Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Philthy]

Yes. This is mostly among those that practice the epistemology you are defending:

AJ, be honest. Widespread differences of opinion on what Scripture means is the rule rather than the exception. This is most obvious in Protestant churches. That is why there are so many of them, AJ. So, no it is not “mostly among those that practice the epistemology” that I am defending - that is just a very weak, very blind, historically ignorant comment. Unfortunately for your position on arbitration, accountability and authority you must offer something as ridiculous as that claim and hope that we might actually agree with it. It is an absurd claim.

Yes, my Calvinist friend and I can find things we disagree on. I’m not aware that any of these are dogmas - but they might be.

Oh, I see AJ. You are coming here spouting all this misinformation and you “are not aware” whether there are dogmatic differences within Protestant communities? What kind of scientist are you anyhow? Don’t you think it would be worthwhile to base your hypotheses on ESTABLISHED FACT? Of course it would be, that is the “norma normans” of science, but apparently you somehow have exempted yourself from a study of the foundational tenet of your epistologic hypothesis: that using Scripture along with an arbitration system will result in unity of doctrine when history - and logic - reveal that when Scripture is approached this way it leads to disunity, not unity.

Well, there needs to be an arbitration beyond the defendant. So, what is the arbiter that The Catholic Church goes to, that is higher than itself?

What did I tell you last time AJ? Are you not reading the posts? Did you not read it when I pointed it out to you a second time? That would be an indication that you are not listening, that you are “blinded” by your hypothesis. Could it be that you really dont want to hear the answer? Could it be that you are more attached to your hypothesis and the life that goes along with it than you are in the truth?

Friend, with sufficient ego, anything or anyone can claim anything.

Really? How about historically valid Apostolic succession? Sure you can claim it, but it will be revealed for the farce it is - just like your claim that doctrinal division is greatest within the Catholic Church. Your point has been refuted.

The Catholic Church as you extend to my Mormon friend for the exact same act of faith for the exact same issue for his denomination. But this thread is not about acts of faith, it’s about ACCOUNTABILITY and CORRECTNESS,

History can be a vicious form of accountability - it eviscerates “ego” as being “sufficient” to “claim anything”. Mormonism is a recent addition to Christianity, and there is no getting around it. Christ made numerous promises regarding his Church and the Mormons simply can not have fulfilled them all and can therefore be rejected as Christ’s true Church. You cannot compare the Mormon Church with the Catholic Church in this regard without sounding ignorant of some basic facts.

Obviously, you’ve not shown that Christ promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.
Nor can you show that Christ promised infallibility to ANYONE.
You keep coming back to this, your foundational point: BECAUSE Christ and/or the Apostles PROMISED infalliblity/unaccountability to The Catholic Church. But you’ve never shown that anyone ever promised it anything. Your apologetic is baseless.

The promise was made to the Apostles, with specific promises given to Peter. They, in turn, recognized the “office” that they held and passed it on to others. That second generation did likewise, as did all succeeding generations up to the present day. This is known as apostolic succession, and the name of the body of believers which possesses it is known today, as it has been since the 1st century, as the Catholic Church. Run from it if you wish, claim there isnt enough proof, insult it by likening it to a cult, but your puny voice emanating from the whirlwind of doctrinal disunity that your system has produced over the last 500 years simply doesnt cut it.

Blessings!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I guess he doesn’t realize that every time the Scriptures mention “church,” that it is the Catholic Church. The descriptor “Catholic” is not needed because there was only one Church.

So The Catholic Church alone interprets, but it is the self-serving, individual interpretation of The Catholic Church alone. The undeniable reality is this: Jesus never promised or authorized The Catholic Church anything - He never so much as even mentioned it. I know that, you know that, all literate persons who have read the NT know that. He never promised or authorized it for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard. He never excluded it from accountability. He never excluded it from his stern warnings about false teachers. He never even mentioned it - even entirely in passing. Yes, I realize you CAN capitolize the word “church” wherever it appears in Scripture so as to imply in modern English grammar that a proper name is being used, and you may insert anything you want in classic eisegesis so that, with the grammatic trick you’ve employed and with the invisible word(s) you added - it NOW says what you need. But then it’s what YOU’VE said, not what Jesus said. I know that, and so do you.

