Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: Tell us how and to what Luther was accountalbe, that should settle the whole matter of accountablity.

Hi, Jlhargus,

As I recall, Luther appeared to be only accountable to the local princes who provided him with shelter as they hid him from lawful presecution. I think one of the major issues for this type of ‘local’ accountability was the setting of the stage (almost 100 years from when he nailed up the 95 Theses) for the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). Another one of the side effects of SS.

God bless

CLearly, Luther, as any other teacher, was accountable to scripture. That is why all that he siad and taught is not part of Lutheran teaching.

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

Why does it have to be doctrines?

Matthew 2:23 “He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazorean.”

I don’t believe there is a specific OT reference to Nazareth and since Matthew is without error there must have been such a phrophecy … though unwritten in Scripture. The reference would have been one the people obviously knew about … hence the only other way it gets passed is by oral tradition … eventually making it’s way to God-breathed Scripture.

JL: Good point Ncgolf there are several Jewish oral traditions found in the NT.

Mt 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Find in the Old Testament, **Moses’ seat, you wont as it is OT oral tradition, that Jesus quotes.]

1Cor10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. [Where does the OT tell us **the rock followed them, It does’nt, it is an OT oral tradition.]

Jude used an oral Jewish tradition: Jude 1:9 Yet **Michael **the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke you! [Find in the OT, were it is says **Michael contended over Moses’ body]

Jude 1:14 Now** Enoch**, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, [Where does the OT quote **Enoch as prophesing this.]

2Tim 3:8 Just as **Jannes and Jambres **opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. [Find the names **Jannes and Jambres in the OT, you wont it is OT oral tradition.]

 

[jlhargus]

CLearly, Luther, as any other teacher, was accountable to scripture. That is why all that he siad and taught is not part of Lutheran teaching. Jon

JL: Thank you that settles the question of accountability. As a Catholic I would state the Church is accountable to the Word of God, whether by Word or Epistle.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.”“The traditions” whether by word or letter are not different. It’s erroneous, indeed, to contend that the Apostles taught some doctrines orally only, and others (totally different) by letter only. The doctrines concerning the faith and salvation were first taught orally and then preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all subsequent generations.

If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only.

And if you assert otherwise you imply there are many secret teachings only Catholics are privy to.
Wasn’t this the Gnostic heresy? They were the ones who believed they were right because they were the ones with the secrets which could unlock the hidden meaning of Scripture. Teaching the higher one climbs the ladder in the organization the more secret teachings one will encounter.
Yes I know this can be substantiated and supported from Scripture, but I’m a simple man and prefer working with evidence based concepts.

 

[moondweller]

Why does it have to be doctrines?

Matthew 2:23 “He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazorean.”

I don’t believe there is a specific OT reference to Nazareth and since Matthew is without error there must have been such a phrophecy … though unwritten in Scripture. The reference would have been one the people obviously knew about … hence the only other way it gets passed is by oral tradition … eventually making it’s way to God-breathed Scripture.

You might want to read up on this, NC. Nevertheless, I notice you quoted Scripture. I hope you don’t think that enhanced your argument.

 

[moondweller]

Now, show us where your sola authority tells us NOT to hold Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. If there was no oral Tradition, why would your sola authority say to hold to them?

I’ll state it and ask again:

“If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them.”

I know as a former Protestant how difficult oral Tradition is to understand, but all Protestant denominations have oral traditions, and they don’t even know it. It is those traditions that make a Baptist different and distinguishable from a Presbyterian, a Presbyterian from a Methodist, a Methodist from a Lutheran etc… That’s why they each have different interpretations of the same scriptures, which is interpreted thru the lens of their particular tradition.

“Oral Tradition” by definition is supposedly Apostolic teachings (i.e., taught by the Apostles) not committed to Scripture but instead passed down infallibly by word of mouth, generation to generation. This, btw, is not at all what Paul was referring to in 2 Thess. 2:15.

