Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[kepha1]

… continues from the post above…

The issue is this: Do you believe God was right to warn us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - never exempting The Catholic Church or any other human teacher, person, organization, institution, group, congregation, denomination? Do you believe Jesus was right to do the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands in praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and declaring those teachers to be false? Do you believe that it is the most sound rubric for a defendant to simply declaring himself alone to be unaccountable for what he says/does, exempt from any rule or arbitration for he himself alone declares he himself alone to be incapable of wrong, and in lieu of accountability, he alone insists that whatever he alone says/does is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility?” Is THAT the rubric you desire to defend as not only most sound in determining the correctness of the defendant - but that such is infallible?

No, that is not the issue of my post. The issue is your opinion of the definition of church as it applies to “the house of God” as it is found in three verses in the Epistles.

Bottom line: Do you regard teachers to be ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine?

Martin Luther and Joseph Smith, Augustine and Arius, Pope Benedict and Brigham Young, John Calvin and Jim Jones, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church, The Methodist Church and The Church of Christ - Scientist? Are teachers accountable or not? Not JUST by God alone on judgment day, but as The Catholic Church insists - right here, right now?

Bottom line: The house of God, the pillar and ground of truth" has to refer to somebody. I am not arguing that it is the Catholic Church, I am trying to get you to tell me Who you think the “house of God” is.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture for exactly the same reason as do the others (LDS, all the cults) - NOT because it has an alternative rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines (it doesn’t) but because it rejects accountability in the sole, exclusively, singular case of it itself alone - thus also norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such). “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right - so there. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Forget all that and just accept whatever I exclusively say and do it with docility - for when I speak, God speaks.” See your Catechism # 87 for starters. I find this claim of self for self to not only be ENTIRELY and WHOLLY unrelated to that self being correct, but my study of the cults causes this to raise a big, red flag for me. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s truth is revealed by the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, hide behind a wall of remarkable claims for self alone, and circumvent the whole issue - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted with docility

.

The Catholic Church uses Scripture as a primary source for doctrine, and always has. So not only is your ranting utterly false, it is totally irrelevant to the question, and my question is relevant to the topic. All I am asking you is to provide evidence that the Lutheran Church is THE “house of God”, specifically, “the house of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”

If your definition of “church” means an invisible unorganized collection of true believers, I would like some scriptural reference supporting this doctrine. But I have no idea what you think “house of God” means. Once that is determined we can move on to what St. Paul meant by “pillar and ground of truth”.

Again, I am not talking about the Catholic Church, but your opinion or belief system that defines “house of God” as it is found in three verses in the Epistles. Enlighten me.

 

[kepha1]

for your convenience:

1 Timothy 3:14,15
“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” .

Hebrews 10:20-22 (KJV)
20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 4:16-18 (KJV)
16Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

 

[kepha1]

“Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran understandings of justification is not an easy matter, despite the confident polemics of the past four hundred and fifty years. Key terms (justification, grace, faith, merit and others]) possess different meanings within the respective systems. As a result, the two traditions appear to agree when they do not in fact agree and to disagree when they in fact do agree. Identification of the authentic differences between the Catholic and Lutheran understandings thus requires patient and charitable analysis.”

by Pontificator on 4 June 2007

The Justification of Robert Koons

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It most certainly is a failed doctrine. And it seems that our esteemed adversary certainly has forgotten that this is what this thread is about.

Part of it (the Sola Scriptura part) is about the embraced rule/canon for the norming of doctrines. Those that embrace norming also embrace accountability. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (RCC, LDS and all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative rule/canon for such but because they reject accountability (but only for self exclusively) and thus norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon or the evaluation of their doctrines).

He has failed miserably trying to demonstrate how an inanimate object, a book, can interpret itself.

No

I have rejected the idea that a rule/canon (ANY rule/canon) can or does interpret itself. You seem to be unaware of the topic of this thread, eager to hijack the thread (a rule violation, I believe), preferring to circumvent and bypass the issue of the rule/canon in norming and instead try to divert the dicussion to hermeneutics.

An infallible book needs an infallible interpreter. And I would like to hear from him if he considers his interpretation of Scriptures infallible.

The rules here require we stay on topic, thus we cannot discuss hermeneutics here.

