Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Although Jesus used Sola Scriptura and never once regarded The Catholic Church as… anything at all.

.

Jesus did not use Sola Scriptura because He was God.

Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): **Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. ** There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course.

Space doesn’t allow all the OT examples.

Now, compare that to the number of times Jesus and the Apostles used The Catholic Church normatively (or even mentioned it - for anything, as anything, in any regard, for anything).

While I agree with you that since Jesus is God, we’d all give HIM a “pass” on the need for norming, Jesus never did as the RCC and LDS do - demand it.

1. Peter was/is not The Catholic Church.
2. Peter was never described as infallible or unaccountable (in fact, Jesus once called him “Satan” didn’t He? Didn’t He spend a LOT of time correcting Peter - indicating that Peter was accountable?

Of course, Peter was the head of the Catholic Church.

You can type anything your fingers will type, but the reality is: there’s ZERO historical or biblical confirmation of that.

Actually, no clergy from ANY denomination can trace his “chain of ordinations” back to the Apostles since there are virtually no contemporary records of ordainations prior to the 4th century.

.

It is simple to read the Church Fathers like Polycarp, Ireneaus, Augustine, Justin Martyr, etc al

Read history and you’ll see my point correct. There are virtually NO contemporary records of ordinations before the 4th century, thus NO CLERGY of ANY denomination can “prove” their line of ordinations back to the Apostles. Sorry, it’s just the historical reality. And it’s moot, isn’t it? Because while The Catholic Chruch regards the Oriental Orthodox Churches and Eastern Orthdox Chruch as having VALID Apostolic Succession, it also regards those bodies to be WRONG - thus, The Catholic Church insists, Apostolic Succession does not suggest correctness and thus is moot to our discussion here.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, Josiah, the Church does not disagree. The Church produced the Bible. It is an example of the infallible action of the Church, being guided into all Truth by the HS.

The Church produced the Bible. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. In 382 AD, the Catholic Church bound 27 books together with the Septuagint, creating the Bible.

1. You are confusing two entirely different issues: What is embraced as Scripture and a denomination’s official, formal declaration of such for itself. The first is entirely and wholly unrelated to The Catholic Church. The Israelites regarded The Ten Commandments as Scripture some 1500 years before The Catholic Church itself even claims (unsubstantially) to have come into existence, 1900 years before the meeting you referenced - thus UNDENIABLY, your denomination and that meeting had NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is embraced as Scripture. Jesus specifically referenced “Scripture” (by that title) TWENTY-TWO TIMES - all some 400 years before that meeting. So unless you want to argue that Jesus was wrong to mention Scripture AS SUCH because The Catholic Church had not told Him and His audiences what is and is not Scripture, then your point is moot.
2. Your own denomination disagrees. It teaches that GOD is the source of Scripture - not The Catholic Church.

What is it about Jesus saying “I will build my Church” that you find to lack substantiation?

It’s not what He said. He said, “I will build my church.” He referenced the church, not a moniker of a denomination. And He did not say “The Catholic Church” nor did He mention anything about it and it itself exclusively as being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

Apparently you think He said “I will build my churches” instead of using the singular. Perhaps this is an example of your private interpretation of Scripture?

No, I believe He said what He said. It is you that is trying to impose the words “The Catholic Church” into it, perhaps by imposing the capitolization of a word so as to imply in modern English grammar that He meant a moniker of a denomination.

Friend, I understand your discomfort with self declaring self to be the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. And I agree with you. But there is only ONE in all Christian history that does that, and it happens to be your denomination - The Catholic Church. Read what it wrote in The Catholic Catechism # 85. It designates itself as the sole, authoritative interpreter (add 87 and you got also the sole infallible interpreter). Search all you want (please!) - you’ll find NO OTHER Catechism in all the Christiandom that does what The Catholic Church does, so your rebuke applies only to one: The Catholic Church.

The Church is infallible

You can type anything your fingers will permit. But all you are doing is exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability; we disagree that that is the most sound epistemology to determining the correctness of a teacher, that the self same teacher proclaims self exclusively to be INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is correct. Have you studied the LDS as well as all of the cults in this regard? If you have, then you know how the epistmology you are defending works.

There is only one Church, Josiah. Jesus, as her Head, is infallible (He is divine, you know.

