Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

So, the knowledge of this decision (that is found in scripture) is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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.

So, the knowledge of who assembled the cannon is needed over and above the sacrifce of Christ?

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

So, scripture is tradition and subject to the whims of man (can be changed to suit him)?

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

So, this knowledge is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ? And how does
Matt17:18And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Point out this “fact”.

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.

So, the churchs’ solving of problems with heresies is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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.

So, you are saying this “fact” is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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.”

And you are saying that this “fact” is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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.”

This “evidence” is also needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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.”

So, the fact that some writings are hard to understand and they are not to be interpreted under our own authority is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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

So, the fact that the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonicans and "searched the scriptures whether those things were so. Acts17:11 is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

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

You cannot answer a question with a question.

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

You can’t point to one thing and say here is the interpretation of “scripture”. The “scripture” I’m assuming you are talking about is the bible. The bible is a book. A very large book covering many thing, all one way or another pointing to Jesus. We can’t point to one of those scriptures and say “This is the interpretation of the bible.” The bible does however tell us how to arrive at correct interpretations.
1Cor.2: 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Isaiah 28:13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

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

What does this have to do with whether or not scripture is all sufficient to manefest to us the only means of salvation. JESUS CHRIST.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

All those faithful to your church.

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.

I don’t understand what all this has to do with the question of sola scriptura.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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?

1. Yes, I affirm that Scripture is the most sound norma normans among us.
2. Yes, those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative (better or worse) but because each alone declares each alone to be incapable of error (in these matters) and thus that self uniquely and exclusively is exempt from accountability and norming; thus ANY rule/canon is moot in the singular case of self exclusively. In fact, in many cases, they go so far as to say that if Scripture (or any norm outside of self) seems to disagree with itself, then that’s Scripture’s problem (or at least your interpretation of it) since God cannot disagree with itself or God would be wrong.
3. Actually, my study of the epistemology of those that rejects Sola Scriptura (and in each case, any other rule/canon too) has lead to much GREATER diversity of teachings. You could compare Luther to Calvin - both accepting accountability according to Scripture - to say the RCC and LDS - both rejecting such, and I think you’d come to teh same conclusion I did: Submission to the same rule/canon that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, all parties - knowable to all and alterable by none, is preferrable to each declaring itself alone to just be incapable of being wrong and thus is right.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

Hey JonNC, I said to Josiah:

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?

Josiah responded with:

1. Yes, I affirm that Scripture is the most sound norma normans among us.

1. Yes, those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative (better or worse) but because each alone declares each alone to be incapable of error (in these matters) and thus that self uniquely and exclusively is exempt from accountability and norming; thus ANY rule/canon is moot in the singular case of self exclusively. In fact, in many cases, they go so far as to say that if Scripture (or any norm outside of self) seems to disagree with itself, then that’s Scripture’s problem (or at least your interpretation of it) since God cannot disagree with itself or God would be wrong.

1. Actually, my study of the epistemology of those that rejects Sola Scriptura (and in each case, any other rule/canon too) has lead to much GREATER diversity of teachings. You could compare Luther to Calvin - both accepting accountability according to Scripture - to say the RCC and LDS - both rejecting such, and I think you’d come to teh same conclusion I did: Submission to the same rule/canon that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, all parties - knowable to all and alterable by none, is preferrable to each declaring itself alone to just be incapable of being wrong and thus is right.

Do you agree with him? What I have surmised from his response is:

1. Scripture, as the most sound norma normans, is not the final authority for arbitrating, evaluating and resolving differences, which begs the question: who or what is, to which you said: it’s not individual interpretation but the church leadership to which each Christian belongs - right? If that is the case, then no one church leadership rejects the Rule of Scripture; they embrace it and use it to teach authoritatively - right?
2. Churches such as CC, LDS, EOC Anglican, as well as all the cults, declare each alone to be incapable of error (in the matters of doctrinal truth) and thus self uniquely and exclusively is exempt from accountability and norming; thus ANY rule/canon is moot in the singular case of self exclusively…

Only those churches that claim to teach erroneously (as opposed to the CC, LDS, EOC Anglican as well as all the cults) - regarding the revealed truths of Jesus, to His fledgling church, are being accountable, yet, in the end, it is the leaders of each respective autonomous church that arbitrate, evaluate and resolve doctrinal differences, not the holy bible via individual interpretation. Most Protestant churches have never even heard of norma normans.