A rule/canon in norming need not be infallible and need not have an infallible interpreter. When you drive your car, MUST you regard the rules of the road to be INFALLIBLE, MUST you regard you and all other drivers and all law enforcement persons to be INFALLIBLE interpreters of such? You seem to desire to do anything - even outside the rules - to evade the topic we are here discussing, with hijacks and diversions and moot points.

The true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, reject any rule/canon, and insist that all examination of his teachings (exclusive) be simply laid aside, replacing that issue with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says rather simply be accepted with docility, as God speaking. Read your Catechism # 87. Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, study the cults.

IF you agree with God who repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray (and never exempted The Catholic Church from such), IF you agree with Jesus who praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church itself alone demands for itself alone, praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them false - then you embrace accountability for teachers of doctrine. Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and St. Augustine, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church. The first question then becomes, WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this norming? THAT is the issue we are discussing. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) for the rule in evaluating its teachings, but because it rejects the evaluating of its teachings, requiring instead that they just be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You have apparently missed the point - for the second or third time - that** there is no defendant in our analogy**.

I know that IS the position of The Catholic Church. It will not permit itself exclusively to be regarded as a defendant, it will not permit its doctrines to be regarded as accountable or subject to norming - regardless of the rule/canon. Rather, it alone insists that whatever it alone teaches rather just be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking.

You, and the other Catholics, are working HARD to try to find some justification for this remarkable exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability - TRYING to suggest that Jesus so exempted it, etc. All entirely substantiated. And you are TRYING to support that it is the most sound epistemological praxis among us in determining correctness or error that a defendant simply exempt himself alone from accountability and any examination of the matter, and instead whatever he alone did/said/teaches rather just be accepted as correct “with docility.” You are TRYING to argue why THAT is the most sound way to determine correctness or error.

The Church is the means (it is not a “self”) by which EVERYONE is held accountable - those visibly united to her (for ex, some of the ECFs) and those not visibly united. Everyone is held accountable.

… except one: The Catholic Church. Now, justify the soundness of self insisting that self be exempt from accountability, and rather whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. I’m curious, have you studied any of the cults?

All you are saying here is repeating the claim of The Catholic Church for itself exclusively: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. If others agree with all I says - they are right, if not - they are wrong. I’m right so I can’t be wrong, thus accountability is moot in the singular case of me alone, and norming a waste of time in the singular case of me alone cuz I’m right when I insist that I’m right so I am. Just accept whatever I say with docility, as Jesus speaking.” I don’t agree with you that THAT is the most sound way to determine correctness or that THAT has any relevance whatsoever to that self being correct.

IMHO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, reject any rule/canon, and insist that all examination of his teachings (exclusive) be simply laid aside, replacing that issue with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says rather simply be accepted with docility, as God speaking. Read your Catechism # 87. Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, study the cults.

IF you agree with God who repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray (and never exempted The Catholic Church from such), IF you agree with Jesus who praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church itself alone demands for itself alone, praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them false - then you embrace accountability for teachers of doctrine. Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and St. Augustine, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church. The first question then becomes, WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this norming? THAT is the issue we are discussing. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) for the rule in evaluating its teachings, but because it rejects the evaluating of its teachings, requiring instead that they just be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Bottom line: The house of God, the pillar and ground of truth" has to refer to somebody. I am not arguing that it is the Catholic Church, I am trying to get you to tell me Who you think the “house of God” is.

Christians.

If these verses are not indicating that The Catholic Church exclusively is exempt from any rule/canon because it is exempt from norming and accountability - then they are moot to the discussion here.

All I am asking you is to provide evidence that the Lutheran Church is THE “house of God”, specifically, “the house of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”

… anything to try to divert the discussion of accountability/norming and the most sound rule/canon for such?

I NEVER remotely suggested that ANY Lutheran congregation or denomination is “the household of God.” Nor do I see any relevance of that to the issue of this thread.

