Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[CWBetts]

Our good friend AJ knows his arguments have been thoroughly debunked and he has decided it is better to engage in repeating himself ad nauseum instead of capitulate.

 

[paul_c]

Our good friend AJ knows his arguments have been thoroughly debunked and he has decided it is better to engage in repeating himself ad nauseum instead of capitulate.

That is a sign of youth. That will change with time when he realizes there are better things to do then defend a lost cause.

 

[paul_c]

Our good friend AJ knows his arguments have been thoroughly debunked and he has decided it is better to engage in repeating himself ad nauseum instead of capitulate.

That is a sign of youth. That will change with time when he realizes there are better things to do than defend a lost cause.

 

[Roblox84]

Understood. You don’t have to read stuff by Protestants if you don’t want to. (That doesn’t mean they’re worthless just because you refuse to read them, but if you choose not to read any of it, you are free to do so). I would encourage you to read up on Jimmy Akin if you have not done so already, though, as he seems to be very much like you…except for the way in which he talks about the Protestant background he came from.

 

[Roblox84]

Here is a good answer to "Sola Scriptura:

“The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible … imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.”

From Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM

Acts 7:54-60; was Stephen saved? He died before one word of the New Testament had been written down. And Jn 21:25? Our Apostolic church has passed down things Jesus taught, that never were written down.

As for “Sola Fide,” it has so many interpretations that it is difficult to discuss. From those that think it means they can say the “Jesus Prayer,” and then sin with impunity (yes, I’ve met one or two), all the way up to those who define faith as believing what Jesus taught and doing what He told us, there are nearly as many interpretations as there are denominations.

So I always want to hear my fellow debater’s definition of it, before I answer them.

God bless you,

Ruthie

I have an even better and more logical answer to the Sola Scriptura theory without using any bible verses, this way I can’t be told wrong for miss wording or leaving out information on purpose.

First of all, most protestant church’s will say they believe in sola Scriptura but their actions differ, as you will read below and why they differ. The church I am going to states that the bible is the only authority, and salvation is by faith alone not by works. Yet the church says you must do good such as, missions and community service and give money to the church in order to fulfill your christian duty. So it’s not what they say, its through their actions that their beliefs are portrayed.

It is a matter of seeing what type of people attend Protestant churches. They are people that like very graphic words and statements such as preaching about demons, possession, raptures, condemning, etc… Therefore the reformists such as Luther really knew how to appeal to this type of people and by also instituting the belief of “bible alone” he knew that he would achieve a great amount of followers.

But mainly, it is a fact that if one organization gets too big then there will be many other guy’s that will want a piece of that power, and those little guy’s all have to differentiate themselves in some way from the big guy. So without the theory of a belief in the bible alone, people would have no reason of following them because they wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the two and they might as well call themselves Catholics.

So you see, it’s not really a biblical thing as people think, as it is more of a political power struggle between the small denominations that needed a piece of the pie from the big guy. You can compare this to say Microsoft computer company. You have the main operating system which they invented and works well, then later you have the smaller guy’s all competing for profits and inventing other operating systems. These other operating systems will work, but they will never work as well as the original. You don’t need any bible verses or letters or doctrines to explain it. It is just a matter of people being people and constantly wanting to change things.

 

[Roblox84]

mmmcounts;6132427:

Actually you’re very wrong, that info is worthless. After going to a protestant church for 2 years now and attending several other protest. churches before that, not one of them ever preached consistently with the bible. The preachers always tended to skew bible passages to their own likings. They are very good at what they do and very good at telling the people what they want to hear. So after I noticed that practice it made me never look at another protestant source of information because I could only imagine that it will be purposely miss worded to their favor.

 

[kepha1]

Then you are disagreeing with your Catholic friends here that teachers of doctrine ARE accountable, and that must be to someTHING **outside **of self.

