Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

The Court is the living transmission of the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The Court is what we Catholics call Tradition. What other body has the authority to rule on the norm and to make it binding.

Not exactly, because you say that the Court is equal to the Constitution (continuing the metaphor). The Court only has the power to interpret what the Constitution says (well, some justices think the have the power to consider “international opinion” in making decisions, but that’s for another thread in a different forum). But even the Court is accountable. And so is Tradition. The Court to the Constitution, and Tradition to scripture.
Lutherans will agree that there is needed a body to arbitrate, interpret. We recognize the early councils, just as we recognize the Lutheran Confessions.

How do you think the filling of the Canon occured.

By the Church, of course. And different communions within the Church have designated different canons, thought we agree on the vast majority.

We as citizens can discuss, argue, whatever on what the Constitution means but only one body has the authority to make it so

And that body is fully accountable to, not equal to, and measured by that document.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

(Matt. 28:19–20) Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

It seems that you are relying on your private interpretation of these passages to accept infallibility.

There is no mention of infallibility in this passage. The Apostles are sent to teach and baptize. That is no guarantee that those they teach, such as any successors, would not teach error.

Jesus says He will be with them always. Again this does not mention infallibility. Jesus also said:

"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
(Mat 18:19-20 NASB)

Does this mean that where two or three people have gathered in His name that they cannot teach error because He is with them?

The promise to be with them does not apply to just the Apostles. Jesus will be with all believers. Augustine agrees with this.

For the Lord was speaking to His disciples; and assuredly what He spake to them, He spake to us too their posterity. Nor to them only does what He said, “Lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world, apply, but even to all Christians that should be after them, and succeed them even unto the end of the world.

Sermon 79, paragraph 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.lxxxi.html?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=20#vii.lxxxi-p11.1

(John 16:12-13) I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

Again, there is nothing here that suggests ongoing infallibility. The Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth. It says nothing about successors nor does it guarantee that error will not be added to the truth by others later.

(Matt. 16:17-19) Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

There has been so much debate on the meaning of this passage that I am surprised that you would put it forward as one that speaks for itself.

Jesus tells Peter that he has received at revelation from God. Jesus says He will build His Church on the faith expressed by Peter. On this Augustine has said:

And Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And this he heard from the Lord: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.” See what praises follow this faith. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What means, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock," says He, “I will build my Church.”

(Homilies on 1 John, Homily 10, paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/170210.htm

With respect to the gates of the netherworld, gates are really a defensive measure, not offensive. They are meant to keep something out or something in. Here Jesus is saying is that the Church, through the spreading of the Gospel will set free those held captive by death. It doesn’t say anything about infallibility.

With respect to the keys and binding and loosing, the Apostles’ by spreading the Gospel will be unlocking Heaven to those who accept their message. The message will free people from their sins. Augustine says this about the passage:

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; **that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance **on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 1, Chapter 18)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.iv.xviii.html?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#v.iv.xviii-p3.1

(1 Tim. 3:14-16) I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

Yes the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. However it is not the truth itself. God’s word is truth. This passage does not guarantee infallibility as pillars and foundations can crumble.

You are also assuming that when Scripture refers to the Church that it means and is restricted to the Catholic Church as an institution. That is not something I accept.

 

[ncgolf]

Not exactly, because you say that the Court is equal to the Constitution (continuing the metaphor). The Court only has the power to interpret what the Constitution says (well, some justices think the have the power to consider “international opinion” in making decisions, but that’s for another thread in a different forum). But even the Court is accountable. And so is Tradition. The Court to the Constitution, and Tradition to scripture.

Part of the decision making authority is to render decisions on items not specifically stated in the Constitution. The amendments are in reality not very wordy yet all is judged against the Constitution and the amendments. Justices read and study all sorts of things to help and guide them as to what all those guys really meant. How does something like wire-tapping fit into the the framework of certain guarantees in the Constitution … likewise how does an issue like in-vitro fertilization fall into Scripture. I am not debating right or wrong but we assume and count on those documents saying something about what happens today.

Lutherans will agree that there is needed a body to arbitrate, interpret. We recognize the early councils, just as we recognize the Lutheran Confessions.

