Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Josiah, forget about the accountability of the CC for the moment. Don’t bring the CC up when answering the following question please.

Who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and resolve doctrinal differences; who does not have the authority to interpret sacred scripture and resolve doctrinal differences? This is a black or white question deserving a black or white answer. Please don’t give me a grey answer!

Remember, let’s assume it’s not the CC for the CC is unaccountable and a self declaring self church, so again, please make no mention of the CC.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, forget about the accountability of the CC for the moment. Don’t bring the CC up when answering the following question please.

Who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and resolve doctrinal differences; who does not have the authority to interpret sacred scripture and resolve doctrinal differences? This is a black or white question deserving a black or white answer. Please don’t give me a grey answer!

Remember, let’s assume it’s not the CC for the CC is unaccountable and a self declaring self church, so again, please make no mention of the CC.

I’m not sure about the wisdom of me violating the site rules by going off topic, but maybe mercy will be granted if I just quickly reply:

If “authority” means responsibility, then all Christians may teach. You are doing so, so you must agree with me. If you mean whom among us is UNACCOUNTABLE for his teaching as designated by self alone for self alone - then my opinion would be none.

IMHO, teachers are accountable and are not exempt from such because a teacher so excludes himself from such. And IMHO, self is not the most sound arbiter for the evaluation of the teachings of himself. My life experience tells me that self agreeing with self, while remarkably common, is a remarkably bad indicator of that one being correct.

But this thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration. It’s about accountability and WHAT serves most soundly as the rule/canon in norming. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture embrace that teachers are accountable for what they teach (it’s true all disciplines; my degree is in physics, we also hold that teachers are accountable and we have a rule/canon for the norming of them). Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture believe that Scripture is the most sound canon for this norming. The Catholic Church (as well as the others that reject Sola Scriptura: the LDS and all cults) reject it NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines but because they each reject accountability - but exclusively, solely, only for one: itself. Itself, each itself exclusively insists for itself alone - is simply to be accepted with docility.

Do you think truth matters? Especially doctrine concerning our souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrines?
Are teachers accountable for what they teach?
IF you answer “yes” to those, then we can have a discussing about norming and the best norma normans. Problem is, as a Catholic, you can’t.

.

 

[JonNC]

Tom, Hope you don’t mind my barging in.

=tqualey;6292187][Let’s be logical about this… if Peter is condemning “private interpretation” what other interpretation is left? The answer is the interpretation coming from the Church founded by Jesus Christ on this same Apostle - the Catholic Church that you will find in Matt 16. There were no protestant groups at this time…

Could it not then be Orthodoxy?

But, since protestant groups all claim “private interpretation” is their right - look what the effects are: chaos.

Chaos seemed to be the case 500 years before the Reformation. That said, Martin Chemnitz:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages

… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

There is no doctrinal unity based upon SS which has its foundation in “private interpretation”.

there is no doctrinal unity based on Scripture and Tradition, either.
I would debate that SS has its foundation in private interpretation. When I was growing up, I was chatechized in the traditional Lutheran way. I was not given a copy of the Bible and told to go read and interpret for myself.

Seriously, the only unity is that all protestants agree the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong!

I would disagree, Tom, that the Church of Christ is wrong. that said, you have made a
blanket statement in 2 regards. 1) Lutherans agree with Catholics on a vast number of beliefs. So, the question is, wrong about what? 2) You presume that the Church that Jesus founded on Peter is solely and exclusively that of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Which Church is the Church founded by Christ on St. Peter? Rome? Antioch? Jerusalem?

There really are 20,000+ churches for a reason - they simply can not agree on doctrine. Now, surely this must strike you as a bit odd - is there any other example in the world of 20,000+ groups all claiming to be legitimate ( ‘true church’ status), and all denouncing the others for error (false doctrine)? If ever there was a time to look at a tree based upon the fruit it bears - this is it!

Let’s extend that to 20,002.

Jon
[/quote]

 

[joe370]

I’m not sure about the wisdom of me violating the site rules by going off topic, but maybe mercy will be granted if I just quickly reply:

If “authority” means responsibility, then all Christians may teach. You are doing so, so you must agree with me. If you mean whom among us is UNACCOUNTABLE for his teaching as designated by self alone for self alone - then my opinion would be none.

IMHO, teachers are accountable and are not exempt from such because a teacher so excludes himself from such. And IMHO, self is not the most sound arbiter for the evaluation of the teachings of himself. My life experience tells me that self agreeing with self, while remarkably common, is a remarkably bad indicator of that one being correct.