Again, you continue to beat a dead horse. When the Church teaches, that is, the Catholic Church which has been repeatedly, biblically and historically proven to be the Church Jesus founded, teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God. Stop trying to force us to make God accountable.

Then you defending an epistemology that the best/most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself exclusively from the question, substituting instead self insisting that whatever self alone says simply be accepted as correct with docility, as God speaking.

That is a lie. No one is defending your straw man. Satan rips the Bible from the Church. Satan fools people like you to reject the very Tradition that gave you the Bible. Gnosticism dichotomizes the human from the divine in the way the Church teaches. God used human beings to write and compile the Bible. No amount of historical revisionsim can chage the facts (which you seem to ignore) An infallible book cannot be produced by a fallible human institution. Your constant rant that the Catholic Church exempts herself from accountability proves you have no clue as to how the truth is found, and explains why you keep ignoring the plain meaning of Scriptural texts, i.e.: (…he who hears you hears Me…”). Did the Catholic Church exempt herself from accountability when the New Testament was compiled??? Can’t you see the absurdity in this kind of thinking?

Have you studied the LDS…
(…message truncated…)
…INCAPABLE of wrong and thus is right, and whatever he did/said is simply to be accepted as correct with docility?

This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church teaching the truth in matters of faith and morals.

. Yes, you are doing exactly as The Catholic Church requires of you. CCC 87. You must accept that Truth matters and therefore teachers of doctrine MUST be accountable, but that it is most sound in the single, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone to simply require all to accept WHATEVER it alone says in these matters “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

This proves you run by ignoring the context of #85 and 86 for about 3 times now. You have refused to answer many questions from several people.

Your whole argument is based on your claim that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - was promised by Jesus that IT alone would be infallible/unaccountable.

Wrong. The Church doesn’t teach without looking to Jesus. When truth is found, it stands by its own merits, and has no need to be accountable. And you are also wrong about exclusivity. The Church does not claim to be the sole arbitrator of truth. Lots of people can teach truths. What the Church claims is to teach the fullness of faith, and there is plenty of evidence that she has done just that. But you will ignore all this and continue ranting nonsense.

Here’s the obvious and undeniable problem: Jesus never mentioned it. And nowhere in all of Scripture did Jesus or anyone else even mention infallible or unaccountable. Jesus NEVER promised this
(…message truncated…)
the same issue with his denomination.

I’m not taking this bait, it has been refuted numerous times. This repetitive ranting is manipulative and dishonest. It is designed to instigate uncharitable reactions. It’s a form of witchcraft in my opinion. If that statement in itself is uncharitable I submit to the moderator, but truth needs to be told to warn others.

You fail to realize that your position: The self alone is correct is self alone exempts self from all accountability for what he teaches - has nothing to do with this thread. This thread accepts accountability, and thus norming, and thus the first question becomes: WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for norming. YOUR “alternative” is NOT to suggest a better rule/canon but to insist that a teacher is exempt from accountability and just to be accepted as correct with docility if the self same alone so insists for the self-same alone.

Fruitless argumentation is a sin. I will no longer dialogue directly with AJosiah.

 

[kepha1]

*The pope has addressed the encyclical specifically to the bishops. As those who share with the successor of Peter, and under his primatial authority, the responsibility of preserving “sound teaching” (2 Tim. 4:3), bishops must be vigilant that the word of God to be believed and lived is faithfully taught… *

Gospel Meditation on Dialogue of Jesus With Rich Young Man

The question asked of Jesus by the rich young man is a question present in the heart of everyone: “Teacher, what good must I do to have life?” At the deepest level the question about good and evil is also about the meaning of life and about happiness. The Church was willed by Christ precisely for this purpose: so that people in every age might come to know him and discover in him the only answer fully capable of satisfying all their questions about life. (the Bible alone cannot do this, it never has)