1. Every Protestant church that embraces the Eucharist as a mere symbol goes so far as to say: If Scripture (or any norm outside of self) seems to disagree with itself, then that’s Scripture’s problem; I am teaching infallibly regarding doctrinal truth, found in the bible, including the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist.
2. Do you agree with the following: “those that reject Sola Scriptura…has lead to much GREATER diversity of teachings?”
3. “You could compare Luther to Calvin - both accepting accountability according to Scripture” - yet both came away from Sacred Scripture as their final authority, with different doctrinal truths. Calvin believed that the wine and the bread were merely symbols, and Luther believe just the opposite. Who or what has the authority to resolve this matter, once and for all? The holy bible certainly didn’t work. I certainly wouldn’t say that these 2 men were both being accountable; would you?
4. Submission to the same rule/canon (in other words, the Bible as the Christians final authority ) - that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, all parties - (all isolated, autonomous church leadership) - knowable to all (each respective Christian) - and alterable by none, is preferable to each respective church leadership declaring itself alone to be incapable of being wrong and thus is right. Which means that each and every respective church leadership, regardless of denomination, could very well be wrong about anything, and therefore, untrustworthy. Submission to the holy bible (rule/canon) - which is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, all parties - (all isolated, autonomous church leadership) - can only be trusted. Do you see the problem that I see with that line of thinking?

It is my view that the Bible as the final authority for each and every individual Christian, is what has led to brand new churches founded by men, declaring that they possess error free doctrine, (eg the Eucharist is a mere symbol) - regarding the teachings of the holy bible. Jon, do you believe that the holy bible is the Christians final authority in light of the fact that you said:

*“For Catholics, it is the pope and Magisterium. For LCMS, it is the Lutheran Confessions and the leaders of our synod. Orthodoxy relies on its Bishops, I would think, in much the same way. In the end, many of us rely on the Church, as it is developed and practiced in the institutional organization to which we belong, and not individual interpretation.”
*

 

[joe370]

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.

Agreed. The fact that the INDIVIDUAL interpretation of the holy bible…has led to division…

 

[guanophore]

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, the Word of God is not confined to the Holy Scriptures. His "Word is alive and well in the Church just as it is in the pages of the Holy Writ. He committed His Word to the Apostles, and He authorized them to preach it, and teach it, and they did so for centuries before the Bible was ever formed. His Word did not cease to be present in the Church after the Bible was formed.

Jesus does not do things that are unnecessary. He formed the Church to lead us to salvation. It is through the Church that His graces are made present to the world.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a false statement for two reasons. One is that the Catholic Church cannot become pregnant, and therefore, cannot use contraception in any form.

The other is that the Church does not teach or approve any form of contraception at any time, for any reason. Contraception is contrary to the apostolic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

So, the knowledge of this decision (that is found in scripture) is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

By His death and resurrection, He has set us free. We are most free when we are obedient. All authority was given to Him, and He entrusted it to His Apostles. Waht is needed over and over apparently is the reminder that the Church has the God given authority to make these decisions. This is true in every age, until the church is taken up.

So, the knowledge of who assembled the cannon is needed over and above the sacrifce of Christ?

The knowledge that Jesus gave the authority to the Church to conduct such activities and create standards is needed over and over.

So, scripture is tradition and subject to the whims of man (can be changed to suit him)?

No. Apparently you are not understanding the difference between Sacred Tradition,and human traditions.

So, this knowledge is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

The fact that Jesus has authorized the Church to mediate disputes between believers is not separated form His sacrifice. It is His death on the cross that enables this to happen.

So, the churchs’ solving of problems with heresies is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

The fight against heresies is needed over and over, and is successful because of the sacrifice of Christ.

So, you are saying this “fact” is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

The Apostles commanded us to keep the traditions, just as they were handed down to us. We follow the Apostles command because of our respect for the sacrifice of Christ.

And you are saying that this “fact” is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

The apostolic command to hold fast to what we are taught, the Gospel of our salvation, which has been handed down from the Apostles, and preserved in the Church by the power of the HS, is all about the sacrifice of Christ.