Three questions for you:

1. Do you accept teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
2. Do you believe the most sound way to determine the correctness or error of a teacher is for that teacher to exempt himself alone from examination, accountability and norming (according to ANY rule/canon) and rather for that teacher to insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and whatever he alone says is rather to be accepted with docility as Jesus speaking? Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer. I wish you could read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie first, as well. And the insistence of nearly every cult and cult leader known to me - but let’s stick with CCC 87.
3. Do you believe it most sound for a defendant to insist that he is the sole arbiter for the correctness of himself, that self designate self as the judge/jury for this determination - exempting self alone from the law? Or that he designate his own views as the rule/canon for his own self, so that he is correct if he alone agrees with he alone that he is? Are these the most sound rubrics for such in your opinion? Consider this carefully in light of the Catholic arguments here that The Catholic Church is the sole arbiter for the correctness of The Catholic Church and that the rule/canon for such should be the self-same views of the self-same Catholic Church. Does this rubric have any relevance to that self being correct?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Apologist78]

Sola Scriptura

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

Sola Fide

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306clas.asp

This is exactely why this website frustrates me so much. Jimmy Akin claims he knows of no Protestant who has offered a clear and preside definition of Scriptura Sola. Jimmy Akin evidently lives under a rock. Works by Protestant theologians which deal with this very concept abound, they are plentiful. All he need to if he is too lazy to go to a Library is google the term “Scriptura Sola.”

If this website wants to do Catholic apologetics, they would be far better served to actually research their opponents before they claim to speak for them. In order to effectively debate, you have to know the position of your opponent and the arguments they will use to defend it better then they do.

Here is the definition of Scriptura Sola: “The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith for the Church. Scripture is the norm or norms without norm. Scripture is the final court of appeals in the Church. Whatever value one can assign to Tradition, whatever authority one can assign to the Church, both the Chruch and Tradition are normed by the higher authority of Scripture. Scripture is God Breathed, and as such is the Rule of Faith for the Christian.”

Please note the above definition is a bit brief, and not all inclusive, for I ommited a discuission of the Sufficiency of Scripture which is related.

Scriptura Sola is NOT a denial of the following:

The role of Traidition within the Church
The authority of the Church
The idea that Scripture is the Sole source of Revelation. The doctrine allows for General Revelation.

The doctrine DOES however make claim to the fact that Scripture is the highest authority. Perhaps those who hold to the doctrine of Scriptura Sola might permit me to say that Scripture serves as the “Norm” (Capital N) while Tradition and the Church are “norms.” (Small n.)

Now, from my own reading of the subject, I myself do NOT see (given the above) much of a difference between Catholic and Protestant thought concerning the role of Scripture in the Church. In fact Congar believes that Scripture norms Tradition. (See his work “The Revelation of God” where he addresses the role of Scripture in the first chapters of the book.)

The main problem a Catholic would have with Scriptura Sola is not necessarily that the Scripture is the Supreme Authority, but rather that the doctrine does not admit the infalliblity of the Church or Tradition. Scriptura Sola seems to say something like this: “The Bible is God Breathed, therefore the Bible is Infallible. Only that which possesses the charism of Inspiration can be truly infallible, therefore the Bible is the Sole infallible rule of faith for the church.” Consequently it is this assumption which I as a Catholic would challange- assuming the correctness of my observation.

Catholics do not believe Tradition is inspired (God Breathed) but they do believe it to be infallible. Catholics do not believe the Church to be “God Breathed” but the Church is Infallible. Hence, while in theory Catholics could admit the possibility that the Scriptures are the Supreme Norm, Catholics could not grant that only the Scriptures are Infallible.

 

[paul_c]

Part of it (the Sola Scriptura part) is about the embraced rule/canon for the norming of doctrines. Those that embrace norming also embrace accountability. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (RCC, LDS and all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative rule/canon for such but because they reject accountability (but only for self exclusively) and thus norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon or the evaluation of their doctrines).

No

I have rejected the idea that a rule/canon (ANY rule/canon) can or does interpret itself. You seem to be unaware of the topic of this thread, eager to hijack the thread (a rule violation, I believe), preferring to circumvent and bypass the issue of the rule/canon in norming and instead try to divert the dicussion to hermeneutics.

The rules here require we stay on topic, thus we cannot discuss hermeneutics here.

A rule/canon in norming need not be infallible and need not have an infallible interpreter. When you drive your car, MUST you regard the rules of the road to be INFALLIBLE, MUST you regard you and all other drivers and all law enforcement persons to be INFALLIBLE interpreters of such? You seem to desire to do anything - even outside the rules - to evade the topic we are here discussing, with hijacks and diversions and moot points.

Thank you.

• Josiah

.