How many bodies are legitimate. To carry the Court, Constitution thing another step I ask … how many Supreme Courts do we recognize as having the legitmate authority to render decisions. I am not a social studies scholar but I think it is only 1 … in reality 1 is the only way to go. Where is the one is really the question?

By the Church, of course. And different communions within the Church have designated different canons, thought we agree on the vast majority.

Is not the goal truth. So if one body says this and another body says that … where is the truth?

 

[JonNC]

=ncgolf;6259369]How many bodies are legitimate. To carry the Court, Constitution thing another step I ask … how many Supreme Courts do we recognize as having the legitmate authority to render decisions. I am not a social studies scholar but I think it is only 1 … in reality 1 is the only way to go. Where is the one is really the question?

I absolutely agree. If you’ve followed my conversation with Joe370, we keep coming around to that. And since the Great Schism, there has been more than one claim to the one True Church founded at Pentecost.

Is not the goal truth. So if one body says this and another body says that … where is the truth?

Yep. that’s the problem, and while the differences between those of us in the west include authority, the question of who has it predates the Reformation.

Jon

 

[ncgolf]

The Rule of Law is embraced in the USA.

What do you mean Rule of Law? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis of what is or is not a valid law.

It means that ALL are accountable, and that the rule/canon for such is the Law - objective, written, knowable by all, alterable by none, embraced by all as normative.

What’s your point.

The Supreme Court – specifically authorized by the Law - is to arbitrate according to the Rule of Law.

No, it’s purpose is to ensure that the intent of the authors of those documents are carried forward into the present. When faced with a modern day ethical dilemma do you not look at Scripture to see what the authors may have intended … even though the issue is not specifically addressed.

I agree that often it has acted too much like the modern Catholic Church; we call these judges “liberal, activist judges.”

Again … what’s the point. It’s not the Catholic Church who I see being lambasted as liberals in the mainstream media. Catholics are thought to be the dinsosaurs who cannot make the leap into the 21st century.

That they could argue that THE CONSTITUTION mandates abortion-on-demand is but one example, but even here, it has agreed that it is subject to the law and must arbitrate according to the Rule of Law.

As citizens we are subject to unjust or misguided laws … but I am not here to argue the rightness or wrongness of court decisions but that their interpretation comes from legitimate authority and is binding on us citizens. That is what authority does is it not?

Protestants often compare the Rule of Scripture with the Rule of Law. It helps in understanding a very important aspect of epistemology and an essential part of norming - WHAT is embraced as or serves as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is technically called in epistemology.

Laws are not the norm or measuring stick. The measuring stick for our country is found in the source documents (Constitution) and the measuring stick for Christians is Scripture. How do modern day Protestants understand modern day ethical dilemmas … scriptually? Can there be an absolute right answer to these questions?

But the analogy has its limits.
For example, our laws are errant - Scripture is not.

Your example is off. Legitimate laws extend from a proper understanding of the source document (Constitution). An unjust law results from an improper understanding of the source document (Constitution). Who has equated law with Scripture … the comparision was with the Constitution and Scripture … those are the base documents we use for the understanding the governing of our country and the understanding of God’s message to us. I submit an error filled understading can result from an improper understanding of Scripture(even though the source is inerrant). Sometimes a proper understanding can be rendered from one’s understanding of the source (Bible).

Our laws are constantly changing - Scripture is not. But the function (which is the entire issue in Sola Scriptura) is largely the same.

The Constitution does not change much … only a few amendments here and there and I argue Scripture has changed. Some Bibles have 66 and some have 72 books.

While the RULE of Scripture is infallible, no one is suggesting that the ARBITRATION according to it is. Just as the Supreme Court can rule wrongly, so that can happen among Christians.

That is exactly what I will contend … I submit this is an issue only among some Christians, not all. God does not protect the Supreme court.

But as I look at the true ecumenical councils (the last held some 1200 years ago), I’m stunned (I mean that!) by the wisdom of such. I wouldn’t exactly call them infallible (that would mean they are unaccountable and equal to God) but profoundly wise - often.

No it does not mean they are unaccountable. I don’t get that at all. I don’t see anyone claiming equality with God … you are stretching and reaching for something clearly not there. Infalliablity is a chrism, a gift, no different than the gift of faith, or healing, or understanding … anything. God has always used us for his purposes and has given us the gifts for those purposes. Why not in a limited capacity can God not give whatever gift he wants. I guess you can say God didn’t … not that he can’t. It is entirely within God’s domain to gift whom he will gift.

