Defense of Sola Scriptura

[jlhargus]

The objection of The Catholic Church is NOT that it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines. It doesn’t.

JL: Yes it does and so do you, you just don’t realize it. Does your faith group interpret scripture contrary to the traditional doctrines it holds? In the Catholic Church we have that lived out living Apostolic Tradition as passed on by the apostles and lived out in the Catholic Church even before the fist word of the NT was ever pinned. It’s through this lived Tradition. Found in the way the Church worships, prays, councils, writing of the fathers, etc… Oral Apostolic Tradition as opposed to customs or traditions of men is discerned by the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

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). .

JL: First #87 in the CCC is under sextion # three titled, The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith. It starts with #84 thru #98, you might find #91 interesting, you need to read it all, not just pull out of context. Second, you will need to explain and show how and where the teaching authority (magisterium) exempts itself from any accountability. It is both accountable to God and the WORD OF GOD weather by word OR epistle. You are assuming, wrongly, that, that teaching authority just gets up one day and decides we are all going to believe X from now on. Without any prior knowledge, theological discussions, or Apostolic Tradition of X, by word OR epistle.

Doctrine cannot contradict Apostolic Traditions, the WORD OF GOD, whether word OR epistle. It doesn’t work that way in the Catholic Church. That’s why it took centuries to define the Trinity and to discern the canon of the bible. By the way you accept those Apostlic Traditions as defined by the Catholic Church. The Church reflects and PRAYS on the WHOLE Apostolic Tradition, of the WORD OF GOD, BOTH oral AND written, which IS the rule or norm of faith. Interpreted by that teaching authority SENT by Christ TO TEACH the whole world TILL THE END, Mt 28:16-20. Do you think Christ was mistaken, thinking those men would be alive TILL THE END. Or did Christ know and intend, as your own authority the bible shows you. That authority is passed on by laying on of hands, by the gift of the Holy Spirit. In your tradition does each person make their own interpretations of scripture even contrary to the faith group to which you belong?

Yes as a Catholic I accept as the WORD OF GOD, doctrines DEFINED by that teaching authority, guaranteed, by Christ himself, to led HIS people into ALL TRUTH, not hit and miss truth. That SENT fellowship, the Church build on ROCK, which Christ promised, the gates of hell will never prevail against. That household of the living God, the Church the pillar and ground OF TRUTH,1Tm3:15.

Just as you accept those doctrinal traditions in your particular faith group, such as sola scriptura. Just as a Presbyterians, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ etc., accept the their particular doctrinal traditions.

 

[moondweller]

Here’s a (nonexhaustive) list of what “Scriptures” were in existence since the first century, moon:

New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
(taken from here)

So who was it that decided, [SIGN]400 years later[/SIGN] (remember, it’s the period of time from the Pilgrims to present day–without any Bible!) that the Gospel of Peter was not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark was?

<drum roll, please!>

Yep…

[SIGN]It was the Catholic Church![/SIGN]

PR, if you want a list of the N.T. SCRIPTURES that were in existence in the first century open your Bible to its N.T. index. No council magically made them SCRIPTURE. They were SCRIPTURE the moment they were penned, being theopneustos. All those on your list that are not listed in your Bible’s N.T. index NEVER were Scripture.

 

[moondweller]

'zactly!

(Incidentally, he also believes in Purgatory, despite his protestations to the contrary–he just doesn’t call it that. He simply understands that our sinful souls cannot meet the Eternal Godhead face to face without a purification–whether it’s instantaneous, or temporal, or spiritual–it’s still purification; it’s still Purgatory. )

I have no idea how you get my belief in “purgatory” from that post! But then, your posts, for me, are often logically confusing.

 

[moondweller]

OH, and BTW, PR, the first century covers the years 1-100. Now go back to your list and remove all that were not written during that time period. How many do you have left?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

I hope you do not mind me interrupting … but, bear with me for the time being…

PR, if you want a list of the N.T. SCRIPTURES that were in existence in the first century open your Bible to its N.T. index.
Moon, this is totally accurate - but, did I misread your tone and find it also dismissive? The list provided looked good to me and addressed and issue that had been of concern.