I hope your next post will supply me with the list of those doctrines orally passed down from the Apostles that are different from those found in the Scriptures, along with the proof that they actually taught them. Thank you in advance.

 

[moondweller]

And if you assert otherwise you imply there are many secret teachings only Catholics are privy to.
Wasn’t this the Gnostic heresy? They were the ones who believed they were right because they were the ones with the secrets which could unlock the hidden meaning of Scripture. Teaching the higher one climbs the ladder in the organization the more secret teachings one will encounter.
Yes I know this can be substantiated and supported from Scripture, but I’m a simple man and prefer working with evidence based concepts.

How is any of this substantiated and supported in Scripture? It’s Catholicism that asserts that it has “privy” to oral (Apostolic) tradition. Calling that “Gnostic heresy” is your idea. Is that what you call it? Your post is rather confusing.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, HonNC,

I am not entirely sure how one is ‘accountable’ - when Luther added ‘ALONE’ to Faith and tried to get rid of the Gospel of St. James. This kind of editing does cause problems with accountabilty.

CLearly, Luther, as any other teacher, was accountable to scripture. That is why all that he siad and taught is not part of Lutheran teaching.

Jon

But, you know, no one is ‘accountable’ to a book, or an idea or a principle - we are accountable to people. Now, these people may well use a book to base their assessment of our work on - but, it is not the book that is holding anyone to anything. Luther, at the time, was a priest and accountable to the Catholic Church. Based on my understanding of what took place, Luther left the Church founded by Jesus Christ and joing the one founded by his ego,

Luther’s argument was that with all the abuse going on that he saw there could be no hope for the Church of Christ. Luther basically despaired of God’s Grace to bring His Church around to giving good example. This despair is really not a healthy sign. During all of these terrible times - the Catholic Church never changed one of its doctrines: there are not two persons in the trinity, the Sacrament of Confession is a waste of time, etc. Conversely, look at how the various doctrines of the PC are in constant flux. The latest example deals with same sex marriage and ordaining practicing homosexuals as a mater of church doctrine. i am nt sure where the accountability lies there.

God bless

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jhargus.

Great post!

God bless

JL: You are mistaken that I evaded the issue. I can say the same with this and the other post of yours addressed to me. I was cutting to the heart of the matter.

JL: Correct they are not different as Paul says they are Word of God. One is found in scripture. The other is found in the practices of the living community of God, the Church.

JL: Correct that is totally erroneous to contend they were different in a contradictory way. The whole Gospel was first Traditioned orally, when some things needed to be clarified, theopneustos, epistles were written to clarify.

JL: Correct the Word of God was fist taught orally, [1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

And as the Written Word of God reveals not all was written in scripture. Those theopneustos scriptures tell us we must hold fast to Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. You follow a tradition of men saying ALL Tradition is now in the written scripture, yet those theopneustos scriptures say the opposite. If not, then you should be able to produce scripture telling us to hold fast to the Tradition of Scripture only.

JL: Unless you can give a scripture telling us to hold only to written scripture. Then you have a contradiction with what those very theopneustos scriptures tell you. Hold fast to the Traditions taught whether by Word or Epistle.

JL: A doctrine taught by the apostles orally would be the canon of the bible. The proof or evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the constant lived out practice of the Church. One more, would be the Trinity, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the lived out understanding in the Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils. I assume you accept the definition of the Trinity.

Now, show us where your sola authority tells us NOT to hold Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. If there was no oral Tradition, why would your sola authority say to hold to them? I know as a former Protestant how difficult oral Tradition is to understand, but all Protestant denominations have oral traditions, and they don’t even know it. It is those traditions that make a Baptist different and distinguishable from a Presbyterian, a Presbyterian from a Methodist, a Methodist from a Lutheran etc… That’s why they each have different interpretations of the same scriptures, which is interpreted thru the lens of their particular tradition.

JL: I have no problem with Augustine, he held the Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. Just as the scriptures he was speaking about, told him.