The remarkable, self-serving, self-exempting claims of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church are simply by self for self. That’s it. That’s all. Jesus or any Apostle ever so much as mentioned it - at all, about anything. And you know that.

.

 

[cfrancis]

Repost from #386

I’ve been lurking in this thread, with interest. AJ, can we use your analogy?
Bob, you and I are going to decide with what we will “norm” his fence. You mention a “Sears Measuring Tape” but I think that’s a bit ahead of the game (a presumption?)

You mentioned earlier that Scripture is the norm no matter what/how much Scripture there is (eg, when only the Pentateuch existed, that was it, etc…)

Here we are, Bob, you and me, and his fence extends beyond what we know to be the norm; that is, his fence extends beyond the reach of the Sears Measuring Tape. To make the connection to our Scriptural discussion, all we have the OT, but we are obviously beyond that with the new teachings of Jesus.

So, we need to add to the norm, thus creating a new norm. Or, we need to figure out what to add to the OT to account for this new Revelation.

• How do we do this?
• How do we add to the Sears Measuring Tape?
• What is the norm by which we measure that which will be added to the existing norm?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Yes. This is mostly among those that practice the epistemology you are defending: Exempting self exclusively from accountability and norming, and simply declaring self alone as incapable of error in these matters and that everyone should just accept with docility whatever self alone says. Have you studied the cults? Are you aware of the diversity of thought among these? Are you aware that there is nothing whatsoever to be done since each regards itself alone to be unaccountable?

Yes, my Calvinist friend and I can find things we disagree on. But I can assure you that we are closer under the Rule of Scripture than you are to my Mormon friend - both of you insisting that your denomination is incapable of error (actually, my Mormon friend would not go nearly that far - but he does embrace the same concept you have been defending: If self agrees with self as determined by self, then self is correct).

.

AJ, be honest. Widespread differences of opinion on what Scripture means is the rule rather than the exception.

Read what you quoted from me.

Friend, the widespread differences between the current teachings of The Catholic Church and the other teachers using the epistemology you are defending is MUCH, MUCH greater. Compare your Catechism to the teachings of the LDS or any of the cults - my point will be obvious to you.

But, you are still trying to circumvent the issue: You keep talking about who is right and who is wrong - and yet denying that teachers are accountable for what they teach. How can you possible talk about right and wrong if teachers are unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error and right cuz they just are? And how can you proclaim that a teacher is right or wrong (as you constantly do) if teachers are exempt from norming?

Which is it? Are teachers of doctrine accountable or not? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict? John Calvin and John Wesley? Joseph Smith and Augustine? The Catholic Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Was Jesus right when He warned us of false teachers and never exempted The Catholic Church from that? Was Jesus right when He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church requires: fior regarding teachers as accountable, for testing and norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and proclaiming them false?

IF you agree that teachers of doctrine are accountable (The Catholic Church no less than any other), that Jesus was right to warn us that teachers might be false, that Jesus was right to praise the Ephesians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, for arbitrating it and for declaring them false, then you accept that whatever any teacher says (including The Catholic Church or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or Martin Luther) is not to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” (read you Catechism # 87). And we must embrace norming. And the first question of such is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? Your suggestion that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (a rubric rejected by The Catholic Church) is entirely and wholly moot to the issue of whether self is correct, as you well know.

Well, there needs to be an arbitration beyond the defendant. So, what is the arbiter that The Catholic Church goes to, that is higher than itself?

.

What did I tell you last time AJ?

You’ve been trying to defend a rule that your denomination rejects: That if self agrees with self, self is correct. I don’t doubt for a second that The Catholic Church agrees with the Tradition of The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church chooses, defines and interprets. I’ve found that self almost always agrees with self - at least currently and officially. I just don’t agree with you that this has any signficance whatsoever or any relevance at all to that self being correct.

Friend, with sufficient ego, anything or anyone can claim anything.

