Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=joe370;6336598]Hey Jon…

Absolutely not, just as some of the practices of Martin Luther were not OK.

OK. Not sure this is the thread to ask what practices of ML were not ok. Bt there are certainly somethings he did and taught that I reject, or am conflicted about.

Jon, could you provide some historical examples of the Lutheran church referring to itself as the CC? I will dig in and do a little research myself. Why would they claim to belong to the CC in light of the fact that the Lutheran church is a separate assembly?

Rmemeber, Joe, I said they claimed to be catholic, and initially they did not see themselves as outside the Catholic Church, though that did come later. I’d recommend reading the preface to the Augsburg Confession, and also the conclusion, which includes this statement:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

Of course the LC is part of the Mystical Body to which Jesus is the head and Savior, just as all PC’s are, but they certainly don’t belong to the CC or the LC per se - right? Jon, why do you think that the church founded by God eventually adopted the name catholic as opposed to calling the church the apostolic Christian church? I did quite a bit of research on this long ago, and no doubt you did too.

I think you are correct in your statement, that we are divided into various institutional groups, sadly in schism one from another.
Actually, I’d be interested in what you found regarding catholic vis-a-vis Christian.

Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

.

You are imposing the RCC assumption upon others who don’t share it.

IF you actually want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. As you know, this one is about the embraced norma normans in norming.

You seem to be confusing self declaring self to be correct because self declares that self CANNOT be incorrect with that self being correct. Spend some time studying the LDS and the cults, especially in the area of epistemology, it will be very helpful to you

Reflections and suggestions concerning ecumenical dialogue, 15 August, 1970

“It was meant to stimulate personal reflection and invited analysis, discussion and criticism.”

“In spite of certain appearances, modern man seeks for dialogue as a privileged means of establishing and developing mutual understanding, esteem, respect and love, whether between groups or between individuals. For this reason he is eager to make ever greater use of it at all levels of his life, political, social, economic, educational and religious.”

"…the initiatives of the sons of the Catholic Church, joined with those of the seperated brethren, go forward without obstructing the ways of divine Providence and without prejudging the future inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"Ecumenical dialogue will be conducted between the participants as between equals. Everything that has been said about the nature, aim and bases of this dialogue, notably concerning reciprococity and mutual commitment, provides a basis for this attitude of equality."

 

[moondweller]

See what?

That’s exactly what I mean.

Agreed.

Simply agreeing gets you nowhere.

 

[joe370]

That’s exactly what I mean. Simply agreeing gets you nowhere.

I have no idea what you are talking about… There is not much for us to debate because you believe that anyone can start a church and teach, evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences, just as long as everyone adheres to the essentials (which of course, people do not) - as opposed to the non-essentials, (what ever those are) - according to a post of yours.

If the bible is the Christians final authority, and everything that is necessary for a Christian is found in the bible, then please identify the list of essentials and the list of non-essential, found in the bible. Please, don’t give me your opinion; substantiate your claim by giving me the passages in the bible that enumerate the essentials vs the non-essentials; that way you and I can merge, doctrinally speaking. As far as I know, those passages of essentials vs non-essentials do not exist in the holy bible.

No need to be defensive, like you have been in the past a few times. Just because we belong to different churches and have different beliefs doesn’t mean we can’t be amicable - right? If you knew me, you would know that I believe that love respect and charity is the key, when people simply cannot agree. If we can’t agree, then we can certainly agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,

Once again, I am still of the position that the bible “is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”[2 tim 3:16-17]. This passage is the clearest and most encompassing statement in the bible concerning scripture itself. The statement makes no claim concerning scripture being “all sufficient for salvation.”

Well first of all you have “all sufficient for salvation.” in quotes. I don’t know who you are quoting here, but it certainly isn’t me. We are not saved by scripture, we are not saved by a church, we are not saved by tradition. We are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ period. Also let’s take a closer look at 2 Timothy. Only let’s start at v. 10

10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Paul here talks of persecutions that he has endured because of his teaching of the gospel. (The word of God)

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Paul here talks of evil men who will try to decieve you, but that we should continue in the things that we have learned (from him and scripture) and of whom thou hast learned them.
What are these things and of whom do they teach?

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The scriptures which Timothy knew (being a Jew) from his childhood spoke to him of Jesus Christ and **“are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” **

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

These vs. only reenforce the fact that Jesus Christ is the only means of our salvation and that He is manefested in the WORD OF GOD, the bible.