Josiah, you are in no position to state what is and is not a hijack of this thread. You have in fact hijacked it yourself. The original Poster asked what sola Scriptura was about. I am sure he never invisioned a two month hijack by you to discuss your norma norman theory. We have already disproven your thesis by showing that sola scripture is not repeatable… You are now relegated to basically doing nothing more attacking the Catholic Church. You therefore have tremendous nerve to lecture Tomster on changing the topic. He is in fact, completely on topic.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, the original Poster asked what sola Scriptura was about. I am sure he never invisioned your norma norman theory.

The answer to the question is that it is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans. All this has been well explained.

The Catholic Church rejects using the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects accountability (but only and excluisvely for itself alone) and thus norming and everything associated with it - including whatever might serve as the rule/canon in such.

You are now relegated to basically doing nothing more attacking the Catholic Church.

Obviously not, what you have been TRYING to do is justify the epistemological soundness of the defendant exempting self alone from accountability and norming, substituting the demand of self alone for self alone that self alone be regarded as infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever self alone says just is to be accepted with docility. You have been TRYING to show how THAT is the most sound way to determine correctness of a teaching, and why this is an absurd rubric for any and all others but is infallible in the singular, exclusive, sole and only case of The Catholic Church alone.

The issue here is whether teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine, and if so - WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for that norming? It’s not about hermeneutics or arbitration for neither of those things has anything to do with Sola Scriptura - which is the issue of this thread. And while the nature of the church also has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, it does with YOUR point since you need to substantiate why it is the most sound epistemology for a teacher to just exempt himself alone from accountability and rather insist that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable, and that whatever self alone says is to just be accepted with docility; since you defend that rubric for The Catholic Church but for no other teacher, you need to discuss The Catholic Church. And so I have welcomed you to do so. You have yet to present anything to substantiate why is it the most sound rubric in determining the correctness of a teacher for the self-same teacher to exempt himself from accountability and norming - substituting the demand that whatever the self-same teacher says MUST be true and therefore just be accepted as such with docility.

.

 

[paul_c]

This is exactely why this website frustrates me so much. Jimmy Akin claims he knows of no Protestant who has offered a clear and preside definition of Scriptura Sola. Jimmy Akin evidently lives under a rock. Works by Protestant theologians which deal with this very concept abound, they are plentiful. All he need to if he is too lazy to go to a Library is google the term “Scriptura Sola.”

If this website wants to do Catholic apologetics, they would be far better served to actually research their opponents before they claim to speak for them. In order to effectively debate, you have to know the position of your opponent and the arguments they will use to defend it better then they do.

Here is the definition of Scriptura Sola: “The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith for the Church. Scripture is the norm or norms without norm. Scripture is the final court of appeals in the Church. Whatever value one can assign to Tradition, whatever authority one can assign to the Church, both the Chruch and Tradition are normed by the higher authority of Scripture. Scripture is God Breathed, and as such is the Rule of Faith for the Christian.”
Please note the above definition is a bit brief, and not all inclusive, for I ommited a discuission of the Sufficiency of Scripture which is related.

Scriptura Sola is NOT a denial of the following:

The role of Traidition within the Church
The authority of the Church
The idea that Scripture is the Sole source of Revelation. The doctrine allows for General Revelation.

The doctrine DOES however make claim to the fact that Scripture is the highest authority. Perhaps those who hold to the doctrine of Scriptura Sola might permit me to say that Scripture serves as the “Norm” (Capital N) while Tradition and the Church are “norms.” (Small n.)

Now, from my own reading of the subject, I myself do NOT see (given the above) much of a difference between Catholic and Protestant thought concerning the role of Scripture in the Church. In fact Congar believes that Scripture norms Tradition. (See his work “The Revelation of God” where he addresses the role of Scripture in the first chapters of the book.)

The main problem a Catholic would have with Scriptura Sola is not necessarily that the Scripture is the Supreme Authority, but rather that the doctrine does not admit the infalliblity of the Church or Tradition. Scriptura Sola seems to say something like this: “The Bible is God Breathed, therefore the Bible is Infallible. Only that which possesses the charism of Inspiration can be truly infallible, therefore the Bible is the Sole infallible rule of faith for the church.” Consequently it is this assumption which I as a Catholic would challange- assuming the correctness of my observation.

