Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah
why did you chose Lutheranism over Catholicism?

I don’t think I’m permitted to answer that in this thread. But essentially, it boils down to a few points:

1. I disagree with the wisdom of self alone exempting self alone from accountability and the norming such requires.
2. I disagree with the extreme individualism and institutionalism of The Catholic Church.
3. I do not accept whatever any sinful human says “with docility” - nor do I think that wise - and so I cannot be Catholic.
4. There are a few things The Catholic Church alone teaches as dogma that I don’t regard as dogma - and thus I cannot be Catholic.
5. I am more embracing of the Theology of the Cross than the Theology of Glory.

All that said, I remain in my view of The Catholic Church. I regard it as a valid and good denomination that I hold in high esteem. I am profoundly grateful for my years there and for all the rich ways it blessed me during my journey there. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments as valid. I regard all the beleivers there to be my full, unseparated and in every sense equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I regard nothing it officially teaches to be heresy in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition. I pray daily for all God’s richest blessings upon her, her ministers and ministries and Holy Father. IF you will say as much about the institutional organization that my congregation belongs to - then we are equally embracing, if you will say MORE about mine - you are less “anti” than I am, LESS and you are more “anti” than I am.

How do you address the point that personal interpretation of scripture necessarily yields different results because no two people see scripture the same way without an arbiter to create a common understanding.

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics. Start a thread on that if you want to discuss interpretation.
2. Again, if you have an “issue” with self appointing self as the sole interpreter, then take it up with the only one I know that does that - The Catholic Church (read your Catechism # 85 for example).
3. Again, you don’t seem to remember the difference between the rule/canon and the arbitration in norming. They are two different issues. If you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. But it’s moot in Catholic/Protestant discussions since The Catholic Church permits no arbitration of its’ own teachings, ONLY the teachings of OTHERS - it exempts itself from all aspects of norming, replacing the issue of whether its teachings are correct with the demand of self alone for self alone that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable and that what it says is simply to be accepted, with docility.

.

.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t think I’m permitted to answer that in this thread. But essentially, it boils down to a few points:

1. I disagree with the wisdom of self alone exempting self alone from accountability and the norming such requires.
2. I disagree with the extreme individualism and institutionalism of The Catholic Church.
3. I do not accept whatever any sinful human says “with docility” - nor do I think that wise - and so I cannot be Catholic.
4. There are a few things The Catholic Church alone teaches as dogma that I don’t regard as dogma - and thus I cannot be Catholic.
5. I am more embracing of the Theology of the Cross than the Theology of Glory.

All that said, I remain in my view of The Catholic Church. I regard it as a valid and good denomination that I hold in high esteem. I am profoundly grateful for my years there and for all the rich ways it blessed me during my journey there. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments as valid. I regard all the beleivers there to be my full, unseparated and in every sense equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I regard nothing it officially teaches to be heresy in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition. I pray daily for all God’s richest blessings upon her, her ministers and ministries and Holy Father. IF you will say as much about the institutional organization that my congregation belongs to - then we are equally embracing, if you will say MORE about mine - you are less “anti” than I am, LESS and you are more “anti” than I am.

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics. Start a thread on that if you want to discuss interpretation.
2. Again, if you have an “issue” with self appointing self as the sole interpreter, then take it up with the only one I know that does that - The Catholic Church (read your Catechism # 85 for example).
3. Again, you don’t seem to remember the difference between the rule/canon and the arbitration in norming. They are two different issues. If you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. But it’s moot in Catholic/Protestant discussions since The Catholic Church permits no arbitration of its’ own teachings, ONLY the teachings of OTHERS - it exempts itself from all aspects of norming, replacing the issue of whether its teachings are correct with the demand of self alone for self alone that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable and that what it says is simply to be accepted, with docility.

I appreciate your opening up on your views so that I can at least understand where you are coming from.

You know, there was a time several years ago when I thought I knew better than the Church on several issues. But by the grace of God, I became aware that this was a tremendously arrogant and foolish position to take. I started researching the church’s positions on these items and I found in EVERY single one of them that the Church had considered facets of these discussions that I never thought about. I came to realize that when I have a question about a church position, the problem is mine, not the churches. And then I research the Church’s position to find out what I missed. At this point, several years later, I am seemingly never out of alignment with what the Church teaches. This isn’t simply docility on my part either. It is more that I’ve come to understand the concept of Christianity better and I just naturally have come into alignment.

Furthermore, the Church teaches what it was taught by the apostles. That is its norming. There is no authority on earth that it could norm against. It it the ultimate authority, having been placed in that position by Christ himself. Now, I know you think of the church as a bunch of fallible men, but you neglect the fact that Jesus promised to look over the church and to guide it.