And if this thread were about acts of faith - we could discuss how people choose to trust that. And I would extend to you the exact same respect to you for your act of faith in this regard to The Catholic Church as you extend to my Mormon friend for the exact same act of faith for the exact same issue for his denomination. But this thread is not about acts of faith, it’s about ACCOUNTABILITY and CORRECTNESS, and specifically the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for that norming. So, the issue is not whether you CAN trust whatever, it’s about whether the claim is TRUE. Again, you must evade the central issue: are teachers accountable for what they teach as doctrine? The Catholic Church is such a teacher for it teaches doctrine.

.

Really?

Yes. You said “The Catholic Church claims…”
Okay. I can claim I’m the most handsome guy in the world, does my claim make it true?
Read what you quoted from me.

Obviously, you’ve not shown that Christ promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.
Nor can you show that Christ promised infallibility to ANYONE.
You keep coming back to this, your foundational point: BECAUSE Christ and/or the Apostles PROMISED infalliblity/unaccountability to The Catholic Church. But you’ve never shown that anyone ever promised it anything. Your apologetic is baseless.

.

The promise was made to the Apostles, with specific promises given to Peter.

Read what I posted that you quoted from me. And thanks for confirming my point.

Jesus never promised infalliblity or unaccountability to any Apostle, either. But that would be moot to our discussion here.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Tomster]

So The Catholic Church alone interprets, but it is the self-serving, individual interpretation of The Catholic Church alone. The undeniable reality is this: Jesus never promised or authorized The Catholic Church anything - He never so much as even mentioned it. I know that, you know that, all literate persons who have read the NT know that. He never promised or authorized it for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard. He never excluded it from accountability. He never excluded it from his stern warnings about false teachers. He never even mentioned it - even entirely in passing. Yes, I realize you CAN capitolize the word “church” wherever it appears in Scripture so as to imply in modern English grammar that a proper name is being used, and you may insert anything you want in classic eisegesis so that, with the grammatic trick you’ve employed and with the invisible word(s) you added - it NOW says what you need. But then it’s what YOU’VE said, not what Jesus said. I know that, and so do you.

The remarkable, self-serving, self-exempting claims of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church are simply by self for self. That’s it. That’s all. Jesus or any Apostle ever so much as mentioned it - at all, about anything. And you know that.

.

Actually, you are quite wrong, again, and as usual!

The Church came from the hands of Christ. The Gospel itself witnesses that it was immediately from Him that the Church received the basic constitution which she is to keep till the end of time: "As the Father has sent me, so also I send you (John 22:21); “All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, baptizing ye all nations . . . and behold I am with you even till the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28:18-20).

In the Gospel text addressed to the Apostles in view of a mission extending to all nations and to all times, it is evidently impossible not to recognize - enveloped no doubt in exceptional and temporary privileges, but nevertheless clearly formulated - the promise of the permanent, ordinary, transmissible jurisdictional powers needed to preserve the revelation unaltered down the ages, and for taking, as circumstances might dictate, all the measures required for the spiritual good of souls.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

A.J.,

Please refer to: John 14:26; John 16:7; John 16:13;Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 18:17-18.

How are we to understand the power of jurisdiction indicated in these great texts?

Please, an answer A.J.

 

[Tomster]

.

Read what you quoted from me.

Friend, the widespread differences between the current teachings of The Catholic Church and the other teachers using the epistemology you are defending is MUCH, MUCH greater. Compare your Catechism to the teachings of the LDS or any of the cults - my point will be obvious to you.

But, you are still trying to circumvent the issue: You keep talking about who is right and who is wrong - and yet denying that teachers are accountable for what they teach. How can you possible talk about right and wrong if teachers are unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error and right cuz they just are? And how can you proclaim that a teacher is right or wrong (as you constantly do) if teachers are exempt from norming?

Which is it? Are teachers of doctrine accountable or not? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict? John Calvin and John Wesley? Joseph Smith and Augustine? The Catholic Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Was Jesus right when He warned us of false teachers and never exempted The Catholic Church from that? Was Jesus right when He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church requires: fior regarding teachers as accountable, for testing and norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and proclaiming them false?