*Jesus’ response to the young man concisely expresses the very heart and spirit of Christian morality, bringing out the essential elements of Old and New Testament revelation with regard to moral action: first, the subordination of human action to God, to the one who “alone is good”; second, the close relationship between the moral good of human actions and eternal life, since the commandments of God, which Jesus confirms and takes up into the new law of love, are the path of life; third, the way of perfection, which consists in a readiness to leave everything in order to follow Jesus in imitation of his own gift of self to God the Father and to his brothers and sisters in service and in love. **Christian morality is thus revealed as the complete fulfillment of the law, made possible by the free gift of the Holy Spirit, the source and means of the moral life of the “new creation.” The Church’s living tradition, which includes her magisterium, her growing doctrinal understanding, her liturgy and the lived holiness of her members, has always preserved the harmony between faith and life. In particular, the magisterium of the Church’s pastors, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has developed an authoritative interpretation of the law of the Lord over many centuries and amid changing historical situations… ***

By looking always to the Lord Jesus, the Church comes to discover the authentic meaning of freedom: the gift of self, inspired by love, for the sake of serving God and one’s brothers and sisters. It discovers that God’s law expresses, in the commandments and in their absoluteness, the demands of love. Universal and unchanging moral norms are at the service of the person and of society. The profound renewal of social and political life, which is increasingly desired by people today, can only occur if freedom is once more linked to truth. Ethical relativism, despite its appearances, inevitably leads to a totalitarianism which denies the truth about man. To promote morality is to promote man and his freedom, but this can never take place in opposition to the truth and in opposition to God…

In the history of salvation, the martyrs, by preferring death to sin, have borne witness to the inviolable holiness of God’s law and the unconditional respect which is due to the requirements of the dignity of each person. In bearing this witness Christians are not alone: They are supported by the moral sense present in peoples and by the great religious and sapiential traditions of East and West…

The concrete possibilities of acting according to moral truth, despite the weakness of human freedom caused by sin, are entirely found in the mystery of Christ’s redemption. In Christ, God the Father offers us not only the truth about the good (the commandment of love, which sums up in itself the Ten Commandments), but also that “new law,” which is his Spirit within us, and his grace, which enables us to love and to do good. In Christ we encounter the mercy of God, who understands our human weakness yet never falsifies the standard of good and evil by accepting compromises which would adapt it to particular situations. (contraception? human cloning? test tube babies?)

For this reason, the preaching of Christian morality, so closely linked to the new evangelization, must heed the warning of the apostle Paul: “that the cross of Christ not be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). In the task of proclaiming in all their fullness the justice and mercy which shine forth from the cross, the ministry of moral theologians is crucial; they perform a genuine ecclesial service, in communion with the bishops. Bishops themselves have the task of being vigilant that the word of God is faithfully proclaimed and applied to life, whether in preaching addressed to the faithful, in efforts at evangelization, in teaching imparted in seminaries and faculties of theology, and in the practices of Catholic institutions.
THE VATICAN ON VERITATIS SPLENDOR

I think this answers Josiah’s ranting, but he has far too much anger to comprehend much of it. Absolute “moral norms” is something he would have to redefine as well. I think the final conclusion of sola scriptura is Moral Relativism.

 

[Holly3278]

Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. Sola Fide means faith alone. Both are incorrect concepts and are heresies. Scripture alone basically means that a Christian who embraces this doctrine accepts only doctrines coming from the Bible. A Christian who embraces faith alone embraces the doctrine that salvation comes through faith alone and not by faith and works.

Scripture alone can be refuted with the Bible verses found on this web page:

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Faith alone can be refuted using the following:

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.
paul c:

Josiah:

Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine and Arius and Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict? The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? YES OR NO?

If yes, then The Catholic Church is accountable - no less so than is Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine and Arius and Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And if yes, do you agree that such accountability must be to something OUTSIDE of itself as arbitrated OUTSIDE of itself - as some of your Catholic friends have here insisted?