By the way show me any ancient codex of the bible, from which new translations have been made from the original Greek, which does not contain those seven books Protestants REMOVED. In fact show me any complete extant bible before the 15 hundreds, that does not contain those seven books.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

How is any of this substantiated and supported in Scripture? It’s Catholicism that asserts that it has “privy” to oral (Apostolic) tradition. Calling that “Gnostic heresy” is your idea. Is that what you call it? Your post is rather confusing.

I am not assimilating the Catholic Church with Gnosticism. I find it challenging to bare allegiance to any movement driven by secrets only the priviledged few are privy to - be it “apostolic” tradition or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Why are you appealing to me or “any non-Catholics?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are Augustine’s words. And don’t you consider him a “Catholic?” Hence, a Catholic maxim, right? So, according to Augustine your church recognizes essentials and nonessentials. Talk to your priest.

Indeed, Catholics have essentials–as proclaimed by the Magisterium.

You also claim essentials. I presume you do not abide by the Magisterium’s decision as to what’s an essential doctrine.

[SIGN1]So, what are your essentials, MD, and what Scripture verses tell you that these are essential?[/SIGN1]

(The italicized/bolded phrase is the kicker, MD. I have asked this question *a mutlitude *of times to non-Catholics–and, indeed, to you–and have received only obfuscations. Sometimes *a list *of essentials from Scripture is provided, but, peculiarly, not a single verse, ever, that answers the question: how do you know that these are essential?)

How does one know, from Scripture alone, that (say), Malachi 1:11, is not essential but that James 5:16 is?

 

[moondweller]

Indeed, Catholics have essentials–as proclaimed by the Magisterium.

You also claim essentials. I presume you do not abide by the Magisterium’s decision as to what’s an essential doctrine.

[SIGN1]So, what are your essentials, MD, and what Scripture verses tell you that these are essential?[/SIGN1]

(The italicized/bolded phrase is the kicker, MD. I have asked this question *a mutlitude *of times to non-Catholics–and, indeed, to you–and have received only obfuscations. Sometimes *a list *of essentials from Scripture is provided, but, peculiarly, not a single verse, ever, that answers the question: how do you know that these are essential?)

How does one know, from Scripture alone, that (say), Malachi 1:11, is not essential but that James 5:16 is?

Again, PR, those are Augustine’s words. What do you think he meant?

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=moondweller;6272996]Why are you appealing to me or “any non-Catholics?” "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity

," are Augustine’s words. And don’t you consider him a “Catholic?” Hence, a Catholic maxim, right? So, according to Augustine your church recognizes essentials and nonessentials. Talk to your priest.

Forget about his words; he was a catholic. I am attempting to see things through a Protestant lens…through your eyes! Augustine’s words are meaningless to you! I am attempting to see things, from your perspective, and you give me nothing…Let’s try it again…Please, go back and answer my questions? If you don’t want to answer my questions, then just say so…

 

[PRmerger]

Again, PR, those are Augustine’s words. What do you think he meant?

I already answered that, MD.

The CC does have essentials–as proclaimed by the Magisterium.

Your turn. What are your essentials, [SIGN1]and how do you know? [/SIGN1]

What Scripture verses tell you that Malachi 1:11 is not essential, but, say James 5:16 is. Chapter and verse, please!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

Actually, THOSE ARE NOT AUGUSTINE’S WORDS. Go back to post #830 and read what I wrote when I first corrected your mistake here and check out the link. Really, MD… it is one thing to make a mistake, but quite another to repeat it… But, in reality, this is beside the point…

Again, PR, those are Augustine’s words. What do you think he meant?

The basic idea experessed in this mis-identified quote is that there are areas of common belief and understanding. And, while that sounds good in theory, the actually application is truly disappointing.

Let me give you an example of what you may want to consider - this comes from Wiki:

“The doctrines of the various Protestant denominations vary, but nearly unanimous doctrines include justification by grace through faith and not through works, the priesthood of all believers, and the Bible as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and order.”

So, here we have three basic items. Feel free to add your own … but, bear in mind, the more you add, the more you show the disunity from those who do not share those ideas (and, that is the fundamental reason why there are 20,000+ groups that can not agree with one another!)