IF you agree that teachers of doctrine are accountable (The Catholic Church no less than any other), that Jesus was right to warn us that teachers might be false, that Jesus was right to praise the Ephesians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, for arbitrating it and for declaring them false, then you accept that whatever any teacher says (including The Catholic Church or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or Martin Luther) is not to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” (read you Catechism # 87). And we must embrace norming. And the first question of such is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? Your suggestion that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (a rubric rejected by The Catholic Church) is entirely and wholly moot to the issue of whether self is correct, as you well know.

You’ve been trying to defend a rule that your denomination rejects: That if self agrees with self, self is correct. I don’t doubt for a second that The Catholic Church agrees with the Tradition of The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church chooses, defines and interprets. I’ve found that self almost always agrees with self - at least currently and officially. I just don’t agree with you that this has any signficance whatsoever or any relevance at all to that self being correct.

Yes. You said “The Catholic Church claims…”
Okay. I can claim I’m the most handsome guy in the world, does my claim make it true?
Read what you quoted from me.

Read what I posted that you quoted from me. And thanks for confirming my point.

Jesus never promised infalliblity or unaccountability to any Apostle, either. But that would be moot to our discussion here.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

As a result of believing the Protestant dogmas of sola scriptura and sola fide it is obvious you are quite unaware of the terms Incarnational and Hierarchical mediation.

It was only when God, inaugurating the final era of history, chose to pour out at last upon men the supreme favors reserved for them from all eternity, that He established a Church in its definitive temporal status by bringing the regime of visible mediation to its highest point of perfection. This brought with it at once the deepest joy and the most effective help, but also the hardest trial and the most exacting exercise of our faith: the greatest joy and help, because there is nothing so connatural to man as to receive divine things humanly; the hardest trial and effort, because there is no more surprising mystery than this collaboration of the uncreated with the created, of omnipotence with indigence, of eternity with time, of immensity with place.

First the Word is sent from heaven into our flesh, and then, having promised the help of the Holy Spirit, He sends His own disciples into the world (John 20:21). Hence the perfect regime of the Church militant involves a double visible mediation: that of the Incarnation and that of the hierarchy.

 

[Tomster]

.

Read what you quoted from me.

Friend, the widespread differences between the current teachings of The Catholic Church and the other teachers using the epistemology you are defending is MUCH, MUCH greater. Compare your Catechism to the teachings of the LDS or any of the cults - my point will be obvious to you.

But, you are still trying to circumvent the issue: You keep talking about who is right and who is wrong - and yet denying that teachers are accountable for what they teach. How can you possible talk about right and wrong if teachers are unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error and right cuz they just are? And how can you proclaim that a teacher is right or wrong (as you constantly do) if teachers are exempt from norming?

Which is it? Are teachers of doctrine accountable or not? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict? John Calvin and John Wesley? Joseph Smith and Augustine? The Catholic Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Was Jesus right when He warned us of false teachers and never exempted The Catholic Church from that? Was Jesus right when He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church requires: fior regarding teachers as accountable, for testing and norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and proclaiming them false?

IF you agree that teachers of doctrine are accountable (The Catholic Church no less than any other), that Jesus was right to warn us that teachers might be false, that Jesus was right to praise the Ephesians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, for arbitrating it and for declaring them false, then you accept that whatever any teacher says (including The Catholic Church or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or Martin Luther) is not to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” (read you Catechism # 87). And we must embrace norming. And the first question of such is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? Your suggestion that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (a rubric rejected by The Catholic Church) is entirely and wholly moot to the issue of whether self is correct, as you well know.

You’ve been trying to defend a rule that your denomination rejects: That if self agrees with self, self is correct. I don’t doubt for a second that The Catholic Church agrees with the Tradition of The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church chooses, defines and interprets. I’ve found that self almost always agrees with self - at least currently and officially. I just don’t agree with you that this has any signficance whatsoever or any relevance at all to that self being correct.

Yes. You said “The Catholic Church claims…”
Okay. I can claim I’m the most handsome guy in the world, does my claim make it true?
Read what you quoted from me.