This “evidence” is also needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

No Richard. On the contrary, there are so many individual interpretations of scripture because the individuals making them do so in isolation - separated from the Sacred Traditions that were passed down to us from the Apostles. Each individual who interprets the scriptures apart from what the Apostles believed and taught adds to the division within Christendom. Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to produce a fractured and splintered Body.

So, the fact that some writings are hard to understand and they are not to be interpreted under our own authority is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

Because of the importance of the sacrifice of Christ, it is essential that we understand what has been written according to the mindset of those who wrote it.

So, the fact that the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonicans and "searched the scriptures whether those things were so. Acts17:11 is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

This is a common misunderstanding of the passage about the Bereans. On the contrary, they were more noble because they EAGERLY RECEIVED THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING. After receiving it, they studied. Yes, if one is to appreciate the sacrifice of Christ, one must be willing to receive the Apostolic message.

You can’t point to one thing and say here is the interpretation of “scripture”.

I am glad we agree about something!

We can’t point to one of those scriptures and say “This is the interpretation of the bible.”

This is so true, and this is why Jesus left a teaching authority in charge.

The bible does however tell us how to arrive at correct interpretations.

1Cor.2: 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This may not have occurred to you Richard, but the HS does not tell something to an individual that is opposite to what He has already revealed to the Church.

What does this have to do with whether or not scripture is all sufficient to manefest to us the only means of salvation. JESUS CHRIST.

Scripture points us to Christ, and Christ founded a Church, and left a teaching authority.

For some reason, you seem to want to separate all these things from the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus seemed to feel it was important enough to set things up that way.

 

[guanophore]

1. Yes, I affirm that Scripture is the most sound norma normans among us.

It is certainly your right to reject the Apostolic Teaching if you so desire.

1. Yes, those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative (better or worse) but because each alone declares each alone to be incapable of error (in these matters) and thus that self uniquely and exclusively is exempt from accountability and norming; thus ANY rule/canon is moot in the singular case of self exclusively.

If it makes you feel better about rebelling against the Church founded by Christ to believe this myth, then I guess you must. However it is simply a false statement. The Catholic Church formed the Rule of Scripture, and that is why there is nothing in the Catholic faith that is contrary to it.

The inerrancy of Scripture is a Catholic teaching, one of those that has been retained by most Protestants.

It is unclear why you think that Catholics believe they are not accountable. Perhaps you have been wounded by a disobedient Catholic? You will find no Catholic teaching anywhere that supports this wild assertion. I won’t accuse you of making it up, though, because this myth began long before you were born.

In fact, in many cases, they go so far as to say that if Scripture (or any norm outside of self) seems to disagree with itself, then that’s Scripture’s problem (or at least your interpretation of it) since God cannot disagree with itself or God would be wrong.

You will also not find any statement like this in Catholic teaching. On the contrary, you will hear it said that a person such as yourself who perceives a discrepancy either does not understand the Teaching, or the Scripture, or both. In your case, it appears to be the latter.

. Actually, my study of the epistemology of those that rejects Sola Scriptura (and in each case, any other rule/canon too) has lead to much GREATER diversity of teachings.

Do you know what epistemology means? Do you know that the Catholic Church formed the canon of scripture?

You could compare Luther to Calvin - both accepting accountability according to Scripture - to say the RCC and LDS - both rejecting such, and I think you'd come to teh same conclusion I did:

That may be. Anyone who starts with a false assumption such as you have is very likely to come to a false conclusion.

Submission to the same rule/canon that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, all parties - knowable to all and alterable by none, is preferrable to each declaring itself alone to just be incapable of being wrong and thus is right.

This is quite true. This is the Sacred Tradition handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

You did some interesting things here. First of all you answered my points mostly by posing questions over and over again based upon pitting my points against the sacrifice of Christ. Here is an example of the many questions you posed to my points.

So, the knowledge of this decision (that is found in scripture) is needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?

Then you chided me for asking a couple of questions of my own by stating:

You cannot answer a question with a question.

Hmmm…that is a bit disingenuous to say the least, so it is fair to say “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Please be advised that it is improper to attempt to deflect my points by trying to make it appear that the validity of my points is dependent upon necessity “over and above the sacrifice of Christ.”

That argument has no bearing on the topic, especially since the argument applies equally to scripture. One can ask the same question of you concerning sola scriptura. “Is scripture needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?” Or to put it another way:
“Is sola scriptura needed over and above the sacrifice of Christ?”