But this thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration. It’s about accountability and WHAT serves most soundly as the rule/canon in norming. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture embrace that teachers are accountable for what they teach (it’s true all disciplines; my degree is in physics, we also hold that teachers are accountable and we have a rule/canon for the norming of them). Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture believe that Scripture is the most sound canon for this norming. The Catholic Church (as well as the others that reject Sola Scriptura: the LDS and all cults) reject it NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines but because they each reject accountability - but exclusively, solely, only for one: itself. Itself, each itself exclusively insists for itself alone - is simply to be accepted with docility.

Do you think truth matters? Especially doctrine concerning our souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrines?
Are teachers accountable for what they teach?
IF you answer “yes” to those, then we can have a discussing about norming and the best norma normans. Problem is, as a Catholic, you can’t.

.

Do you think truth matters? Especially doctrine concerning our souls?

 

[tqualey]

AJ:

This will be brief.

Your concern seems to be with self designating self as the interpreter of Scripture. But, my friend, your finger of accusation and warning is pointed in the wrong direction. The only teacher I know of that insists that for self is The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87… Edited for brevity.

You have totally misread, misunderstood and misrepresented what has been said. The nice thing about this is that you can simply go back and re-read it!
Go on… try it.

This issue, if you care to address it is simply this: multiple protestant denominations - all claiming SS and all in total disagreement with one another over doctrine. Rave on all you want about the Catholic Church, but you need to address the issue raised and stop repeating yourself over the same material you have plowed and replowed. The historic facts are clear: there was no NT as we have it today because there was canon before 400AD, What you are holding in your hand (even the abridged version) can be traced back directly to the Catholic Church.

The issues of concern about Faith do not lend themselves to such examination as historic fact - they really do take Faith. Catholics believe the clearly spelled out words of Matt 16 identify that Christ built His Church of weak and sinful Peter, reconfirmed Peter’s role after the Resurrection in John 21 after Christ had cooked breakfast for the Apostles. Now, I fully understand that you do not believe these words of Scripture written in your own Bible. But, honest, AJ, that is for you to address.

The ‘proof of the pudding is still in the tasting’ and with all of these 20,000+ clamoring groups - all claiming to be the true road to heaven - and all claiming the others are wrong - and all because SS sets the foundation for “private interpretation” which is soundly condemned in 2Peter 1. Just who do you think is doing the interpreting of Scripture for you? Are you doing it yourself for yourself? No? Then who is doing it. I think you will find that the honest answer is “private interpretation” abounds.

God bless

.

 

[jlhargus]

I didn’t evade anything. I said I do stand firm and hold to the traditions that were taught by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15). Certainly not taught “by word of mouth” since those words could only enter the ears of the hearers that were present at the time. But certainly by letter, i.e., those preserved for all subsequent generations in theopneustos (God-breathed), Holy Writ: the N.T. Scriptures.

JL: [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which YE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, whether BY WORD, OR our EPISTLE. ]

Since you ONLY stand firm and hold Tradition by epistle only. You lay aside the commandment, of God, to hold Traditions whether BY word OR epistle. You follow a tradition of men, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, which nullifies the Word of God. The very type of tradition Christ condenms. [Mk7:7 …, **teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.]

Your tridition of men IS NOT found anywhere in the God breathed scriptures. Plus your traditon of men, totally contradicts those theopneustos scriptures, you claim as your sola authority. Which tells you to hold fast Traditions WHEATHER by WORD or EPISTLE. Show me a scripture telling us we no longer need to hold fast Traditons by word? You CAN’T.

Nice try.“Oral Tradition” by definition is supposedly Apostolic teaching not committed to writing and preserved in Holy Writ, but said to be different and taught only orally and passed down infallibly by word of mouth from one generation to the next.

JL: I will post the same answer that I posted the last time you made this statement. Oral Tradition is not passed down by word of mouth nor is it passed down infallibly, it is infallibly discerned by the pope and bishops. They have the gift, the Holy Spirit, of discernment, given in ordination thru apostolic secession. It is discerned in light of scripture and the writings of the fathers, councils, worship, etc… Keep by the HS, same HS who breathed breathed the scroptures.

Catholics make reference to 2 Thess. 2:15 as proof of the existence of such “oral Tradition.”"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us."Notice the last two words “FROM US.” “From us” does not nor can not mean subjective “discernment” made by “Popes” and “Bishops” in the far future claiming infallibility. “From us” must be confined to the words spoken and written directly by the Apostles.

JL: Of course it is FROM US, the Apostles. Oral Apostolic Tradition is found in the lived out life of the Church through the liturgy (worship of the church), church councils, writings of the Fathers, teachings of the popes, creeds, prayers, writings of the saints and doctors. This does not mean all these writing are without error or that all oral Tradition is written down. It is that **magisterium (Teaching Authority) SENT **by Christ to TEACH the whole world till THE END, Mt28:16-20.