Look, you are very resentful of the Catholic Church’s authority, it is clear, but in the words of John Paul II, the church doesn’t demand it proposes. You, like all others have the choice to follow the church or not. I for one will continue to follow it because I believe it teaches the fullness of truth and that it administers the live giving sacraments. I further believe that the church has tremendous moral authority because the clergy pledge chastity, poverty and obedience to bring the word and sacraments of God to the people. They are committed in ways that few others are.

AS for the OP, When you separate from the Catholic , you have no choice but to hang your hat on sola scriptura, because otherwise you would have no link to Christ at all. But Sola scriptura can never get past two problems. The first is that while everything in the bible is inerrant, it is not the whole truth, but a subset of what is contained in Holy Tradition. The second is that without understanding the context of the bible properly, you can interpret it anyway you like and you can easily deceive yourself.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I started researching the church’s positions on these items and I found in EVERY single one of them that the Church had considered facets of these discussions that I never thought about.

Then,

1. You reject what The Catholic Church requires, that being that you accept whatever it says with docility, as correct BECAUSE it says it is. CCC 87, etc., etc.
2. Then you at least WERE Protestant, believing that none (INCLUDING The Catholic Church) is necessarily INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error - and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming.
3. Then you did what Protestants think wise, and the very thing The Catholic Church does not permit: subject the teachings of The Catholic Church to norming.
4. In norming, you were required to embrace a norma normans - some rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND The Catholic Church, a canon/rule that is unalterable by The Catholic Church (or else all you were doing is determining if The Catholic Church agreed with The Catholic Church - which is entirely MOOT to whether The Catholic Church is correct). What norma normans did you so embrace, WHAT did you determine was inerrant, inspired, reliable, ABOVE and BEYOND The Catholic Church, knowable to all and alterable by none? What was the plumbline you used to determine the correctness of it’s 2,875 positions?
5. What was the arbitor for this? The Catholic Chruch permits only one - itself. Which did you look to for the determination of whether The Catholic Church’s positions are infallible?

Now that you reject The Catholic Church’s position and have assumed the Protestant position of accountability, what norma normans do you embrace that you regard as MORE inspired, MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced (NOT just by The Catholic Church itself), MORE reliable than Scripture for that function?

Furthermore, the Church teaches what it was taught by the apostles. That is its norming.

No, because none of the 13 or 14 Apostles are here to do that norming. It’s just The Catholic Church alone insisting that The Catholic Church alone is correct - cuz it just is, so accept it “with docility.”

No, those teachings cannot serve as the norma normans either since the ONLY teachings of those 13 or 14 known to all is what is found… um in Scripture - the very norma normans you are not permitted by The Catholic Church to use. The snippets that The Catholic Church chooses from the authors the The Catholic Churches uses as The Catholic Church interprets are NOT from ANY Apostle. They are just what self alone chooses as self alone interprets. They are NEITHER the arbiter OR the rule. They CANNOT be the arbiter cuz they aren’t here, and those snippets are not the rule since they are just what The Catholic Church says. What you embraced is just self looking in the mirror at self and determining that self looks like self. ANY teacher, denomination, cult leader could do EXACTLY the same thing - and come to the same unavoidable conclusion: Yup, I alone agree with me alone. It has nothing to do with being correct. Nothing.

ou neglect the fact that Jesus promised to look over the church and to guide it.

1. Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. Concerning anything. For anything. Not once Not ever. Not about a thing.
2. To lead infallibly is entirely unrelated to the issue of following infallibly. Read the Bible. God ALWAYS infallibly leads, who ever infallibly, perpetually followed (other than God in Christ)? A false and entire unsubstantiated premise on your part.

Look, you are very resentful of the Catholic Church’s authority

Not at all. I just disagree with you that authority = unaccountability. That the most sound epistemology is for self to demand: “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so just forget about norming or accountability or the issue of whether I’m correct - and simply accept whatever I say with docility.” Studied the LDS? Studied the cults? It’s not a sound epistemology. And it’s entirely, completely unrelated to whether self is correct. It is simply self alone exempting self alone from the question - replacing it with the demand of self alone for docilic acceptance.

.

.

 

[LionHeart777]

American Josiah,

it appears that there was one very important decision which falls outside of the norming that you use; that is the Canon of Scripture itself. I think this has already been touched on here in this thread, but it goes to show that there is one thing that cannot be determined by your norma normans. How can we be sure that the NT Canon (since we do not agree on the OT) was infallibly determined? What do we have to measure that decision by? If it cannot be measured by your norma normans, then should the decision of what books belong in the NT Canon be binding on all Christians in your opinion? If so, why?