Reminds me of Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

You will notice that the gifts given here are given to facilitate the Preaching of the WORD OF GOD and are given 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

So 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Scripture does, however, make other statements concerning the church that tell me that the Church is an important player in our salvation.

The churches’ only role in salvation is to bring the WORD OF GOD to the world. Which is the manifestation of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and thereby bring salvation to them through Him.

Scripture also speaks of tradition and those statements tell me that tradition is an important player in our salvation.

The word tradition occurs 13 times in scripture. All but two are used negatively such as

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The two positive uses are
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
and
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
There is nothing to indicate in these two verses that the traditions that Paul taught were anything other than the “WORD” taught by epistle and what Paul taught by epistle was Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

Scripture is materially sufficient but the material of scripture tells me that there are things like tradition and the church that are important to salvation as well as scripture itself. This restrains me from saying that scripture is “all sufficient for salvation.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “materially sufficient”, but again we are not saved by scripture. Scripture is the manefestation of what **is **necessary outo salvation and that is faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, you refuse to answer my question regarding who or what has the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences when they arise

… the shell game continues, my brother. Friend, if you want to discuss arbitration, then start a thread on arbitration (this must be at least the 20th time I’ve recommended that). CatholicAnswers does not permit hijacking of a thread, we are not permitted to take the thread off topic.

Friend, this thread is not about hermeneutics. This thread is not about the arbitration of issues. This thread is not about your disapproval of self designating self as the sole authoritative and infallable interpreter (which only your denomination does) it’s about the embraced norma normans in the norming of doctrines.

My brother, do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these, then you have embraced accountablity for all - including The Catholic Church no less than all others, and the norming of the doctrines among us. The ONLY QUESTION of this thread is this: WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for this norming?

You may not answer that question (at least vis-a-vis the doctrines taught by The Catholic Church) because it rejects any and all, for it rejects the norming and accountability of the teachings of it and it itself alone, exclusively. It rather insists that all just accept whatever it and it itself alone says with docility. THAT is why we are disagreeing, it all comes down to The Catholic Church’s stand that all OTHERS are fully, wholly accountable for what they teach - right here, right now - and yes, it has an embraced norma normans for THEM, but it alone makes one remarkable exception to this demand: itself, exclusively. You and the other Catholics here have been doing what you must: SOMEHOW try to justify this remarkable 180. You do so in the same basic way that the LDS as well as all the cults do the same thing, as they too reject accountability for self exclusively and thus reject Sola Scriptura.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus never left the church that He founded on earth, according to the bible.

it all comes down to The Catholic Church’s stand that all OTHERS are fully, wholly accountable for what they teach - right here, right now - and yes, it has an embraced norma normans for THEM, but it alone makes one remarkable exception to this demand: itself, exclusively. You and the other Catholics here have been doing what you must: SOMEHOW try to justify this remarkable 180. You do so in the same basic way that the LDS as well as all the cults do the same thing, as they too reject accountability for self exclusively and thus reject Sola Scriptura.

You might notice what all others do: The Catholic Church is never so much as even MENTIONED in the Scriptures. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in regard to anything. Never promised anything, never authorized anything. No, Jesus never said He’d be with The Catholic Church - then, now or ever. And to be “with” doesn’t mean infalliblity or unaccountability.

If the bible (doctrinal truth) - is the infallible word of God then the same standard (applied to the CC) - must apply to authors that penned the word of God

Moot to the issue here. Do we need to regard the driving laws of the State of California to be infallible in order to use such as the rule/canon (The Rule of Law)? But I disagree with your theology. The Bible is not inerrant because the authors were. If that was the case, we’d need to know who the penmen all are - and in reality, we largely don’t know. We’d have to reject 1 and 2 Peter because Jesus often corrected Peter and once called him “Satan!” No, I agree with The Catholic Church here and disagree with you. The Author of Scripture is God (which, btw, is why it’s called “Scripture”). Here’s how The Handbook of the Catholic Faith puts it on page 136, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater assurance of credence is possible. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God guided the penmen to write as He wished.” Later, it remarks, “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is God, it is inerrant because the Author is.” I agree. But let’s try to return to the issue of this thread.