That teaching authority SENT others by laying on of hands and will continue till the end. That teaching authority today is the Pope and Bishops of the world, guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to lead them in all truth, who discern Apostolic Tradition as opposed to a tradition of men. Tradition and the Bible go hand in hand and cannot contradict each other. Without Tradition the scriptures cannot be correctly understood and interpreted. One of the ways the canon of the Bible was discerned is Apostolic Tradition. Those books could not be contrary to that lived out faith Tradition, already received and practised as delivered by the Apostles. Those writings contrary to Tradition given by the Apostles, where rejected.

Hb13:7 REMEMBER YOUR LEADERS, WHO SPOKE THE WORD OF GOD TO YOU. Consider the outcome of their way of life and IMITATE THEIR FAITH.

You’re exactly right about Catholic “TRADITION” (not "oral Tradition) being not limited and subject to what was God-breathed and preserved for future generations by the Holy Spirit in written form: the Scriptures

JL: Both oral Tradition and the Tradition of Scripture MUST agree. The same Holy Spirit who breathed the scriptures guides the Church, the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground OF THE TRUTH, 1Tm3:15, that’s according to your own sola authority, which you seem to ignore when convenient.

[2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee **KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST

which dwelleth IN US.
CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

moondweller:
; but ultimately what your “Magisterium” infallibly “discerns” to be Divine Truth and passes as Catholic dogma: That which all Catholics, as Catholics, are required to believe. Dogmas which need not have any Scriptural support or historical witness, whatsoever, but passed into the Church as dogma on the basis of mystical “discernment” of men connected to what is claimed to be an “infallible” office.

JL: Totally wrong, not even close. What the group gathered and SENT by Christ was called at any given time or place does not mater in the lest. What matters is continuity with that One SENT Fellowship. Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT?

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES;

JN 17:18 As thou hast SENT ME into the world, even so have I ALSO SENT THEM into the world. 19 And for their sakes I SANCTIFY MYSELF, THAT THEY ALSO MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE TRUTH. 20 NEITHER PRY I FOR THESE ALONE, but FOR THEM ALSO WHICH shall BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD; 21 THAT THEY all may BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that THOU hast SENT ME.

Christ chose and prayed for one specific VISIBLE SENT group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he sanctified through truth. Hearing their word and being ONE in fellowship, with THEM, **the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world.

Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.

This is the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority, the apostles to TEACH ALL to observe what he taught. They were to go to ALL nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them TILL THE END of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end and Christ knew that. But their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

Apostolic succession thru the sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, by laying of hands gives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to enable an ordained minister to fulfill his mission. [2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, which is IN THEE BY the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, and of love, and of a sound mind.] [Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.]

Titus1:5 FOR THIS CAUSE LEFT I THEE IN CRETE, that THOU SHOULDEST SET IN ORDER the THINGS that are WANTING, AND ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY, AS I had APOINTED THEE.

Titus1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as THE STEWARD OF GOD; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HATH BEEN TAUGHT, THAT he may be able BY SOUND DOCTRINE both to EXHORT and TO CONVINCE the gainsayers.

Titus1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore REBUKE THEM SHARPLY, THAT THEY MAY BE SOUND IN THE FAITH;

Titus2:15 THESE things SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.

Acts14:23 And WHEN THEY HAD ORDAINED them ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts20:28 TAKE HEED therefore unto yourselves, and TO ALL THE FLOCK, over the WHICH THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

[1Tim4:13 Till I come, GIVE ATTENDANCE TO READING, to EXHORTATION, TO DOCTRINE. 14 NEGLECT NOT THE GIFT that is **IN THEE, which was GIVEN thee by prophecy, WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 TAKE HEED UNTO THYSELF, and UNTO THE DOCTRINE; CONTINUE IN THEM: for in DOING THIS thou SHALT both SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE.]

I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not ordained and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the unbroken apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained.

[Eph3:7 Whereof I WAS MADE A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace OF GOD given unto me BY the effectual WORKING OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is THE FELLOWSHIP of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places **MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God,]

[2Cor5:20 Now then **we are ambassadors for Christ, as though GOD did BESEECH YOU BY US: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.]

The Jerusalem Council sent a letter to Antioch, with it decision settling a doctrinal dispute, which said, [Acts15:28 For **it seemed good to the HOLY GHOST, and to US, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;] using their authority to bind and loose, Mt16:18. That magisterial teaching authority, SENT by Christ, speaks with the authority of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, and all Christians knew it. That’s why the decision was accepted with JOY and without dispute in Antioch, Acts15.

Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.] Even though sent by Christ, Paul went by revealation to verify his teachings with the ONE Fellowship, to be sure he was not running in vain. Those SENT by Christ, to teach ALL NATIONS, ALL Christ commanded, till the END of the age, Mt28:16-20. The Apostolic Fellowship Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL TRUTH, Jn16:13. If individual Christians had the ability to be led into all truth, because they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we would all be one without disagreement. We can see that is not the case.

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.]

1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, that tradition of men made a doctrine of God around 1520 AD.]

[Mk 9:38 And JOHN answered him, SAYING, MASTER, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and HE FOLLOWETH NOT **US: and WE FORBAD HIM, because HE FOLLOWETH NOT US. 39 But JESUS SAID, FORBID HIM NOT: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against US is on OUR PART.] The Holy Spirit works in those separated denominations outside the Apostles Fellowship. Uniting them to the ONE fellowship in a spiritual way.

 

[jlhargus]

Exampled by Pope Pius XII’s announcement that the “Assumption of Mary” was “contained in the deposit of faith:”“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus; emphasis mine).The new dogma required absolutely no Biblical support and no historical eyewitness (yet Christ Himself deemed it most important that His own bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven be witnessed by men since it is foundational to the true Christian faith, Acts 1:8). Enough Catholics at the time believed it to be true, so it was mystically “discerned” as part of “the deposit of faith.”

JL: The Church teaches Mary was ASSUMED into heaven by our Lord. She did not ASCEND as some mistakenly think. Only Christ could ascend, of his own power, into heaven, no one else. Mary being assumed, body and soul, by our Lord, is not unique Enoch and Elijah were taken without death.

2Kgs2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and ELIJAH WENT UP by a whirlwind INTO HEAVEN.

HB 11:5 BY FAITH ENOCH WAS TRANSLATED THAT HE SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation HE HAD THIS TESTIMONY THAT HE PLEASED GOD

The assumption of Mary is not explicit, but is implicit in scripture, just as the Trinity is implicit. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture go hand and hand, as the authority, in the Church’s discernment of the assumption. The Church as well as both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture have the Holy Spirit as it’s source

REV 11:19 And THE TEMPLE OF GOD WAS OPENED IN HEAVEN and THERE WAS SEEN in his temple THE ARK of his testament and there were lightnings and voices and thunderings and an earthquake and great hail REV 12:1 And THERE APPEARED A GREAT WONDER in heaven A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN and the MOON UNDER HER FEET and UPON HER HEAD A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered. John first sees the ark then he describes it]

[Mary’s physical body is the Ark of the New Covenant as her body contained the living presents of God. We see the Ark is in heaven, she is clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and she has a crown on her head. Her glorified physical body is described, from head to toe. The Temple of God is the Church in heaven which is opened and John saw the Ark of the New Covenant and after the lightnings etc. John saw a great wonder a woman, Mary.

We are told in the book of Hebrews what the ark of the old covenant contained, [Hb9:4 … the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, WHEREIN WAS the golden pot that had MANNA, and AARON’S ROD that budded, and the TABLES OF THE CONVENANT;]

[Ex25:8 And let them MAKE ME A SANCTUARY; THAT I MAY DWELL AMONG THEM. 9 ACCORDING TO ALL that I SHEW THEE, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. 10 Have them MAKE A CHEST OF ACACIA WOOD—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 OVERLAY IT WITH PURE GOLD, BOTH INSIDE AND OUT, and make a gold molding around it. Ex25:40 See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.]
If the Lord wanted the ark of the old covenant, made by hands, made to exact pattern and specific detail, from acacia wood and covered inside and out with PURE GOLD, that he may dwell among us. How much more would he cover the flesh, body and soul, of the living ark of the new covenant, not made by hands, with the purity of the Holy Spirit inside and out, THAT HE MAY DWELL AMONG US.

Mary the ark of the new covenant, wherein was; the MANNA=CHRIST, TRUE BREAD OF LIFE, AARON’S ROD=CHRIST, TRUE HIGH PRIEST, TEN COMMANDMENTS=CHRIST, TRUE WORD OF GOD. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant contained the realities, not just symbols as the ark made by hands contained. Mary is the reality and fulfillment of the type and symbol, which the OT Ark represented.