My points are not intended and were not stated in contrast to, or in contradiction to the sacrifice of Jesus anymore than the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is in contrast to, or in contradiction to the sacrifice of Christ. All of this is a “strawman approach” to addressing valid arguments.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

I said the following:

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.

You answered by saying:

I don’t understand what all this has to do with the question of sola scriptura.

I’ll try giving this another shot. You agreed with me in an earlier post that no amount of heresy is permissible. Likewise, scripture says this about doctrine:

Romans 6: 17-18
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Romans 16: 17-18
I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Ephesians 4: 13-14
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

1 Timothy 1: 3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

1Timothy 4: 1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

Please note that the constant teaching throughout all of Christianity was a condemnation of contraception until around 1930 when the Anglican Communion broke ranks. This teaching is not articulated in scripture in such a way as to “sufficiently” guide the faithful. Virtually, all non-Catholic Christian communities have abandoned an important doctrine that was in place since the day of Pentecost. This constant teaching of Christianity is by church and tradition and not by scripture. The practice of “sola scriptura” has, however, separated all of the non-Catholic Christian communities from restraints and guidance of both the church and tradition. This is a perfect example of where the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” along with tradition are essential to doctrine. Sola scriptura clearly did not work in this situation. There is one church, however, that remains faithful to the teaching and that has not departed from the “sure word as taught.” That church knows and teaches the true doctrine on contraception. That faithfulness to the doctrine is not by accident. That faithfulness is grounded in all of the promises of Jesus to his Church. That faithfulness is grounded in the traditions that are to be handed on. That faithfulness is based upon having possession of the “sure word as taught.” That faithfulness is foundationally grounded upon scripture, church, and tradition. That faithfulness is grounded in the Spirit.

That faithfulness is not based upon “sola scriptura.” Those Christian ecclesial communities that depend upon “sola scriptura” have not remained faithful to the constant teaching held by all Christians on contraception for over 1900 years.

I hope that helps to clarify my point.

God bless.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Jon, as a whole, neither Catholics or Protestants are into relativism, which says that there are multiple truths regarding any one doctrine. Each and every isolated, autonomous church (leadership) - believes and teaches that there is only one truth regarding any one doctrine, that is to say: doctrines revealed by Jesus to His apostles, and interpreted, evaluated by each respective church ministry. In other words: one infallible teaching regarding any one revealed truth, versus all other fallible teachings.

In light of this, are we not forced to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true; is that a fair statement? The big question is: where do we go to find this one truth, regarding any one doctrine? Is truth parceled out amongst the isolated, autonomous churches? Has the one true church, established by God, in the first century, now become the aggregate of all the churches, regardless of denomination, that we see in the world today? If so, then how can we know for certain which church (be it Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist etc. etc.; I could go on and on) - possesses doctrinal truth, and if doctrinal truth is in fact parceled out amongst each respective church, along with some fallible truths, doctrinally speaking, then logically, I would have to attend all of these churches to equip myself with the fullness of truth - right? The problem looming large of course, is the fact that all churches (not just the CC) - claim to possess the fullness of truth, based on their understanding of their bible.

The pillar and foundation of truth is still the church, but the question is: which one? Since the Protestant reformation, individuals have been starting new churches based on their opposition to their church leaders, and in response, have been starting their own churches, basing their beliefs on their individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture (sola scriptura) - just as their former teacher/pastor did, which has led to the hundreds and hundreds of churches that we now see in the world today; Isn’t that an accurate assessment, and of course I am including the CC, if in fact the CC was not the church founded by Jesus? Clearly there are only 2 options:

1. There still exists in the world today, the authoritative church founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, that can still teach authoritatively, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the only reason why we can trust Jesus church - the infallible, ineffable Holy spirit. BTW I am not suggesting the CC; everyone must make their own journey to the historical church founded by God, where the fullness of truth can be found, if in fact the fullness of truth can still be found in the one church founded by Jesus Christ.
2. There is NO one authoritative church, possessing the fullness of truth, (doctrinally speaking) - in the world today, which of course is tantamount to saying that all of the isolated, autonomous church leaders, teaching via Sola Scriptura as their final authority, which, is in effect, individual interpretation, (including the CC, if the CC is not the historical church founded by Jesus) - regardless of denomination, could, very well, be teaching fallibly to their flock, which is kind of a scary thought.