No council magically There is no magic here, Moon - seriously, we are talking about the Church founded by Christ on Peter. This is the same Church that Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would protect for all time. The Power of God is what you are addressing here - and, again, is this in a dismissive way?

made them SCRIPTURE. They were SCRIPTURE the moment they were penned, being theopneustos. All those on your list that are not listed in your Bible’s N.T. index NEVER were Scripture. You are so right - as soon as the Sacred Author put down his pen, what he had written would have been considered as Divinely Inspired material. But, that was not the issue being raised, was it?

When miners go into a diamond mind to get diamonds - they have ever expectation that they will find diamonds - even though they must get tons and tons of ore out before the smallest diamond can be found. Most of us see these diamonds in the stores and admire their beuaty - but do not consider the ore they were hidden in. Scripture is somewhat similar.

We open the Bible and are assured that everything contained is the inspired Word of God. After all, it is in the Bible! But, before they made it into the Bible - the Catholic Church went through a lot of ‘ore’ to find these ‘diamonds’ of Divinely Inspired writings. The CC did not make the Inspired writings - just like the miners did not make the diamonds. Rather, in about 400AD the Catholic Church reviewed what writings were out there and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose some works but not others. The Canon was established and then it was closed. There is nothing that can be added to the Canon.

The Catholic Church is the only one who developed the Canon. All of the PC have had the Canon - and then moved towards an abridged version of the OT … but, have you noticed that NT is the same (although Luther tried to throw some of it out - the Catholic NT and the King James version of the NT are the same). The authority who gave us the Bible is the same authority for interpreting what it means. That is why SS falls on its face - and why there are 20,000+ groups all claiming that they can interpret Scripture.

God bless

 

[moondweller]

Well, if that’s what you mean, then you agree with the Catholic church regarding “private interpretation”!

How do you figure? Like I said, your posts are often logically confusing.

For you’re not free to read the Scriptures and come up with your own private interpretation, such as “There are many gods” Or, you are not free to read the Scriptures and then proclaim, “Jesus died for nothing!” Right, moon?

Yes, that would be right. It would be contrary to what is clearly revealed in SCRIPTURE. But “private interpretation” means anything contrary to what the “Magisterium” (teaching authority) of your Church has “infallibly” proclaimed as dogma. No Catholic can interpret Scripture contrary to that authority with impunity, of some sort.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Oh, I’ve read them OFTEN. Every single word in them. But, nope - no mention of The Catholic Church. It’s all the claim of self alone for self alone. All to justify the exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability.

.

JL: Then what Church is it? Give me scripture and historic evidence for anyother. Catholics have the scriptures and historic writings of the fathers for evidence. What do you have but SELF ALONE? To justify the exemption of self alone of accountability for rejecting the pillar and ground of truth the Church, which Christ himself established and is builing on the ROCK.

The point was made that the Scriptures teach that God promised these things specificly to The Catholic Church. It asked if I had read the referenced Scriptures. I noted that I had. And the obvious.

I think if you could read the texts, you would see Jesus said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” or “The Church of England.” Friend, anyone can violate grammar rules, capitolize the word “church” and insert the proper, legal name of anything or anyone - but that doens’t change what Jesus said, it only notes that they must be very uncomfortable with what He said (or maybe they’ve just appointed self alone to correct Him for where He was lacking). But I HAVE read the verses. And they don’t so much as even mention The Catholic Church. Friend, this is the claim of one (The Catholic Church) or one (The Catholic Church). Jesus never said a thing about it. I think all literate persons know that.

The foundational question here is this: 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?

.

JL: Yes teachers are accountabe for what they teach, especially as doctrine. Those teachings cannot contradict the deposit of faith, Tranditioned by the apostles, whether BY word OR epistle.