Read what I posted that you quoted from me. And thanks for confirming my point.

Jesus never promised infalliblity or unaccountability to any Apostle, either. But that would be moot to our discussion here.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

I see that you consider yourself a Lutheran. Fine!

Back to the topic of this thread which is “Sole Scriptura and Sole Fide”, I ask you. how is one justified (made straight with God)? The phrase “faith alone” appears only once in the Bible and it is the book of James: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). In order to Biblically substantiate his doctrine of “sole fide” (meaning that a person is “made straight with God” and is, thus, eligible to enter into heaven, by a mere profession of faith in Jesus ‘alone’), Martin Luther added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28 - even when the word did not appear in the Greek scriptural manuscripts. Thus, by promoting his doctrine of “sole fide,” Martin Luther broke his doctrine of “sola scriptura” (meaning that all is necessary for Christian belief and practice is contained exclusively in the written Bible).

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate . . . It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and besides themselves, they will not get out.” - Martin Luther from Sendbrieff von Dolmetzschen

Wow, talk about jackasses!

 

[paul_c]

I see that you consider yourself a Lutheran. Fine!

Back to the topic of this thread which is “Sole Scriptura and Sole Fide”, I ask you. how is one justified (made straight with God)? The phrase “faith alone” appears only once in the Bible and it is the book of James: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). In order to Biblically substantiate his doctrine of “sole fide” (meaning that a person is “made straight with God” and is, thus, eligible to enter into heaven, by a mere profession of faith in Jesus ‘alone’), Martin Luther added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28 - even when the word did not appear in the Greek scriptural manuscripts. Thus, by promoting his doctrine of “sole fide,” Martin Luther broke his doctrine of “sola scriptura” (meaning that all is necessary for Christian belief and practice is contained exclusively in the written Bible).

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate . . . It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and besides themselves, they will not get out.” - Martin Luther from Sendbrieff von Dolmetzschen

Wow, talk about jackasses!

Martin Luther was not shy about resorting to evil to support his theology. Here’s one of his quotes where he tells people who truly believe in sola Fide to sin bodly.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.
Letter 99, Paragraph 13. Erika Bullmann Flores, Tr. from: Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften Dr. Johann Georg Walch Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15, cols. 2585-2590. [3]

Isn’t it ironic that American Josiah can be so condenscending about Catholic norming, when he follows Luther, who created his own religion.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Isn’t it ironic that American Josiah can be so condenscending about Catholic norming, when he follows Luther, who created his own religion.

1. I’m not “consenscending” about Catholic norming, I’m noting what The Catholic Church and the Catholics here have noted: There is no such thing as Catholic norming vis-a-vis what The Catholic Church teaches as doctrine; it alone exempts it alone from such, substituting instead that all rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” If you find that as less than good, then that’s YOUR conclusion.
2. I don’t follow Luther. In anything. For anything. Nor does any Lutheran.

.

 

[CWBetts]

1. I’m not “consenscending” about Catholic norming, I’m noting what The Catholic Church and the Catholics here have noted: There is no such thing as Catholic norming vis-a-vis what The Catholic Church teaches as doctrine; it alone exempts it alone from such, substituting instead that all rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” If you find that as less than good, then that’s YOUR conclusion.
2. I don’t follow Luther. In anything. For anything. Nor does any Lutheran.

.

Its called Papal authority. Peter and his successors were given the authority to decree what is right and wrong. I mean, after all, without this authority, nothing could be said about slavery.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

A.J.,

Please refer to: John 14:26; John 16:7; John 16:13;Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 18:17-18.

Please, an answer A.J.

John 14:26, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

Notes:

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
2. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will come. Most view Pentecost as the fulfillment of this promise. The Holy Spirit will teach us and remind us of what Jesus said (a promise fulfilled in the inspiration of the New Testament?). But a perfect teacher does not mean an infallible/unaccountable teacher (if so, there would be no tests or grades in school, would there?).

John 16:7, " But I tell you the truth, it is for your good that I go away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; if if I go, I will send him to you."