Jon, this to me, seems like a powerful argument against Sola Scriptura (Bible alone as the Christians final authority) - whether that Christian is sitting in the pew or standing at the pulpit. They are still, all individuals who have started/founded their own church, basing their teachings on their unique individual interpretation of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone), and again, the CC is also guilty of this if the CC was not founded by God in the 1st century, in Jerusalem. Of course no one will give me the name of the man (or men) - that founded the CC, and when, so that I can rule out Jesus Christ as the founder.

Jon, am I missing something here? Option one seems to be the only viable fix.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,

You did some interesting things here. First of all you answered my points mostly by posing questions over and over again based upon pitting my points against the sacrifice of Christ. Here is an example of the many questions you posed to my points.

Then you chided me for asking a couple of questions of my own by stating:

Hmmm…that is a bit disingenuous to say the least, so it is fair to say “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Please be advised that it is improper to attempt to deflect my points by trying to make it appear that the validity of my points is dependent upon necessity “over and above the sacrifice of Christ.”

God bless.

Not disingenuous at all. merely an attempt to confirm. You see I asked the original question Pax. Here it is 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?

To which you replied that you had already answered my question with all of these statements. So, let me ask one more time. Do you believe that all these things in your statements are needed more than the record that God gave of His son. That would be the bible.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

This is a false statement for two reasons. One is that the Catholic Church cannot become pregnant, and therefore, cannot use contraception in any form.

Catholic Church as in “the mystical body of Christ”, and “the people of God” (V2)

The other is that the Church does not teach or approve any form of contraception at any time, for any reason. Contraception is contrary to the apostolic teaching.

In *Humanae Vitae *(25 July 1968) Pope Paul V1 introduced the Catholic Church to “natural family planning” - and several methods were grouped under the term.

The Catholic Church has a doctrine against artificial contraception.

“Periodic continency that is, the regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality” (CCC.2370)

 

[AmericanJosiah]

In light of this, are we not forced to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true; is that a fair statement?

You do embrace that a teaching can be incorrect? Whether such is an interpretation of Scripture (such as Real Presence) or simply a view irrespective of Scripture and any interpretation thereof (such as the Assumption of Mary)? IF so, then you embrace the accountability of teachings and the necessity of norming, and thus the need for a norma normans. We can then discuss the issue of this thread.

The big question is: where do we go to find this one truth, regarding any one doctrine?

MY view would be: God. And where has God revealed Himself to us in the most objective, knowable, unalterable, form? In His Scripture. From, “The Handbook of the Catholic Faith” page 136, “The Bible is the very Word of God and no greater assurance of truth can be made. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author is, who is God himself.”

IMHO (and of course you foundationally and fundamentally disagree), self declaring self to be the infallible, unaccountable “pointman” for all Truth cuz he alone says he alone is, is not a sound epistemology. My study of the LDS and of all the cults rather powerfully revealed this to me - as if life alone would not make this clear. With more than one saying, “I’m right so I’m right so there! Just accept it with docility” we need a rule/canon outside, above and beyond all of them. Something objective, knowable, unalterable, reliable.

how can we know for certain which church (be it Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist etc. etc.; I could go on and on) - possesses doctrinal truth

… welcome to accountability. IMHO, you just left Catholicism.

CCC # 87: Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Opening sentence of “The Handbook of The Catholic Faith” in the chapter entitled “Authority,” “When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substantiation for his belief, the answer is: from the teaching authority. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in connection with him, whose duty it is to reveal truth. The Catholic, thus, lives in quiet certainty that the doctrine of The Catholic Church is the doctrine of Christ himself, for Jesus promised, ‘Whoever hears you hears me’.”

For you, there is one option: Accepting with docility that the claim of infallibility/unaccountability that The Catholic Church alone makes for The Catholic Church is correct. Others may ask the question you raise, but that requires an embrace of accountability and norming; you are buying The Catholic Church exempting The Catholic Church from such. It is your act of faith, and I will afford such exactly the same respect as you show to our Mormon friends who perform the exact same act of faith in the exact same exemption and claim of their denomination; but MY point would be: such is not sound epistemology for determine who among us is correct.