 

[IronHammer]

Not at all. I just disagree with you that authority = unaccountability. That the most sound epistemology is for self to demand: “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so just forget about norming or accountability or the issue of whether I’m correct - and simply accept whatever I say with docility.” Studied the LDS? Studied the cults? It’s not a sound epistemology. And it’s entirely, completely unrelated to whether self is correct. It is simply self alone exempting self alone from the question - replacing it with the demand of self alone for docilic acceptance.

So how come the Catholic Church hasn’t ended up in complete heresy and disintegrated like the LDS or other cults? Why is the Catholic Church still the largest church on earth with the most members? How is it that the Catholic Church still teaches the same good news that the apostles did?

I call it, Divine Providence. The promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide the church into ALL truth and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

So you have made yourself your own infallible authority (pope Josiah) because you can read (something most people couldn’t do for centuries). Now you have all the answers. Good luck with that. I hope to meet you in heaven sometime and we look at all this and have a good laugh.

 

[paul_c]

American Josiah,
Frankly, this discussion has grown tiresome. You never address the basic problem with sola scripture: that without authoritative interpretation, anyone, Satan included can make Scripture say what ever it wants to .

You do everything possible to draw attention away from this fact.

You call the Catholic church a cult, constantly drawing parallels with the LDS and " other cults". You attack it for claiming authority. You attack us . but you never address the most fundamental weakness of Sola Scriptura.

You also fail to recognize that for every scriptural interpretation, someone is claiming authority. You have claimed that authority in your own life, deciding that you personally have a better understanding of what it takes to be saved than the Catholic Church. This is of course your right and you will have to live with the ultimate consequences, good or bad. You also mock Catholics for following the Catholic Church’s teachings with docility, without understanding that we are all called to obedience and that pride can cause each of us to make poor decisions.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

A You never address the basic problem with sola scripture: that without authoritative interpretation, anyone, Satan included can make Scripture say what ever it wants to .

1. As I understand it, this website does not permit hijacking, we are to stay to the topic. As I’ve suggested over and over and over, IF you want to discuss hermeneutical principles and practices, start a thread on that.
2. Yes, ANYONE can SAY anything - including Satan. But your position is that self alone may declare that self alone may exempt self alone from accountability for such as long as self alone is The Catholic Church. THAT is what we disagree on. You seem to acknowledge that error CAN occur, and YET - forgetting that - your whole premise is based on incapability of error.

You call the Catholic church a cult

Of course, I did not. You know that, we all know that. The “name calling” has been consistently and solely toward me, not by me.

you never address the most fundamental weakness of Sola Scriptura.

You’ve consistently refuse to offer an alternative process of norming OR an alternative norma normans in such, just as The Catholic Church has never provided neither. It rejects Sola Scriptura (with no alternative) for one reason: it rejects norming (exclusively for self alone) and thus all aspects of norming, including the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for such. It circumvents the issue of whether it is correct or not by a power play: “I alone am right, so when I alone say that I alone am right, ERGO I alone am right, so I alone am right - just accept whatever I alone say with docility; accountability is moot in the singular case of me alone since I alone cannot err.” This is NOT an alternative approach to the norming of the doctrines of The Catholic Church. This is NOT an alternative rule/canon for the process of norming. It’s ONLY The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from the whole question.

You also fail to recognize that for every scriptural interpretation, someone is claiming authority.

You fail to admit that authority does not equal unaccountability and infalliblity. You seem to regard yourself as a teacher since you are teaching, so you must think you have some authority to teach. Does THAT mean you are INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE, INCAPABLE OF ERROR, and we must accept whatever you think, say or do “with docility” as Jesus speaking? Obviously not. A policeman has authority, is he/she ergo infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, what he/she says is God speaking? President Obama has huge authority, does that make him INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE, equal to the Law, what he says is God speaking? I’ve asked you - over and over - to substantiate your premise that if one has authority, one is infallible but you have always refused to do so.

pride can cause each of us to make poor decisions.

I agree. IMHO, humility welcomes correction. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, welcoming accountability - for truth matters more than ego. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability and examination, insist instead that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” as “God speaking.”

Again, you have offered no alternative to Sola Scriptura (better or worse). You are just taking up the Catholic line that norming simply be set aside in the case of one exclusively: self. And that whatever self says is just to be accepted “with docility.” That’s NOT a better approach to the norming of Catholic doctrine, it’s the circumvention of such by self alone for self alone.

