be a Ford, F-150, what would that make me? Does such a recognition automatically make me something?

In Jesus’ day the Jews (including Jesus), without any official council, knew which Books were Scripture. In fact it’s recorded that Jesus took His Disciples through the Scriptures, beginning with Moses, with all the prophets, and explained the things concerning Himself prophesied within them (Lk. 24:27). And He also opened their minds to understand them (the Scriptures, vs. 45). Now the Jews recognized which writings were Scripture but yet they did not recognize the One (the Messiah) of whom they spoke. So one must conclude that the recognition of Scripture doesn’t make the “recognizing instrument” anything…certainly and obviously not infallible. Your whole line of reasoning is circular and erroneous.

 

[T_More]

Are you perhaps suggesting the O.T. is not Scripture? It’s kind of a pointless question since the N.T. didn’t exist at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. I think you’re trying to evade the point I was making.Men, not a church, recognized the inspired writings. And they did so based on specific criteria. Their recognition/acceptance didn’t make them “inspired” (theopneustos, “God-breathed”), they were so the very moment they were penned.If I recognized a certain truck on the road, based on certain and specific criteria, to be a Ford, F-150, what would that make me? Does such a recognition automatically make me something?

In Jesus’ day the Jews (including Jesus), without any official council, knew which Books were Scripture. In fact it’s recorded that Jesus took His Disciples through the Scriptures, beginning with Moses, with all the prophets, and explained the things concerning Himself prophesied within them (Lk. 24:27). And He also opened their minds to understand them (the Scriptures, vs. 45). Now the Jews recognized which writings were Scripture but yet they did not recognize the One (the Messiah) of whom they spoke. So one must conclude that the recognition of Scripture doesn’t make the “recognizing instrument” anything…certainly and obviously not infallible. Your whole line of reasoning is circular and erroneous.

No, Moondweller, I’m not suggeting the OT is not inspired. You said that the Jesus appealed to the scriptures, which of course, like you said, the NT didn’t exist. I just wanted to know exactly what you meant. And I wasn’t evading anything, this is the first time we’ve engaged in discussion here, so I’m not sure what you meant by that.

What criteria did these men use to determine what was inspired? Were not others Epistles written? Some by actual Apostles? How do you know they aren’t fit to be in the NT? What were they lacking? Would not Thomas’ account have been “God Breathed” the moment it was penned? He was an Apsotle after all. Something “moved” the Early Church to determine what was to be canon and what was not, no?

I don’t think the Ford reference is analogous. Because we’ve seen a Ford pickup on the road before (we might in fact be driving one as well) is how we determine that it is one. Once we’ve seen it once, we can indentify one every single time.

The group of men that you describe that did in fact determine what was canon was the CC, no? Were they not described as such?

I agree, the Jews knew which books were scripture. And part of that has been removed, no? Hebrews 11 actually describes things that are found in Maccabees. So why would a verse by an inspired book from the NT refer to a book that is inspired as well, but not included in some bibles? How does one make that determination and what critieria is used?

…I’ll address your last part later about the Jews later…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, T More,

Now, go easy on MD … he gets a bit touchy on various things (sometimes hard to keep track…) Evasion, however is one of his topics … don’t believe me…? Well, just ask him a question and watch the duck and squirm dance begin!

No, Moondweller, I’m not suggeting the OT is not inspired. You said that the Jesus appealed to the scriptures, which of course, like you said, the NT didn’t exist. I just wanted to know exactly what you meant. And I wasn’t evading anything, this is the first time we’ve engaged in discussion here, so I’m not sure what you meant by that.

What criteria did these men use to determine what was inspired? Were not others Epistles written? Some by actual Apostles? How do you know they aren’t fit to be in the NT? What were they lacking? Would not Thomas’ account have been “God Breathed” the moment it was penned? He was an Apsotle after all. Something “moved” the Early Church to determine what was to be canon and what was not, no?

The real issue that MD and the others seem to just totally ignore is that Paul and the other Sacred Writers were not the only folks with a pen in their hand! There really were those who wrote to encourage others - but, these were not inspired by God in the sense of being ultimately contained in Scripture. There were also some who wrote to promote mischief like the Gnostics. They were the early version of ‘computer hackers’ - simply put there to cause problems. Early Christians had numerous writings - but, which was inspired and which weren’t…? The Devil had been hard at work to plant seeds of confusion and division for the Catholic Church in the time after St. John died in about 100AD.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church made the determination and the Canon was formed and sealed. Now, this must be a bitter pill for our protestant brothers to swallow. But, the evidence is all there. But, the development of the Canon is only a small part of the on-going activities of the Holy Spirit in protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error.