The pillar and foundation of truth is still the church, but the question is: which one?

You assume that Christians is an institutional, intracongregational, geopolitical, denominational entity; and furthermore that such is infallible and unaccountable. I find no basis for this in Scripture.

But you take the exact same tack as does the LDS; that SOMEHOW, it must be justified how one denomination is absolutely exempt from accountability but that ALL others are fully and wholly accountable, right here and right now. It’s a tough challenge, but they all do it the same way: by insisting that Jesus founded IT - and then making a series of identical (and remarkable and not-so-biblical or logical) leaps that ERGO it must be infallible and unaccountable, for if God leads then it is IMPOSSIBLE to not infallibly follow (have any of them read Genesis Chapter 3?) and if God teaches, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a student to be wrong.

beliefs on their individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture

You “lose” me here, too.

In classic Catholic style, you both insist that interpretations ARE accountable and yet ARE unaccountable. You seem to have one rubric for ALL teachers, but then the exact reverse of it in the case of ONE. You condemn and ridicule self appointing self as the sole and unaccountable interpreter without ever noticing (it seems) that there is only ONE that does that - The Catholic Church, as it alone states in the Catechism of it alone that it alone is the sole authoritative interpreter. This condemnation of the very thing you are defending make ME wonder if you agree with your own position you are trying so hard to defend?

… continues in the next post

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continuing the post above…**

Clearly there are only 2 options:

1. There still exists in the world today, the authoritative church founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, that can still teach authoritatively, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the only reason why we can trust Jesus church - the infallible, ineffable Holy spirit.

1. There is NO one authoritative church, possessing the fullness of truth, (doctrinally speaking) - in the world today, which of course is tantamount to saying that all of the isolated, autonomous church leaders, teaching via Sola Scriptura as their final authority, which, is in effect, individual interpretation, (including the CC, if the CC is not the historical church founded by Jesus) - regardless of denomination, could, very well, be teaching fallibly to their flock, which is kind of a scary thought.

1. You seem to have skipped over an option: There is an objective, knowable, unalterble rule/canon from God Himself. The one Jesus referred to over 50 times, using it normatively (known as Sola Scriptura), referencing it SPECIFICALLY by the word “Scripture” 22 times. In other words, GOD (in His Scripture) is an option.
2. I do embrace the church as the appropriate arbiter, but this thread isn’t about arbitration (and to discuss such is hijacking the thread and I think a rule violation), but I disagree with you that Christians are infallible/unaccountable (see - we keep coming back to the central issue here - accountability) and I don’t think that Christians is a denomination.
3. As to your #2, you might want to move beyond your absolute embrace of individualism and institutionalism/denominationalism. You are simply right back to why one denomination gets a “pass” on accountability but no others do. And I think if you would spend some time studying the epistemology in the LDS as well as in all the cults, you’d fine the true “scary” thought is on the other side.

See, I tend to believe that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self alone from norming, insist that the issue of correctness just be laid aside in the singlar, exclusive, sole case of self alone; and that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted with docility.

the CC is also guilty of this if the CC was not founded by God in the 1st century, in Jerusalem. Of course no one will give me the name of the man (or men) - that founded the CC, and when, so that I can rule out Jesus Christ as the founder.

Ruling out the POSSIBILITY is far from substantiating the DOGMATIC FACT. Is it POSSIBLE that Jesus founded the LDS? Well, the angel told Our Lady that “with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.”

But I think you have a false premise (the same one used by the LDS as well as all cults), namely, that if God established some entity, ergo it is infallible/unaccountable. I wonder why you get this idea? God established Adam and Eve - were they thus INFALLIBLE? Did God regard them as UNACCOUNTABLE? God established the Hebrew Kingdom, even personally appointed some of the kings. Remember your Sunday School lessons? Was that Kingdom INFALLIBLE? Did God regard it and the kings of it as UNACCOUNTABLE?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

You do embrace that a teaching can be incorrect? Whether such is an interpretation of Scripture (such as Real Presence) or simply a view irrespective of Scripture and any interpretation thereof (such as the Assumption of Mary)? IF so, then you embrace the accountability of teachings and the necessity of norming, and thus the need for a norma normans. We can then discuss the issue of this thread.

Covered this already, many times.