.

 

[paul_c]

AmericanJosiah,

The Catholic Church’s combined teaching: (scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the rulings of the magesterium) provide the basis of our understanding of Faith and Morals and what it takes to get to heaven. It is more complete than just scripture, which is what you advocate, and also has the advantage of being interactive through the magesterium and adapatible as new situations arise. In short, it overcomes the limitations of sola scriptura because it is complete, interactive, and authoritative.

The Church teaches what it has been taught by Jesus through the Apostles and their predecessors. There is no new doctrine, only reapplications as new situations arise. The Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and also by the sheer enormity of its existing precedents. This is the source of is infallibility.

 

[IronHammer]

1. Yes, ANYONE can SAY anything - including Satan. But your position is that self alone may declare that self alone may exempt self alone from accountability for such as long as self alone is The Catholic Church. THAT is what we disagree on. You seem to acknowledge that error CAN occur, and YET - forgetting that - your whole premise is based on incapability of error.

I realize your error now. You are measuring God’s Plan for his church with the very limited yardstick of human reasoning. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You don’t trust that Our Lord provides for the Church. God would not establish His Church on earth, then promise to guide it into all truth and then not do so!

You’ve consistently refuse to offer an alternative process of norming OR an alternative norma normans in such, just as The Catholic Church has never provided neither.

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

THAT is the norm. Jesus has given to Peter (and thus, the church) the authority (which establishes the norm) to bind and loose. There is no norm without authority whether it is from the people (as in the Constitution) or from Jesus.

… I’ve asked you - over and over - to substantiate your premise that if one has authority, one is infallible but you have always refused to do so.

Because you refuse to accept that there is a difference between the earthly authority of governments versus the Heavenly authority delegated directly by Christ to Peter and His Church. The scriptures show over and over that Peter is the head of the Church and that that Church has authority over Christ’s sheep. Jesus asks Peter to feed His sheep, tend His sheep. He gives Peter Eliakim’s keys. He gives authority to His disciples to forgive sins. Jesus promised that Hell would not prevail against the church. It’s all there, plain as day, in black and white.

…IMHO, humility welcomes correction. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, welcoming accountability - for truth matters more than ego. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability and examination, insist instead that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” as “God speaking.”

How can it possibly be that the Catholic Church hasn’t changed ANY of it’s teachings especially regardeing abortion, gay marriage, etc (unlike virtually all other churches)…in it’s entire 2000 year history?? Because it CAN’T. It speaks for Christ Himself! Jesus established it and gave it authority.

Argue with Jesus about why He set it up this way.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

1. Yes, ANYONE can SAY anything - including Satan. But your position is that self alone may declare that self alone may exempt self alone from accountability for such as long as self alone is The Catholic Church. THAT is what we disagree on. You seem to acknowledge that error CAN occur, and YET - forgetting that - your whole premise is based on incapability of error.

.
I realize your error now. You don’t trust that Our Lord provides for the Church. God would not establish His Church on earth, then promise to guide it into all truth and then not do so!

1. God never promised The Catholic Church anything.
2. While God infallibly leads, that’s entirely unrelated to whether The Catholic Church alone INFALLIBLY follows. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Of course, God cannot errantly lead. Did that mean the ERGO, Adam and EVE infallibly followed? Nope. Did it mean that God did not hold Adam and Eve accountable? Nope. You have a false premise.
3. The promise to lead by God is not a guarentee that The Catholic Church alone, infallibly and constantly and perpretually, will follow. You are making a very unbiblical, irrational assumption.
4. Again, you are not offering an alternative to norming (better or worse). You are not offering an alternative rule/canon/norma normans for such (better or worse). You are just trying to support The Catholic Church alone simply exempting The Catholic Church alone from the whole issue of accountability and the norming that requires. You are trying to justify self employing this epistemology: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so just accept it with docility. I don’t need no norming cuz I say I can’t be wrong so I can’t!”

You’ve consistently refuse to offer an alternative process of norming OR an alternative norma normans in such, just as The Catholic Church has never provided neither.

Matt 16:18-19 says

"18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

THAT is the norm. Jesus has given to Peter (and thus, the church) the authority (which establishes the norm) to bind and loose. There is no norm without authority whether it is from the people (as in the Constitution) or from Jesus.

Nope. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of determing if a doctrine is correct.

And note: It says NOTHING about The Catholic Church. About it being the sole authority or sole interpreter or sole arbiter. About it being lead by God or about it infallibly following God.