You are confusing the Leader with the followers, the Teacher with the students.
Have you read Genesis Chapter 3? EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD - unlike ours - your premise falls flat on its face and is clearly and undeniably unbiblical. A good teacher doesn’t insure INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE students, a good leader does not mandate INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE followers. Have you read the Bible?

**Scripture is normative. **

It’s called “Sola Scriptura.”

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

There is no such “belief.”

**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.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

nice theory. but in practice this is what we are seeing (in reference to the divergence of interpretation of scripture among all the Protestant denominations who embrace Sola Scriptura);

Bob the builder builds a fence, and we want to know the truth of how high it is. A Sears measuring tape is brought out, 300 guys use the tape and each comes up with a different answer. There is no consensus which is the TRUE answer.

 

[Philthy]

• I think the claim that the Catholic Church exempts itself from accountability is a falsehood. While it is certainly true that it doesnt hold itself accountable to AJ, the claim that it has no accountability is false.
• AJ keeps condemning the CC and implying this concept of accountability without actually demonstrating that any church ever has used or actually does use such a system.Why is that?

 

[Vile_Servant]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you:

What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use sola scriptura to justify your belief.

Note: The dogma of the Real Presence states that in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is really present in what was previously just bread and wine, and not merely present in symbol, a figure of speech (metaphorically), or by his power (dynamically).

 

[AmericanJosiah]

in practice this is what we are seeing (in reference to the divergence of interpretation of scripture among all the Protestant denominations who embrace Sola Scriptura);

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics. If you want to discuss such principles, start a thread on that. This one is about accountability of doctrines, and WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of such.
2. You seem to have some discomfort with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. I agree with you, but there’s only ONE that does that you are rebuking: The Catholic Church. It wrote The Catholic Catechism and there it designates one as the exclusive, authoritative interpreter: itself (CCC 85). But be aware that the “Scripture” it alone interprets is not found in any tome that can be objectively read but rather is found only in the heart of The Catholic Church (CCC 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 85)

Bob the builder builds a fence, and we want to know the truth of how high it is. A Sears measuring tape is brought out, 300 guys use the tape and each comes up with a different answer. There is no consensus which is the TRUE answer.

1. This thread is not about arbitration. If you want to discuss that issue, start a thread on it. This one is about accountability of doctrines, and WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of such.
2. IMHO, having a rule is far better than Bob the Builder simply declaring that Bob the Building is INCAPABLE of being wrong about this matter and thus is correct, so just forget about accountability and norming (by ANY rule/canon) and do as Bob the Builder alone demands: just accept whatever Bob the Builder exclusively says “with docility” “as God speaking.” IMHO, even in the worse case senario you suggest, that’s more likely to be related to truth. My study of the LDS and of all the cults has rather strongly convinced me of that.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

What? Using Scripture as the norm IS

Sola Scriptura.

.

Jesus and the Apostles used scripture authoritatively and normatively.

Using Scripture as the norm IS Sola Scriptura.

The CC relies on APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION The standard you should be using is apostolic succession: what happens to doctrine when you ignore it

The Catholic Church affirms that Apostolic Succession does not - in any sense - insure correctness. It affirms that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have VALID Apostolic Succession and yet they are WRONG in what they teach, ergo Apostolic Succession is moot to the issue of correctness.

And remember: NO clergy of ANY denomination can trace the line of their ordination back to the Apostles since we have virtually NO contemporary records of ordinations before the 4th century. But, regardless, valid or not, historical or pretense - it’s not related to correctness of doctrine.

.

 

[Cristian_B]

The Apostles, early fathers, and all the believers for 1600 years certainly thought he did. How is it, do you suppose, that God was so weak and ineffectual during all that time that He was unable to convince the Catholic Church that this was not the case?

I must tell you that using this logic would lead to believing that God is weak and incapable since He did not manage to convert the whole world. So, it would not be good to use this argument.

God bless you!

 

[guanophore]

Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura):

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too:

There are more, of course.

Space doesn’t allow all the OT examples.

Josiah, Jesus and the Apostles did not believe in, practice, or teach SS. This is an innovative doctrine emanating from the Reformation.

Their use of scripture as authoritative and normative does not equate to SS.

Now, compare that to the number of times Jesus and the Apostles used The Catholic Church normatively (or even mentioned it - for anything, as anything, in any regard, for anything).