IF so, then WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such? The only thing you’ve suggested is one your denomination REJECTS (and it seems you do, too) that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (thus you affirm that the LDS is correct becauses the LDS agrees with the LDS). You have not suggested anything OUTSIDE The Catholic Church to which it must be accountable.

IF no, and you insist that the best and most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher alone to exempt that teacher alone from accountability, circumvent norming (to ANY rule/canon), lay all that aside in the singular and exclusive case of self alone, and rather self just insists that all accept whatever that self says as correct “with docility” “as God speaking,” then show me something that suggests THAT is the most sound rubric. In doing so, you will be in conflict with your denomination because it rejects that rubric.

.

You completely ignored my point

You completely ignored my point and the foundational question. Read what you quoted from me and respond to it.

the Catholic Church could NOT have used scripture to Norm at its inception, since the only scripture that existed was the Old testament and it of course did not include the full truth about Jesus Christ

1. There’s ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church existed before 45 AD when the first NT book was written. And it’s MOOT to our discussion since we’re not speaking about The Rule of The New Testament, the discussion is about the accountability of teachers and the embrace of SCRIPTURE as the rule/canon for norming. There is not praxis of Sola Nova Testamenta.
2. You may need to be reminded that this is not 27 AD. It’s 2010 AD. WHATEVER point you may have is entirely moot to our discussion NOW. I agree that Sola Scriptura would not have been possible in the year 4,785,887 BC. But then we’re not engaging in norming then, are we? Check your calendar.
3. Actually, I realize Jesus was not a Catholic but He used Sola Scriptura some 50 times. And I realize that St. James and those at the first ecumenical council were not Catholics but they and the Jerusalem Council used Sola Scriptura. NOT ONCE in the first century AD is there even so much as even a mention of The Catholic Church being infallible and unaccountable, that it and it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong. What is missing in the first century is not Sola Scriptura, but any evidence of The Catholic Church being exempted from accountability.

**
… continues in the next post.**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

continuing the post above…

Scripture alone without a valid interpreter can be twisted to say anything. Even Satan uses it. (Luke 4)

And yet you are defending that the best way to determine if an interpretation is correct is for the interpreter to just exempt himself alone from accountability for what he teaches, proclaim himself exclusively to be infallible and incapable of error, and insisting that all rather just accept with docility whatever self alone says. By your rubric that you are working so hard to defend, Satan would be right if Satan exempted himself alone from accountability. See, my position is that Satan was accountable and that Adam and Eve were WRONG to do what The Catholic Church demands - that we just accept what teachers say with docility, as God speaking. I think God held them accountable for just accepting Satan’s teaching with docility.
paul c:

Josiah:

paul c:

The new testament was written by Catholic authors and the entire bible compiled by Catholic theologians in council and ratified by Pope Damascus, who then commissioned St. Jerome to translate it all into latin.

Even if there was an OUNCE of evidence for that, it’s moot. The governor signs a bill. He’s STILL accountable to it - not above it. But your attempt here is silly. We don’t know who penned most of the books of the Bible (and it couldn’t matter less), but most of them lived CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it came into existence (without a SHRED of anything to substantiate the claim), and there is ZERO evidence that St. Paul or St. James were officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with The Catholic Church - specifically and particularly - and you know that. And all The Catholic Church did at Trent was to AFFIRM the reality, it didn’t form it. I could officially declare that the sun came up this morning, but I didn’t cause it. Come on.

IF you know of some rule/canon that is MORE outside and above and beyond The Catholic Church, more knowable by all and alterable by none, more embraced as reliable by all parties than Scripture, one that fits the requirement Catholics have stated that "teachers must be held accountable to someTHING OUTSIDE of itself, " then what qualifies better than Scriptures, in your view?

.