Ah, what you are suggesting here, I suspect, is the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses in norming ALL OTHERS - for it DOES regard every single teacher on the planet to be fully accountable, right here and right now. And the rule it uses FOR THEM is “the three-legged-stool” which is:

1). The Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2) The Scripture not in writing or on any page - knowable and unalterable - but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
3) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church, and the views, decisions, opinions, interpretations, arbitrations of such.
These 3 things EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY, all required to be in agreement with the others, so if what the Magisterium of itself holds to a position, then the itnerpretation of itself of the Scripture in itself must be in full agreement with itself - or that interpretation would be wrong, even if that “interpretation” must be of entirely invisible words only it can “see” in the “heart” of its own self.
But friend, it’s pretty obvious that the “rule” here is just itself. OTHERS are right if they agree with ITSELF (makes sense if you assume self is correct). But not even The Catholic Chruch argues that itself is correct because it agrees with itself! I’ve heard LOTS of Catholics try to defend that rubric (if self agrees with self, then self is infallibly and dogmatically correct) but never any Catholic apologists of any training. It’s a silly rubric. No. The Catholic Church is correct because it cannot be incorrect. There you are. Accept it “with docility.”

continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continuing the post above

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?

.

How? If what they teach contradicts official Church teaching they are either mistaken or a false teacher.

… round and round we go. So, a teacher is correct if he agrees with The Catholic Church; ergo The Catholic Church is correct cuz it agrees with The Catholic Church. If self agrees with self then self if correct, is that a rubric you REALLY want to defend?

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.

.

In the Chruch they are accountabe, foremost to God himself to whom they must give an account. And to that deposit of faith taught from the beginning.

Yes, everyone is accountable to God on judgment day. But The Catholic Church rejects that all are ONLY thus accountable. It has a long, long history of judging people and groups right here, right now. Of testing and arbitrating them. Of declaring heretics, condemning, excommunicating, even dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a tad ahead of schedule, smelling like smoke.

The problem with this part of the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for OTHERS is that it simply is whatever it alone says it is. Friend, there is no objective, clearly identifyable corpus of which you speak - it is simply whatever The Catholic Church alone currently says it is and means whatever The Catholic Church currently says it means. It is simply whatever it teaches. And, friend, surely you know that there is ZERO - absolutely ZERO - substantiation for the claim that the 2,875 points in my Catholic Catechism were all taught as such in 31 AD. And let’s say it did, what in the world does that have to do with it being infallible and incapable of error? Actually, your denomination has changed its Catechism FAR, FAR more often than mine has (not a single letter or punctunation mark has been changed from mine since 1529).

I also agree it is a false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, etc., and whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” That would be a false teacher and cult to which I would NOT belong.

Read your Catechism # 87.

How is self insisting that self is incapble of error, infallible, and whatever self alone says must just be accepted “with docility” - how is that coming into the light? WHAT, other than itself, is it accountable to? How is accountability even relevant if self insists that self CANNOT be errant (in official matters of faith and morals)? How is accountability relevant if self alone claims that when self alone speaks, Jesus speaks?

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

 

[joe370]

Md, still waiting for an answer…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Joe. Where is it said that the H.S. is leading any church into ALL truth? It is recorded in Scripture that it was told to certain men that when He (the H.S.) would come He would lead them into all truth (no church is mentioned), and disclose to them what is to come (Jn. 16:13). That same H.S. preserved that truth in theopneustos (God-breathed) N.T. Scriptures for all subsequent generations - just as He has done since Moses.

So, only certain men (the apostles) - were led into all truth (not the church of Matthew 16) - and the HS disclosed to them only what was to come? The H.S. preserved all truth (what was to come) - in the holy bible,which was to be revealed to all subsequent generations? And today, thanks to the holy bible, (where all truth can be found) - there can be found only one doctrinal truth regarding Jesus’ teachings, shared by all Christians? Nope…not seeing that! Jesus said to His apostolic church of Matthew 16 ONLY:

"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 in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. John 14

Jesus then said to his apostolic church:

"I have much more to say to you, (the apostles who then passed on to their successors what Jesus said, and this succession os forever guided by the HS) - more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. (the apostles and their successors, in perpetuity, as opposed to you or me) - He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jesus’ apostolic church ONLY) - 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. (Jesus’ apostolic church ONLY) - 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. (Jesus’ apostolic church ONLY)

The holy spirit took from what is Jesus’ and made it known to the apostles who were to write the holy bible and hand it out to each believer and say: this is to be the your final authority via individual interpretation? I don’t think so!!!