What is normative and authoritative, Josiah, is the Sacred Tradition. This existed prior to the Catholic Church being founded by Christ, and was continued by the Apostles. It was that Sacred Tradition that produced the Bible.

While I agree with you that since Jesus is God, we’d all give HIM a “pass” on the need for norming, Jesus never did as the RCC and LDS do - demand it.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Josiah, and maybe this is part of your deficient understanding of the Church. The Catholic Church does not “demand” anything from anyone. She offers the Apostolic Teaching. You are not compelled to accept it, and clearly you have not. Perhaps this sense that you have that someone is “demanding”
something from you is part of your hostility toward Catholicism. Have you considered that it is not coming from the Church, but from yourself?

Catholics consider the Teaching Authority that Jesus gave to the Church a gift, not a demand. We can be confident that we are walking in His will, because He promised to lead us into all Truth, and we believe him.

the reality is: there’s ZERO historical or biblical confirmation of that.

I am sure this is true in your world, Josiah. You have made it clear that you really have no idea about your family history. You don’t even recognize that the Church in the NT is the Catholic Church, in spite of the NT describing it with this word!

Read history and you’ll see my point correct. There are virtually NO contemporary records of ordinations before the 4th century, thus NO CLERGY of ANY denomination can “prove” their line of ordinations back to the Apostles.

I guess we have a different history book, don’t we?

However, if we were to show you the proof, it would not matter, since you don’t believe in the Aposotlic Succession anyhow, right?

Because while The Catholic Chruch regards the Oriental Orthodox Churches and Eastern Orthdox Chruch as having VALID Apostolic Succession, it also regards those bodies to be WRONG -

Really? What is wrong with them?

The Catholic Church insists, Apostolic Succession does not suggest correctness and thus is moot to our discussion here.

What guarantees correctness is the divine elements in the Church. The Apostolic succession is the means by which Jesus set up the Teaching Authority. We know that those who are not in unity with the successors of the Apostles are not protected by the gift that was given to them.

 

[Cristian_B]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you:

What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use sola scriptura to justify your belief.

Note: The dogma of the Real Presence states that in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is really present in what was previously just bread and wine, and not merely present in symbol, a figure of speech (metaphorically), or by his power (dynamically).

Did Jesus eat His own body?

 

[guanophore]

1. You are confusing two entirely different issues: What is embraced as Scripture and a denomination’s official, formal declaration of such for itself.

Perhaps you can explain to me what the difference is between embracing what is scripture, and the official declaration of it. Are you proposing that there might be a body that would declare a canon official that they did not embrace?

The first is entirely and wholly unrelated to The Catholic Church. The Israelites regarded The Ten Commandments as Scripture some 1500 years before The Catholic Church itself even claims (unsubstantially) to have come into existence, 1900 years before the meeting you referenced - thus UNDENIABLY, your denomination and that meeting had NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is embraced as Scripture. Jesus specifically referenced “Scripture” (by that title) TWENTY-TWO TIMES - all some 400 years before that meeting. So unless you want to argue that Jesus was wrong to mention Scripture AS SUCH because The Catholic Church had not told Him and His audiences what is and is not Scripture, then your point is moot.

I think you are the one who is confused here Josiah. What I said is that the Catholic Church combined the Scriptures used by Christ and the Apostles (the Alexandrian Septuagint) with 27 books produced by Catholics and bound them together to produce the Bible. The canon of scripture is authoritative because Jesus gave His authority to the Church to conduct such activities.

1. Your own denomination disagrees. It teaches that GOD is the source of Scripture - not The Catholic Church.

You are not reading what I am writing Josiah. You seem intent upon your position, and unable to listen. The Catholic Church produced the Bible. The Bible is a collection of scripture.

It’s not what He said. He said, “I will build my church.” He referenced the church, not a moniker of a denomination. And He did not say “The Catholic Church” nor did He mention anything about it and it itself exclusively as being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

I wonder what would happen if you had to accept that those things that are testified are true? How would that affect you?

You seem to be real upset over the claims, which is odd, since you are so sure they have no merit. Why does it bother you so much?

No, I believe He said what He said. It is you that is trying to impose the words “The Catholic Church” into it, perhaps by imposing the capitolization of a word so as to imply in modern English grammar that He meant a moniker of a denomination.