In discussing with The Catholic Church - the “problem” is it rejects accountablity - by any rule/canon.

Hogwash.

We don’t agree on the most sound rule/canon for this (we embrace Scripture for this - the words on the page), The Catholic Church rejects that.

Are you saying the the Catholic Church rejects Scripture … if that is not what you saying then I cant make heads or tails out of your sentence.

 

[ncgolf]

continued as limit reached.

Insisting that just ONE teacher be exempt from all this and simply be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking (itself, exclusively).

You have a hang up with docility … here are a couple of definitions. 1. Ready and willing to be taught; teachable.
2. Yielding to supervision, direction, or management; tractable.
Here it is in a sentence … The baby’s docility had surprised him. What is there to be ashamed or afraid of. It’s not that I act like a baby … but I have the heart of a baby … an absolute trust for that is what a baby brings by nature. Did not Christ say something to this effect. You think having a baby’s trust negates the mind … well tell that to Aquinas or Augustine.

With Protestants, the issue is different. We tend to agree that Scripture is the most sound Rule, but we have no agreed upon arbitration.

I agree … and its a doozie.

Lutherans lament BOTH of these situations. But sadly, the present milaeu - supersaturated by pride, individualism, institutionalism/denominationalism - just doesn’t lend itself to much progress here. IMHO, we need to re-embrace the concept that the church is US and that teachers are accountable - recapture a sense of HUMILITY, COMMUNITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.

Catholicism is not a denomination amongst denominations.

And Christians today have a LOT of work to do in these matters. If you doubt it, read The Catholic Catechism # 87.

I addressed this earlier. I have no issue with CC 87 perhaps you need to trust like a baby does … what father gives a snake when he asks for food. I think by your constantly trumpeting CC 87 you show a weakness in Protestantism …not a strength.

And this work is made a LOT more difficult because we also need to avoid relativism and minimalism.

Relativism will be the bane of Protestants IMO … with the fluid implementation of Scripture into modern day problems.

 

[SyCarl]

If He didn’t then either the Church errs in saying it is a required belief or it has failed those before the pronouncement who didn’t believe the doctrine. You know, the Pharisees took a similar tone in telling Christ about the Law and how they thought He was breaking it. There is no doctrinal error in the Catholic Church.

For example, at the final judgment, will God condemn someone who died after 1870 because that person did not believe in papal infallibility but not condemn someone who died in 1869 who didn’t believe it either? You know, you really should read that link I gave you on Augustine. Even though St. Augustine is talking about how the heresy of Palegius was resolved, he is also identifying the doctrinal authority of the Catholic Church. This is noteworthy.

Simply because something was not defined as a doctrine, does not mean it was not already believed! St. Augustine is making that point quite clear when he says that Rome has resolved the controversy and the matter is over - there is no further debate. So, either you accept the authority that Christ gave to Peter and his successors - as St. Augustine obviously did - or you don’t.

Augustine appears to have believed more in the authority of councils than he did in Roman infallibility. For example he wrote:

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”

(Letter 43, Paragraph 19)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XLIII.html

As the subject of this thread is sola scriptura, we should look at what Augustine said with respect to the sufficiency of Scripture.

1. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. **For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,**to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

All matters that concern faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture. That sounds like sola scriptura to me. Other things can be found in the more obscure passages but what we need is plainly set out.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Augustine appears to have believed more in the authority of councils than he did in Roman infallibility. For example he wrote:

(Letter 43, Paragraph 19)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XLIII.html

As the subject of this thread is sola scriptura, we should look at what Augustine said with respect to the sufficiency of Scripture.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

All matters that concern faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture. That sounds like sola scriptura to me. Other things can be found in the more obscure passages but what we need is plainly set out.

SyCarl, “all matters that concern faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture” for some of us. Some of us need a little more help than others in understanding. Where are those in need going to find help and guidance?

 

[Newbie2]

If a dogma or doctrine was not necessary for salvation in the first century why should it be necessary now? Does this violate scripture?

Based on a different understanding now vs. the first century, yes. No, it does not violate scripture.

Still waiting for an example…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Based on a different understanding now vs. the first century, yes. No, it does not violate scripture.

