Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[DCNBILL]

1. There’s zero evidence that ANY denomination existed in 28 AD, by any name.
   .

Note that the community of believers that was started by Jesus the Christ were called the followers of Jesus of Nazareth around this time.

The peace of Christ to all,

bill

 

[paul_c]

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

that’s correct. There were no denominations, only the Catholic Church.

You can’t have it both ways. Either there was instititional, legal/political, organizational entities that were formal association of congregations - or there were not. Make up your mind. IF you want to defend that there was (well, at least one) - then your need need is to establish that said denomination was exactly what The Catholic Church is today - and to do so from OUTSIDE The Catholic Church so it isn’t just The Catholic Church making claims for The Catholic Church. It’s entirely moot to our discussion here, but have a try at that (you’ll need to do that in a separate thread - but have at it). Of course, even if God established IT, that’s entirely moot to IT being infallible/unaccountable. God also established the Hebrew Kingdom and appointed its kings (at least the early ones), was such THEREFORE infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, whatever it said is what God said? You have a wrong premise.

There were BELIEVERS since Adam and Eve, certainly since Abraham. All of God’s promises were given to PEOPLE. God never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never exempted The Catholic Church from anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. And He CERTAINLY never stated that The Catholic Church is infallible - about anything, concerning anything, at any time, in any way. IT is just claiming such for ITSELF.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Its is Christ’s true church. Denominations are Protestant offshoots from this that started appearing during the Reformation. And it doesn’t really matter what outsiders think of the Catholic Church. Just because someone doesn’t understand or believe the Church’s charter, doesn’t make it any less valid. And by the way, of course the Catholic Church isn’t the same now as it was in 31AD. On Pentacost there were 3000 members, all in Jerusalem. Now there are 1.2Billion across the globe. The church adjusted and grew accordingly, while fulfilling its original charter from Matthew 28: 18-20.

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

.

He promised that he would guide the church to all truth.
Exactly!!! But He didn’t promise The Catholic Church ANYTHING. And again, you seem to be confusing God guiding all with one following without the possiblity of error and without the acceptance of accountability. You have this strange, odd, unbiblical and irrational idea that perfect leading means infallibly following. AGAIN, where did you ever get that idea? Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? ERGO, did they infallibly follow? ERGO, did God regard them as unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming? We all know the answers. Your whole premise is simply false.

The church is not following but leading. Jesus leads us to all truth through the Church, which is his vehicle for leading the faithful to heaven.

.
Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
He never said the Church was unaccountable.

The church never said it was anaccountable. It must follow all that it teaches. What do you have against being docily obedient to the truth?

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[paul_c]

.

Originally Posted by paul c
Every member of the Church, from the lowest member to the Pope will be judged by God on the day of his death based on what he did or didn’t do.

How do you figure that I am disagreeing with the church. The Catholic most definitely teaches that God is the judge and that no man can judge even himself, because only God sees clearly what is in each man’s heart.

And where did I judge you in terms of your salvation?

 

[paul_c]

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

.

The Church simply sees itself as carrying out the mission Christ gave it: to spread the truth about salvation and to administer the sacraments. It has been doing this for 2000 years and was doing it before the new testament letters were even written.

1. Yes, CHRISTIANS have been doing that. There’s zero evidence that The Catholic Church even existed for centuries. And exactly how DOES a denominational, legal/political/ institional denomination baptize? Never mind - a different subject for another day and thread…

The only Christians that existed in Apostolic times were Catholics. There were only different denominations after the reformation, when people chose to separate from the Church in protest against the truth Christ gave it. As for your second question. The Church is the community of believers in communion with Pope. Those men ordained into the priesthood administer the sacraments.

.
2. That doesn’t remotely suggest that it is exempt from accountibility or that it is infallible or that it is incapable of error - especially for IT ITSELF alone, exclusively. Ford has been making cars for nearly 100 years, does that make Ford Motor Corporation INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, exempt from accountability and thus norming, whatever it says Jesus says, we must accept whatever it does and says “with docility?” You keep making these wild presumptions, these AMAZING leaps that are entirely unbiblical, illogical and just stange…

The Ford Motor Company was not given the responsibility of spreading the Gospel and administrating the sacraments by Jesus Christ, nor was it put under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

.
Of course, Joseph Smith has huge personal credibility problems so his self proclamations are easy to dismiss. St. Peter has no such issues.

1. You evaded the entire point. Read it again.
2. Funny, you hold the LDS accountable for what it claims, but when we discuss The Catholic Church - out that goes, in comes the “just accept it with docility.” Funny how the LDS is not allowed to demand docilic acceptance, but the RCC is. Welcome back to Catholicism…
3. BTW, Peter never said, claimed, promised or authorized ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about The Catholic Church.