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming, right cuz it is so it is.
2. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will come to us. It’s generally regarded that this promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. My Catholic teachers taught me that we recieve this at our Baptism. I agree.

John 16:13, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming, right cuz it is so it is.
2. This promise is generally thought to have been fulfilled at Pentecost. Yes, the Spirit guides to truth. Do you think the Spirit guides to error? But while God ALWAYS leads infallibly and correct, there’s no evidence that THEREFORE The Catholic Church singularly, exclusively, solely, consistentaly, perpetually INFALLIBLY follows. That’s absurd and entirely irrational and illogical. Did God guide Adam and Eve in the Garden? ERGO, did they infallibly follow that lead? Did God regard them as unaccountable? Obviously not. ANY gigantic leap in trying to say that because God leads us, ergo I alone infallible follow is obviusly and undeniably silly.

Mark 16:15, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming, right cuz it is so it is.
2. Yes, the Spirit makes things known (a reference to His inspiration of Scripture?). “To make known” may not be especially cognative? But again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a single, particular denomination being infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability and norming, and that we must lay aside any question of correctness and just accept whatever that one singularly says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” cuz that one exclusively so insists for self exclusively. Have you studied any of the cults on this point?
3. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light will reveal GOD’S truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from the light, from examination and accountability and norming. It is the false teacher who must build tall, thick walls of remarkable, accountability-evading self-claims about being exempt from examination, who must get the issue off of whether he is correct and substitute instead the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says must rather just be accepted “with docility.”

continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

continuing the post above…

Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable or exempt from norming. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it and it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming, right cuz it is so it is.
2. The Great Commission means the church (Christians) is to teach and baptize. But obviously, this does not mean whatever each wants - and all must just accept whatever that one says “with docility.” The Scriptures are filled with divine, stern, bold warnings about FALSE teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. If such is impossible, then the warnings are misleading and moot. Nowhere are we told, “The Catholic Church alone is to Baptize and Teach (how DOES a denomination do EITHER of those things??) and WHATEVER it alone says is to be exempt from accountability and just accepted as correct with docility as Jesus speaking.”

A few verses for you:

Revelation 2:2
2 Peter 2:1
Acts 17:11
James 3:1
Matthew 7:15
Luke 20:46

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[CWBetts]

AJ,
The reason it does not say “Catholic Church” is because it was unnecessary! There was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 1st century! And for the record, “Catholic” is not a denomination.

 

[Tomster]

Martin Luther was not shy about resorting to evil to support his theology. Here’s one of his quotes where he tells people who truly believe in sola Fide to sin bodly.

Isn’t it ironic that American Josiah can be so condenscending about Catholic norming, when he follows Luther, who created his own religion.

Agreed!

Luther’s revelations, although supposedly discovered in the supposedly previously forbidden Bible, and therefore either there, or not there, were in a constant state of revision and correction, especially as the bitter quarreling with his fellow Reformers escalated. Submitted to negotiation and subjected to compromise, the number of sacraments, for example, seesawed: seven, two, three, two. When the Swiss Reformers, putting into practice Luther’s decree that each could interpret the Bible for himself, differed with him, they were called “a race of hypocrites and imposters.” They in turn called the Great Reformer “a devil.”

In regard to the whole treatment of the subject, we ask: if some human being is going to settle a question for us, is it not preferable that he be the authorized Successor of St. Peter, the visible head of the Church, to which the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? 'The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you . . . He will teach you all truth" (John 14:26; 16:13).

 

[paul_c]

1. I’m not “consenscending” about Catholic norming, I’m noting what The Catholic Church and the Catholics here have noted: There is no such thing as Catholic norming vis-a-vis what The Catholic Church teaches as doctrine; it alone exempts it alone from such, substituting instead that all rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” If you find that as less than good, then that’s YOUR conclusion.
2. I don’t follow Luther. In anything. For anything. Nor does any Lutheran.

.

I think its hilarious and ironic that you call yourself a Lutheran and yet disavow him. It really means you follow your own whims, doesn’t it?

 

[Tomster]

Martin Luther was not shy about resorting to evil to support his theology. Here’s one of his quotes where he tells people who truly believe in sola Fide to sin bodly.