Continuing on - pronouncements by the Church - like the Trinity (not directly spelled out in Scripture were made by the Church. It really is an on-going process of God leading His Church forward.

God bless

QUOTE]

 

[moondweller]

Scripture did not mislead - but, it certainly did not give him what he wanted.

Scripture gave him (Herod) exactly what he wanted: What was understood to be the birthplace of Messiah.“In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet” (Matt. 2:5).It’s amazing how those in opposition to SS in some way, or in their own little way, tend to attack the Scriptures.

There is just too much in Scripture to say - SS is the way to go for deciding everything!

Scripture isn’t for "deciding everything."2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired by God and (1) profitable for teaching, (2) for reproof, (3) for correction, (4) for training in righteousness; (5) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."Herod’s attempt to kill the Christ Child wasn’t a “good work.” It wasn’t going to decide for him how to do it.

You need to reread AJs post to understand the fundamental issue in respect to SS.

 

[T_More]

Hi, T More,

Now, go easy on MD … he gets a bit touchy on various things (sometimes hard to keep track…) Evasion, however is one of his topics … don’t believe me…? Well, just ask him a question and watch the duck and squirm dance begin!
T More;6222612:

No, Moondweller, I’m not suggeting the OT is not inspired. You said that the Jesus appealed to the scriptures, which of course, like you said, the NT didn’t exist. I just wanted to know exactly what you meant. And I wasn’t evading anything, this is the first time we’ve engaged in discussion here, so I’m not sure what you meant by that.

What criteria did these men use to determine what was inspired? Were not others Epistles written? Some by actual Apostles? How do you know they aren’t fit to be in the NT? What were they lacking? Would not Thomas’ account have been “God Breathed” the moment it was penned? He was an Apsotle after all. Something “moved” the Early Church to determine what was to be canon and what was not, no?

The real issue that MD and the others seem to just totally ignore is that Paul and the other Sacred Writers were not the only folks with a pen in their hand! There really were those who wrote to encourage others - but, these were not inspired by God in the sense of being ultimately contained in Scripture. There were also some who wrote to promote mischief like the Gnostics. They were the early version of ‘computer hackers’ - simply put there to cause problems. Early Christians had numerous writings - but, which was inspired and which weren’t…? The Devil had been hard at work to plant seeds of confusion and division for the Catholic Church in the time after St. John died in about 100AD.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church made the determination and the Canon was formed and sealed. Now, this must be a bitter pill for our protestant brothers to swallow. But, the evidence is all there. But, the development of the Canon is only a small part of the on-going activities of the Holy Spirit in protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error.

Continuing on - pronouncements by the Church - like the Trinity (not directly spelled out in Scripture were made by the Church. It really is an on-going process of God leading His Church forward.

God bless

QUOTE]

Thank you, tqualey. I mean no disprespect to Moondweller. They are legitmate questions I ask. I’m not Catholic, but looking real hard at it. I have no “dog in the fight”. I know when I was a JW, we attacked the Catholic position all the time, but since I’ve moved on, I can look at things fairly. The bulk of the questions to Moondweller were rhetorical. Believe me, the last place in the world I thought I’d find myself gravitating to would be the CC, but here I am.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally stated by Chesterton: “The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.” (bold, italics mine)

Hyperbole.

You sound as if you’re dismissive of hyperbole, moon.

Hyperbole is a very effective method of evoking a particular conviction. Nothing wrong with hyperbole, unless you’re going to cricize our Lord, who was known to use it at time or two!

Regardless of whether the late, great Chesterton is using hyperbole, the point he is making is well stated.

Protestants who use our Sacred Scriptures yet shrilly object to our other practices are like whiny teenagers who tell their parents, “No! You’re wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Oh, but can you please take me to the mall today?”

 

[PRmerger]

Let me remind you my dear that your pope is also merely human and hence, fallible and, according to your words, dubious.

Of course he is fallible. However, his office is not. Thus when he says, “I think it’s going to rain tomorrow” I am free to react dubiously to that. However, when his office claims, “The Gospel of Mark is inspired, but the Gospel of Thomas is not”, I take him at his word.

(Incidentally, so do you! For, paraphrasing St. Augustine, you would not know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired were it not for the Catholic Church.)