Catholics do not believe Tradition is inspired (God Breathed) but they do believe it to be infallible. Catholics do not believe the Church to be “God Breathed” but the Church is Infallible. Hence, while in theory Catholics could admit the possibility that the Scriptures are the Supreme Norm, Catholics could not grant that only the Scriptures are Infallible.

You complain about Catholics speaking incorrectly about sola Scriptura, but then you hypocritically spreak incorrectly about what Catholics think about Sola scriptura.

Why do you say that Catholics don’t believe tradition is inspired? Ot that The Chruch is not “God breathed”? Catholics of course believe that The church was founded by Christ and that Tradition is inspired. Afterall, Scripture is a subset of tradtion and you would agree that scripture is inspired.

The problems Catholics have with Sola Scriptura are :

1. Not everything is in Scripture. Scripture only covers a subset of the truths about salvation. For instance, it doesn’t cover the details of the sacraments.
2. Scripture can be made to say anything you want it to say without authoritative interpretation. Didn’t the Devil use Scripture to Tempt Jesus on Luke 4?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The problems Catholics have with Sola Scriptura are :

1. Not everything is in Scripture. Scripture only covers a subset of the truths about salvation. For instance, it doesn’t cover the details of the sacraments.
2. Scripture can be made to say anything you want it to say without authoritative interpretation. Didn’t the Devil use Scripture to Tempt Jesus on Luke 4?

None of those things are remotely even related to Sola Scriptura. You have created your own strawman and then noted how you disagree with your creation. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon for the norming of doctrines.

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability (but only and exclusively for it itself alone - it insists upon it for every other teacher on the planet and in history). Because it rejects accountability in the singular case of itself alone, ergo it rejects norming and everything related to it - including whatever may serve as the rule/canon for such. It alone claims that it alone is infallible, incapable of error in these matters - and thus infallible and unaccountable. Norming is moot in the singular case of it itself alone, rather all that is simply to be laid aside and substituted for it is the demand of itself alone that whatever it alone says is simply to be accepted with docility, as God speaking.

.

 

[paul_c]

None of those things are remotely even related to Sola Scriptura. You have created your own strawman and then noted how you disagree with your creation. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon for the norming of doctrines.

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability (but only and exclusively for it itself alone - it insists upon it for every other teacher on the planet and in history). Because it rejects accountability in the singular case of itself alone, ergo it rejects norming and everything related to it - including whatever may serve as the rule/canon for such.

.

Stop speaking for the Catholic Church. It does not reject accountability. It is fully accountable to teach what it has been taught. It does however, reject accountability to your personal interpretation of scripture.

And my points are not against a strawman. How can scripture be the rule for norming of doctrines that it does not cover? Scripture doesn’t cover all truths. Furthermore, as we have already shown, it is an ineffective Norm without authoritative interpretation.

 

[kepha1]

Josiah, you have ignored my questions.
You have defined the Catholic Church in very strange terms.
Bishops are accountable to God.
You claim to know what the true Church is not, but refuse to define what the true church is.
The Catholic Church is the servant of the Scriptures, not above them, so this is what makes your claims all the more puzzling. The Catholic Church does not claim to be above the Scriptures, but you ignore everything that is told to you.

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.”

What is the expiry date of this verse?

They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

Account To Whom? Any opinion will do, Josiah, just give ONE.

Acts 9
4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.”

If Jesus is in heaven, why does Jesus say ““I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,…” And if these Christians being persecuted, whom Jesus says is Himself, is not the Catholic Church, then who or what are they? An invisible unorganized collection of true believers with no body, just a spiritual union? Sounds a tad Gnostic to me.

6 “…and it will be told you what you must do.” Did Jesus tell Paul directly what he must do or was it the “unaccountable” bishops of the Church that told Paul what he must do?

You gave no answer for my question on “house of God”. I’m not really expecting an answer to these questions either because you don’t have any.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Sola Scriptura:**

"The Scriptures are and should remain 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). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it”** (Ditto, 9).

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

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 “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the corpus of Scripture 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 rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, you have ignored my questions. You have defined the Catholic Church in very strange terms

I don’t recall defining it at all, or you asking me to.

Bishops are accountable to God.