The truths of the catholic faith are knowable by all and alterable by none

1. They ARE whatever The Catholic Church exclusively says they are - they they are not “alterable by none.”
2. Obviously, The Catholic Church is not OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND The Catholic Church. It’s just itself.
3. What you are suggesting is a rubric that your denomination actually rejects (so I don’t know why you are defending it). Self agreeing with self has ZERO relevance to self being correct. If you just stop for a second and think about that, I think you will see the obvious reality here. I agree with me, and yet are you fighting for the reality that ergo I MUST be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and whatever I say is what Jesus says? Nope. See, you don’t agree with your own apologetic, so why should we?

paul c:

Josiah:

paul c:

Since when is the Catholic church a defendent?

It won’t permit accountability for itself exclusively, you’re right. All OTHERS are, it alone just insists that it alone is not.

What do you think? Are teachers of doctrine accountable for such or not?
They are. The are accountable against the teaching of the Catholic Church. That is the gold standard by which heretics have always been identified.

.

You see, you approach this as if the Catholic Church is just another church.

You continue to evade the issue and the question…

Yes, The Catholic Church exempts itself exclusively from accountability and instead just demands that all accept whatever it alone says (in these matters) with docility, as God speaking. Originally, the LDS did the same thing (it dropped this about a century ago). The cults all still do it. But self exempting self from examination has NOTHING to do with that self being correct - I think you know that, and yet…

Does The Catholic Church teach? Yes or no? IF your answer is yes, then my question to you is foundational: Is The Catholic Church accountable for what it teaches, especially as doctrine? And if so, to WHAT? Your continued defense of a rubric your denomination repudiates is puzzling. Self agreeing with self has NOTHING to do with self being correct - and you know that, and so does The Catholic Church which is why it rejects the rule for its teachings that you are defending.

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues the post above…

Look, IF you simply embrace as a pure act of faith that The Catholic Church is infallible when it alone proclaims for itself alone, “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no accountability or norming cuz I can’t be wrong. Just accept whatever I say with docility, as God speaking.” You certainly may do that - as an act of faith. And I will extend to you the SAME EXACT respect for that act of you to The Catholic Church as you do to our Mormon friends who have the EXACT SAME act of faith in the EXACT SAME demand of their denomination. Fair enough? I’d encourage you to study epistemology - especially as demanded by the LDS and all the cults so you AT LEAST realize what you are doing, but again, as an act of faith, I can (and will) respect it in you to the EXACT SAME degree that you respect the same thing in others. But you are evading the issue of our discussion, which is accountability and the resulting norming (including the most sound rule/canon for this for teachers among us). You are just accepting The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability/norming as the best way of determining if The Catholic Church is correct. You are doing what it demands of you (CCC 87) and being a good Catholic, just as we find good and faithful members of the LDS and the cults. But that’s NOT the discussion here. The discussion here embraces that truth matters and so teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine - one exempting self alone from accountability has zero relevance to that one being correct, self demanding that self just be accepted with docility has nothing to do with that one being correct.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Give it up Josiah, you are wasting your time. Your statement that Jesus used Sola scriptura 50 times is ludicrous. . He didn’t contradict scripture, but he certainly felt free to add to it. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have been able to save us.

Look, you need to re-evaluate what you are doing here. Every argument you have made has been refuted. You are now at the point of simply denying the Catholic Church’s history, which is to refute all reputable historians, both secular and religious. This is a fool’s errand.

This is not about winning a debate, it is about finding the truth. It is a sign of wisdom when you recognize that you are wrong and embrace the truth. It is not productive to continue to repeat arguments that have been discredited

Let me repeat the salient points just for clarity:

1. Sola scripture (the use of scripture alone to verify all facts about faith and morals) fails on three counts:
   a) It does not comprehend all the truths about faith and morals
   b) Scriptural readings can be made to say virtually anything without an authorized interpretation - they were even used by Satan in Luke 4.
   c) The new testament wasn’t available for the earliest Christians so they could not have been taught through scripture alone
2. Your argument that it is scripture is the best norm available is unconvincing given the points in 1 above. Catholic teaching is complete, authoritative, and was available at Pentecost when the Church was founding. The doctrines taught be the Catholic Church remained unchanged since Apostolic times and can be researched and understood through the writings of the early church fathers.
3. Your further argument that the Catholic church must submit to an authority other than God is unfounded. God gave its authority and it is to him alone that the church must answer.
4. Your further argument that the Catholic Church must answer to scripture is absurd. While it must not and will not contradict scripture, The Catholic Church must teach all it knows, which exceeds what is captured in scripture. Further, the Catholic Church can not answer to scripture, which has no voice, being only a book, albiet divinely inspired. Further, you rmain thrust is that the Church can not be accountable to itself, yet it wrote the new testament and compile the canon of scripture so if it could answer to scripture, it would simply be answering to a subset of its own teachings. Isn’t that still being accountable to itself?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

it is about finding the truth.

Actually, it’s about accountability. The question is this: Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach? IF you agree that The Catholic Church teaches, then the question applies to it no less than to any other teacher among us.

What you have been trying to do is defend that if self alone exempts self alone from accountability, they not only are but they are thus infallible, incapable of wrong, and must just be accepted with docility, as God speaking. I agree, that IS what The Catholic Church requires you to embrace, but I find it flawed and irrelevant to that one being correct.

IF truth matters to you - especially truth involving our eternal soul - then IMHO you should embrace accountability for the teachings concerning such. Self alone exempting self alone from such is no indicator of truth (in fact, my study of the cults suggests it’s often an indicator of falsehood). The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that God’s Truth will be revealed in the light. It’s the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, lay all that aside, and just insist that everyone rather accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking”.

1. Sola scripture (the use of scripture alone to verify all facts about faith and morals) fails on three counts:
   a) It does not comprehend all the truths about faith and morals
   b) Scriptural readings can be made to say virtually anything without an authorized interpretation - they were even used by Satan in Luke 4.
   c) The new testament wasn’t available for the earliest Christians so they could not have been taught through scripture alone

1. None of this affirms that a teacher should except self alone from accountability and norming, declare self alone as incapable of being wrong, and demand that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” "as Jesus speaking.’
2. You (just as The Catholic Church) have yet to suggest a better rule/canon/norma normans. Your only apologetic is that it’s moot in the singular, exclusive, sole instance of The Catholic Church alone. The only possibility here suggested is a rule your denomination repudiates (so I find it odd you, as a Catholic, defend it): that if self agrees with self then self is infallible and incapable of error and exempt from accountability. Self agreeing with self has ZERO relevance to self being correct, as your denomination agrees (and so do I). You continue to confuse the rule IT alone uses for all OTHER teachers with any it permits for its own teachings (which is none).
3. No one has ever claimed that Scripture contains all information or that it may norm all teachings. One of MANY of your strawmen.
4. No one even claims that all of Scripture has ALWAYS existed (none did prior to 1400 BC). But you seem to be confusing Sola Toma with Sola Scriptura. And you don’t seem to be aware of the year we live in. And you seem unaware that while Scripture is used over and over and over as normative, The Catholic Church is NEVER so used, in fact, it’s never so much as even MENTIONED.

Your further argument that the Catholic church must submit to an authority other than God is unfounded. God gave its authority and it is to him alone that the church must answer.

… round and round we go. And yet when the Mormon or cultist uses the EXACT SAME apologetic, I’m confident you laugh at it.

You seem to forget that The Catholic Church you are defending INSISTS that accountability happen RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just by God. It just exempts one and only one from that: itself, exclusively.

God never so much as even mentioned it. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any regard. I know it, you know it, everyone who has read the NT knows it. A little honesty goes a long way in our discussions…

Authority to do something does not mandate infallibllity or unaccountability. President Obama has a lot of authority, and yet I under if you regard him as INFALLIBLE and as the mouth of God when he says that abortion-on-demand must be embraced and allowed? See, I don’t think you agree with yourself on this point, so why should anyone else?