My friend and unseparated brother, do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions (and I realize as a faithful Catholic you may not, and I respect that - it IS the basis of our disagreement), then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches - no less than any other, and you have just embraced accountability and norming. The ONLY issue of this thread is this: What is the most sound norma normans for the norming of these doctrimes among us? As a Catholic, you have no options (at least vis-a-vis Catholic doctrine) because you may not embrace the accountability/norming of those teachings (and thus ANY norma normans in such), The Catholic Church alone insists that you rather just accept whatever it alone says with docility. You are the one defending that epistemology as the most sound way to determine the correctness of a doctrine.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

Some Scriptures suggesting teachers of doctrine are accountable:

2 Peter 2:1
Titus 2:1
1 Timothy 6:3
Revelation 2:2
James 3:1
Matthew 13:52
Luke 20:46
Ephesians 4:14

There are no Scriptures that indicate that The Catholic Church - specifically, excluisvely, solely and perpetually - is exempt from this, and that whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be accepted as correct with docility.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[moondweller]

I have no idea what you are talking about…

I know you don’t.

If the bible is the Christians final authority, and everything that is necessary for a Christian is found in the bible, then please identify the list of essentials and the list of non-essential, found in the bible. Please, don’t give me your opinion; substantiate your claim by giving me the passages in the bible that enumerate the essentials vs the non-essentials; that way you and I can merge, doctrinally speaking. As far as I know, those passages of essentials vs non-essentials do not exist in the holy bible.

Which is why you reject SS and instead ascribe infallibility to men (embracing their claim to it). Either way you conveniently exempt yourself of any personal accountability, don’t you?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If the bible is the Christians final authority, and everything that is necessary for a Christian is found in the bible, then please identify the list of essentials and the list of non-essential, found in the bible. Please, don’t give me your opinion; substantiate your claim by giving me the passages in the bible that enumerate the essentials vs the non-essentials; that way you and I can merge, doctrinally speaking. As far as I know, those passages of essentials vs non-essentials do not exist in the holy bible.

Jn.3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is what is needed “necessary”. But why in the world would God include everything that is not needed for mankind. That would be like if you were making a list of everything needed to build an atomic bomb and included everything you didn’t need to build it. Doesn’t make any sense and that is why God didn’t include everything not needed for our salvation in the bible.

 

[Pax]

Well first of all you have “all sufficient for salvation.” in quotes. I don’t know who you are quoting here, but it certainly isn’t me. We are not saved by scripture, we are not saved by a church, we are not saved by tradition. We are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ period. Also let’s take a closer look at 2 Timothy. Only let’s start at v. 10

The churches’ only role in salvation is to bring the WORD OF GOD to the world. Which is the manifestation of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and thereby bring salvation to them through Him.

The word tradition occurs 13 times in scripture. All but two are used negatively such as

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The two positive uses are
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
and
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
There is nothing to indicate in these two verses that the traditions that Paul taught were anything other than the “WORD” taught by epistle and what Paul taught by epistle was Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

…
…

I’m not sure what you mean by “materially sufficient”, but again we are not saved by scripture. Scripture is the manefestation of what **is **necessary outo salvation and that is faith in Jesus Christ.

Richard in Christ,

This thread is about “sola scriptura” and it is not a debate about whether or not we are saved by the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord. We agree on the latter but not on the former. You have, indeed, argued that scripture is “all sufficient” for salvation and this is what you and I have been disagreeing on. Neither of us is arguing this against the sacrifice of Jesus our Lord and Savior.

Materially sufficient vs. “all sufficient” boils down to what scripture is able to provide us “as raw data” verses what scripture can provide us with in conjunction with the church and tradition. If I could understand everything in scripture perfectly and could fully and perfectly comprehend scripture in its totality, then I wouldn’t need either tradition or the church. Scripture, is, however, as Peter points out, not always easy to understand and he also indicates that no scripture is up for individual interpretation. When we read these things, particularly in light of what scripture says about the church and tradition, we begin to see that scripture is materially sufficient but not “all sufficient.” We need scripture, we need tradition, and we need the Church for the salvation that is provided by the sacrifice of Jesus. Likewise, we need grace and we need faith. None of these things are mutually exclusive.

We know that not all tradition is contained in scripture because scripture tells us so. Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 to follow the traditions whether they be by letter or word of mouth. Moreover, Paul does not limit either the letters or word of mouth to simply the apostolic age or to those things written down in scipture as if scripture records all of the word of mouth traditions. Futhermore, when new problems or heresies arose(pick a heresy—arianism, docetism, gnosticism etc.) the Church answered them by both letter(encyclicals, council documents etc.) and by word. Sola scriptura, as taught and practiced in non-Catholic circles, cannot do this and is in fact opposed to it because it gives commensurate authority to do so to the Church.