Yes, as was Arius and Joseph Smith. But are you disagreeing with The Catholic Church’ centuries-old position that all OTHER teachers are also accountable right here, right now? It has a long, long, well-known position of judging others, considering others as accountable, norming others, arbitrating others, declaring some as wrong or heretical, condemning them, excommunicating, even dispatching some to the appointed afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. The Catholic Church disagrees with you that all teachers are ONLY accountable to God. It just insist that ONE is ONLY accountable to God. Itself. Moot since it itself alone CANNOT be wrong, thus God would be wrong if God disagreed with it.

You claim to know what the true Church is not, but refuse to define what the true church is.

Um, no. I have clearly and repeatedly said what the church is: the church is Christians. The communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The church is one and holy and catholic - it’s not an institutional, denominational, legal/political entity - an IT.

Maybe we can get back to the subject of this thread?

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.”

And I agree. But it says nothing about The Catholic Church or about it exclusively being infallible/unaccountable. And I’m sure you are recalling that God repeatedly and boldly warned us about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray. When did that warning expire? Where did God exempt the singular, paricular, Catholic Church from that? And I’m sure you have in mind when Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the very thing The Catholic Church forbids, for holding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false. See, there’s a “flip side” - a tension, a balance - that The Catholic Church forbids in the singular case of itself exclusively. President Obama has GREAT authority - but is he thus INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE, whatever he says or does must be accepted as correct “with docility” - in fact, accepted as God Himself speaking/doing?

They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Account To Whom? Any opinion will do, Josiah, just give ONE.

So, they are ACCOUNTABLE! Thus, they CANNOT be infallible!

The text doesn’t say, so I won’t. But I suspect here it means to God. But I wonder if you say to the Mormon, “You MUST listen to your LDS teachers with docility and regard them as infallible, incapable of error, and NOT regard them as accountable - for they are accountable ONLY to God!” I get your point here, I just don’t think you agree with yourself.

If Jesus is in heaven, why does Jesus say ““I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,…” And if these Christians being persecuted, whom Jesus says is Himself, is not the Catholic Church, then who or what are they?

Well, they can’t be The Catholic Church because Paul wasn’t persecuting any denominational, institutional entity, he was persecuting PEOPLE, specifically CHRISTIAN people. Remember: MY position is that the church is us - not your denomination.

Where did Jesus say, “And a teacher is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable if the self same so claims for the self same exclusively?” Where in that verse does Jesus say, “The Catholic Church must be accepted for whatever it says with docility - and be regarded as exempt from norming and accountability?”

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It is fully accountable to teach what it has been taught.

You are very Catholic, THAT I’ll admit…

You seem to be confusing accountability with responsibility, and you now are going back to your earlier position (one The Catholic Church rejects, btw) that if self agrees with self, then self is correct. I don’t doubt that The Catholic Church teaches what it teaches. I don’t even doubt that it agrees with itself. I (like The Catholic Church) just reject that that has any relevance whatsoever to self being correct.

It does however, reject accountability to your personal interpretation of scripture.

It’s not even accountable to its OWN personal interpretretation of Scripture. Your “issue” with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture is an issue you need to take up with The Catholic Church (CCC 85 for example) since it is the only Christian teacher to so insist (the LDS did but dropped this about a century ago).

The RCC holds every single OTHER teacher as fully accountable: right here, right now. And it DOES have a rule/canon for THEM (just not itself). That is the infamous “three-legged-stool” of

1. Catholic Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. Scriptures not in writing or in words found on any page - knowable and unalterable - but in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as selected by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church and their views.’
   These 3 things, equally and inseparably, form “one stream” and ONE rule/canon for the evaluation of the teachings of every teacher (save one: itself, for to use this rule for self would simply be embracing a rubric that if self agrees with self then self is correct - a rubric The Catholic Church rejects; moot anyway since The Catholic Church is infallable, incapable of error and thus needs no norming).

How can scripture be the rule for norming of doctrines that it does not cover? .

You seem always eager to change the topic, now to arbitration. Yes, I agree, Scripture would be of little value in norming The Doctrine of The Toyota Camry Gas Peddle" It probably would be difficult to norm such as confirmed by Scripture. On the other hand, no one teaches that as Christian dogma, to my knowledge. If we could discuss arbitration here, I’d introduce you to the Protestant concept of “pious opinion” - a view with solid ecumenical and historic embrace but without Scriptural affirmation: neither dogma or heresy, but I’m trying not to violate the rules here at Catholic Answers. Not everything can probably be reasonably normed according to the canon of Scripture as dogma or heresy. But that’s all another discussion for another day and thread - not permitted here.

