Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[inkaneer]

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession is not related to truth. It accepts that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have VALID Apostolic Succession, and yet they are WRONG in what they teach. Ergo, according to The Catholic Church, valid Apostolic Succession has no bearing on whether teachings are correct.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession also has no bearing on whether a teacher is accountable or not. For it holds The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Church as fully and wholly accountable for all they teach as doctrine - right here and right now (not just before God) - and yet it affirms that these have valid Apostolic Succession.

Your point is moot.

.

I am not sure what your point is but apparently you think there is a link between Apostolic Succession and infallibility. There is BUT only in the case of the successor to Peter. There is also the distinction of being a successor to someone [meaning a replacement] and possessing apostolic succession. Only Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and could singularly bind and loose Mt 16:18-19 and only his replacement retains that power. Many bishops have a line of succession going back to Peter because they were consecrated by Peter 's successors but those bishops are not Peter’s replacement. It was very early in the church [80 AD or earlier] that the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the successor to Peter. In Mt 18:18 the other Apostles were given that power collectively with Peter. So a bishop descended in a line of succession from any Apostle has valid apostolic succession but not individual infallibility. A bishop can teach error as proven by Nestorius who was not only a bishop but a bishop of Constantinople. However, what bishops lack individually they possess collectively. Thus when bishops meet in an ecumenical or general council and are in communion with the Pope their resultant teaching is infallible.

As for infallibility, the pope is not always infallible in what he says or teaches. There are conditions which must be met for a teaching to be infallible. Failing to meet all of these conditions means the teaching, though it may be true, is not considered infallible. By the way The teachings of the Orthodox and Coptic churches is recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Their teachings although expressed in a differently such as Final Theosis for purgatory. No Orthodox believes in purgatory but they do believe in final theosis whereby a soul is purified after death to enter heaven.

 

[tweetymom]

1. Where did Jesus mention The Catholic Church?
2. Where did He state that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually and exclusively - is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming, and we are to just accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility?”
3. Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. 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.

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of doctrines are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to the above (and read your Catechism # 87 before you do), then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - equally with all other teachers of such. And in so doing, you embrace the necessity of norming. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for us as we evaluate the doctrines among us? What should we USE? Yes, our doctrine of Scripture (which we agree on) might help us answer that…

You’re thinking from a protestant perspective. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are from the Holy Spirit (John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” - these things were said by Jesus to his apostles, the first bishops of the Church.)

The authority of the Church is what you call the “norma normans.” Protestants have doctrines invented by men - then they pick and choose passages from the Bible to try to justify their doctrines. Different protestant sects have invented different doctrines, so they pick and choose different passages, or they interpret them differently. Since they have abandoned the one true Faith, they are adrift without the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the Body of Christ - the Catholic Church. This is why they have splintered into 30,000 different sects - all believing that they are doing what the Bible says, but all interpreting it differently.

Sola scriptura is not only a false, unscriptural doctrine - it is also a recipe for confusion and division. “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33) Sola scriptura is a doctrine of confusion, not of peace. It is not of God.

 

[guanophore]

I would be interested to know what official source (document) issued under the authority of the Western or Roman Catholic Church recognizes any other Church or faith as continuing independently of the Chair of Peter with Apostolic Succession. Further, there has been and there is a substantial growth in the desire and continuing conferences within the Roman and Orthodox Churches (which is currently causing heated debate among some within the Orthodoxy), to return under the papacy. This is evident when reading commentaries of Orthodox officials in some of their own web sites. There also is a difference between claiming full apostolic succession under the Chair of Peter and claiming apostolic succession from a select number of regional
Bishoprics after separating from the centuries old recognized authority of St. Peter in Rome. The Catholic Church (Rome) has remained clear on this… Peace.

Many of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox derive from the Petrine and Pauline bishoprics appointed in Antioch and points East of Rome. They are actually older than those lines that came later from Rome, because they were founded two decades before the two Apostles ministered in Rome together.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?

Do you think that the teachers of doctrines are accountable for what they teach as such?

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer "yes

" to the above (and read your Catechism # 87 before you do), then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - equally with all other teachers of such. And in so doing, you embrace the necessity of norming. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for us as we evaluate the doctrines among us? What should we USE? Yes, our doctrine of Scripture (which we agree on) might help us answer that…

.