Yes, Peter had authority. AGAIN, you seem to be confusing authority with unaccountability. President Obama has GREAT authority, that does NOT mean that he is unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error, whatever he says God says. You seem to be confusing authority with infalliblity/unaccountability.

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continuing from the post above

… I’ve asked you - over and over - to substantiate your premise that if one has authority, one is infallible but you have always refused to do so.

.

The scriptures show over and over that Peter is the head of the Church and that that Church has authority over Christ’s sheep. Jesus asks Peter to feed His sheep, tend His sheep. He gives Peter Eliakim’s keys. He gives authority to His disciples to forgive sins. Jesus promised that Hell would not prevail against the church. It’s all there, plain as day, in black and white.

1. Peter is not The Catholic Church.
2. If he had authority, then he had authority. Where does it say he was unaccountable, incapable of error? Didn’t Jesus call one of the Apostles, “Satan?” Which one was that? Surely not one INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable (thus uncorrectable), infallible!
3. Yes, Jesus promises that Hell can’t stop Chrtistianity. But He never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time. Not once. Never.

…IMHO, humility welcomes correction. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, welcoming accountability - for truth matters more than ego. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability and examination, insist instead that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” as “God speaking.”

.

How can it possibly be that the Catholic Church hasn’t changed ANY of it’s teachings especially regardeing abortion, gay marriage, etc (unlike virtually all other churches)…in it’s entire 2000 year history?? Because it CAN’T. It speaks for Christ Himself! Jesus established it and gave it authority.

1. So, it is your position that all the 2,875 points in my Catholic Catechism were all identical in 31 AD? If so, I’d like to start a thread on that and see what evidence you have of that.
2. Did you know that my denomination has not changed even ONE comma or letter of its official doctrine - adding, changing, clarifying, expanding, edition NOT ONE SINGLE LETTER since it was founded? So, let’s see if your rubric is held EVEN BY YOU - does that mean my denomination is unaccountable for what it teaches, incapable of error, you must accept whatever it says “with docility?” See, I don’t think even YOU accept your own argument…

IF you had a better alternative process for norming the teachings of The Catholic Church - you’d share it, but like The Catholic Church - you don’t have one. And if you had a better rule/canon/norma normans to use in norming - you’d share it, but like the Catholic Church - you don’t have one. The Catholic Church alone simply exempts The Catholic Church alone from the whole issue of accountability and the norming that requires. It circumvents the whole issue of whether it is correct, exchanging that for the insistence of self alone for self alone: “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right, so ergo I’m right - just accept it with docility; I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right so I am!” Friend, that is ENTIRELY UNRELATED to whether that self is correct, it’s just self circumventing the question (for self alone).

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - welcoming, inviting, encourageing accountability, investigation, norming. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, evade accountability, and insist that exclusively one (self) be exempt from accountability and norming - and just be accepted “with docility.”

.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by Josiah

.

.

I realize your error now. You don’t trust that Our Lord provides for the Church. God would not establish His Church on earth, then promise to guide it into all truth and then not do so!

1. God never promised The Catholic Church anything.

YOu state this like its a fact. It is infact, you self-biased opinion. Have you not read matthew 16: 18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it
Do you not recognize that Jesus is promising that the Gates of hell will never prevail agains the Catholic Church, the church he founded on the rock of Simon. How about the promise to the Apostles that represent the chruch in Matthew 28: 18:20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Again, he promises to be with the Church until the end of the age. Do you think Jesus would abandon his church or allow them to be led astray?

 

[paul_c]

.Quote:

Quote:

.

How can it possibly be that the Catholic Church hasn’t changed ANY of it’s teachings especially regardeing abortion, gay marriage, etc (unlike virtually all other churches)…in it’s entire 2000 year history?? Because it CAN’T. It speaks for Christ Himself! Jesus established it and gave it authority. 1. So, it is your position that all the 2,875 points in my Catholic Catechism were all identical in 31 AD? If so, I’d like to start a thread on that and see what evidence you have of that.

That is not the requirement. Over 2000 years, much has changed that required new interpretation . For instance, the church didn’t need to worry about stem cell research in 30AD. The requirement is that nothing is inconsistent with existing doctrine. And yes, feel free to identify a situation where that occurred. You will be unsuccessful because that is a requirement that the Catholic Church takes very, very seriously.

.

1. Did you know that my denomination has not changed even ONE comma or letter of its official doctrine - adding, changing, clarifying, expanding, edition NOT ONE SINGLE LETTER since it was founded? So, let’s see if your rubric is held EVEN BY YOU - does that mean my denomination is unaccountable for what it teaches, incapable of error, you must accept whatever it says “with docility?” See, I don’t think even YOU accept your own argument…

.