Only the church is qualified to answer these problems as they arise. Only the church is in the proper position to take the “material of scripture” and to properly interpret it using tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to solve these problems as they arise. Those that wish to argue with the Church advocate “sola scriptura” in so far as it allows them to dismiss/diminish the position and authority of the Church and the role of tradition in guiding the flock. If this were not the case, IMHO, we would never have discussions about authority and we would all be one flock.

The pitting of scripture against the authority of the Church and the place of tradition is for me unbiblical and illogical. The pitting of individual interpretation of scripture against the authority of the church and the place of tradition is also unbiblical and illogical. Moreover, placing the individual anywhere in the pecking order of authority seems to me to be erroneous. As I study I realize just how ignorant and inadequate my own understandings really are compared to those of the church. I used to be a cafeteria Catholic and thought that I knew better than the Church on certain issues. I was brought to my knees by grace and humbled in the realization of just how wrong I happened to be.

I hope this helps.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,
This thread is about “sola scriptura” and it is not a debate about whether or not we are saved by the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord. We agree on the latter but not on the former. You have, indeed, argued that scripture is “all sufficient” for salvation and this is what you and I have been disagreeing on. Neither of us is arguing this against the sacrifice of Jesus our Lord and Savior.

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Well, the way I see it the topic is “defense of Sola Scriptura” Which means the bible alone. Alone for what? Well to manifest to us the way of salvation and our little discussion seems absolutely germain to that topic, but I see our conversation reaching it’s conclusion soon anyways, so the point is moot.

Pax, this is a post from page 70. This is what I think sola scriptura means and that is that it is all sufficient to** manifest **to us the means of salvation. Not as the means of salvation itself. You once said that we may be talking past one another. Well misquoting one another certainly does nothing to alleviate that problem. I would appreciate it if you would be a little more scrupulous in what you say that I said. So I don’t have to waste a bunch of time and typing defendig against things I did not say. I can see that I was wrong in thinking that our discussion was reaching a conclusion, as this post seems to indicate there is still much to say but misquoting certainly will not facilitate that discussion. If you can agree to this then we can continue, if not then I see no reason to waste our time.

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=moondweller;6341615]I know you don’t.

Still don’t know what you are talking about.

Which is why you reject SS and instead ascribe infallibility to men (embracing their claim to it). Either way you conveniently exempt yourself of any personal accountability, don’t you?

I’ll give it one more shot. No ONE is infallible, which included the Apostles. If you are being accountable by not claiming to teach infallibly or interpret the bible infallibly, then why should I believe what you believe? I am being genuinely serious! If this is the case then your beliefs are just as fallible as my beliefs or the beliefs of any church leadership, for that matter, including the CC. Where does that leave us regarding the infallible teaching found in the infallible Bible, interpreted by all fallible people?

What the world is left with (if you are right) - is the infallible bible in the hands of each and every fallible person, all of which are being guided by the infallible holy spirit into all revealed truth? Is this what you are saying?

 

[joe370]

Jn.3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is what is needed “necessary”.

 

[joe370]

Josiah, you said:

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Josiah, you refuse to answer my question regarding who or what has the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences when they arise

… the shell game continues, my brother. Friend, if you want to discuss arbitration, then start a thread on arbitration (this must be at least the 20th time I’ve recommended that). CatholicAnswers does not permit hijacking of a thread, we are not permitted to take the thread off topic.

Friend, this thread is not about hermeneutics. This thread is not about the arbitration of issues. This thread is not about your disapproval of self designating self as the sole authoritative and infallable interpreter (which only your denomination does) it’s about the embraced norma normans in the norming of doctrines.

If one is going to defend the authority of SS, then what I am asking is quite relevant. I even asked you to PM me but you won’t, so I will start a thread and stop addressing the matter here.

My brother, do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these, then you have embraced accountablity for all - including The Catholic Church no less than all others, and the norming of the doctrines among us.

OK…So, unless one admits to teaching fallibly, one cannot be considered accountable; is that what you are saying?

The ONLY QUESTION of this thread is this: WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for this norming?

So, you are saying that the holy bible is the most sound norma normans among us for this norming? The fact that the holy bible, as the most sound norma normans among us for this norming, has led to division, matters naught? It’s the best solution in the Christian world where authority, regarding doctrinal differences, no longer exists, other than, in the Bible, which is the only sound norma normans? Is this what you are suggesting?