No, the term Catholic comes from the Apostles, and that is how the Church is described in the NT. Jesus did not intend for there to be any “denominatng” going on. The Church He founded is One.

 And I agree with you.  But there is only ONE in all Christian history that does that, and it happens to be your denomination - The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not a “denomiation”, Josiah. On the contrary, all other ecclesial communites are denominated from it. As the original Church founded by Christ, all it needed to be denominated from was the Jewish religion. This was accomplished within the first 50 years.

You are right, though, there is only One that claims this authority. We are able to claim it because it comes from God. The witnesses, though, are not we ourselves, but water, Spirit, and blood.

 Read what it wrote in The Catholic Catechism # 85.  It designates itself as the sole, authoritative interpreter (add 87 and you got also the sole infallible interpreter).  Search all you want (please!) - you'll find NO OTHER Catechism in all the Christiandom that does what The Catholic Church does, so your rebuke applies only to one:  The Catholic Church.

No rebuke, just a statement of fact. We receive and protect what was given to us by God. That is why we do not have the liberty to embrace modern innovations such as SS.

You can type anything your fingers will permit. But all you are doing is exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability;

It sounds to me that you are frustrated that the Catholic Church is accountable to God, instead of to you, and your interpretation of the Scriptures. Just for the sake of discussion, what was it that you felt you deserved an accounting of? Did a Catholic hurt you,and refuse to take responsibility?

we disagree that that is the most sound epistemology to determining the correctness of a teacher, that the self same teacher proclaims self exclusively to be INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is correct. Have you studied the LDS as well as all of the cults in this regard? If you have, then you know how the epistmology you are defending works.

You are talking about apples and oranges Josiah. The doctrine itself is infallible because it comes from Christ. Those who teach may not do such a good job, and they need to be held accountable all the time. However, it is not appropriate for us to change or demand an accounting of the Teaching of Christ. Demanding an accounting from Him for the deposit of faith he left in the Church seems to be the ultimate hubris.

You are confusing the Leader with the followers, the Teacher with the students.

Actually, reading your paragraph above, this is what you have done. You are not distinguishing the infallible teaching that is alive in the Church from the fallible persons whose duty it is to promulgate it.

Have you read Genesis Chapter 3? EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD - unlike ours - your premise falls flat on its face and is clearly and undeniably unbiblical. A good teacher doesn’t insure INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE students, a good leader does not mandate INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE followers. Have you read the Bible?

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. God gave revelation to Adam and Eve. God’s revelation of Himself was perfect in every way, infallible, and inerrant. This is what He has done also for the Church. To say that God’s revelation of Himself is faulty because of the disobedience of people is a grave error.

It’s called “Sola Scriptura.”

It seems that you have come up with your own private definition of this term. Certainly you are able to make up whatever definitions you want, or create any new heresies your heart desires. Your use of the phrase is different from those who coined it, but what does that matter? Perhaps you will create your own new “denomination” and you can distinguish yourself from your spiritual forebears by redefining the language! Send us your new denominations website when you get it set up. Some of us here maintain collections of all the different definitions that are given to doctrines and phrases like this.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you: What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use sola scriptura to justify your belief.

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.
2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.
3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 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.
4. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

It’s not what He said. He said, “I will build my church.” He referenced the church, not a moniker of a denomination. And He did not say “The Catholic Church” nor did He mention anything about it and it itself exclusively as being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

No, we don’t.

The words are what they are. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to read words that don’t exist. What you insist on doing is making Jesus agree with you, He MUST “mean” what YOU say He did. But that’s not what we’re discussing - it’s not all about you. I simply stated the words. You insist on imposing your interpretation. It’s classic Catholic eisegesis. You insist on “reading” invisible words - and then making THAT the basis of your argument. Friend, it’s only possble to read words that exist, otherwise, it’s not “reading.”

No, I believe He said what He said. It is you that is trying to impose the words “The Catholic Church” into it, perhaps by imposing the capitolization of a word so as to imply in modern English grammar that He meant a moniker of a denomination.

.

No, the term Catholic comes from the Apostles, and that is how the Church is described in the NT.

Then quote Jesus or any Apostle where they said “Catholic” - at all, and especially as the proper noun for a specific denomination. Friend, the word was for centuries only an adjective (and still is such) meaning “whole” “general” “universal” “all embracing.” It’s an error in grammar to capitolize an adjective.