This is a completely laughable statement for a Lutheran to make. Luther pulled 7 books out of the old testament because it didn’t agree with his innovative new theology. He also added the word “alone” to Corinthians as a further deception to the faithful. Furthermore, the concepts of sola Fide and sola scripture as well as the priesthood of the people were certainly huge doctrinal changes. In addition, the Lutherans have split because they can’t agree on doctrine amongs themselves.
[/QUOTE]

 

[IronHammer]

1. God never promised The Catholic Church anything.

Huh? That doesn’t even qualify as a response.

1. While God infallibly leads, that’s entirely unrelated to whether The Catholic Church alone INFALLIBLY follows. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Of course, God cannot errantly lead. Did that mean the ERGO, Adam and EVE infallibly followed? Nope. Did it mean that God did not hold Adam and Eve accountable? Nope. You have a false premise.

Sorry, we were talking about the authority Jesus gave to Peter and the apostles. Adam and Eve don’t enter into it.

1. The promise to lead by God is not a guarentee that The Catholic Church alone, infallibly and constantly and perpretually, will follow. You are making a very unbiblical, irrational assumption.

When Jesus left earth, was the church just supposed to grab hold of the Bible he left behind and use it as a “norma norm” (whatever). Read Luke Chapter 10 and you will see very clearly my position is supported by scripture that the Church (soon to be known as the Catholic church) speaks with Christ’s own voice!

1. Again, you are not offering an alternative to norming (better or worse). You are not offering an alternative rule/canon/norma normans for such (better or worse). You are just trying to support The Catholic Church alone simply exempting The Catholic Church alone from the whole issue of accountability and the norming that requires. You are trying to justify self employing this epistemology: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so just accept it with docility. I don’t need no norming cuz I say I can’t be wrong so I can’t!”

This is nonsense. It’s just a way for you justify not following the true Church cuz you don’t like what it asks you to do.

In summary, you don’t mount a defense. This is all a cop-out with no explanation. You are not only dodging the issues, you are not debating at all. Your norma normans thing is nothing more than a way for you to feel justified in not following the church established by Jesus.

I should have listened to Catholic Dude way back on page 2 of this thread. You are, however, very good at saying a whole lot of nothing.

I am done.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1. God never promised The Catholic Church anything.

.

YOu state this like its a fact. It is infact, you self-biased opinion. Have you not read matthew 16: 18:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it

Thanks for so undeniably proving my point…

Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.

Do you not recognize that Jesus is promising that the Gates of hell will never prevail agains the Catholic Church

1. You’re right, as you yourself revealed, Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time, about any thing.
2. It’s true, hell has not stopped Christianity. Now, what in the WORLD does that do to indicate that The Catholic Church is infallible. unaccountable, incapable of error?

How about the promise to the Apostles

1. It was to the Apostles, not The Catholic Church.
2. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. Didn’t Jesus spend much of His ministry CORRECTING the Apostles? There was one He called “Satan,” which one was that? Really? You think He promised them they would be infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error/exempt from norming? And even if you do, what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church or The Methodist Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Nothin’. Absolutely nothin’.

Again, he promises to be with the Church until the end of the age. Do you think Jesus would abandon his church or allow them to be led astray?

1. Yes, obviously, but just as obviously, He never promised The Catholic Church anything.
2. To be with someone is not to be infallible/unaccountable.
3. Again, you seem to have this entirely unreasonable and unbiblical idea that if God leads, ergo The Catholic Chruch alone INFALLIBLY follows. Where do you get this idea that if God leads us, we MUST, ERGO, THEREFORE, be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; we must infallibly FOLLOW? You seem to be confusing leading with following. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Of course! God will not lead errantly, falsely! But did Adam and Eve INFALLIBLY follow? Did God regard them as UNACCOUNTABLE for their actions? Obviously not. Your premise is unreasonable, illogical and certainly unbiblical.

Again, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative approach to the norming of it’s doctrines OR because it has an alternative rule/canon for such. It doesn’t. It rejects Sola Scriptura for the same reason the LDS and all the cults do - because it rejects accountability and the norming that suggests, and all that encompasses (including the embraced rule/canon in such). It simply evades and circumvents the whole issue of accountability, the whole issue of the correctness of its dogmas, replacing that with the claim of self alone for self alone that self alone is right so it’s right, so just accept whatever it says with docility.

.

.

 

[CWBetts]

Thanks for so undeniably proving my point…

Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.