 

[PRmerger]

1. Rosary

Well, you can scratch that one off your list of being contrary to Scripture. The Hail Mary’s right there in Luke. The Our Father’s there in Matthew. The Mysteries are all about the life of Christ…

1. Worship of and attribution of independent powers to images

No worshipping going on there.

1. Indulgences and Purgatory

Also not contrary to Scripture. (And, you believe in Purgatory, too. You just don’t have a name for it. All Christians who understand that when you die your soul must be somehow prepared (cleansed) before meeting the glory of the thrice-holy God believe in Purgatory.)

1. Praying to Mary and the other saints, who are all physically dead

You don’t believe in eternal LIFE?

1. The Papacy

Also not contrary to scripture.

1. Being too ritualistic, mechanical

Agreed. Being too ritualistic and mechanical is wrong.

But having just the right amount of ritual–just as God decreed–is right!

and boring (most homilies by priests are)

LOL!!

 

[PRmerger]

1. Earning salvation by merit system alongside faith

What? Where does the CC teach that we earn our salvation? Please cite the encyclical or papal document.

1. Auricular confession to a priest for the forgiveness of sins

Also not contrary to Scripture.

1. The Brown Scapular and other similar devices

I’d rather not get into this one.

1. Compulsory priestly celibacy (only the Roman Church does this)

Also not contrary to Scripture. (It’s also not compulsory. It’s a charism. A gift.)

 

[PRmerger]

One of the problems I see so often is that catholics, mormons, JW’s, Pentecostals, for example, misunderstand and believe that Christ’s “church” is a building or denomination.

You are not correctly stating what Catholics believe about what Christ’s Church is.

It has nothing to do with “religion” but RELATIONSHIP…with Jesus Christ.!

That’s a nonsensical statement. “Religion” MEANS “relationship”. Religion comes from the latin word* religiare*, which means relationship.

 

[joe370]

*"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— *17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Here’s what I wrote:

"The promise Jesus made was that He would ask the Father and He would give another "Helper" who would be with us forever (Jn. 14:16). This "Helper," we learn from Scripture, is the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send in Christ's name, and would teach them all things (i.e., all things pertaining to the "mystery of Christ;" things concerning His sacrificial death and salvation), and bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (Jn. 14:26). Obviously this "remembrance" part pertains only the Apostles since only they were the ones who were personally taught by Christ. And He would "guide" them into all truth (soteriological), and would "disclose" to them what is to come (eschatological (Jn. 16:13).

If “remembrance” pertains only the Apostles because only they were the ones who were personally taught by Christ, and guided into all truth, then what did Jesus mean when He said to His 12 apostles:

*And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth.
*

If the words of John 16:13 only apply to the 12 apostles, then how is a Christian to discover what was given only to the Apostles (all truth)?

If Jesus was only talking to them then Jesus was not talking to you or me - right? If you change your mind and tell me that Jesus was referring to both you and I, (all Christians) - then THE HELPER, Who is with “us” forever, and guiding “us” individually or as an assembly of believers - into all truth, has failed miserably, because you and I have polar opposite beliefs, doctrinally speaking, which of course is the case everywhere in the Protestant world regarding certain doctrinal truths. The helper is not guiding me to believe one thing and you to believe another thing; one church to believe one thing and another church to believe something different - right? Then Who is the helper guiding into all truth, keeping in mind that you said that these words only apply to the 12 apostles.

The helper was sent to the 12 Apostles (the apostolic church) - on Pentecost, to guide the 12 apostles into all truth, who then passed on these doctrinal truths to their successors, who in turn did the same via the perpetual guidance of the Holy spirit, long before the word of God was bound and codified - right? If you agree, then please tell me which successors started teaching erroneously, started teaching something that was not passed on to them by legitimate teachers such as Timothy and Titus? If you provide names of these successors and when it happened, and you are correct, then the holy spirit did not remain forever present with Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church - is that a fair assessment? If so, then the holy spirit is not guiding the CC leadership into all truth, anymore - correct? With that said, please help me find the assembly of teachers that continue to preach and teach (just as Titus and Timothy did) - who are forever guided (John 14:16) - by the holy spirit, into all truth (John 16: 13) - unless of course you insist that these words only apply to the 12 apostles, which begs the question: Can all truth still be found, if so, then how? Sola scriptura is not the answer. If it was the answer then the protestant churches would be one and united, doctrinally speaking, just as the NT churches were one and united, with many people attempting to detract other people from doctrinal truth, but they failed for the simple fact that it was the church, not sola scriptura (Acts 15) - to arbitrated, evaluated and resolved doctrinal disputes. If sola scriptura via individual interpretation, would have been the final authority regarding doctrinal disputes in the 1st century, do you really think that unity and oneness would have remained intact, taking into consideration all of the dissenters, heretical/gnostic movements from within the church?