You keep insisting, “Jesus promises this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly”… Jesus authorized this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly." But you have yet to show that He so much as even MENTIONED it. At all. Ever. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any regard or for any matter. Friend, it’s all just self making huge claims for self.

And I agree with you. But there is only ONE in all Christian history that does that, and it happens to be your denomination - The Catholic Church. There is only ONE that designates itself as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture, and that ONE is The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wrote The Catholic Catechism. READ IT, specifically # 85. It designates it as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture (add 87 and it’s the sole infallible one, too). Search - please - ALL OTHER CATECHISMS and you will find NO OTHER that does what yours does. Your complaint - while very sound and valid - is relevant to only one: The Catholic Church.

.

You are right, though, there is only One that claims this authority. We are able to claim it because it comes from God.

1. … round and round we go.
2. Then you agree, your complaint about self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter is a complaint you have with just one: The Catholic Church.

You can type anything your fingers will permit. But all you are doing is exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability;

.

It sounds to me that you are frustrated that the Catholic Church is accountable to God

1. No, more with your rubric that if you type something, it’s unaccountable.
2. Actually, it’s The Catholic Church that rejects teachers being accountable to God. It has a long, long history of regarding ALL TEACHERS as fully and wholly accountable, right here and right now! It has a long, long history of declaring teachers to be heretics, even occasionally of taking false teachers and dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. Why? Because they are accountable HERE and NOW, and not just by God. But to all of this passionate insistence on the norming of teachers, it makes one stunning, remarkable, absolute and exclusive exception: itself. IT, it alone insists, is accountable only to God.

we disagree that that is the most sound epistemology to determining the correctness of a teacher, that the self same teacher proclaims self exclusively to be INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is correct. Have you studied the LDS as well as all of the cults in this regard? If you have, then you know how the epistmology you are defending works.

.

The doctrine itself is infallible because it comes from Christ.

1. If such is the case; the “problem” is, all too often, it’s like what you have been doing here. “Jesus said!” But when the relevant and mandated question is asked, namely, “where?” you have nothing. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
2. Then you are suggesting that the teaching IS accountable - to the words of Jesus. Then, get out your red letter edition of your Bible. If the norma normans is the words of Jesus, as you here suggest (a much smaller rule than Sola Scriptura) - cool. You’ve just abandoned Catholic epistemology and embraced a small subset of Sola Scriptura, but alright. But I have a “hunch” you mean, “as The Catholic Church says that Christ said” - which obviously and undeniably is just the rule/canon of “whatever I say is the rule/canon for whatever I say” - a perfect circle of self authentication. Have you studied Mormon epistemology? Have you studied the epistemology of the cults?

You are confusing the Teacher with the students, the Leader with the followers. Have you read Genesis Chapter 3? EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD - unlike ours - your premise falls flat on its face and is clearly and undeniably unbiblical. A good teacher doesn’t insure INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE students, a good leader does not mandate INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE followers. Have you read the Bible?

.

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. God gave revelation to Adam and Eve. God’s revelation of Himself was perfect in every way, infallible, and inerrant.

Yes, GOD is an inerrant Teacher and Leader.
Yes, you’ve made the point that He promised to teach and lead.
But here’s where your foundational premise falls flat on its face:
God promised NOTHING about the students and the followers.
YOU are making the irrational and entirely unbiblical premise that since God teaches, ergo it is the only possibility that The Catholic Chruch exclusively and infallibly LEARNS, because God leads, ergo it The Catholic Church is INCAPABLE of not infallibly following. Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible! If you’ve read just the first 3 chapters, you’d realize how wholly unbiblical this is! Not even in a PERFECT world has your premise of any validity whatsoever. You are confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

.

 

[guanophore]

.Using Scripture as the norm IS Sola Scriptura.

Only in your imaginary world Josiah.

Catholics consider scripture normative, yet we reject the heresy of Sola Scriptura. All you havre done is invent your own definition for the phrase.

.
The Catholic Church affirms that Apostolic Succession does not - in any sense - insure correctness. It affirms that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have VALID Apostolic Succession and yet they are WRONG in what they teach, ergo Apostolic Succession is moot to the issue of correctness.

What is wrong with them?