MY view would be: God. And where has God revealed Himself to us in the most objective, knowable, unalterable, form? In His Scripture. From, “The Handbook of the Catholic Faith” page 136, “The Bible is the very Word of God and no greater assurance of truth can be made. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author is, who is God himself.”

 

[joe370]

It is your act of faith, and I will afford such exactly the same respect as you show to our Mormon friends who perform the exact same act of faith in the exact same exemption and claim of their denomination; but MY point would be: such is not sound epistemology for determine who among us is correct.

The Mormon church was not founded by God in the first century, on Pentecost, therefore the Mormon church is not the church founded by God, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, as opposed to partial truths or fallible truths, which are only truths if they are embraced, eg, the Eucharist is a mere symbol.

You assume that Christians is an institutional, intracongregational, geopolitical, denominational entity; and furthermore that such is infallible and unaccountable. I find no basis for this in Scripture.

I assume that the CC is the church founded by Jesus Christ. The rest is all you…Sola Scriptura vis individual interpretation (each and every church, not founded by Jesus, including the CC if you can prove it, is comprised of individuals who established churches and base their teachings on their individual interpretation of the bible, given to them by the CC, and this was unheard of until the 16th century) - is not taught in the bible, yet you have no problem embracing this man-made dogma and I respect that.

But you take the exact same tack as does the LDS; that SOMEHOW, it must be justified how one denomination is absolutely exempt from accountability but that ALL others are fully and wholly accountable, right here and right now.

LDS was not founded by God. You know who established that church and when, and his name was not Jesus. I believe what the CC teaches because I believe that her teacher and guide is the Holy spirit.

It’s a tough challenge, but they all do it the same way: by insisting that Jesus founded IT

I can prove, unequivocally that Jesus did not establish any PC’s in the 1st century. If you can do the same regarding the CC, I am all ears.

• and then making a series of identical (and remarkable and not-so-biblical or logical) leaps that ERGO it must be infallible and unaccountable, for if God leads then it is IMPOSSIBLE to not infallibly follow (have any of them read Genesis Chapter 3?) and if God teaches, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a student to be wrong.

Covered this a plethora of times. Why do you believe that the bible, codified by the CC, is the infallible word of God? Certainly the CC had the opportunity to include some books in the bible that were not meant to be there and exclude some books from the bible that were meant to be there. If they got wrong about other things, then certainly they could have gotten it wrong about the bible, or was the HS guiding the CC, in spite of the fallibility of these CC leaders, into all truth?

You “lose” me here, too.

In classic Catholic style, you both insist that interpretations ARE accountable and yet ARE unaccountable. You seem to have one rubric for ALL teachers, but then the exact reverse of it in the case of ONE.

The individuals belonging to the church founded by God, in the 1st century, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem can be trusted, doctrinally speaking, even though they are all sinful fallible people, for the Infallible HS is ineffably guiding that church and protecting the revealed teachings of Jesus Christ, from within and without. Again, if the CC is not the church founded by God, simply give me the name of the man that did, and I will be forced to leave the CC and attempt to locate the church founded by God.

You condemn and ridicule

You know I have never done that.

self appointing self as the sole and unaccountable interpreter without ever noticing (it seems) that there is only ONE that does that - The Catholic Church, as it alone states in the Catechism of it alone that it alone is the sole authoritative interpreter.

That is because the CC was founded by God circa AD 33. Every protestant church believes that they can authoritatively interpret scripture, and they are the ones that are self appointed, unless of course you can illustrate that those churches were appointed by Jesus in the first century? Jesus appointed the church that eventually adopted the name catholic, out of necessity; they are not self appointed. Prove me wrong?

This condemnation of the very thing you are defending make ME wonder if you agree with your own position you are trying so hard to defend?

Please stop saying that I condemn; that is a lie. Defending my position is quite seamless and easy to do, at least until someone proves to me that the CC was not founded by God, but was founded by__________________?

 

[Pax]

Not disingenuous at all. merely an attempt to confirm. You see I asked the original question Pax. Here it is again.

To which you replied that you had already answered my question with all of these statements. So, let me ask one more time. Do you believe that all these things in your statements are needed more than the record that God gave of His son. That would be the bible.

Richard in Christ,

Look at the straw man that you have created by your question. No one is contending that the points made against sola scriptura are needed more than the record that God gave of his son. The phrasing of your question is neither relevant or appropriate. It is like asking whether or not the headlights, steering wheel, and brakes are needed more than the car.