The H.S. is definitely leading Jesus’ apostolic church, of Matthew 16, into ALL truth?

And, yes, you did claim the church of Matt. 16 is the CC:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370
This was my problem as a former Christian belonging to the Lutheran church. I stubbornly saw the CC as nothing more than another (chip) - man-made church, (as opposed to the church of Matthew 16 - the Rock on which Jesus built His church)

Well of course!!! But I believe that it’s the responsibility of each Christian to find the church of Matthew 16 on their own. Plus, when I mention the CC as the church of Matthew 16, people like you and Josiah have a conniption, claiming such ridiculous things like: the CC claims that their leaders are all sinless, infallible people. Or you say things like: you can accept only the interpretation sanctioned by the hierarchy of your Church - with docility. Well, if not the CC, then who? Is it your interpretation or your church’s interpretation? Don’t leave me hanging; answer the question??? Perhaps no church (regardless of denomination) - has authority to teach doctrinal truth???

There is only one correct teaching regarding all that Jesus taught and revealed to His church leaders, eg - Baptism or the Eucharist. Either Jesus was speaking in metaphor or He wasn’t.** I am simply asking you to use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the question for everyone.**
The issue of SS isn’t about resolving your pet doctrinal question.

I ask you a very simple question and you ignore it and say: The issue of SS isn’t about resolving your pet doctrinal question. Well, that comment doesn’t help me at all. Again, please use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the question for everyone.

It pertains only to the authority of Scripture. You’re either not intelligent enough to grasp this or you’re simply being intellectually dishonest.

Firstly, I never claimed to be the smartest guy, and secondly, I am being intellectually honest! If you are intellectually honest, then honestly use the authority of Scripture to answer my question!!! If the CC leaders, you and I, (all Christians) - must defer to the authority of the Scriptures, then surely we should all come away from our one and only authority, with the same doctrinal truths. If not, then Jesus can’t blame us if we misinterpret the bible as the Christians final authority. If all truth has been committed/revealed in sacred scripture via individual interpretation, as opposed to being committed/revealed to Jesus’ established church leaders, to whom we are to obey, by submitting to their authority (“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority”) - then all truth has become many conflicting truths in the Protestant world. The CC remains one and united for the simple fact that we defer to the authority of our leaders, and yes, with docility!

Continued…

 

[joe370]

If I am wrong, then simply resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura via hermeneutics and exegesis, as the Christians final authority?
More dishonesty, Joe?

Dishonest about what? Prove to me that SS works as the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences (do the impossible) - and I will leave the CC tomorrow!!! Can truth be found in the holy bible? You bet! Have all Christians been given the final authority to interpret sacred scripture, and identify doctrinal truth regarding all that Jesus taught? Nope! I know that I was not entrusted with the task of teaching all that Jesus taught! Can I teach? Sure, as long as my teachings agree with the teachings of my church. This is true of all PC’s!

More red herrings…Md, please stop playing dodge-ball and simply answer the question, and prove me wrong?

As a Catholic only your “infallible” Magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture.

This does not help, and it certainly does NOT answer my question! Please answer the question? If you want to believe that the CC magisters are infallible, then go ahead and believe a lie promulgated by people like yourself and Josiah. They are fallible magistersteachers guided by the Infallible holy spirit. Don’t you believe that the HS is guiding your church leadership?

If you don’t want to answer the question, just say so and I won’t ask again!

 

[joe370]

Let me see if I can help…

1. The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”) or *norma normans *

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Dishonest about what? Prove to me that SS works as the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences (do the impossible) - and I will leave the CC tomorrow!!!

1. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon in norming. It doesn’t “settle” anything, anymore than the big, white, square sign with the big, bold, black numerals and letters by the side of the road “settles” whether you were speeding or not - it simply establishes the rule for that determination.
2. Prove to me that each defendant simply proclaiming himself alone to be “infallible” and “incapable of wrong” and thus exempting himself alone from accountability “works” better in resolving disputes about his behavior - and I’ll join the Catholic Church tomorrow (lol). I’ve studied denominations with this rubric. The Catholic Church. The LDS. Mnay of the cults. And I just can’t see any validity or relevance whatsoever to the following: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so ergo I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Just forget about accountability and accept whatever I alone say - with docility.”

If you want to believe that the CC magisters are infallible, then go ahead and believe a lie promulgated by people like yourself and Josiah.

I never remotely stated such a thing.

Don’t you believe that the HS is guiding your church leadership?

Yes. In fact, I believe He is leading ALL Christians. And yes, He is doing so infallibly. Where I disagree with you is that ERGO, there must be one denomination that INFALLIBLY FOLLOWS that lead. The issue is not God, the issue is man. God always infallibly leads, I see nothing that proclaims that ergo there is an infallible/unaccountable following. Read the account of Adam and Eve?

.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, if you want a list of the N.T. SCRIPTURES that were in existence in the first century open your Bible to its N.T. index.

Um…no, it wasn’t until 400 years later that the CC proclaimed what was theopneustos. Prior to that your Christian ancestors read at their liturgies from any number of those books listed previously. It was the CC that finally declared the Gospel of Thomas is NOT theopneustos, but that the Gospel of Mark is. (Not through that nonsensical “it’s blasphemous” therefore it doesn’t belong in Scripture argument you once proposed. Talk about begging the question!)

All those on your list that are not listed in your Bible’s N.T. index NEVER were Scripture.

You can only say that thanks to my Church, moon. Just like Chesterton said:

“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.” - G. K. Chesterton (bold, italics mine)

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6240342]Jon, I just wanted to clarify that I would never use your name unless I was absolutely certain that I was speaking with utter truth regarding your name, and I never claimed that you were an advocate of transubstantiation, which seemed pretty clear in my post, but just wanted to mention this fact, for good measure! I never even used that word!
Hi Joe,
I should clarify myself: I was responding to SR, as he was the one who responded to your statement by using the term Transubstantiation. I wanted him to be clear about my beliefs, and he responded that he was. Your understanding of my beliefs, considering our extensive and charitable discussions on this thread and others, was never in question.

Since no one is attempting to answer my question regarding SS, I thought I would digress for a brief moment and address something that has weighed heavy on my mind:

I have been thinking and praying for an answer to the following question, to which you suggested, is in fact, a fact, due to the sin of man,

since the East- West Schism, but an answer was not found. How can we be certain that this doctrinal deformation didn’t take place in the centuries that preceded the great schism of the 11th century? Anyway, this is the question:

Why would God allow HIS doctrinal truths, (that tell us who God is, and what God wants) - to become deformed due to the sin of man?

See, I don’t believe His doctrine has been deformed by human beings. I believe that human understanig of His Truth has been deformed. Not by His doing, or lack of doing, but by His willingness to honor our free will.

The only thing that makes any sense to me, (after much contemplation) - is the fact that doctrinal truth has in fact been preserved for all generations, as opposed to just the generations preceding the great schism These doctrinal truths have in fact been safeguarded by the ineffable work of the Holy spirit, in the church of Matthew 16, comprised of all sinful, fallible members, and will continue to be safeguarded until Jesus’ glorious return.

I agree with this, Joe. But if we are speaking of a group or institution, which one is it? How do we know? If you claim the Chair of Peter, which chair? What evidence can you produce, or can an Orthodox produce for that matter, that the Catholic or Orthodox institution is the One Truth Church, containing the full deposit of faith?

I have been pondering this ever since you and I discussed it a few weeks ago, and have really attempted to wrap my brain around this possibility of doctrinal deformation due to the sin of man, but viewed from every possible angle, I am left with the overwhelming conclusion that not

everything is impossible for God, and that the sin of man can undo, and alter God’s initial plan of salvation for all, if in fact you are correct?