 

[guanophore]

So, you are saying that the holy bible is the most sound norma normans among us for this norming? The fact that the holy bible, as the most sound norma normans among us for this norming, has led to division, matters naught? It’s the best solution in the Christian world where authority, regarding doctrinal differences, no longer exists, other than, in the Bible, which is the only sound norma normans? Is this what you are suggesting?

I disagree that “the Bible has led to division”. I think what has caused the division is that the persons reading and interpreting it have departed from the Apostolic Teachings when doing so. The Bible, produced by, for, and about the Catholic Church, cannot be properly understood apart from the Source from which it is created.

When the Reformers separated from the Apostolic Teaching about 500 years ago, interpretations of the Scripture that diverted from that which was committed to the Church began to multiply. We see the fruit of the Reformation today - separation and division. We know the tree by it’s fruits.

 

[Pax]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Well, the way I see it the topic is “defense of Sola Scriptura” Which means the bible alone. Alone for what? Well to manifest to us the way of salvation and our little discussion seems absolutely germain to that topic, but I see our conversation reaching it’s conclusion soon anyways, so the point is moot.

Pax, this is a post from page 70. This is what I think sola scriptura means and that is that it is all sufficient to** manifest **to us the means of salvation. Not as the means of salvation itself. You once said that we may be talking past one another. Well misquoting one another certainly does nothing to alleviate that problem. I would appreciate it if you would be a little more scrupulous in what you say that I said. So I don’t have to waste a bunch of time and typing defendig against things I did not say. I can see that I was wrong in thinking that our discussion was reaching a conclusion, as this post seems to indicate there is still much to say but misquoting certainly will not facilitate that discussion. If you can agree to this then we can continue, if not then I see no reason to waste our time.

Richard in Christ,

I did not misquote you, but I appreciate the clarification of what it is that you meant in some of your previous posts. Perhaps, I am a bit dull in picking up on the point as intended. Sometimes my brain processes through the filters unfairly, and I readily apologize for that.

I would still contend, however, that we have not moved the obstacle very far one way or the other. I am not at all convinced that scripture is all sufficient for manifesting to us the means to salvation. In one or two of your posts you made a conclusion associated with manifesting the means of salvation in terms of “sola fide” which you and I already showed some disagreement on. ISTM, that it’s necessary to think about this in terms of sola scriptura as you defined it as all sufficient. Even if some people accept your definition of sola scriptura and thus follow their understandings accordingly, we still find huge divides among the believers. These diverse beliefs include such things as sola fide, baptism, OSAS, contraception, sin, etc, ad infinitum.

It seems to me that our disagreement remains. IMHO, scripture simply does not stand alone for manifesting to us the means of salvation, let alone all of the other things that hinge upon our understandings of Jesus and the salvation he provides. Scripture, tradition, and the church are all necessary for the fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.

God bless.

P.S. Richard, you are obviously a sincere and gentle soul that knows how to engage people in serious discussion. Give praise to God for that gift.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,

It seems to me that our disagreement remains. IMHO, scripture simply does not stand alone for manifesting to us the means of salvation, let alone all of the other things that hinge upon our understandings of Jesus and the salvation he provides. Scripture, tradition, and the church are all necessary for the fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.

God bless.

P.S. Richard, you are obviously a sincere and gentle soul that knows how to engage people in serious discussion. Give praise to God for that gift.

In a previous post I wrote

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Hear this well Pax.
1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The witness that John talks about here is THE WORD OF GOD. It says in v. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: The word of God is Jesus.
Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, So, if you have the witness in yourself. You have Jesus dwelling in you because you have THE WORD OF GOD dwelling in you. And when we BELIEVE in Jesus Christ THE WORD OF GOD. We have eternal life. Let me ask you Pax. What can you, your church, or any man give that is needed more than this? All that mankind needs is to come to a faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and recieve eternal life and this is clearly pointed out in THE WORD OF GOD as I have pointed out here in 1 Jn. 5.

Pax, You say: “Scripture, tradition, and the church are all necessary for the fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” I have pointed out several scriptures that point to Jesus as our only means of salvation, so I agree with you on scripture. If as you say tradition and the church are also necessary for the “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” Where can I find this. If there is a “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” exclusive of scripture and is found only in the CC or in the CC’s tradition and is more than that found in scripture ie. Jn. 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Where is it? What is it? Don’t you think that that should have been one of the first things you should have posted.