Still waiting for an example…

Newbie, what do you mean by “based on a different understanding now vs. the first century”. Seems to imply Theology is ever-changing, that it’s all hypothetical, and one day when our understanding is sufficiently expanded we will realize how wrong we have been about everything we believed all these years.
The death of God theology has been trialled and found wanting.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The measuring stick for our country is found in the source documents (Constitution) and** the measuring stick for Christians is Scripture**.

At least as applied to doctrine, what you just stated is called “Sola Scriptura.”

It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (the word means “measuring stick”) in the norming of doctrines.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture in the norming of its doctrines, it does so because it rejects norming of its doctrines. It rather insists that it itself alone is infallible, incapable of error in these matters, when it speaks - Jesus is speaking, and thus the demanded response is not norming but acceptance with docility.

Who has equated law with Scripture … the comparision was with the Constitution and Scripture …

No one compared them, for our laws are errant and God’s Scripture is not.

The Rule of Law embraces the Constitution as the supreme law. Point is: all are held ACCOUNTABLE - no defendant may exempt self from such and simply rather demand that all just accept whatever he alone says or does as correct because he alone is infallible and incapable of error, exempt from norming, and all he alone says or does is rather to be accepted with docility.

I submit an error filled understading can result from an improper understanding of Scripture(even though the source is inerrant)

I, as a Protestant, agree. It’s why I embrace accountability and (off topic) why I reject self designating self as the sole authoritative and unaccountable interpreter (CCC 85, 87, etc.).

Infalliablity is a chrism, a gift, no different than the gift of faith, or healing, or understanding … anything. God has always used us for his purposes and has given us the gifts for those purposes. Why not in a limited capacity can God not give whatever gift he wants. I guess you can say God didn’t … not that he can’t. It is entirely within God’s domain to gift whom he will gift.

No one questions the POSSIBILITY of such. “With God, all things are possible” the angel announced to Our Lady. But just because all things are POSSIBLE, does not mean that all things are dogmatic facts.

When I was a mid teen, I had a friend whose mother was (she alone claimed) the recipient of the divine gifts of prophecy, apostleship, tongues and interpretation of tongues (to name just a few). She not infrequently received “words” from God which she passes on to those on her email list (I am one). Most of these “words” are remarkably unremarkable, but your point seems: “COULD be!” Yes, I agree. Always difficult to debate what COULD BE when speaking of God, what is POSSIBLE with God… But that’s not the issue, is it? The issue is this: The Catholic Church alone claims that it exclusively is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - infallible, incapable of error, and that whatever it says in these matters is simply to be accepted as true “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” Becky’s mom never remotely claims so much for herself. I actually know of no other Christian teacher but The Catholic Church that does (The LDS once did but no longer does). It is a remarkable claim of self alone for self alone. COULD it be true? Sure! Just about everything COULD be. But wouldn’t you agree the “burden of proof” for this truly remarkable exemption of self for self from accountability lie with the one so exempting self alone, so insisting for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility? Especially in the light of all of God’s very stern warnings about false teachers, antirchrists and those that lead many astray? Especially in the light of Jesus’ praise to those who regarded their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, for finding them to be false? Especially in light of the fact that Jesus and the Apostles never promised such to The Catholic Church and never regarded it as such - indeed, never mentioned it at all?

Are you saying the the Catholic Church rejects Scripture …

Not at all! In fact, it has the same doctrine of Scripture that most Protestants do!

However, it rejects Scripture as the rule/canon for it’s doctrines. Now for the doctrines of all OTHERS - everyone, everything, every person OTHER than it itself exclusively - it DOES not only permit but insists on accountability and norming - right here, right now. And for THEM, it DOES have an embraced rule/canon. One-third of that IS related to Scripture - but not Scripture in writing, on a page, in words all can see. No. For OTHERS, one of the “legs” of the norm is Scripture IN THE HEART of The Catholic Church AS INTERPRETED BY The Catholic Church. That’s what it means by “Scripture” (see your Catehism # 113 for example). So the “Scripture” in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself is PART of the rule/canon for the evalation of all OTHERS, but not for itself. It is unaccountable since it is incapable of error - it alone insists that whatever it alone says is what God says and is simply to be accepted with docility. CCC # 87 for example.

.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no mention of infallibility in this passage.