Are you saying that God should overrule our free will? Everyting is possible for Him. The plan isn’t altered or undone, either. Maybe the persepction of His planned is blurred by some, but His plan remains the same. If I look at the mountains outside my windows, they are clear and beautiful, His handiwork to be sure. But if I take my glasses off, all I see is blurred greens and browns and white (snow). Has my visual problem changed His glory and handiwork, or just my perception of them. If you wish to say my understanding of His doctrine is deformed, ok. But that doesn’t mean His doctrine is.

No doubt, doctrinal truth can in fact become deformed when people leave the church of Matthew 16 (which ever church that is; each Christian must decide that for themselves) - forever guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth - and establish new churches, basing all of their teachings on their interpretation of the bible, as their final authority?

No doubt our perception can become deformed, but not His Truth.

But surely the power of God is greater than the sin of all men/women, multiplied by infinity,

which ultimately means (for me anyway) - that the doctrinal truths regarding all that Jesus taught, and passed on to the church of Matthew 16, (comprised of all sinful, fallible sinners) - forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, is still very much intact?
I am certain that my dad is quite aware this moment what that doctrinal Truth is, that it like His Church is very much in tact. I pray I too will join him in the Church Triumphant.

Perhaps you could take one more shot at it, and share with me what I am missing, As I have said: This has been on my mind a lot lately!

Peace, your brother in Christ…

Joe, these discussions have been on my mind, too. Goodness, I’m probably the least capable to completely explain it.

May HIs peace be with you also, Joe.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, no norming needed if a particular doctrine is incapable of being wrong and is infallibly and dogmatically correct? Who decides if something is infallibly, dogmatically correct, or isn’t? We know it’s not the CC - right? Notice that I didn’t ask you if the CC is accountable; I already know your position on that!

Which is it? Do you think teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? Which is it? God was right to warn us about false teachers (and not exclude The Catholic Church) or not? Jesus was right to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and proclaiming them false or not? Which is it?

You seem to be wavering on whether you are Catholic or not - embracing The Catholic Church as accountable or rather jsut accepting whatever it says with docility. But if you think teachers are accountable, then it would seem to suggest that the arbitration of that issue not be exclusively by self - especially self that has proclaimed self exclusively to be infallible. Let’s say a man is arrested for killing his wife, as was witnessed by 300 people and caught on film. I find it less-than-helpful to simply leave the issue of his guilt or innocence purely up to the defendant. But we seem to disagree on that issue, too.

So, you believe that the CC is a cult? Got it! I belong to a cult? Because the CC rejects the Rule of Scripture, they are a cult?

You need to read what I posted. And maybe refresh your English grammar.

.

 

[PRmerger]

OH, and BTW, PR, the first century covers the years 1-100. Now go back to your list and remove all that were not written during that time period. How many do you have left?

Why would I do that? Perhaps you’ve forgotten already what you wrote?

Here’s the reminder (bold, BB codes mine)

Oh yeah, and BTW, you do realize that the “Bible” contains the N.T. Scriptures, right? **And you do realize that the N.T. Scriptures were in existence since **the first century, right? Ponder on that a while.

I’m quite certain that each of those ancient texts I cited has been existence SINCE the first century.

Or are you changing your criterion suddenly?

 

[joe370]

1. If one believes what God said - and thus is beware of teachers, and if one agrees with Jesus (and thus disagrees with The Catholic Church) as He praised those that held their teachers as accountable, then the teachings of The Catholic Church are accountable

This has nothing to do with SS and is of no help in helping me understand SS.

. We have just entered the realm of norming (the evaluation of doctrines).

Hey, we are back to the subject of the thread - cool!

The first issue thus is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? In epistemology, the most sound rule/canon is the most objective, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose.

Which is???

Many hold that Scripture best qualifies.

OK…Please use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, (Scripture best qualifies) - by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question regarding the Eucharist, once and for all: Either Jesus was speaking in metaphor or He wasn’t; which one is it?

The Catholic Church has no alternative to Scripture for this purpose, it has no alternative at all.