Read post 324 above. It should clarify MUCH for you.

.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t recall defining it at all, or you asking me to.

Yes, as was Arius and Joseph Smith. But are you disagreeing with The Catholic Church’ centuries-old position that all OTHER teachers are also accountable right here, right now? It has a long, long, well-known position of judging others, considering others as accountable, norming others, arbitrating others, declaring some as wrong or heretical, condemning them, excommunicating, even dispatching some to the appointed afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. The Catholic Church disagrees with you that all teachers are ONLY accountable to God. It just insist that ONE is ONLY accountable to God. Itself. Moot since it itself alone CANNOT be wrong, thus God would be wrong if God disagreed with it.

Um, no. I have clearly and repeatedly said what the church is: the church is Christians. The communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The church is one and holy and catholic - it’s not an institutional, denominational, legal/political entity - an IT.

Maybe we can get back to the subject of this thread?

And I agree. But it says nothing about The Catholic Church or about it exclusively being infallible/unaccountable. And I’m sure you are recalling that God repeatedly and boldly warned us about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray. When did that warning expire? Where did God exempt the singular, paricular, Catholic Church from that? And I’m sure you have in mind when Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the very thing The Catholic Church forbids, for holding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false. See, there’s a “flip side” - a tension, a balance - that The Catholic Church forbids in the singular case of itself exclusively. President Obama has GREAT authority - but is he thus INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE, whatever he says or does must be accepted as correct “with docility” - in fact, accepted as God Himself speaking/doing?

So, they are ACCOUNTABLE! Thus, they CANNOT be infallible!

The text doesn’t say, so I won’t. But I suspect here it means to God. But I wonder if you say to the Mormon, “You MUST listen to your LDS teachers with docility and regard them as infallible, incapable of error, and NOT regard them as accountable - for they are accountable ONLY to God!” I get your point here, I just don’t think you agree with yourself.

Well, they can’t be The Catholic Church because Paul wasn’t persecuting any denominational, institutional entity, he was persecuting PEOPLE, specifically CHRISTIAN people. Remember: MY position is that the church is us - not your denomination.

Where did Jesus say, “And a teacher is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable if the self same so claims for the self same exclusively?” Where in that verse does Jesus say, “The Catholic Church must be accepted for whatever it says with docility - and be regarded as exempt from norming and accountability?”

.

Yes, the apostles warned about false teachers, like Martin Luther, who created their own doctrines out of thin air instead of sticking to the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[Apologist78]

Why do you say that Catholics don’t believe tradition is inspired? Ot that The Chruch is not “God breathed”? Catholics of course believe that The church was founded by Christ and that Tradition is inspired. Afterall, Scripture is a subset of tradtion and you would agree that scripture is inspired.

Why do I say that Catholics don’t believe Tradition is inspired? Becasue they don’t. Tradition is not “Breathed out by God” in the sense that Scripture is. Scripture is unique for that reason. Tradition is infallible, perhaps we can call it “inspired” in the loose sense of the word since it’s origin is God, BUT we cannot use the term “inspired” with Tradition in the same sense as it is used in reference to Scripture.

This was my education when I studied theology. Lest you think I went to some run of the mill liberal Catholic university which seeks to undermine the Faith, I did not I assure you. I went to a very Catholic school, trust me.

The problems Catholics have with Sola Scriptura are :

1. Not everything is in Scripture. Scripture only covers a subset of the truths about salvation. For instance, it doesn’t cover the details of the sacraments.

Irrelavent to Scriptrua Sola

1. Scripture can be made to say anything you want it to say without authoritative interpretation. Didn’t the Devil use Scripture to Tempt Jesus on Luke 4?

Again, such a point demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of what our Protestant bretheren mean by the doctrine of Scriptura Sola. As I understand it, in the Protestant sense, the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and bind the Christian. However, the Church is not infallible, and their interpretation is always subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

My larger point was that Akin, unfortunately is par for the course for much of the “Apologists” on this website. They don’t do their homework-- and they BRAG about it to boot! They go around and BRAG about how they don’t bother reading the other side!

 

[Apologist78]

The answer to the question is that it is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans. All this has been well explained.