And, here is why even those above three items fall short of the mark - they can not be supported by the same Scripture you claim to hold as their authority! Really.

1.) Justification through faith (alone?) and not works. There is no Catholic doctrine that identifies that we - through our own efforts - can pull ourselves up by our ‘bootstraps’ and gain entry into heaven but works. What is requried is that we believe in Jesus Christ - and then DO the works He set out. (John 14:15) “If you love Me you will keep My commandments.” Well, you can not keep a commandment by DOING nothing. You must DO (WORKS!) what Christ commands: love of God and charity to neighbor are good starters (Matt 22:37-40) Christ also said we had to be Baptized and eat His Flesh…but most protestants have talked themselves out of these commandments.

2.) Priesthood of all believers. Christ specifically gave His Apostles specific authority that He did not give to others who happened to be following Him. For example, Christ specifically commissioned His 12 Apostles to consecrate bread and wind into His Body and Blood as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. Christ specifically commissioned His 11 Apostles (John 20:19-22) to forgive (or not forgive-as they chose) the sins of men and gave them the Holy Spirit to infuse this Power of God. These powers do not belong to everyone - but to a select few called to the vocation of being ordained priests. This is similar to not all Jews had the privledge of serving in the Temple - but this was reserved to the Levites.

3.) The bible is the ultimate authority of faith and order. Possibly the easiest item to refute! The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon. The Catholic Church gave the world the entire New Testament and identified those writings in the OT that were divinely inspired. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible - the Bible did not give us the Catholic Church. This is simply a matter of history. Additionally, no where does the Bible say it is the sole authority. It is good for teaching, admonishing and reproof - but, this does not make it the sole authority. The proof of that is that with so many going to ‘private interpretation’ there are so many interpretations. This has lead to the chaos you see before you.

Now, it appears to me that you were having trouble getting started on the questions that were asked of you … so, I thought I would give you a hand… Now, as you can see I am not trying to make your case - merely get you started. Sort of like a ‘nudge’ from a fellow poster… the ball however is (and has been for some time) in your hands. Go on… give it a shot and see what happens.

God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

But, you know, no one is ‘accountable’ to a book, or an idea or a principle - we are accountable to people.

You continue to be confused about the difference between the rule/canon and the arbitration.

So, a policeman stops you, noting that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to the big, square, white sign next to you both there by the side of the road, proclaiming in big, black, bold numerals and letters: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” (since the USA operates under the Rule of Law). You respond: “The Rule of Law is moot in the singular case of me alone becuase I’m not accountable to anything but people, and the only person I recognize as having anything authority over me is me since I alone am infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable: Sir, I proclaim I was not speeding and I am the only authority here, you must just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” I’d be curious how that works for you.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

tqualey:

The previous unanswered quesitons remain - and considering your previous posts, you may want to consider rising to the occasion rather then just playing with a response. There is no problem with honest and spirited dialogue over matters being debated - just the tepid responses of those who have neither interest or desire.

So, to repeat the questions: if the Catholic Church was not founed by Christ and is not the Church of Matt 16 - just Who did found the Catholic Church, when was the Catholic Church founded and just where is this Church founded by Christ identifed in Matt 16???

.

You make the WHOLE BASIS of the remarkable exemption of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church regarding accountability dependent on Jesus specifically so stating. Then when you are asked the required question, “Where?” - you argue your point is unsubstantiated. Friend, you can’t found your whole position of “IT SAYS!” and then insist, “It needn’t say.” This should be obvious to you.