You’re thinking from a protestant perspective.

No. I’m thinking exactly as The Catholic Church as it looks at all OTHER teachers. It powerfully insists on a “YES!” to each of those questions! And demands on the norming of all of them - right here, right now. And has, historically and traditionally, proclaimed teachers as WRONG (even perhaps dispatching them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead a schedule smelling like smoke).

What is YOUR answer to the questions I raised?

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

Okay. I sense that you are TRYING to justify your “no” answer to the questions I raised.

Where does this verse state that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is INCAPABLE of error, infallible, unaccountable, and exempt from norming? Where does it state that whatever The Catholic Church (exclusively) teaches (exclusively) is rather just to be accepted as correct “with docility?”

Sola scriptura is not only a false, unscriptural doctrine - it is also a recipe for confusion and division. “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33) Sola scriptura is a doctrine of confusion, not of peace. It is not of God.

1. It’s a praxis.
2. I think you are trying to justify your “no” answers to the questions I raised?
3. I think you are confusing correctness with self alone agreeing with self alone. I agree that if there is one voice, there are not two. But that’s entirely unrelated to that voice being correct. In Stalinist Russia, there was one political voice, Stalin’s. It was entirely unrelated to taht one being correct or with your insistence that ergo Stalin must be unaccountable and incapable of being wrong. In all the cults, there is one voice and no confusion and yet I doubt you agree with yourself that therefore such cult is incapable of wrong and unaccountable adn just must be accepted with docility, as God speaking (even though that’s typically what each of them requires). Look, we all realize that The Catholic Church alone agrees with itself alone (currently, officially and formally anyway - on those issue that it and it itself alone currently views as right for agreement). So what? The same is true for every other teacher, too. Self usually agrees with self - I don’t know what significance you place on that. AT LEAST as much can be said for every denomination, gorup, cult and organization on the planet - they all AT LEAST agree with self alone, just like The Catholic Church does (but of course, even that only officially, formally, currently and on those issues that it itself alone currently states must be agreed upon). Having one voice may be less confusing, it just has nothing to do with truth, as The Catholic Church also affirms (so it’s disagreeing with your point).

So, what IS the answer to those questions?

.

 

[guanophore]

American Josiah has repeatedly used the term “praxis” to characterize sola scriptura rather than using the term “doctrine”. So what is a praxis and since American Josiah claims to be Lutheran does the Lutheran denomination consider sola scriptura to be a doctrine or a praxis.

Well, CMatt claims to be Catholic, but his posts don’t reflect Catholic faith. Is it any surprise that Josiah would claim to be Lutheran, yet not espouse the Lutheran faith? It is the American way! LIfe, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This country was founded upon a fierce sense of independence. It manifests itself in actions like these.

It is clear that American Josiah's claim of sola scriptura being ONLY a praxis is fraudulent.

I don’t think this is true. I think Josiah is entirely convinced that this invention of his is accurate. I think he is claiming what he really believes, and therefore, it is not fraudulant.

It is a doctrine of protestantism as it is one of the core beliefs and rule of faith.

Well, that is of no matter to Josiah. Just like every other Reformer, he has the freedom to redefine the theological terms to his own liking.

He has the freedom to depart from what his denomination believes and teaches, just as CMatt has that right. They can even continue to pretend on CAF that they believe according to the way they have labeled themselves.

Therefore, sola scriptura is more than a mere praxis. It is a doctrine of protestantism and since it inherently violates the very scriptures it claims to uphold is fatally flawed and not worthy of belief.

Not in the First Church of the American Josiah it is not. He holds that it is a praxis, not a doctrine, and he will raise up this standard, and draw all men unto himself! (at least, those who wish to adhere to his innovations). To say that Josiah’s inventions are not worthy of his own belief seems a bit disrespectful to me. Can’t he imagine and believe whatever he wants? What are we, some kind of thought gestapo?

 

[guanophore]

Methinks that you are forgetting Our Lord’s words: “He who hears you hears me.” That is a declaration of authority.

Notice that Jesus didn’t refer to the words that would be written and then in three centuries subsequent declared to be a canon of scripture. Only the Church that he directly gave the authority to could declare the New Testament, and that authority didn’t cease upon the creation of the NT; it continued until today.