And, we are off topic once again. The CC defers to sacred tradition and sacred scripture for evaluating and resolving doctrinal disputes. Sacred scripture can evaluate, arbitrate and resolve nothing by your own admission. People are needed.

It simply rejects that it is accountable, insisting - foundationally - that there is ONE (but only one) that is exempt from norming, and that one is… (you guessed it) itself. Alone. Exclusively. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, thus I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right - just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” Others have not found that a sound rubric, a sound way of determining correctness. My study of the LDS and of the cults - as well as life - lead me to agree.

You started out strong and then you fizzled out and resorted to your typical CC bashing. All I am trying to do is understand how SS is the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences, as opposed to any one church leadership. Maybe we can try again, without the commentary on the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

moondweller;6242229:

But “private interpretation” means anything contrary to what the “Magisterium” (teaching authority) of your Church has “infallibly” proclaimed as dogma.

No. Private interpretation means your own personal interpretation.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
So, no norming needed if a particular doctrine is incapable of being wrong and is infallibly and dogmatically correct? Who decides if something is infallibly, dogmatically correct, or isn’t? We know it’s not the CC - right? Notice that I didn’t ask you if the CC is accountable; I already know your position on that!
Which is it? Do you think teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? Which is it? God was right to warn us about false teachers (and not exclude The Catholic Church) or not? Jesus was right to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and proclaiming them false or not? Which is it?

You answer a question with a different question… I ask again, regarding SS:

So, no norming needed if a particular doctrine is incapable of being wrong and is infallibly and dogmatically correct? Who decides if something is infallibly, dogmatically correct, or isn’t?

You seem to be wavering on whether you are Catholic or not - embracing The Catholic Church as accountable or rather jsut accepting whatever it says with docility.

Not at all. Just trying to keep you on topic. If you want to talk about the accountability of the CC, or lack there of, then start a new thread.

But if you think teachers are accountable, then it would seem to suggest that the arbitration of that issue not be exclusively by self - especially self that has proclaimed self exclusively to be infallible.

This is not helping me to understand SS.

Let’s say a man is arrested for killing his wife, as was witnessed by 300 people and caught on film. I find it less-than-helpful to simply leave the issue of his guilt or innocence purely up to the defendant. But we seem to disagree on that issue, too.

This is not helping me to understand SS. Please defend SS, and leave the CC out of the discussion.

Quote:
So, you believe that the CC is a cult? Got it! I belong to a cult? Because the CC rejects the Rule of Scripture, they are a cult?
You need to read what I posted. And maybe refresh your English grammar.

You said:

“The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults).”

If I misunderstood, then I apologize. I was merely responding to something that you said, that had nothing to do with defending SS. Perhaps you could stick with that and help me understand how SS works as the Christians final authority, as Moondweller has clearly stated???

 

[SyCarl]

No pope in the history of the chruch has ever added any doctrine which deals with
the salvation or the means to receive the Grace of God from the Sacraments.

Only twice in the history of the CC has any pope ever proclaimed a truth and that had
nothing to do with any doctrine which affects God’s plan of Salvation.

I would disagree. I assume the truths you are referring to are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I would concur that these should not affect salvation but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. These are dogmas that have been defined and the Catholic Church requires that as such must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Failure to do so would make a person a heretic which would affect salvation.

This also assumes that there have only been two infallible statements. Unfortunately Catholics do not appear to be able to agree on how many actually have been made. There is agreement on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption being infallibly defined but many would not restrict the use to these. For example many would argue that Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctum was an infallible statement. That is the problem with defining papal infallibility 1900 years after the fact; you don’t exactly when it has been exercised.

There has not been any problem with the pope being given the keys to the kingdom of God on Earth. The power of his “office” has never caused any problem with anyone.

I would think that the people of England, France and the Venetian Republic would disagree when Innocent III placed their entire countries under interdict for up to years at a time because their rulers didn’t do what the Pope wanted. When the Church states that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, it doesn’t seem very shepherd like to deny them to entire countries for years to force their rulers to bow to the Pope’s wishes.