Things that are necessary and important parts of something are not to be attacked by asking if those parts are somehow greater than the whole. Scripture says important things about the church, and scripture says important things about oral tradition. To ignore the role of these things and their rightful place in relationship to scripture is to ignore the directives of scripture. It makes me wonder just how much of scripture you think can be ignored.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

You do embrace that a teaching can be incorrect?

I think it would be more accurate to say that the teacher is incorrect. Of course you are right, that doctrine can also be incorrect. The reason this is not possible in the Catholic Church is because the doctrines all come from Christ.

simply a view irrespective of Scripture and any interpretation thereof (such as the Assumption of Mary)?

Do you really think the doctrine on the Assumption is “irrespective of any Scripture”? Have you ever studied this doctrine?

MY view would be: God. And where has God revealed Himself to us in the most objective, knowable, unalterable, form? In His Scripture. From, “The Handbook of the Catholic Faith” page 136, “The Bible is the very Word of God and no greater assurance of truth can be made. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is Authoritative because the Author is, who is God himself.”

Certainly Scripture is from God, and there is no greater assurance of Truth. However, this is not the most objective, knowable and unalterable form of His revelation of Himself to man.

  With more than one saying, "I'm right so I'm right so there!  Just accept it with docility"  we need a rule/canon outside, above and beyond all of them.  Something objective, knowable, unalterable, reliable.

Indeed, such is the Teaching of the Apostles.

… welcome to accountability. IMHO, you just left Catholicism.

It is fortunate that your opinon is just that, even though it is anything but humble.

Clearly you do not understand the Catholic faith. This is a good thing, because you may be able gain that understanding, and thus be healed of your rebellion.

CCC # 87: Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.

Opening sentence of “The Handbook of The Catholic Faith” in the chapter entitled “Authority,” “When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substantiation for his belief, the answer is: from the teaching authority. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in connection with him, whose duty it is to reveal truth. The Catholic, thus, lives in quiet certainty that the doctrine of The Catholic Church is the doctrine of Christ himself, for Jesus promised, ‘Whoever hears you hears me’.”

Although what you are saying is true, it seems to imply that none of us have ever had to struggle with or study the doctrines of the faith. It appears that you think “docility” (teachable) does not include any effort, participation, and taking of responsibility.

For you, there is one option: Accepting with docility that the claim of infallibility/unaccountability that The Catholic Church alone makes for The Catholic Church is correct.

This is not true either. In fact, the vast majority of American Catholics don’t do this. They are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, and don’t even realize that they have become Protestants. What makes you think that Catholics don’t have the same option to rebel against God as every other human being?

you are buying The Catholic Church exempting The Catholic Church from such.

The norms instituted by God are not subject to the fallible judgement of men.

MY point would be: such is not sound epistemology for determine who among us is correct.

I agree. I think embracing what God has revealed is much more reliable.

But you take the exact same tack as does the LDS; that SOMEHOW, it must be justified how one denomination is absolutely exempt from accountability but that ALL others are fully and wholly accountable, right here and right now.

I think you make statements like this because you don’t understand the nature of the Church. Like Christ Himself, the Church is incarnational. The Church has divine elements, and human elements. It is her divine elements that make her infallable.

The teachers, preachers, pastors etc. in the Church are accountable to God, as well as to the flock.

if God teaches, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a student to be wrong.

No. You have reached a false conclusion because you began with a false premise. It is not the student here that is the issue, but the Teachings. The Truth that is revealed by God to the Church is infallible. When the students do not conform to it, they stray from the mark.

In classic Catholic style, you both insist that interpretations ARE accountable and yet ARE unaccountable. You seem to have one rubric for ALL teachers, but then the exact reverse of it in the case of ONE.

This statement also seems to reveal a deficient understanding of “church”.

You condemn and ridicule self appointing self as the sole and unaccountable interpreter without ever noticing (it seems) that there is only ONE that does that - The Catholic Church, as it alone states in the Catechism of it alone that it alone is the sole authoritative interpreter.

It is because we understand that “Church” is not confined to the human element. The Head of the Church is Christ, who cannot err. The soul of the Church is the HS, who cannot err. It is these divine elements that make the Church infallible.