The Catholic Church rejects using the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects accountability (but only and excluisvely for itself alone) and thus norming and everything associated with it - including whatever might serve as the rule/canon in such.

Obviously not, what you have been TRYING to do is justify the epistemological soundness of the defendant exempting self alone from accountability and norming, substituting the demand of self alone for self alone that self alone be regarded as infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever self alone says just is to be accepted with docility. You have been TRYING to show how THAT is the most sound way to determine correctness of a teaching, and why this is an absurd rubric for any and all others but is infallible in the singular, exclusive, sole and only case of The Catholic Church alone.

The issue here is whether teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine, and if so - WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for that norming? It’s not about hermeneutics or arbitration for neither of those things has anything to do with Sola Scriptura - which is the issue of this thread. And while the nature of the church also has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, it does with YOUR point since you need to substantiate why it is the most sound epistemology for a teacher to just exempt himself alone from accountability and rather insist that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable, and that whatever self alone says is to just be accepted with docility; since you defend that rubric for The Catholic Church but for no other teacher, you need to discuss The Catholic Church. And so I have welcomed you to do so. You have yet to present anything to substantiate why is it the most sound rubric in determining the correctness of a teacher for the self-same teacher to exempt himself from accountability and norming - substituting the demand that whatever the self-same teacher says MUST be true and therefore just be accepted as such with docility.

.

Sir Josiah,

If I am not mistaken, you were at one time a poster at CARM. You are a Lutheran, are you not? I remember having many a conversation with you over there.

 

[paul_c]

You are very Catholic, THAT I’ll admit…

You seem to be confusing accountability with responsibility, and you now are going back to your earlier position (one The Catholic Church rejects, btw) that if self agrees with self, then self is correct. I don’t doubt that The Catholic Church teaches what it teaches. I don’t even doubt that it agrees with itself. I (like The Catholic Church) just reject that that has any relevance whatsoever to self being correct.

It’s not even accountable to its OWN personal interpretretation of Scripture. Your “issue” with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture is an issue you need to take up with The Catholic Church (CCC 85 for example) since it is the only Christian teacher to so insist (the LDS did but dropped this about a century ago).

The RCC holds every single OTHER teacher as fully accountable: right here, right now. And it DOES have a rule/canon for THEM (just not itself). That is the infamous “three-legged-stool” of

1. Catholic Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. Scriptures not in writing or in words found on any page - knowable and unalterable - but in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church
3. The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as selected by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church and their views.’
   These 3 things, equally and inseparably, form “one stream” and ONE rule/canon for the evaluation of the teachings of every teacher (save one: itself, for to use this rule for self would simply be embracing a rubric that if self agrees with self then self is correct - a rubric The Catholic Church rejects; moot anyway since The Catholic Church is infallable, incapable of error and thus needs no norming).

You seem always eager to change the topic, now to arbitration. Yes, I agree, Scripture would be of little value in norming The Doctrine of The Toyota Camry Gas Peddle" It probably would be difficult to norm such as confirmed by Scripture. On the other hand, no one teaches that as Christian dogma, to my knowledge. If we could discuss arbitration here, I’d introduce you to the Protestant concept of “pious opinion” - a view with solid ecumenical and historic embrace but without Scriptural affirmation: neither dogma or heresy, but I’m trying not to violate the rules here at Catholic Answers. Not everything can probably be reasonably normed according to the canon of Scripture as dogma or heresy. But that’s all another discussion for another day and thread - not permitted here.

Read post 324 above. It should clarify MUCH for you.

.

I read post 324. It is the same information you have had on probably 100 other posts. You say Scripture is the Norm by which everything is measured. I got that. I disagree.
Not everything can be measured against scripture because:

1. scripture doesn’t cover all truth. for instance. It doesn’t cover apostolic succession other than Matthias replacing Judas, because the New Testament authors didnt cover it… You would say therefore it doesn’t exist because it isn’t in scripture. We would say, just because it isn’t in the 27 books, doesn’t make it less true.
2. Scripture needs authoritative intepretation. How can something be the norm on its own when any two people can interpret it differently? its different than a measuring tape.

There is nothing I am saying here that the Catholic Church doesn’t agree with. And it believes in corporate interpretation by the magesterium…, not private interpretation. I don’t see how you can think the Catholic church supports private interpretation when it has always taken the exact opposite approach.