[SIGN]The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture[/SIGN]

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"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—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

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

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Originally posted by Randy Carson

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;6256888]Hey Jon…

Jon, N2 makes a really good point, don’t you think? Who or what is the extra-scriptural authority that decided that Scripture was/is to be the Christians final authority? I cannot identify any extra-scriptural authority that did this? I can only identify the extra-scriptural authority that resolved doctrinal disputes/differences, which included the correct inclusion exclusion of the books in the holy bible.
Which authority was that, Joe?

I asked you first. LOL…Just kidding. Well, today, that extra-scriptural authority is each respective church leadership evaluating doctrinal truth for their church members only! If you belong to the Lutheran church, you defer to the Lutheran church leaders, and the Lutheran Confessions, depending on the Lutheran church. If you belong to the Methodist church, you defer to their church leaders, as is the case with every church, in the world today, be it Protestant, Catholic, Anglican or Eastern Orthodox.

Where does that leave SS via individual interpretation, which of course I know you don’t embrace?

I am told by Md and Josiah that the CC is not the church of Matthew 16, and that the EOC is not the church of Matthew 16, and I in turn remind them that none of the PC’s in the world today, are the churches of Matthew 16. That leaves us without the church of Matthew 16, the only church founded by Jesus Christ, forever guided by the holy spirit (John 14, even though MD denies this fact) - into all truth (John 16). If this is the case, then no ONE church in the world today, is that ONE extra-scriptural authority, needed to arbitrate and resolve doctrinal differences, on the behalf of all Christians, or on the behalf of the other churches. Each respective church is the ONE autonomous, extra-scriptural authority, for their congregation only. If this is the case, and it is, then doctrinal truthis to be found where???

Even if all the PC’s (including the CC and the EOC, if in fact neither of these churches are the church of Matthew 16) - in the world today, convoked and reconciled their differences, giving way to just one doctrinal truth, regarding any one teaching, we still, can really never know if these doctrinal truths are in fact truths, for the simple fact that none of these churches (again, including the CC and the EOC) - are the church of Matthew 16, John 14:16 and John 16:13. That is very unsettling feeling…

How many different canons are there in Christianity today? It seems the authority of Trent applies only to the CC, and not even to Churches that practice Scripture - Tradition as a co-equal authority.

Exactly…The church of Matthew 16 has been lost, due the sin of man, it seems, if neither the CC nor the EOC is the church of Matthew 16.

Quote:
The holy bible did not become the Christians final authority until the 16th century Protestant reformation.
I have had Catholics tell me here that nothing in Catholic teaching condradicts scripture.
Somewhere, somehow, all Catholic teaching has been measured by scripture, and the CC states that its teachings are in keeping with scripture. Correct? Or, are there teachings in the CC that contradict scripture, but Tradition states they are true, and therefore are true?

I would ask those Christians belonging to the CC, to defer to the CC Magisterium or the CCC, to resolve this matter. The Assumption of Mary and Sola Scriptura are clearly not to be found in the bible, yet the CC and EOC embrace the former, and all PC’s embrace the latter. Both churches embrace tradition, just different traditions.

Continued…

 

[SyCarl]

[SIGN]The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture[/SIGN]

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

None of the verses provided mentions the Catholic Church. It is an assumption that must be proved that the Church referred to in Scripture is, or is restricted to, the Catholic Church as an organization. If the Church is considered as the collectivity of all true believers then an institution can fall into error without the Church failing.

Israel was God’s chosen people in the Old Testament yet this did not prevent Israel as a nation from falling. The priests and the rulers may have been corrupt but a remnant always remained faithful. The same applies to the Church. As long as there is one true believer Jesus’ promises are fulfilled.

Paul tells us of the man of lawlessness.

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. (2Th 2:3-4 NASB)

I believe the temple of God refers the institutional Church meaning that it will be taken over by the anti-Christ. If people believe the Church as an organization is incapable of error they will be deceived. However there will be a remnant of true believers.

True believers do not have to be restricted to one Church organization. When divisions occurred in the Church as an organization, there is no reason to conclude that true believers were restricted to one part of it. When a tree branches out from the trunk, each branch is no less part of the same tree.