Let’s say I alone insist that I alone am smart. And I build the whole apologetic for such on the fact that God says that I alone am. OF COURSE, you would immediate ask the central, foundational questions: Where does God say that? I can hear you laughing now when I respond, “Well, actually, He never so much as mentioned me…”

All this continues to be the Catholic apologetic for WHY it is the most sound rubric for determining if The Catholic Church is correct for The Catholic Church to exempt itself from the question and accountability and norming, by itself alone insisting that itself alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is infallible/unaccountable, so the whole question of correctness is to be laid aside and rather all are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” SOMEHOW, it must TRY to justify that rubric for determining correctness. It must preserve that all OTHERS are accountable - right here, right now - but must argue that it itself alone is not.

tqualey:

I could easily turn to Scripture and justify my position

Go ahead.

Show us that while God repeatedly warned us of false teachers, He exempted The Catholic Church exclusively from that possibility. Show us why Jesus was wrong to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue and declaring them false? Show us the verse where God (or Jesus or any Apostle) said that we are to accept whatever The Catholic Church alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” but we are to hold as accountable the teachings of every other man, woman, child, group, organization, body, institution, congregation, denomination?

tqualey:

it has resulted in division, confusion and lack of accountability.

I agree. When self alone exempts self alone from accountability - then there is no accountability. When self alone declares instead that all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility, as Jesus speaking - then there is no accountability. Read your catechism # 87.

tqualey:

it requires something outside of itself to function in the process of accountability.

.

.
I could not agree more! One of the basic defenses for Sola Scriptura.

So, when The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole interpreter, sole authority and sole arbiter, looking to the teachings of itself as the “rule” for the teachings of itself, what OUTSIDE of itself is it accountable to (other than God)?

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

There really is a certain element of tragic in this. Your repeated statements and claims about the same thing have been responded to by many. At this point, I am beginning to think you are not reading the responses - at least based on the repititious nature of your posts. But, I may be wrong… and maybe you just do not understand what is being said… so, let me try with a different approach.

You continue to be confused about the difference between the rule/canon and the arbitration.

There is no confusion on my part, AJ,neither these terms or concepts came up in what I addressed.

So, a policeman stops you, noting that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to the big, square, white sign next to you both there by the side of the road, proclaiming in big, black, bold numerals and letters: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” (since the USA operates under the Rule of Law). You respond: “The Rule of Law is moot in the singular case of me alone becuase I’m not accountable to anything but people, and the only person I recognize as having anything authority over me is me since I alone am infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable: Sir, I proclaim I was not speeding and I am the only authority here, you must just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” I’d be curious how that works for you.

Oh, where to begin with such a straw man argument. OK. local law enforcement stopped me doing 60 in a 45. Now, I do not know how you would deal with such an event - but the words you have foolishly attributed to me, would have me both arrested and given a psychiatric evaluation! So, let’s see now… I think I would say, “Thank you for the ticket, Officer. May I go now?”, and not hearing I was under arrest, I would drive away being more observant of the law…and the location of that particular policeman…

As a matter of fact, human laws are moot (as you like to deride) - and that is why there are courts (actually the human judges who are deciding the application of law based on facts) - and these lower courts have their decisions (rulings) evaluated by Courts of Appeal (yeah, humans in charge of that, too - not the law books) and finally, there is the US Supreme Court where seven men and two women weigh in and decide in a practical case what our Constitution meant when it said something.

Unlike your rather thread-bare speeding analogy, no one says (in their right mind) says, “I am not accountable” - we all are accountable. But, where you want to lead is not a place where I will follow - I do not show up at court with the speeding ticket in my hand and face a book. I face a human judge whose job is to fairly interpret the law in light of what is written and the facts of my particular case. Now, if you have lasted this long … bear with me just a little bit longer, AJ…

The Catholic Church (you know, that organization that is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible - but somehow just keeps on showing up from 125AD on when that name is first used…to this very day) is the one that determined which books in the OT and NT were divinely inspired. Please do not repeat that the Catholic Church did not write any books and was not around when the OT was written - but, please understand that the Catholic Church was the authority with jurisdiction coming from the Holy Spirit that made the decision to bind all believers (Matt 16) that these specific books and not others were written under the inspiration of God. The Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, the Bible did not give us the Catholic Church.