1. I didn’t evade the post. I told you how I would address the LDS member, did I not.
2. I checked the LDS church’s credibility in the same way I would expect you to assess the Catholic Church’s credibility: evaluate the church’s claimed basis for authority. The LDS basis for authority rests on the word of its founder, Joseph Smith, who among other things, created doctrine that said that if his followers allowed him to have sex with their wives and daughters, they would have a higher place in heaven. The Catholic Church’s claiim to authority rests with the witness of the Apostles, who except for John, were martyered for their faith.

.IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt self alone from accountability, insist that the issue of correctness be laid aside and that it just be accepted "with docility that self alone is correct, cuz self alone says that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, and thus exempt from accountability and the norming that requires and the whole issue of this thread: the most sound rule/canon for such.

the Catholic Church does not hide in the dark. It also doesn’t require blind faith from its folllowers, but explains fully what it teaches.

Your proposed norming is nothing more than comparing what the Church teaches to what you want it to teach based on your own reading of scripture. The Church teaches the truth and as it says in CCC# *87, which you loathe so much, the faithful follow that teaching obediently. After all, who are we to claim we know better than the Church that Jesus put in place explicitly for that reason. I understand that you can’t bring yourself to accept this, but remember, the meek WILL inheret the earth.

.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[AmericanJosiah]

How do you figure that I am disagreeing with the church.

You indicated that teachers are accountability only and directly to God at Judgement Day.
This is one of the points where you disagree with The Catholic Church.

Does The Catholic Church do as you suggest - have GOD do the judging on judgement day? Nope. It believes that ALL OTHERS are fully accountable - RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW (it only exempts itself). Did IT say to Arius - “You will be judged by God on the day of your death - nothing more can be said.” Did IT insist to Martin Luther, “Oh, you may be right and you may be wrong - you cannot be held accountable except by God exclusively on judgement day.” Nope. The Catholic Church has steadfastly, consistently embraced - and insisted upon - accountability and norming RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, rejecting the rubric you are calling for. It’s just that IT alone exempts just one from that - itself. Exclusively. “I’ll be judged by God on judgement day - I reject ANY norming NOW. But all OTHERS shall also be judged right here, right now.”

See, in judging ME - you are rejecting your own apologetic. As you so often have done with your apologetics before in this thread. Even you don’t accept your own position - or you’d insist that we are not to hold positions accountable, we are to reject norming, and permit GOD alone to do this on Judgement Day. But you actually reject your own position. Again, you are just TRYING to find some way for this to apply to one along if that one alone so insists/needs. RCC: “EVERYONE is fully accountable for what they say and do - right here, right now. We have every responsiblity to burn people at the stake for being wrong, to excommunicate, to denounce as heretics. But there’s one acception, just ONE that CANNOT be held accountable except by God Himself alone on judgment say, and that’s me, myself and I alone.”

And where did I judge you in terms of your salvation?

I said nothing about “in terms of salvation,” this discussion is about the correctness of doctrines.

Yes, The Catholic Church rejects your rubric that we are all accountable soly and only to God Himself on Judgment Day. Its simply rejects that IT and IT ITSELF ALONE, exclusively, is subject to any other - all OTHERS are accountable right here, right now. It quite insists that all OTHERS be judged right here, right now - condemned as heretics, excommunicated, perhaps even burned at the stake. It rejects your rubric - at least for every single person or organization on earth - except one. Itself. Thus, it’s rejection of norming and all associated with it (including the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in such - the topic of this thread) but only and exclusively where self is concerned. It demands that all just circumvent the whole issue of correctness of its teachings and just accept it “with docility” cuz it alone is right so it alone is right. IF any accountibility is accepted at all, it ALONE is accountable only to God on judgment day: every other is accountable right here, right now cuz every OTHER is wrong, but self alone is right.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.
paul c:

Josiah:

That doesn’t remotely suggest that it is exempt from accountibility or that it is infallible or that it is incapable of error - especially for IT ITSELF alone, exclusively. Ford has been making cars for nearly 100 years, does that make Ford Motor Corporation INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, exempt from accountability and thus norming, whatever it says Jesus says, we must accept whatever it does and says “with docility?” You keep making these wild presumptions, these AMAZING leaps that are entirely unbiblical, illogical and just stange…

.

The Ford Motor Company was not given the responsibility of spreading the Gospel and administrating the sacraments by Jesus Christ

Moot. It is your point I’m questioning, this idea that if one has been doing something long enough, it becomes INFALLABLE, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, whatever it says is what Jesus says and must be accepted “with docility.” That you reject it for Ford means you reject your own apologetic.

nor was it put under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

It has EXACTLY as much substantiation for such as does The Catholic Church. Friend, Jesus never promised ANYONE is or ever will be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming. Friend, He never promised The Catholic Church anything - about this or anything else. Not ever. Not once. He never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church, or any other denomination. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything.