Here’s 1Jn.5:9,10 again

1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

What is “the record that God gave” is it not the WORD OF GOD, the bible. So let me ask you again Pax. What can you, your church, or any man (I would add your churchs’ tradition) give that is needed more than this?

 

[Pax]

In a previous post I wrote

Pax, You say: “Scripture, tradition, and the church are all necessary for the fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” I have pointed out several scriptures that point to Jesus as our only means of salvation, so I agree with you on scripture. If as you say tradition and the church are also necessary for the “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” Where can I find this. If there is a “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” exclusive of scripture and is found only in the CC or in the CC’s tradition and is more than that found in scripture ie. Jn. 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Where is it? What is it? Don’t you think that that should have been one of the first things you should have posted.

Here’s 1Jn.5:9,10 again

1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

What is “the record that God gave” is it not the WORD OF GOD, the bible. So let me ask you again Pax. What can you, your church, or any man (I would add your churchs’ tradition) give that is needed more than this?

Richard in Christ,

I already answered your question by pointing to the actions taken by the first council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts. They made a decision on circumcision that was not found in scripture.

Likewise, I answered the question when I pointed out that scripture did not self assemble, and that it was the Church that determined the canon of scripture. It was the Church that separated the inspired word of God from other writings that were not inspired.

The canon of scripture comes to us as tradition established by Church decree and is not to be violated.

I also answered this question in pointing out that only the Church can decide upon problems and issues between believers per Matt 17:18.

I also answered this question by pointing to the church solving the problems with heresies which is something scripture cannot do when it comes to competing interpretations of scripture that are used to justify heretical ideas versus the truth.

Your question has also been answered by the fact that scripture tells us to follow oral traditions but does not list those oral traditions. Only the Church can protect, provide, and apply those teachings that came through by oral tradition as opposed to those things written by letter.

Your question has also been answered by the fact that scripture tells us that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The truth of scripture needs the pillar and bulwark of the truth, i.e. the church, to provide the “sure word as taught.”

Your question has also been answered by the evidence of untold numbers of conflicting teachings and divisions in Christianity that result from individual interpretation of scripture that conflict with the “sure word as taught.”

Your question has also been answered by the evidence of scripture’s own witness where Peter says that “Paul’s letters have things in them that are difficult to understand” and that “no prophecy[teaching] of scripture is a matter of individual interpretation.”

I also answered your question by way of my discussion about the Bereans vis-a-vis the Jews at the synagogue in Thessalonica.

I can also answer your question by asking you a question or two:

Where in scripture does it give the correct interpretation of scripture?

Where in scripture does it tell you how many books and which books should or should not be in the bible?

If you wish to find out about the teachings provided that represent the fullness of truth simply read all of the Church’s proclamations and decisions throughout the ages that must be held by all of the faithful. I will give you one very clear example of the modern era where only one Church remained faithful to Christian “tradition”, and then you decide based on that example if what I’m saying is making sense.

All Christian denominations were united in their condemnation of contraception until the 20th century. Around 1930 the Anglican Communion broke ranks and taught that contraception was acceptable for married couples, and it was only a short while until all but the Catholic Church went along with them. Today virtually all non-Catholic Christian groups approve of contraception. Only the Catholic Church remains faithful to Christian Tradition in its teachings on this issue. Scripture has not been helpful to non-Catholic Christians on this issue whereas the constant teaching by way of tradition would if it were given the weight it deserves.

God bless.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

All Christian denominations were united in their condemnation of contraception until the 20th century. Around 1930 the Anglican Communion broke ranks and taught that contraception was acceptable for married couples, and it was only a short while until all but the Catholic Church went along with them. Today virtually all non-Catholic Christian groups approve of contraception. Only the Catholic Church remains faithful to Christian Tradition in its teachings on this issue. Scripture has not been helpful to non-Catholic Christians on this issue whereas the constant teaching by way of tradition would if it were given the weight it deserves.

The Catholic Church uses the Billings’ Method as a form of contraception, and has done so for many years. This is not a new method but a method re-discovered.

 

[Pax]

Kevin in Christ,

The Billings Method and all forms of natural family planning do not fall into the category of “contraception” as used in this discussion. Moreover, methods such as the one you mentioned can actually be used to improve the chances of conception. Natural family planning methods can, however, be abused. The details of all of this is probably best left to another thread.

God bless.