For you to argue against this, you will have to make a case of how the Bible (even the abridged version you are holding in your hand!) came into being WITHOUT the role of the Catholic Church. Your Luther took what was already in existence, and removed seven books from the OT that was already in existence. Notice he did not add any. Luther would have removed the Book of James because this inspired work did not match Luther’s uninspired editing. But, for some reason (and, I honestly do not know the answer to this…) Luther was not successful in keeping James out of the Bible. So, if you know the answer to how Luther failed in this effort - let us all know!

Finally, for anyone to claim before competent authority that reality is not what it is and that the person in question is the only authority to recognize themselves is simply insanity. But, before you trip over yourself agreeing with this… you see, Christ gave Divine Authority to Peter to bind and lose - Christ did not give it to Luther. Trying to twist the clearly written words of Scripture with spurious argumentation is what false teachers do. Now, that is something to consider, AJ.

Please, find a way to re-read all the responses you have received, refuting your speeding driver who must be partially insane example as an analogy for the Catholic Church. Just read them again. Maybe you will understand what others have been trying to say. You may want to consdider quietly digging a hole for this example of yours when you do your spring planting…

God bless

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

So, a policeman stops you, noting that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to the big, square, white sign next to you both there by the side of the road, proclaiming in big, black, bold numerals and letters: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” (since the USA operates under the Rule of Law). You respond: “The Rule of Law is moot in the singular case of me alone becuase I’m not accountable to anything but people, and the only person I recognize as having anything authority over me is me since I alone am infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable: Sir, I proclaim I was not speeding and I am the only authority here, you must just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” I’d be curious how that works for you.

.

OK. local law enforcement stopped me doing 60 in a 45. Now, I do not know how you would deal with such an event - but the words you have foolishly attributed to me, would have me both arrested and given a psychiatric evaluation! So, let’s see now… I think I would say, “Thank you for the ticket, Officer. May I go now?”, and not hearing I was under arrest, I would drive away being more observant of the law…and the location of that particular policeman…

Sooo…

1. You do not accept self exempting self from accountability. Yet, there has been a constant arguement here from Catholics (and in the other threads at CAF on this topic) that The Catholic Church is exempt (exclusively) since it claims it is infallible and incapable of error in these matters, it is the sole authority, and that whatever it says is simply to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. See your Catechism # 87. The Handbook of The Catholic Faith begins the chapter on Authority with this sentence: “When someone asks where the Catholic finds the substantiation for his belief, the answer is: from the teaching authority. this authority consists of the Pople and the bishops in communion with him. The Catholic, thus, is freed from any examination of the doctrines he is taught and rather has the quiet assurance that when The Catholic Church speaks, Christ Himself speaks, just as He himself promised, ‘Whoever hears you hears me’.”
2. You accept that there is a Rule above and beyond you: in this case, the Rule of Law. It happens to be a sign (and yes, it cannot speak, it cannot declare, it cannot arbitrate) and yet you and the policeman are subject to it. How does that compare to the arguments here and the insistence of The Catholic Church that it is right so it’s right - and whatever IT says is to be accepted with docility? Isn’t that the same as you declaring yourself alone to be right, yourself being the rule and the arbiter?

there are courts (actually the human judges who are deciding the application of law based on facts)- and these lower courts have their decisions (rulings) evaluated by Courts of Appeal (yeah, humans in charge of that, too - not the law books) and finally, there is the US Supreme Court where seven men and two women weigh in and decide in a practical case what our Constitution meant when it said something.

Always the shell game, constantly switching topics…

Friend, we’re not discussing arbitration here (we can’t, it’s against the rules of this website). We’re discussing the embraced rule/canon.

Yes, IF there was a dispute regarding what “MAX SPEED LIMIT; 45 MPH” means by you and/or the policeman, it would need to be arbitrated ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. Yes, there are courts for that. Those courts (including the Supreme Court) are the arbitrate ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. If you want to talk about arbitration, start a thread on that. This one is about accountability and the rule/canon for such.