. And remember: NO clergy of ANY denomination can trace the line of their ordination back to the Apostles since we have virtually NO contemporary records of ordinations before the 4th century. But, regardless, valid or not, historical or pretense - it’s not related to correctness of doctrine.

It is not in your world, Josiah, but it is for those that are members of the Church founded by Christ. He designed His church so that His Teachings would be preserved and passed down through an authorative body, and that is the Apostolic succession. It is inseparable from the deposit of faith entrusted to it.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

.

Then quote Jesus or any Apostle where they said “Catholic” - at all, and especially as the proper noun for a specific denomination. Friend, the word was for centuries only an adjective (and still is such) meaning “whole” “general” “universal” “all embracing.” It’s an error in grammar to capitolize an adjective.

You keep insisting, “Jesus promises this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly”… Jesus authorized this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly." But you have yet to show that He so much as even MENTIONED it. At all. Ever. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any regard or for any matter. Friend, it’s all just self making huge claims for self.

.

Jesus founded a church - Peter was the first head of that Church, the apostles were the first leaders. They passed their authority on to the next generation of bishops. And it has continued on in unbroken succession to this day - the Catholic Church. Jesus never called it the Catholic Church - he just called it the church, because at that time there was only one. If you would study a little history you would understand this.

1500 years after Jesus founded his Church, certain men decided they knew better than the Church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit; so these men went off and founded their own sects. This was known as the reformation. Since they rejected the authority and tradition of the Church founded by Jesus, they invented their own doctrines, and justified them by picking and choosing passages of Scripture to fit their own ends. They also invented “sola scriptura” to justify using Scripture in this way.

From that time until now, they have been bickering with each other, splitting into innumerable sects, proclaiming all kinds of wildly divergent heresies (all justified by Scripture, according to them) - and that is Protestantism today. This is what comes from separating yourself from Christ (remember Ephesians 1:23 tells us the Church is the body of Christ - so separating yourself from His Church is separating yourself from Christ).

“the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

Given a choice between a sect founded by a man 400 years ago on the one hand and the Church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago - I’ve gotta go with Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics. If you want to discuss such principles, start a thread on that. This one is about accountability of doctrines, and WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of such.

If your rule can be interpreted differently by everyone who uses it, then how is it not about hermeneutics?

There are as many interpretatiosn of your “sound canon” as there are belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

I must tell you that using this logic would lead to believing that God is weak and incapable since He did not manage to convert the whole world. So, it would not be good to use this argument.

God bless you!

I think not. Jesus did not promise to convert the whole world. He came for His own in the world. He gave his life for the ransom of many. However, He DID promise the Church that He would lead her into all Truth. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail. So, it seems to me, the question is, was He able to keep His promises?

 

[guanophore]

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice).

Well, Josiah, there may not be such a belief in the fantasy world in which you live, but in the world that the rest of us live in, this doctrine has been alive and kicking for about 500 years. You can redefine it, and say that what has existed previous to your reframing it did not exist. Perhaps your version of SS was never a doctrine?

Using Scripture as normative and authoritative is a practice of the people of God, in the OT, and the NT. This does not equate to SS,

. It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.

No, Josiah. The practice of using scripture this way is Catholic.

Do you know what epistemology is?

.2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice.

In your case, the disagreement is with the definition of the words! You have departed from the use coined by your spiritual forebears.

. 3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 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.

Indeed it does. This is so because those passages were written by Catholics, for Catholics, and they represent Catholic faith. That is why your assertion that the Catholic church does not embrace accountability is simply a falsehood.

Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).I hope that helps.
.

It sure does not seem to be helping, Josiah. You do not seem to realize that anyone looking at the Sears tape may perceive it differently. True, it is an objective standard. But since reading and applying it goes through the fallible human perceptions, then it runs the risk of being fallibly applied. The fault is not with the measuring tape, but with those trying to use it.

 

[guanophore]

.
No, we don’t.

The words are what they are. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to read words that don’t exist.

Wow. Are you really saying you believe that it is not possible for two people to understand a passage differently?

It is certainly possible to read words that dont; exist. Just check into why Luther added the word “alone” to the Scriptures!

. What you insist on doing is making Jesus agree with you, He MUST “mean” what YOU say He did.