And forgettting that Peter in his letter referred to the letters of Paul as Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

what I was taught in The Catholic Church.

You were taught something in the Catholic Church? then what happened?

The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.

Indeed, you are the only one here who has forwarded such a theory, and I am glad that you now see it has no merit. Has your goal here on CAF been fulfilled? do you now realize that your premise was flawed?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The official, traditional description of Sola Scriptura:

“The Scriptures are to be used as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the Holy Scriptures serving as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

This is not MY definition, it is the official, historic, traditional definition.

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura was just as useful at Mt. Sinai as it is today, only the “size” of the rule/canon was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative norma normans for this purpose (they don’t) but becuase each of them rejects accountability (but exclusively in the sole case of self alone, they all passionately embracing it for all OTHERS); it’s accountability each rejects (for self, anyway), and thus norming and WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, so there. Just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” Each attempts to justify this “all are accountable but me alone” in remarkably similar ways, but it’s the same position and same reason for the rejection of accountability.

.

 

[guanophore]

No. I’m thinking exactly as The Catholic Church as it looks at all OTHER teachers.

Yes, but since you are suffering from such a deficient idea of the nature of “church” your theory cannot be applied properly. It begins from a false premise, so results in a false conclusion.

The Catholic Church alone agrees with itself alone (currently, officially and formally anyway - on those issue that it and it itself alone currently views as right for agreement).  So what?  The same is true for every other teacher, too.  Self usually agrees with self - I don't know what significance you place on that.

It is statements such as this that reveal the extent of your deficient perception of Church. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible.

I am beginning to suspect that your anti-catholic hostility has a moral root.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes, but since you are suffering from such a deficient idea of the nature of “church” your theory cannot be applied properly. It begins from a false premise, so results in a false conclusion.

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?

Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?

Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

IF you answer yes to the above questions (and read your Catechism # 87 before you do), then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But, as you note, it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - exception to all of this: Itself. You are trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But, as you note, it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - exception to all of this: Itself. You are trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.

It is the position of the Catholic Church that Christ is the head of the Church, who will be with the Church until the end of time, and that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the Truth. For these reasons, the Catholic Church holds that it is incapable of teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has every right to denounce teachers who promulgate doctrine contrary to Church doctrine, just as Protestants have every right to denounce teachers (including the Catholic Church) who promulgate doctrine contrary to Protestant doctrine.

If the Protestant churches choose to believe that they are accountable and capable of error, it is entirely their prerogative.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

So, what is YOUR answer to the questions:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of such doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer yes to the above questions (and read your Catechism # 87 before you do), then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - no less than any and all others. And you’ve just embraced that The Catholic Church is subject to the same norming as all others. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for the norming of those doctrines among us (the issue of this thread)?

Note that the position of The Catholic Church is that teachers ARE accountable. Historically, traditionally, it has NOT embraced that teachers of doctrine are accountable ONLY to God or that they are incapable of error and thus not accountable at all, no, it has a long, long, long history and passionate embrace that if docrtrine is taught, such is fully, wholly accountable, right here and now. And it has often called such teachers “wrong” and even, on occasion, dispatched them to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. That’s the position of The Catholic Church. But, as you note, it alone makes one - and exclusively, solely, only ONE - exception to all of this: Itself. You are trying to defend this epistemology as the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher.
.

Now you are just repeating yourself. The deposit of faith of the Catholic Church was given to us by Our Savior Himself. It has been handed down to us and expounded upon down through the ages by the Church - which Christ Himself commissioned to do exactly that. Sacred Scripture is part of that deposit of faith. It came out of the Church and is an organic part of the Church and all she does. But the Church is much more than Sacred Scripture, it is “his (Christ’s) body, the fullness of him who fill all in all.” (Ephesians 1:23) You want to take part of the body and try to make it the end all and be-all of our faith.

Teachers of doctrine are absolutely accountable. For example, someone teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura is teaching a false doctrine. The authority that was empowered by Jesus himself to “bind and loose” is the Catholic Church. So, the person teaching the false doctrine of sola scriptura can know that what they are teaching is false because the Church has declared it so.

So, yes, truth does matter - Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. Teachers are accountable. Those who teach false doctrines such as sola scriptura will undoubtedly be held accountable.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by AmericanJosiah

“The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.”