 

[joe370]

Jon, continued…

Quote:
If the sin of man (as opposed to SS) - is the cause of all the division in the church, (and we agree that there was plenty of sinning in the church for the first 1000 years, yet the church still remained one and united) - then why didn’t division ensue, when men left the CC and started new churches, (with scripture alone as their final authority) - until the PR? I agree that the east - west schism in the 11th century, eventually gave way to doctrinal variances, but they are minimal. Either the EOC continues to be the church of Matthew 16, which means that the CC is wrong about these minor doctrinal variances between the 2, or it’s the other way around. I know that I mentioned this already, but certainly one of these churches could be the church of Matthew 16, guided into all truth? I am not trying to defocus from all the other PC’s, for truth can be found in these churches as well, and I am in no way saying that the Lutheran church isn’t coalescing with these 2 churches, because, like you said: some of them are. I am simply suggesting that the EOC and the CC are the only 2 churches that have Jesus Christ as their founder. Of course Jesus only found one church and His church had a parting of ways, just as the CC and the reformers had a parting of ways. I believe that the first parting of ways was significantly less damaging to Jesus’ Mystical Body for the simple fact that the CC and EOC continued to defer to sacred scripture and sacred tradition for resolving doctrinal disputes.
Joe, I’m surprised that you would say that the great schism was significantly less damaging to His Church. They both continue to defer to Scripture and Tradition and still come to conclusions that vary in a number of areas - vary enough to prevent unity for almost 1,000 years!!

I guess what I meant was: the EOC, along with their offshoots, are considerably more united than what we see in the PC’s. Just look at how many PC’s we see in the world today, as compared to the EO offshoots of the EOC. Doesn’t it just make sense that, if authority to arbitrate, evaluate and ultimately resolve doctrinal differences/disputes, is placed in the hands of each respective Christian, then the likelihood of division and disunity rises considerably? The same thing, no doubt, would have happened to the CC and the EOC, if they too embraced scripture alone as the Christians final authority via individual interpretation. People are clearly needed to resolve issues, for the holy bible can resolve nothing on its own. Today, we see thousands of people resolving issues with the aid of SS via private/individual interpretation, giving way to conflicting doctrinal truths.

I once visited a protestant forum when I belonged to the LC, and was blown away by the doctrinal disparity to the point that I almost just gave up. No doubt if that protestant forum had been just a Lutheran forum or a Methodist forum, etc. etc. - doctrinal disparity regarding the defenders of the Lutheran or Methodist church, etc. etc. - would have been considerably reduced, but the other PC’s, with opposing beliefs would be doing to those 2 churches the very same thing Protestants are doing here at CAF. However, since no ONE PC claims to be that extra biblical authority over all the other PC’s, the ONE catholic church (small c) - is comprised of all PC’s, giving way to the catholic church forum, as opposed to any ONE single PC forum, for the most part. When I stumbled across this forum I was blown away by the doctrinal unity of the people defending the catholic faith. No doubt if I stumbled across the AALC or the LCMS, I would find the same doctrinal unity in each respective church.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

The CC has remained one and united for 2000 years - since Pentecost - at least I believe that to be the case. Many people tell me that the CC was not founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, but refuse to give me the name of the man (men) - who did in fact found the CC, and when. When someone does that, and convincingly,I will recant! Each respective PC too, has, for the most part, remained one and united for either 500 years, 300 years…100 years, depending on when that PC was founded. For me, the church of Matthew 16, HAS to be the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, but that’s just me.

If Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together is necessary to lead us into all Truth, why has it not done so for 1,000 years, half of the life of the Church Militant?

Touché… Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together, in my opinion, has led ONLY one of these churches (is the church of Matthew 16) - into all truth, through no power of the fallible leaders of the church of Matthew 16. All credit is to be given to the infallible power of the Holy Spirit, forever guiding Jesus’ church of Matthew 16 into all truth. I believe that one of these churches is that church, but again, that’s just me.

Quote:
They never transfered final authority to the holy bible via the interpretation of each Christian. Is the holy bible the inerrant authoritative Word of God? Absolutely! But I know one thing for sure: I wasn’t entrusted with the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve anything, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps if a Christian can locate this extra-scriptural authority, then maybe the fullness of truth can be found?
SS does not necessarily grant each Christian the right to interpretation, as the Lutheran reformers warned against that, and I know I lack that authority as well.