1. You’re right, as you yourself revealed, Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time, about any thing.
2. It’s true, hell has not stopped Christianity. Now, what in the WORLD does that do to indicate that The Catholic Church is infallible. unaccountable, incapable of error?
3. It was to the Apostles, not The Catholic Church.
4. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. Didn’t Jesus spend much of His ministry CORRECTING the Apostles? There was one He called “Satan,” which one was that? Really? You think He promised them they would be infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error/exempt from norming? And even if you do, what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church or The Methodist Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Nothin’. Absolutely nothin’.
5. Yes, obviously, but just as obviously, He never promised The Catholic Church anything.
6. To be with someone is not to be infallible/unaccountable.
7. Again, you seem to have this entirely unreasonable and unbiblical idea that if God leads, ergo The Catholic Chruch alone INFALLIBLY follows. Where do you get this idea that if God leads us, we MUST, ERGO, THEREFORE, be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; we must infallibly FOLLOW? You seem to be confusing leading with following. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Of course! God will not lead errantly, falsely! But did Adam and Eve INFALLIBLY follow? Did God regard them as UNACCOUNTABLE for their actions? Obviously not. Your premise is unreasonable, illogical and certainly unbiblical.

Again, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative approach to the norming of it’s doctrines OR because it has an alternative rule/canon for such. It doesn’t. It rejects Sola Scriptura for the same reason the LDS and all the cults do - because it rejects accountability and the norming that suggests, and all that encompasses (including the embraced rule/canon in such). It simply evades and circumvents the whole issue of accountability, the whole issue of the correctness of its dogmas, replacing that with the claim of self alone for self alone that self alone is right so it’s right, so just accept whatever it says with docility.

.

.

Sola Scriptura is rejected because it is a teaching that has no support either in the Scriptures or from the Early Fathers, and was wholly invented from the mind of man, and not the mind of God.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks for so undeniably proving my point…

Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.

1. You’re right, as you yourself revealed, Christ never promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time, about any thing.
2. It’s true, hell has not stopped Christianity. Now, what in the WORLD does that do to indicate that The Catholic Church is infallible. unaccountable, incapable of error?
3. It was to the Apostles, not The Catholic Church.
4. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. Didn’t Jesus spend much of His ministry CORRECTING the Apostles? There was one He called “Satan,” which one was that? Really? You think He promised them they would be infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error/exempt from norming? And even if you do, what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church or The Methodist Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Nothin’. Absolutely nothin’.
5. Yes, obviously, but just as obviously, He never promised The Catholic Church anything.
6. To be with someone is not to be infallible/unaccountable.
7. Again, you seem to have this entirely unreasonable and unbiblical idea that if God leads, ergo The Catholic Chruch alone INFALLIBLY follows. Where do you get this idea that if God leads us, we MUST, ERGO, THEREFORE, be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; we must infallibly FOLLOW? You seem to be confusing leading with following. Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? Of course! God will not lead errantly, falsely! But did Adam and Eve INFALLIBLY follow? Did God regard them as UNACCOUNTABLE for their actions? Obviously not. Your premise is unreasonable, illogical and certainly unbiblical.

Again, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative approach to the norming of it’s doctrines OR because it has an alternative rule/canon for such. It doesn’t. It rejects Sola Scriptura for the same reason the LDS and all the cults do - because it rejects accountability and the norming that suggests, and all that encompasses (including the embraced rule/canon in such). It simply evades and circumvents the whole issue of accountability, the whole issue of the correctness of its dogmas, replacing that with the claim of self alone for self alone that self alone is right so it’s right, so just accept whatever it says with docility.

.

This entire diatribe is simply your denial of the Catholic Church’s continuity from the Apostles. This would be expected of someone like yourself who chose to separate from the truth, History is not on your side on this one. The Catholic church certainly can demonstrate continuity of doctrine and leadership back to St. Peter , whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

As for your argument that the Apostles were fallible, sure they were fallilbe during their learning phase, prior to recieving the Holy Spirit. After that they were led to all truth . If you don’t believe that, then Christianity has absolutely no basis for you.

Finally, you still have not demonstrated that scripture alone is a better norm than the Catholic church’s tradition, scripture and magesterium, which is far more complete, authoritative and equally well documented.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This entire diatribe is simply your denial of the Catholic Church’s continuity from the Apostles.

No. It’s your failure to show why The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming; your inability to substantiate your premise that since God infallibly leads, ergo The Catholic Church exclusively and infallibly follows; your inability to reveal that God promised The Catholic Church… well, anything at all.

CHRISTIANITY certainly has a continuity back to Jesus. If it were not for Jesus - and then all generation of believers before us - we’d likely not be Christians. But what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church being infallable, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz it alone says it alone is?