REPLY: Well your opinion may be humble but it is definitely wrong. The Catholic Church does not and has never stated that “…all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession.” If that is the basic premise for your position then your position is fundamentally flawed and completely wrong. Unlike any of the protestant sects, The Orthodox do have valid Apostolic Succession. They have valid sacraments, valid priesthood, valid liturgy. What they lack is any guarantee of correct doctrine. Their beliefs, like those of any protestant denomination, are valid as long as they are in communion with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Having Apostolic Succession does not guarantee having correct beliefs. I believe I pointed out in an earlier post that Nestorius who gave his name to the heresy of Nestorianism was the bishop of Constantinople and had valid apostolic succession but was not infallible. That is because all bishops, other than the Bishop of Rome, as successors to the apostles do not possess infallibility individually as the power to bind and loose was given to the other apostles collectively, as a group [Mt 18:18]. Whereas the binding and loosening power given to Peter and his successors as bishop of Rome, was given individually [Mt 16:18-19]. Get out your KJV and look at the pronouns used in those two passages. In Mt 18:18 the KJV has the translation as:

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 18:18 KJV]

There the fourth word [you] is the Greek second person pronoun “humin” and it is plural meaning more than one. Whereas in Mt 16 the KJV has the translation as:

“18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, F32 and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:18-19 KJV]

There the second person pronoun in both verses [thee] is the Greek word “soi” and it is second person singular. So the power that was given to the Apostles collectively in Mt 18 is shared collectively as a group and includes Peter in the group but the power to bind and loose given to Peter in Mt 16:18-19 is singular and not shared. So individual bishops, other than the bishop of Rome, can teach error because unlike the bishop of Rome they do not possess the authority to bind and loose individually. And when they do act collectively it must be in communion with the bishop of Rome This is important as no general council of bishops can enact anything unless in communion with the pope.

So you start with a wrong premise and you end up with a wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
'It is clear that American Josiah’s claim of sola scriptura being ONLY a praxis is fraudulent."

guanophore: “I don’t think this is true. I think Josiah is entirely convinced that this invention of his is accurate. I think he is claiming what he really believes, and therefore, it is not fraudulant.”

REPLY: I could care less what he thinks or what he is convinced of… Maybe you think truth is relative but I don’t. An idea, any idea is either true or it is false. If it is false then it is fraudulent. Josiah’s ideas are fraudulent

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
“It is a doctrine of protestantism as it is one of the core beliefs and rule of faith.”

guanophore: "Well, that is of no matter to Josiah. Just like every other Reformer, he has the freedom to redefine the theological terms to his own liking.

He has the freedom to depart from what his denomination believes and teaches, just as CMatt has that right. They can even continue to pretend on CAF that they believe according to the way they have labeled themselves."

REPLY: Freedom or license??? Doesn’t a rose if called by any other name still smell the same? So tell me what is the consequences of a false doctrine? Did not the Lord say:

“in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” [Mt 15:9]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"Therefore, sola scriptura is more than a mere praxis. It is a doctrine of protestantism and since it inherently violates the very scriptures it claims to uphold is fatally flawed and not worthy of belief. "

guanophore: “Not in the First Church of the American Josiah it is not. He holds that it is a praxis, not a doctrine, and he will raise up this standard, and draw all men unto himself! (at least, those who wish to adhere to his innovations). To say that Josiah’s inventions are not worthy of his own belief seems a bit disrespectful to me. Can’t he imagine and believe whatever he wants? What are we, some kind of thought gestapo?”

Sure he can “imagine and believe whatever he wants”. And he can do so in vain just as Jesus said too. What he can’t do is make what he imagines and believes to be the truth. That he cannot see or maybe he can see but chooses to ignore, the fundamental flaws in his position is a problem he will carry to judgement. I discern that he will fare better if the former rather than the latter.

 

[kepha1]

In order for sola scriptura to work, the bible has to be perfectly clear and consistent in meaning to everyone who reads it. The bible does not support this. In fact, the bible teaches the opposite in 2 Peter 1:20.

Sola scriptura cannot be proven by the bible. AJ has failed to do this. Instead, he draws everyone into his trap of defending Church authority. He blindly refuses to accept the authority of the Church that canonized the books of the new Testament. He ignores any explanation of the qualities that make up Church authority by falling into the Gnostic trap of denying the divine superintendence of a human institution.