LK 1:45 And BLESSED IS SHE THAT BELIEVED for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord LK 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden for behold FROM HENCEFORTH ALL GENERATIONS SAHLL CALL ME BLESSED LK 1:30 And the angel said unto her Fear not MARY for THOU HAST FOUND FAVOUR WITH GOD [Mary was blessed, believed and pleased God, just as Elijah and Enoch.] CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

MT 27:50 Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the ghost 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom and the earth did quake and the rocks rent 52 And the graves were opened and many BODIES OF THE SAINTS The saints which slept AROSE 53 And came OUT OF the GRAVES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION and went into the holy city and APPEARED UNTO MANY *

Hb9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ARK CONTAINED the gold jar of MANNA, AARON’S STAFF that had budded, and the stone TABLETS OF THE COVENANT.

Mary the living ark would contain, in her womb, the real living Word of God, CHRIST, the real living Bread of Life, CHRIST, and the real living High Priest, CHRIST. Not just symbols as the ark made by hands contained, but the actual realities. As our Lord says in Ex25:22 THERE, ABOVE THE COVER BETWEEN THE TWO CHERUBIM THAT ARE OVER THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY, I WILL MEET WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU ALL MY COMMANDS FOR THE ISRAELITES.

2 MCABS 2:5 And when Jeremy came thither he found an hollow cave wherein he laid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense and so stopped the door 6 And some of those that followed him came to mark the way but they could not find it 7 Which when Jeremy perceived he blamed them saying As for THAT PLACE IT SHALL BE UNKNOWN UNTILL THE TIME THAT GOD GATHER HIS PEOPLE again TOGETHER AND RECEIVE THEM UNTO MERCY. 8 THEN SHALL THE LORD SHEW THEM THESE THINGS AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL APPEAR AND THE CLOUD ALSO as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified

EX 40:34 Then** a cloud covered the tent of the congregation and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle** 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation because the cloud abode thereon and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle

LK 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her** The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee** therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

2 SAM 6:2 And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah to bring up from thence the ark of God whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims

LK 1:39 **And Mary arose **in those days **and went **into the hill country with haste **into a city of Juda **

2 SAM 6:9 **And David was afraid **of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:30 And the angel said unto her **Fear not Mary **for thou hast found favour with God

2 SAM 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 SAM 6:16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD and she despised him in her heart

LK 1:44 For lo as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears** the babe leaped in my womb for joy **

2 SAM 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings** he blessed the people in the name of the LORD** of hosts

LK 1:45 And** blessed is she that believed **for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord

2 SAM 6:11 And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom and all his household

LK 1:56 **And Mary abode with her about three months *and returned to her own house

 

[jlhargus]

In truth, in Catholicism the Bible, though originally written “to” the people, is not a Book “of” the people but a Book of the Catholic Church of which its Magisterium (its teaching office) is held as the Spirit’s primary teaching authority. Father Matthias Premm explained this in his “Dogmatic Theology for the Laity:”"…The teaching office of the Church is more important than the Bible: only an infallible Church can tell us what books belong to Scripture, and only an infallible Church can interpret the true meaning of Sacred Scripture; no one can do this for himself. Thus the Catholic can read only one Bible which is published by the Church. In other words: The immediate and highest rule of faith is the living office of the Church" (emphasis mine)THIS, in a nutshell, defines Catholic TRADITION, which is elevated above and beyond the Scriptures. Vatican I concurs:"…in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers" (emphasis mine).Interpretation of Scripture is the sole right of the Magisterium, alone. IOW, TRADITION, that which the Church presently believes and practices, determines what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Even Catholic theologians are subject to it and must interpret the Scriptures accordingly.

Consequently such an approach to the study of Scripture only results in the Catholic Church validating itself. No correction is possible, as American Josiah rightly states:"…because it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, it and it itself exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong, it and it itself alone is infallible in these matters. It itself alone demands that people just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” "I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - so there. Just forget about accountability or norming, forget about examination, and rather just accept whatever I myself alone say."One Catholic on this forum has rightly stated that Catholicism is not a Biblically based faith, but TRADITION based. Even the Scriptures themselves are subject to it. That’s why AJ has often asked in his posts if any of you have ever studied the cults and how they formulate their peculiar “truths.” Cults have no higher authority than themselves, nor accountable to anyone nor anything outside themselves. They too determine their own dogmas.

JL: I have no problem with those things in this statement that are authentically Catholic. As far as accountably that has been settled, the magisterium is accountably to the Word of God whether BY word OR epistle. To whom are you accountable, but self, as you sola interpret scripture? The Traditions of the Church do not contradict the Word of God whether BY word OR epistle. Unlike your tradition of men, “all Traditions are now contained in scripture”, which is in total contradiction of scripture. Where is scripture ALONE in scripture? Where is the scripture saying all Tradition is NOW in scripture? Certainly NOT in SCRIPTURE, they are nothing more than oral tradition of men made a doctrine of God.