Finally, you still have not demonstrated that scripture alone is a better norm than the Catholic church’s tradition, scripture and magesterium, which is far more complete, authoritative and equally well documented.

What you now bring up is the norma normans that The Catholic Church uses FOR ALL OTHER TEACHERS (remember, it exempts itself from any accountability for what it teaches; it’s just right cuz it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right, so you are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility”). BUT, it exempts NO OTHER - just itself.

When OTHERS are evaluated, it has a rule/canon. Is it OUTSIDE itself? Is it ABOVE and BEYOND itself? Nope. It’s just itself. Here’s it’s rule FOR OTHERS.

1. Tradition has chosen, defined and interpreted by ITSELF.
2. Scripture NOT objective and knowable and unalterable on a page, but “in the heart” of ITSELF as interpreted by ITSELF.
3. Magisterium of ITSELF as chosen by ITSELF from men pledged with blood to uphold the teachings of ITSELF - the decisions, interpretations, arbitrations and views of ITSELF.
   These 3 EQUALLY and INSEPARATELY, forming ONE rule/canon, so that each must agree with all others. If the RCC Magisterium has a view, Scripture MUST have that view too (if only “implied”) since it is mandated to agree (again, it’s not Scripture you can read - it’s found in the “heart” of The Catholic Church and is NOT even that but rather what it alone says it MEANS - which MUST agree with what The Catholic Church’s Tradition and Magisterium say). It’s just self looking in the mirror at self to see if self agrees with self. Self usually does.

It makes “sense” in this sense: Since self alone has declared that self alone is right cuz self alone is right and self along says self alone is right so self alone thus is, therefore, others MUST be wrong is they disagree with self. It’s also why this “rule” won’t work vis-a-vis the teachings of self (beside the reality that self won’t permit the question of whether it’s right - you are to just accept it with docility): Obviously self CANNOT be a norm for self - even The Catholic Church knows that, which is why it rejects the rule you suggest for itself, it only embraces it for OTHERS.

.

 

[IronHammer]

No. It’s your failure to show why The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming

**Because it doesn’t NEED to. It IS the norm as set out by Jesus Himself from the beginning. Your rationalizing and trying to make it fit your theology can never change that.
**

CHRISTIANITY certainly has a continuity back to Jesus. If it were not for Jesus - and then all generation of believers before us - we’d likely not be Christians. But what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church being infallable, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz it alone says it alone is?

**Because the Apostles were Catholic as were the bishops who learned at their feet as were the bishops who were appointed by those bishops.
**

1. Tradition has chosen, defined and interpreted by ITSELF.
2. Scripture NOT objective and knowable and unalterable on a page, but “in the heart” of ITSELF as interpreted by ITSELF. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. Scripture can’t interpret scripture no more than the Constitution interpret itself!
3. Magisterium of ITSELF as chosen by ITSELF (Wrong again…By Jesus Himself, the ultimate authority) from men pledged with blood to uphold the teachings of ITSELF (Wrong again. The teachings of Jesus as orally given to the Apostles) - the decisions, interpretations, arbitrations and views of ITSELF.
   These 3 EQUALLY and INSEPARATELY, forming ONE rule/canon, so that each must agree with all others. If the RCC Magisterium has a view, Scripture MUST have that view too (if only “implied”) since it is mandated to agree (again, it’s not Scripture you can read - it’s found in the “heart” of The Catholic Church and is NOT even that but rather what it alone says it MEANS - which MUST agree with what The Catholic Church’s Tradition and Magisterium say). It’s just self looking in the mirror at self to see if self agrees with self. Self usually does.

It makes “sense” in this sense: Since self alone has declared that self alone is right cuz self alone is right and self along says self alone is right so self alone thus is, therefore, others MUST be wrong is they disagree with self. It’s also why this “rule” won’t work vis-a-vis the teachings of self (beside the reality that self won’t permit the question of whether it’s right - you are to just accept it with docility): Obviously self CANNOT be a norm for self - even The Catholic Church knows that, which is why it rejects the rule you suggest for itself, it only embraces it for OTHERS.

This is all human rationalizing and it’s just rubbish. Just your excuse to not accept Christ’s authority through the Church He established.

 

[LionHeart777]

American Josiah,

respectfully, wasn’t the fact that the Church decided which books belong in the NT (again leave the OT out as we don’t agree on that) an example of what you would call “self being responsible to self” and therefore unaccountable? What was the norma normans to judge what belongs in the NT? Is this decision infallible? Is it binding on all Christians? if so, why?