There is no way that AJ can defend the lie of sola scriptura using scripture alone. He unknowingly resorts to material sufficiency of scripture which Catholics accept. He refuses to be agreed with.

AJ has a distorted view of Church authority and her relationship with Scriptures in harmony with Tradition. Pages upon pages of explanation, more than this thread, has been offered, to no avial.

AJ cannot prove “sola scriptura” from the Bible alone without attacking the authority of the Church because his only defense is an offense. Since there is no church authority, scriptural text is all he has.

How sad.

 

[hellopeople]

In order for sola scriptura to work, the bible has to be perfectly clear and consistent in meaning to everyone who reads it. The bible does not support this. In fact, the bible teaches the opposite in 2 Peter 1:20.

Sola scriptura cannot be proven by the bible. AJ has failed to do this. Instead, he draws everyone into his trap of defending Church authority. He blindly refuses to accept the authority of the Church that canonized the books of the new Testament. He ignores any explanation of the qualities that make up Church authority by falling into the Gnostic trap of denying the divine superintendence of a human institution.

There is no way that AJ can defend the lie of sola scriptura using scripture alone. He unknowingly resorts to material sufficiency of scripture which Catholics accept. He refuses to be agreed with.

AJ has a distorted view of Church authority and her relationship with Scriptures in harmony with Tradition. Pages upon pages of explanation, more than this thread, has been offered, to no avial.

AJ cannot prove “sola scriptura” from the Bible alone without attacking the authority of the Church because his only defense is an offense. Since there is no church authority, scriptural text is all he has.

How sad.

I don’t believe in the authority of the church. You could say that the church canonized the Bible, but the church of 325 is different than it is now. And to be perfectly honest, the church didn’t cement a canon until the 1500’s.

Anyway, I don’t accept the authority of the church. Would I say that authority is from only Scripture? No, I accept other people’s commentaries and opinions of the Bible, but I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I don’t believe in the authority of the church. You could say that the church canonized the Bible, but the church of 325 is different than it is now. And to be perfectly honest, the church didn’t cement a canon until the 1500’s.

Anyway, I don’t accept the authority of the church. Would I say that authority is from only Scripture? No, I accept other people’s commentaries and opinions of the Bible, but I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

Saying you don’t believe in the authority of the Church is like saying you don’t believe in gravity. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, the power to bind and loose, and he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Church has authority because Jesus gave the Church authority. It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not.

Good luck with figuring out what the Bible means by yourself - maybe you should start with Matthew 16:16 - 20 and figure out what that means.

 

[guanophore]

 I'm thinking exactly as The Catholic Church as it looks at all OTHER teachers.  It powerfully insists on a "YES!" to each of those questions!  And demands on the norming of all of them - right here, right now.  And has, historically and traditionally, proclaimed teachers as WRONG

If you were thinking like the Church, Josiah, you would have accepted the Authority that Jesus appointed.

It is the duty of the Church to distinguish truth from error. This duty was entrusted to the bishops by the Apostles. Rarely are persons proclaimed as wrong, but often the doctrine is.

Where does this verse state that....

This is a good example of one of the most grievious errors of Sola Scriptura. since those who adhere to it have departed from the Apostolic Teaching, they are left to glean doctrines from the best source of truth they have left, which is Scirpture. But sound doctrine was never meant to be distilled and exacted by single verses of Scripture. it was entrusted to the Church, from whom it is to be received.

must be accepted with docility, as God speaking

What do you think Jesus meant when He told those He had invested with His Teaching Authority “he who hears you, hears me”?

What do you think this verse means?

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Where did these leaders get their authority?

This verse was written by, for, and about Catholics. It seems to refute your assertion that the Catholic Church does not practice or require accountability.

It seems that you may have been hurt at some point by a Catholic in a position of authority who wronged you. I hope you are able to find healing and forgiveness, so that you do not have to continue grinding your resentments.

 

[hellopeople]

Saying you don’t believe in the authority of the Church is like saying you don’t believe in gravity. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, the power to bind and loose, and he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Church has authority because Jesus gave the Church authority. It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not.

Good luck with figuring out what the Bible means by yourself - maybe you should start with Matthew 16:16 - 20 and figure out what that means.

Calm down.