Your rmain thrust is that the Church can not be accountable to itself, yet it wrote the new testament and compile the canon of scripture

Absurd. The Catholic Church cannot write anything. And again, you seem to be confusing a non-existent praxis of “Sola Nova Testamenta” with Sola Scriptura. And you seem to be confusing a denomination embracing the list of books for itself with the formation of that list - apples and oranges as we all know. And again, it’s moot even if that entirely unhistorical statement were true. President Obama is STILL accountable to the Rule of Law - it matters not that he signed some of those laws into effect.

It all comes down to this, the question you keep evading: Are the teachers among us accountable for what they teach as doctrine? Is The Catholic Church a teacher of doctrine? If you answer “yes” to these, then you have just “left” The Catholic Church and embraced norming for what The Catholic Church teaches. The next question is: WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for this norming? The Catholic Church rejects any since it rejects accountability for it itself alone, exclusively. The only thing any Catholic her has suggested is if the teacher agrees with self - but I agree with your denomination, that’s absurd. All teachers agree with self - it’s MOOT to whether the teaching is correct. What is your alternative to Scripture for the norming of the teachings of The Catholic Church (whatever it is, The Catholic Church rejects it - for itself, anyway).

.

 

[CWBetts]

AJ,
repeating the same wrong thing over and over again does not make it any less false

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AJ,
repeating the same wrong thing over and over again does not make it any less false

… and insisting “it’s true so it’s true, therefore it’s true” doesn’t either.

You keep insisting Jesus and/or some mysterious Apostle stated that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable - and yet have yet to reveal that The Catholic Church was so much as even MENTIONED by Jesus or any Apostle or anyone else in the first century - about this or ANYTHING else.

You keep insisting (as you did in the post I quoted) that teachers ARE accountable and must be subject to norming (as you did me - albeit to no norm) but that a teacher is correct (infallible, in fact) if the self-same so self claims for self exclusively.

Friend, does truth matter? Especially regarding our eternal souls? Is a teacher of doctrine accountable for what he teaches? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine? IF your answer to those questions is “yes” then The Catholic Church is accountable no less than any other teacher (The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Pope Benedict, Mary Baker Eddy, Augustine, Jim Jones, me…). And the next question is this: WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of a teacher? The Catholic Church has no answer to that in reference to itself (because it rejects accountability for itself, exclusively). The only thing mentioned in this thread is a rubric your denomination REJECTS (so odd some Catholics are supporting): the teachings of self are the most sound rule for the teachings of self, so that if self agrees with self than self is correct. I agree with The Catholic Church that that rule is absurd and entirely unrelated to whether that teacher is correct.

The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that God’s Truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, circumvent norming, and insist that the question be laid aside and rather that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking.

.

 

[LionHeart777]

American Josiah,

1. Why can’t you accept that the Church is accountable to God?
2. In your opinion, how does Scripture tell one how to figure out who are the false teachers?

 

[CWBetts]

Matthew 16:13-20
This passage does several things:

• Establishes the primacy of Peter
• Defines the Church as permanantly victorious over death
• Names the Royal Steward for the Kingdom of God
• Gives the Royal Steward the authority to define what is and is not allowed

Does the Greek contain the term “Catholic”? No. Why not? Because it was understood to be so, because there was only to be a single Church in God’s plan. The office was also intended to be perpetual. This can be seen in the first chapter of Acts, when the office of Judas had to be filled, then more apostles were added as needed (Paul, Barnabas) Furthermore, the Church HAS to be infallible. Without the infallibility of the Church, how could any conclusion be made to such issues as IVF, Marxism, slavery, Artificial Contraception, voting responsibilities, embryonic stem-cell research, or even the Canon of Scripture? This stuff is not covered in the Scriptures! Therefore the binding and loosing authority comes into play, and the Church can rule on such issues as needed. I know this won’t convince you, but only because you refuse to receive Truth.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