In the end, it is the church leaders (regardless of denomination) - that resolve doctrinal disputes via sacred tradition and sacred scripture, or just sola scriptura, not the holy bible - right?

 

[moondweller]

T More:

The bulk of the questions to Moondweller were rhetorical

I’d appreciate it, TM, if you’re going to leave a post addressed to me with questions, then make them legitimate ones, not “rhetorical” (IOW, you couldn’t care less about my answers). :thankyou:

Please be considerate by letting me know beforehand that your questioning is merely "rhetorical and that you’re not actually interested in a reply. This way you won’t be wasting my time or yours.

 

[T_More]

I’d appreciate it, TM, if you’re going to leave a post addressed to me with questions, then make them legitimate ones, not “rhetorical” (IOW, you couldn’t care less about my answers). :thankyou:

Please be considerate by letting me know beforehand that your questioning is merely "rhetorical and that you’re not actually interested in a reply. This way you won’t be wasting my time or yours.

MD, poor choice of a word on my part, and I apologize. The point of me saying that was we are on a Catholic site, I myself am looking at the religion, and there seems to be legetimate answers from their perspective in this discussion. Again, I mean no disrepect. The questions are legit and would like to know your answers and I am very interested in them.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The Foundational Question:

Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace that issue with the demand of self that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example).

Norming:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

An Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology) in the norming of doctrines. That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Tomster]

.

The Foundational Question:

Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace that issue with the demand of self that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility? Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t. It’s objection is to accountability; it alone exempts it alone from such, replacing it with the demand of self alone that self alone be accepted with docility (CCC 87, for example).

Norming:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

An Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology) in the norming of doctrines. That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

No, it does not help at all. Where is all of what you have just said contained in the Bible?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, it does not help at all. Where is all of what you have just said contained in the Bible?

1. I think accountability of teachers is biblical. God warned us repeatedly to beware of and for false teachers, false prophets, coming antichrists and those that lead many astray. If teachers are infallibly/unaccountable and exempt from wrong, then this warning is absurd.
2. Just one example: In Revelation 2:2, Jesus praises the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands (for self exclusively). He praised them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false.
3. Sound praxis need not be taught in Scripture (praxis almost never is). It might be sound without any exampling of such (you and I are discussing on the internet, we both regard that as a sound praxis and yet such is not mentioned or exampled or taught in the Bible). But, using Scripture as normative is well exampled - right from the time of the very first Scripture coming down from Mt. Sinai some 3400 years ago, Scripture was regarded as normative for those issues of morality. Over and over, the norm is those Ten Commandments (and, we might note, not The Catholic Church or its own “infallible pope”). Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times. He never once used The Catholic Church as such, He never used Catholic Tradition as such.
4. I can find so verse that states that The Catholic Church itself - alone and exclusively - is infallible and thus unaccountable, thereby norming and the rule/canon for such.

.

 

[Tomster]

1. I think accountability of teachers is biblical. God warned us repeatedly to beware of and for false teachers, false prophets, coming antichrists and those that lead many astray. If teachers are infallibly/unaccountable and exempt from wrong, then this warning is absurd.
2. Just one example: In Revelation 2:2, Jesus praises the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands (for self exclusively). He praised them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false.
3. Sound praxis need not be taught in Scripture (praxis almost never is). It might be sound without any exampling of such (you and I are discussing on the internet, we both regard that as a sound praxis and yet such is not mentioned or exampled or taught in the Bible). But, using Scripture as normative is well exampled - right from the time of the very first Scripture coming down from Mt. Sinai some 3400 years ago, Scripture was regarded as normative for those issues of morality. Over and over, the norm is those Ten Commandments (and, we might note, not The Catholic Church or its own “infallible pope”). Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times. He never once used The Catholic Church as such, He never used Catholic Tradition as such.
4. I can find so verse that states that The Catholic Church itself - alone and exclusively - is infallible and thus unaccountable, thereby norming and the rule/canon for such.

.

In regards to # 4 you might want to start off with Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15 ff.