It has been a good discussion, I hope you have no hard feelings toward me, I have none toward you. I see you as a brother in Christ, although separated, from the visible union, Christ wills and prayed for in the garden, the night he was betrayed. You may have the last word as I am, God willing, going to Florida Tuesday.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jihargus,

This was an excellent presentation - and, it was a pleasure to read!

Actually, the idea that a case can be stated for written scripture and against oral tradition is simply part of an evasion dance we have seen over and over! Imagine… the first NT writings did not begin until at least 60AD - so most folks would wonder what hapened during this time. And, of course, like you pointed out - St. Paull tells us in several places that he verbally instructed these first Catholics.

You know, on Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit did a lot of things - but one of the things He did not do - was deliver a book! But, notice the Apostles were prepared by Christ to received God’s Word and Christ promised He would not leave us orphans.

Keep up the good work!

JL: Totally wrong, not even close. What the group gathered and SENT by Christ was called at any given time or place does not mater in the lest. What matters is continuity with that One SENT Fellowship. Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT?

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES;

JN 17:18 As thou hast SENT ME into the world, even so have I ALSO SENT THEM into the world. 19 And for their sakes I SANCTIFY MYSELF, THAT THEY ALSO MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE TRUTH. 20 NEITHER PRY I FOR THESE ALONE, but FOR THEM ALSO WHICH shall BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD; 21 THAT THEY all may BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that THOU hast SENT ME.

Christ chose and prayed for one specific VISIBLE SENT group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he sanctified through truth. Hearing their word and being ONE in fellowship, with THEM, **the world may believe

the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world.

Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.

This is the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority, the apostles to TEACH ALL to observe what he taught. They were to go to ALL nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them TILL THE END of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end and Christ knew that. But their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

Apostolic succession thru the sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, by laying of hands gives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to enable an ordained minister to fulfill his mission. [2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, which is IN THEE BY the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, and of love, and of a sound mind.] [Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.]

Titus1:5 FOR THIS CAUSE LEFT I THEE IN CRETE, that THOU SHOULDEST SET IN ORDER the THINGS that are WANTING, AND ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY, AS I had APOINTED THEE.

Titus1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as THE STEWARD OF GOD; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HATH BEEN TAUGHT, THAT he may be able BY SOUND DOCTRINE both to EXHORT and TO CONVINCE the gainsayers.

Titus1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore REBUKE THEM SHARPLY, THAT THEY MAY BE SOUND IN THE FAITH;

Titus2:15 THESE things SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.

Acts14:23 And WHEN THEY HAD ORDAINED them ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts20:28 TAKE HEED therefore unto yourselves, and TO ALL THE FLOCK, over the WHICH THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. CONTINUED:

 

[Roblox84]

REGARDLESS of how a party embraces a position, using Sola Scriptura, the canon would be Scripture.

Allow me to re-post in hopes of bringing some clarification:

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

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

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

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

Evaluation:

IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

… consider that question from the position of The Catholic Church. IT alone simply decalres that IT alone is right. Well, anyone can simply appoint self alone as the sole authority and sole arbiter, and simply designate the views of self as the rule/canon for the evaluations of the views of self. But in that case, self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self; IMHO this has zero relevance to whether self is correct. I can say that Mary lived to the age of 300 and died in San Diego. Now, if I appoint myself as the sole arbiter and appoint my own views (my Tradition) as the rule/canon for the evaluations of my views, then the issue would be I alone conclude that my view agrees with my view? It’s likely I will so conclude, but is that relevant to the issue of correctness? IMHO, that’s not a rubric for norming AT ALL - it simply circumvents the question. In Catholicism, this too is justified since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone cannot err (officially anyway) in matters of faith and morals, so that self alone simply exempts self alone from accountability - and thus the entire issue of norming. “I alone am right because I alone am right thus when I declare that I alone am right I ergo must be right.” Okay, I think we all follow that, but that seems to me to be an evasion of the issue rather than a superior way of determining it.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

And how does you statement even matter? That would be what would happen if that someone was self appointed like in the protestant dominations. But this is not the case since that person was appointed by God himself.

 

[Roblox84]

REGARDLESS of how a party embraces a position, using Sola Scriptura, the canon would be Scripture.