American Josiah,

1. Why can’t you accept that the Church is accountable to God?

I don’t. I don’t even reject that The Catholic Church is. I simply note that The Catholic Church REJECTS that teachers are ONLY accountable to God (I agree with The Catholic Church on this point, disagreeing with you). It has a very long history of regarding every OTHER teacher of doctrine as fully and completely accountable RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - never hesitating to norm the issue, to arbitrate it, to declare teachers as wrong, to condemn them as heretics, to excommunicate them, and occasionally to dispatch them to the appointed afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. I guess I’d be willing to embrace your rubric, in theory anyway, if The Catholic Church and Catholics also did.

I wonder (just wonder), do you consider Martin Luther or Arius or Joseph Smith to be only accountable to God at Judgment day, or are you comfortable saying that YOU regard them as accountable for what they teach (perhaps because you believe that truth matters)?

1. In your opinion, how does Scripture tell one how to figure out who are the false teachers?

It doesn’t exactly. We have some instances, but I’d hesitate to make anything too definative out of that. I do know this: Over and over and over, we are warned about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and teachers that lead many astray. That warning seems moot if we are to leave all that entirely up to God on Judgment Day or if teachers are simply to be accepted with docility, as God speaking. And I know that Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church doesn’t permit, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and for declaring them to be false. Friend, I WISH Truth were as simple as a teacher just proclaiming himself exclusively as right cuz he alone says he alone is - demanding that we exempt he alone from accountability, circumvent norming, and rather just accept whatever that one alone says “with docility.” But Scripture and life tells me that’s about as unsound as can be (my study of the cults really drove that point home for me).

Now, if you ask for my opinion (not doctrine), I’d say the teachers among us are accountable. That goes for The Catholic Church and The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Martin Luther and Pope Leo X, Joseph Smith and Augustine, Jim Jones and John Calvin, and most of all, me. Self exempting self from accountability, IMHO, is not only entirely unrelated to that one being correct, but it woiuld be a pretty big red flag to me that he’s likely incorrect since I suspect the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s Truth is revealed in the light and entirely unconcerned about his power and lording over others. It’s the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings form accountability, circumvent norming, and rather insist that whatever self alone is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. “I’m right so I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so there; I don’t need no norming cuz I alone cannot be wrong, so just accept WHATEVER I alone say here and do it with docility” is not a sound praxis for determining correctness, IMHO (but then, that’s one reason why I left The Catholic Church).

I’d embrace Scripture as the most sound rule/canon for the norming of the teaching. It’s OUTSIDE all of us, it’s knowable by all and alterable by none, it has a strong and historic and ecumenical embrace as reliable (even inerrant!), we affirm it as the inscripturated words of God Himself and we all agree that God is the ultimate authority among us. It’s a more sound canon than the teachings of self as the rule for the teachings of self so that if self agrees with self then self is correct.

I’d like to discuss the arbitration of the issue, but I think that’s a rule violation. We’d need a separate thread for that. I’d just say this: Self declaring that self is the sole arbiter for self is pretty worthless - especially if self predeclares that self exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong before the arbitive process of self for self even begins. Not only does self usually agree with self, but self using thinks self is right. Any meaningful arbitration needs to be exemptive of self - or at least not limited to self.

Here’s the issue: Does truth matter? Especially truth about our eternal souls? Thus, are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine? If you answer all those with a “yes,” then you just embraced accountability and the need for norming, including of/for The Catholic Church. And the whole Catholic apologetic crashes to the ground, the whole issue of self exempting self from all this and instead requiring that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” And the first issue we need to discuss is WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for the norming of the teachers among us? The Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture. The Catholic Church has no alternative because it regards the issue as moot in the singular, exclusive, sole instance of itself alone.

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah.
I am done with this discussion. Repeating the same thing for a month is not productive. Good luck to you.