Now, let’s return to the issue of this thread: Are defendants ACCOUNTABLE for what they say/do - all of them (including The Catholic Church)? And if so, to WHAT? Once those two questions are addressed, we can discuss (in a different thread) how disputes are to be arbitrated. Right now, we have everyone agreeing that ALL teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach, except that The Catholic Church alone is exempting one alone from that - itself. And we have some agreeing that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this (The Rule of Scripture) whereas The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and all the cults) not embracing any rule/canon because each exempts itself exclusiving from accountability and thus norming and all aspects of such (including WHATEVER may serve as the rule/canon in this).

no one says (in their right mind) says, “I am not accountable” - we all are accountable.

Read your Catechism # 87 for starters.

… continues in the next post

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

continuing the post above…

The Catholic Church (you know, that organization that is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible - but somehow just keeps on showing up from 125AD on when that name is first used…to this very day) is the one that determined which books in the OT and NT were divinely inspired.

Moot. And wrong.

There was Scripture - accepted as such - LONG before The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church affirmed the list of such at the Council of Trent. It’s absurd to argue that the Israelites accepted The Ten Commandments as Scripture because they read the pronouncement from the Council of Trent (which, of course, happened nearly 3000 years LATER). Or that Jesus refered, specificially, to “Scripture” in 29 AD because He had foreknowledge that The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church would decide what He was quoting is Scripture 1500 years later.

But let’s return to the subject at hand: Are teachers accountable for what is taught as doctrine? IF yes, then The Catholic Church is just as accountable as is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or as is Martin Luther or John Calvin or John Wesley or Augustine or Arius or Brigham Young or Jim Jones. IF no, then no teacher is - including all the above. And if yes, then the next question is: WHAT is the most sound rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans for such? The “answer” of some here (rejected by The Catholic Church, btw) that if self agrees with self then self is right has already been noted as not only useless (I’m infallible under that rubric) but just circular.

Please understand that the Catholic Church was the authority with jurisdiction coming from the Holy Spirit that made the decision to bind all believers (Matt 16)

1. There’s a reason, IMHO, why you give the Bible reference but not a quote. Friend, we both know, Matthew 16 doesn’t even so much as MENTION your denomination. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any context. For any reason. I could just as easily say that God said that I’M infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability and norming, and whatever I say should just be accepted with dociltiy - I’m mentioned just as often as The Catholic Church is. Come on…
2. Again, you seem to be confusing responsibility with unaccountability (just as you do arbitration with the norma normans). There’s nothing in Matthew 16 that says that ANY teacher is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and WHATEVER that ONE says is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. Not The Catholic Church. Not any other. I know that, you know that. I have responsibilities at word - it doesn’t make me exempt from accountability! President Obama has HUGE responsibilities and great authorities, and yet I wonder if you accept with docility whatever he says - including that abortion on demand must be welcomed in the USA. You accept that he has authority but not that he THUS is infallible, unaccountable, and you THUS must accept WHATEVER he alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” I don’t think you agree with your own apologetic.

If you to argue against this, you will have to make a case of how the Bible (even the abridged version you are holding in your hand!) came into being WITHOUT the role of the Catholic Church.

It’s not permitted at CAF. I’d only point out that all The Catholic Church did at Trent was to officially acknowledge FOR ITSELF EXCLUSIVELY what had already been accepted. Even if you wrongly point to Hippo or Cartridge or Rome in the late 4th or early 5th centuries, such is still the reality. My denomination officially embraced the list of books in 1847, but’s just as absurd to say it wrote and formed the Bible as it is to argue that The Catholic Church did.

Let’s return to the topic we are to discuss: Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach (including The Catholic Church)? And if so, WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that? I have argued that yes, teachers are accountable. The Catholic Church agrees (passionately!) but it makes one glaring and remarkable exception: itself. And I think Scripture is the most sound canon for norming, The Catholic Church shares our doctrine of such and has no alternative for such, it alone just excepts itself alone from any need for any rule/canon - no matter what, since it insists that it cannot be wrong, so it’s right, so there.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.