I know; the Lutheran reformers warned against that, but they were powerless to stop it, once SS via private/individual interpretation started gaining momentum.

Ask MD or most non-Lutheran Christians if he agrees with you, that SS does not necessarily grant each Christian the right to interpret sacred scripture, which is to be the final authority for all. If the holy bible is the Christians one and only authority…the final arbiter for resolving differences, then every Christian has the right to start a church and teach according to her/his evaluation of doctrinal truth. Most PC’s (with the exception of a few) - believe in SS via private/individual interpretation. If this wasn’t the case then their wouldn’t be so many many new churches in the world today - don’t you agree? .

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Quote:
Either the EOC or the CC is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or one of the many PC’s is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or, the catholic church, small c (all churches included, even the churches considered heretical, for no one has the authority to label them as such, if SS is the Christians final authority) - is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ - right?
This presumes an interpretation of Church as meaning an institution, or organization.

Well, each respective church, protestant or otherwise, was instituted by a man, and each respective church is organized. I am not following you on this one, which almost never happens. Your explanations are always spot on. Perhaps I am the one missing something.

The Lutheran Confessions indentify the Church as anywhere the word is preached and the sacraments properly administered.

The CC would agree with you! BTW, all PC’s, other than the Lutheran church, see the Lutheran Confessions as unnecessary, and most see the Sacraments as unnecessary. Is that correctly preaching the word?

Are they right; are they wrong; who knows, if in fact no ONE church can arbitrate and resolve the matter, once and for all?

My own sense is in agreement with that part of the CCC that says that His Spirit uses all of our institutional communions in ways He sees fit to make salvation possible.

So, the HS does the best He can with what He has to work with? That’s certainly logical/reasonable. But I still believe that GOD can do as He promised in the bible, but only for the church founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, but again, that’s just me.

Beyond that, what authority we have to label others’ teachings as heretical means far less.

I agree with you. However, I believe that it means much more. It means that no ONE church, in the world today, has any authority to label any other church, even if one of these man-made churches teach that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same, or that Jesus’ flesh and blood, once consecrated, is not really, truly present in the bread and wine, but rather just mere bread and wine. We can disagree with them, but we can’t authoritatively state that they are wrong, if in fact sola scriptura (the bible alone) - is the Christians final authority, as opposed to any ONE church leadership. Is that a reasonable statement?

Quote:
Jon, can you imagine if the authority of the U.S. Constitution (the supreme law) - was transfered to each American citizen for arbitration/amendment?
Actually, the US Constitution is a great example of SS. Properly done, the Supreme Court measures all laws and actions by government against the Constitution alone. While the Court arbitrates, the Constitution is the final norm.

The Supreme Court ( not each citizen of the U.S. ) - measures all laws and actions by government against the Constitution alone. Agreed? The U.S. Constitution can do nothing without arbiters, amending, evaluating and resolving matters regarding the law.
The reason why, the court arbitrating, with the Constitution as the final norm - works, is because there is ONLY one arbitrator - right? This is not the case in Christianity.

Jon, who is the rightful arbitrator, in Christianity? Who or what is the Christians Supreme Court, with the bible ( Constitution) - as the final norm?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Catholic Church was originally a sect of Judaism. Is the Church mentioned throughout Scripture the Catholic Church, or is this a later addition by the CC?

 

[joe370]

If a dogma or doctrine was not necessary for salvation in the first century why should it be necessary now? Does this violate scripture?

Jericho, do you believe that the bible alone ( sola scriptura) - was the Christians final authority in the 1st century, as opposed to the church leaders of Matthew 16, arbitrating, evaluating and resolving doctrinal differences, with the aid of both tradition and scripture?

 

[joe370]

Hey Kevin…

The Catholic Church was originally a sect of Judaism. Is the Church mentioned throughout Scripture the Catholic Church, or is this a later addition by the CC?

Most Protestants will simply say: the CC was not the church of Matthew 16; the CC was not originally a sect of Judaism. The CC is a church founded by a man, as opposed to God, but they never tell when the CC was founded and by whom. If the CC is not the church of Matthew 16… was not originally a sect of Judaism, (which is the case for each and every Protestant church) - then where, in the world today, is the church of Matthew 16, which was originally a sect of Judaism? Of course no one will tell me because the answer is already patently obvious.