Allow me to re-post in hopes of bringing some clarification:

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

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

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

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

Evaluation:

IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

… consider that question from the position of The Catholic Church. IT alone simply decalres that IT alone is right. Well, anyone can simply appoint self alone as the sole authority and sole arbiter, and simply designate the views of self as the rule/canon for the evaluations of the views of self. But in that case, self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self; IMHO this has zero relevance to whether self is correct. I can say that Mary lived to the age of 300 and died in San Diego. Now, if I appoint myself as the sole arbiter and appoint my own views (my Tradition) as the rule/canon for the evaluations of my views, then the issue would be I alone conclude that my view agrees with my view? It’s likely I will so conclude, but is that relevant to the issue of correctness? IMHO, that’s not a rubric for norming AT ALL - it simply circumvents the question. In Catholicism, this too is justified since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone cannot err (officially anyway) in matters of faith and morals, so that self alone simply exempts self alone from accountability - and thus the entire issue of norming. “I alone am right because I alone am right thus when I declare that I alone am right I ergo must be right.” Okay, I think we all follow that, but that seems to me to be an evasion of the issue rather than a superior way of determining it.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

And whats the point of this statement? That would be what would happen if that someone was self appointed like in the protestant denominations. But this is not the case since that person was appointed by Christ himself.

I find that it is very easy to deny a church’s traditions when they themselves don’t have any traditions.

 

[moondweller]

jlhargus:

JL: [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which YE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, whether BY WORD, OR our EPISTLE. Since you ONLY stand firm and hold Tradition by epistle only. You lay aside the commandment, of God, to hold Traditions whether BY word OR epistle.

I cannot stand firm in something I’ve never heard. Nor can you. But God can certainly hold me accountable to His Word which He has preserved in this world in theopnustos Holy Writ (the way He’s preserved His Word in this world since Moses). And all those who teach will be held accountable to it. This accountability is what SS is about.

JL: I will post the same answer that I posted the last time you made this statement. Oral Tradition is not passed down by word of mouth nor is it passed down infallibly, it is infallibly discerned by the pope and bishops.

As I said in my prior post, Catholics cite 2 Thess. 2:15 as a proof text for “oral Tradition.” There it’s stated “whether by word or letter from us.” Unless you were there you cannot hold to what they taught “by word.” But you can stand firm in what has been Divinely preserved in written form. That verse states absolutely nothing about standing firm and holding to “tradition” mystically “discerned” by Popes and Bishops centuries later. This is a good example of Catholic “Tradition” (that which the Church presently believes and practices) determining what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Contrary to Jude’s appeal for the brethren to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

The assumption of Mary is not explicit, but is implicit in scripture, just as the Trinity is implicit.

Catholics seem to use the phrase “implicit in Scripture” quite liberally. Especially with its Marian dogmas. It’s true the Trinity is implicitly revealed in Scripture since we can see in them that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and each are referred to as separate Persons by the personal pronoun, “He,” and each exercises His own Divine will. This is what is meant by “implicit.” Something taught by clear implication. No such thing can be stated regarding the Scriptures and the supposed “Assumption of Mary.”

REV 12:1 And THERE APPEARED A GREAT WONDER in heaven A WOMAN

In Rev. 12 it’s the “sign” (NASB) that appears in heaven, not the woman. The heavenly “sign” reveals a woman, “clothed with the sun, and the moon under under her feet, and on her head a crown with twelve stars” Obviously this should not be understood literally but symbolically (cf. Gen. 37:9-11). She gives birth to a “male” “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (yet future, see Rev. 19:11-16). Now according to this “sign” it is the “male” who is caught up to heaven, not the woman. She remains on the earth and is persecuted by the dragon and is taken into the wilderness (vss. 13-14). In fact, according to the sign the woman is NEVER seen in heaven but is always seen on earth. So if you insist on interpreting Mary as the woman in Rev. 12, then you must conclude that Mary is NOT in heaven but still on earth. But Mary is in heaven and still awaiting the resurrection of her body unto glory along with all the other saints who have died in Christ (Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:15-18).

Nowhere is Mary ever revealed as the “ark of the New Covenant.” Such would be a misnomer since it is revealed that Jesus is not Himself the New Covenant but the “Mediator” of it, and that not through His birth but His sacrificial, substitutionary death (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). In fact very little is said about Mary in the Scriptures; reason being the Christian faith is about Christ.

You see, JL, this is another good example of Catholic Tradition (that which the Church presently believes and practices) determining what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. IOW, forcing the Scriptures to say what it believes rather than believe what the Scriptures have to say. The content and context of the text eluded and the meaning of the text made to conform to one’s own peculiar belief. Thereby fulfilling the adage, “Every text taken out of context is a pretext” (often practiced by cults)

JL: I have no problem with those things in this statement that are authentically Catholic. As far as accountably that has been settled, the magisterium is accountably to the Word of God whether BY word OR epistle.

Unless your “magisterium” was actually there they have no idea what was actually taught by the Apostles “by word.” It’s really as simple as that.

Sola Scriptura, OTOH, holds all teachers (no matter what or high the “clerical” position) accountable to the written Word of God: The theopneustos Scriptures.