Isn’t it ironic that American Josiah can be so condenscending about Catholic norming, when he follows Luther, who created his own religion.

The Protestant definition of “church” as “all believers in every church” is nothing less than an assault on the Mother Tongue. The word “church” is singular. By means of the new definition, “the Church” is thousands of churches, each place where “the Word” will be interpreted for you in keeping with Protestant oral tradition. The Protestant’s own references to “our church,” with the qualifier “our” signifying the one he attends at the moment as distinguished from other Protestant sects, betrays the uselessness of this definition in the real world. But for all that, the Church is not important to salvation. You can confidently believe that you are saved sitting under a tree.

All the Reformers’ new definitions, first of each sacrament respectively, and then “church”, proclaimed far and wide, led inexorably to the dogmatic pronouncement: “No church” can save you. Catholics insist that the Church , with seven sacraments intact and apostolic doctrine unaltered, can save us, with our cooperation. This is what the Church is for; its whole business! A Catholic "hear the Church (Matthew 18:17), he listens to the Church, because “He that heareth [listens to] you, heareth [is listening to] me; and he that despiseth you, dispiseth me; and he that dispiseth me, dispiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).

The Protestant imagines that to hear the Church is to replace Christ with the Church. The objection, based on Protestant experience of “church,” says everything about Protestantism and nothing about the Church. This invisible church of Luther’s, a concept which he denied and would not tolerate in practice, itself leads with relentless logic to the contention of Protestants and Fundamentalists that the Church cannot matter much. And if you could not find it, and lacked any objective means of recognizing it even if you could locate it, which is not the case, they would be right.

 

[Tomster]

I think its hilarious and ironic that you call yourself a Lutheran and yet disavow him. It really means you follow your own whims, doesn’t it?

Could “whims” be interpreted as “A.J.'s norming process”?

 

[Tomster]

I think its hilarious and ironic that you call yourself a Lutheran and yet disavow him. It really means you follow your own whims, doesn’t it?

Seriously, you have hit on the fatal flaw of all of Protestantism which their man made dogma of Private Judgment.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Read what you quoted from me.

Friend, the widespread differences between the current teachings of The Catholic Church and the other teachers using the epistemology you are defending is MUCH, MUCH greater. Compare your Catechism to the teachings of the LDS or any of the cults - my point will be obvious to you.

But, you are still trying to circumvent the issue:

You keep talking about who is right and who is wrong - and yet denying that teachers are accountable for what they teach. How can you possible talk about right and wrong if teachers are unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error and right cuz they just are? And how can you proclaim that a teacher is right or wrong (as you constantly do) if teachers are exempt from norming?

Which is it? Are teachers of doctrine accountable or not? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict? John Calvin and John Wesley? Joseph Smith and Augustine? The Catholic Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Was Jesus right when He warned us of false teachers and never exempted The Catholic Church from that? Was Jesus right when He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church requires: fior regarding teachers as accountable, for testing and norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and proclaiming them false?

IF you agree that teachers of doctrine are accountable (The Catholic Church no less than any other), that Jesus was right to warn us that teachers might be false, that Jesus was right to praise the Ephesians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, for arbitrating it and for declaring them false, then you accept that whatever any teacher says (including The Catholic Church or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or Martin Luther) is not to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” (read you Catechism # 87). And we must embrace norming. And the first question of such is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? Your suggestion that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (a rubric rejected by The Catholic Church) is entirely and wholly moot to the issue of whether self is correct, as you well know.

Yes. You said “The Catholic Church claims…”
Okay. I can claim I’m the most handsome guy in the world, does my claim make it true?
Read what you quoted from me.

Read what I posted that you quoted from me. And thanks for confirming my point.

Jesus never promised infalliblity or unaccountability to any Apostle, either. But that would be moot to our discussion here.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

I see that you consider yourself a Lutheran. Fine!

I ask you. how is one justified (made straight with God)?

Read what you quoted from me. Respond to what you quoted, perhaps by answering the questions.

Wow, talk about jackasses!

Wonderful apologetics there, my friend.

.