You are warm, but it is the other way around. The Church is bound to accept the meaning of scripture as Jesus explained/interpreted it. He gave all this to His Apostles, and they to the Church. We are not permitted to depart from the Teaching if Jesus as it is alive in the Church. If we do, we are no longer protected by the gift of infallibility that He gave to the Church.

. You insist on imposing your interpretation. It’s classic Catholic eisegesis. You insist on “reading” invisible words - and then making THAT the basis of your argument. Friend, it’s only possble to read words that exist, otherwise, it’s not “reading.”

Don’t you think that the best way to understand what an author has written is to hear it from the author? We know what the words mean because we have that deposit of faith from the Apostles.

. Then quote Jesus or any Apostle where they said “Catholic” - at all, and especially as the proper noun for a specific denomination. Friend, the word was for centuries only an adjective (and still is such) meaning “whole” “general” “universal” “all embracing.”

Yes, the Scriptures use the word Catholic in reference to the Church as a descriptor. This is also how it is used in the early fathers. It became a more proper noun during the emergence of the great heresies.

. It’s an error in grammar to capitolize an adjective.

Your hostility and resistance to Catholicism appear to be boundless. You will find fault anywhere you can! I knew a Lutheran on CAF who said that he was a “Catholic of the Augsburg confession”. At least he could admit that the bulk of his faith was Catholic in origin.

. You keep insisting, “Jesus promises this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly”… Jesus authorized this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly." But you have yet to show that He so much as even MENTIONED it.

He only founded one church, Josaih, and it is Catholic. He only made those promises to the One Church He founded. He did not found "churches’. Men came along later and did that.

. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any regard or for any matter. Friend, it’s all just self making huge claims for self.

I can see you believe this. What is puzzling is why it bothers you so much? So, what if these things were true? Why does it take up so much of your energy to refute them, of the claims are of so little value? Something about the claims appears to eat at you.

.2. Actually, it’s The Catholic Church that rejects teachers being accountable to God.

I think I just read a list of scriptures you posted from the Catholic Scriptures, clearly stating that it is required of us to hold teachers accountable. It is cuirous how you can give the evidence from a Catholic source, then act as if it does not exist.

What was it that you were taught that you thought was wrong, and for which the one who taught you was never held accountable? I suspect that issue, whateve it was, is at the heart of your hostility and false accusations.

. it makes one stunning, remarkable, absolute and exclusive exception: itself. IT, it alone insists, is accountable only to God.

The doctrines of the Church come from Christ. He does not create any errors.

. “Jesus said!” But when the relevant and mandated question is asked, namely, “where?” you have nothing. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If you think the Catholic claims have no merit or relevancy, why are you putting so much time and effort into discussing the matter? You are posting at least 9 a day, and have apparently saved some of your rhetoric to text files, so you can paste it in, and continue to repeat yourself. What are you working so hard to accomplish?

.2. Then you are suggesting that the teaching IS accountable - to the words of Jesus.

No, I did not. The teaching is infallible, having come from God, needs not to meet humans standards of accountability.

. Have you studied Mormon epistemology? Have you studied the epistemology of the cults?

What is “epistomology”?

. Yes, GOD is an inerrant Teacher and Leader.
Yes, you’ve made the point that He promised to teach and lead.

Well, I am glad we can agree on something. It is very conciliatory of you to embrace these Catholic doctrines.

. But here’s where your foundational premise falls flat on its face:
God promised NOTHING about the students and the followers.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? See, when Catholics read that He promised to lead His Church into all Truth, we understand that, so long as we remain united to His One Body, the Church, we can benefit from that gift of infallibility.

. YOU are making the irrational and entirely unbiblical premise that since God teaches, ergo it is the only possibility that The Catholic Chruch exclusively and infallibly LEARNS, because God leads, ergo it The Catholic Church is INCAPABLE of not infallibly following.

No, Josiah. the Catholic Church does not have to “learn” anything. She is the Holy Bride of Christ, pure and spotless. Only the fallen persons attached to her have any need of learning. The divine elements in the Church cleanse and educate them, so that they can be united with Him on the last day.

. Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible! If you’ve read just the first 3 chapters, you’d realize how wholly unbiblical this is! Not even in a PERFECT world has your premise of any validity whatsoever. You are confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

I think you reason this way because you have a deficient notion of “church”. You do not appear to recognize the divine elements in the Church.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Did Jesus eat His own body?

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?