It has been a good discussion, I hope you have no hard feelings toward me, I have none toward you. I see you as a brother in Christ, although separated, from the visible union, Christ wills and prayed for in the garden, the night he was betrayed. You may have the last word as I am, God willing, going to Florida Tuesday.

There’s no Internet in Florida (wink). I hold absolutely no animosity toward you or any Catholic. It is what you say, “a good discussion,” and it is always good to discuss these matters. There was a time when such things could not be discussed so openly and I commend the Catholic Answers Forum moderators for allowing it to go the distance.
[/QUOTE]

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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

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

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

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

Evaluation:

IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

… consider that question from the position of The Catholic Church. IT alone simply decalres that IT alone is right. Well, anyone can simply appoint self alone as the sole authority and sole arbiter, and simply designate the views of self as the rule/canon for the evaluations of the views of self. But in that case, self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self; IMHO this has zero relevance to whether self is correct. I can say that Mary lived to the age of 300 and died in San Diego. Now, if I appoint myself as the sole arbiter and appoint my own views (my Tradition) as the rule/canon for the evaluations of my views, then the issue would be I alone conclude that my view agrees with my view? It’s likely I will so conclude, but is that relevant to the issue of correctness? IMHO, that’s not a rubric for norming AT ALL - it simply circumvents the question. In Catholicism, this too is justified since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone cannot err (officially anyway) in matters of faith and morals, so that self alone simply exempts self alone from accountability - and thus the entire issue of norming. “I alone am right because I alone am right thus when I declare that I alone am right I ergo must be right.” Okay, I think we all follow that, but that seems to me to be an evasion of the issue rather than a superior way of determining it.

I hope that helps.

.

And how does you statement even matter?

… only if you think truth matters.

That would be what would happen if that someone was self appointed like in the protestant dominations. But this is not the case since that person was appointed by God himself.

I reject self exempting self from accountability and that that praxis mandates that that self is infallible.

IF one is going to claim that there is one teacher (self exclusively) that is infallible/ incapable of error in these matters, unaccountable/ exempt from norming BECAUSE Jesus particularly, exclusively and perpetually declared self alone to be thus - then we’d need a quote from Him where He states that.

.

 

[Pax]

A weekness in the arguments for sola scriptura involves how the word of scripture is taught. Clearly, holy writ can be, and often is, taught incorrectly. The multitude of conflicting doctrines and teachings within Christian circles illustrates the problem.

Scripture speaks of oral tradition and if holy writ is to be taken seriously that point cannot be ignored or glossed over. Scripture makes the point about traditions in a couple of places which have been mentioned in previous posts. One scripture that is often over looked, however, is Titus 1:7-9 where Paul speaks of bishops. In that verse Paul says the following:

For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;** he must hold firm to the sure word as taught**, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

The areas in bold and those underlined are very important. Note the reference to the bishop as God’s steward. As such, he must hold to the “sure word as taught.” The sure word is scripture and the bishop must hold to it “as taught.” The “as taught” phrase is where sola scriptura utterly falls apart. Scripture alone without the bishops protecting its lessons “as taught” is to have scripture with numerous diverging and often contradictory understandings. The bishops are needed to give instruction in sound doctrine and to confute those that contradict “the sure word as taught.”

The “sure word as taught” is completely undermined by sola scriptura. The practical and obvious truth of that statement is found in the plethora of conflicting doctrines within Christian circles. Sola scriptura does not work and the entire concept is in opposition to scripture itself.

I hope this helps.

 

[joe370]

Jon, you said:

Chaos seemed to be the case 500 years before the Reformation.

Prior to the protestant reformation there were 2 churches (embracing SS and ST with each respective church leadership as the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - with some doctrinal differences. 500 years after the protestant reformation, we now see thousands of PC’s (embracing Sacred Scripture with each respective Christian as the final authority) - with doctrinal differences. Jon, why do you think that the east - west schism (over a 500 year period) - lead to 2 isolated, autonomous churches while the PR (over a 500 year period) - led to hundreds and hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches? The chaos hardly seems proportional.

 

[Bengoshi]

Don’t interpet it, JUST READ IT AND APPLY IT TO YOUR LIFE! I’m saying read it an apply it PERIOD!

That’s exactly what we “Protestants” do. We just read and apply the words of the Bible. We don’t add to what Scripture says or does not say.

 

[joe370]

That’s exactly what we “Protestants” do. We just read and apply the words of the Bible. We don’t add to what Scripture says or does not say.

Ben do you believe that the bible alone (as opposed to people interpreting the bible and teaching other people) - is each and every Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences? If so, then where in the bible does the bible say that?