This apologetic, it turns out, is yet another one that even you reject - so why should anyone accept it?
paul c:

I checked the LDS church’s credibility in the same way I would expect you to assess the Catholic Church’s credibility: evaluate the church’s claimed basis for authority. The LDS basis for authority rests on the word of its founder, Joseph Smith, who among other things, created doctrine that said that if his followers allowed him to have sex with their wives and daughters, they would have a higher place in heaven. The Catholic Church’s claiim to authority rests with the witness of the Apostles, who except for John, were martyered for their faith.

1. Then you have rejected the demand of The Catholic Church.
2. Reality check: None of the Apostles claimed ANYTHING about The Catholic Church. They spoke of your denomination EXACTLY the same as they did The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - not at all. About anything. Concerning anything. If you want me to reject the claims of the LDS because none of the Apostles promised it would be infallible/unaccountable, then you give me no choice: I must reject the claims of the RCC for exactly the same reason, the reason YOU suggest.

paul c:

the meek WILL inheret the earth

THIS is meek? “I alone am the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter. I alone am infallible, incapable of error, and whatever I alone say is what Jesus Himself says. So ignore the question of whether what I say is right, and just accept whatever I alone say with docility; I don’t need no norming cuz I say I’m right so I am.” Studied any of the cults? Do you find them “meek” when demanding that it alone be exempt from accountability and just accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking? Odd definition of meek there, Paul…

See, I think the meek and true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light. Truth embraces such for it is revealed true in such - and the teacher is only interested in truth, not his own personal power and authority and lording over others as the gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must circumvent the issue of accountability, who must evade norming and rather insist that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” as Jesus speaking. He needs to “justify” that exemption of self for self with amazing, prideful claims of self for self.

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
How do you figure that I am disagreeing with the church.

I’m completely consistent with Church teaching on this. While the church condemns actions, it does not condemn people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
And where did I judge you in terms of your salvation?

I get it now. You are upset that the Catholic Church will take a position on other people or group’s doctrines without allowing its own doctrines to be scrutinized. Well, it explains its doctines but the Church is in no position to negotiate on the doctrines it recieved from the Lord. It must teach what it was given. That is its charter. and when someone says something that contradicts what the Church was given, it must speak out and correct the error.

 

[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?

The Catholic Church is subject ultimately to God as are all of it’s members, but it is our belief that God protects the Church from officially teaching error; as you probably know. I’m sure that you would allow a certain amount of infallibility to the Apostles and the authority to declare certain things that are “binding.” The real ? is whether or not this protection by the Holy Spirit which makes it impossible for the Church to teach error was passed on to the sucessor of the Apostles. You say it was not… we Catholics say it was. I think that we have good evidence from Scripture, from the Early Church Fathers, and from the fact that there was an infallible decision made by an authority outside of Scripture, which is binding on all Christians (the entire Christian Canon.)

Question: Which “denomination” gave us the list of the books of the NT? Whichever Church that was, that is the one with the authority to “bind and loose.”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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?

An interesting but moot question…

1. Your issue of “infalliblity” is moot. In the Rule of Law, MUST we accept that all laws are INFALLIBLE in order to embrace such as the rule/canon? If the policeman stops me for going 80 MPH and we BOTH are subject to the Rule of Law - that written, square, big, white sign with big black numerals and letters proclaiming: “MAX SPEED LIMIT 50 MPH”, do we all have to embrace that that law is INFALLIBLE? Obviously not.
2. Scripture is the embraced norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. What you are evaluating isn’t a doctrine, thus it is not embraced by Scripture. I agree - it DOES need to be seen as reliable by all engaged in the particular process of norming a particular doctrine in order for it to be useful, but WHY that is the case is a different situation.
3. Scripture is not me. It’s not you. It’s not The Catholic Church. It’s not Joseph Smith or Martin Luther or Mary Baker Eddy or Pope Benedict or The United Methodist Church.
4. Here’s what The Handbook of The Catholic Faith states (page 136), “The Bible is the very word of God, and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible; God guided the penmen to write as He wished. It is authoritative for us because the Author of it is.” We all embrace it as reliable (even inerrant), thus it is a sound and good candidate to serve as the rule/canon. Let me go back to an earlier illustration. Bob the Builder is contracted to build a fense 6 feet tall. The fense is finished and Bob claims it is 6 feet tall (that becomes the position which is accountable). Unless truth is irrelevant to you, the necessary question becomes: is it true? Well, the FIRST issue we need is something we all agree is a reliable measure, the rule (“straight edge”), the canon (“measuring stick”), the norma normans. Perhaps we all agree to use a Sears Measuring Tape. That’s not Bob, it’s not me, it’s not you - it’s OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties; it’s KNOWABLE to all of us (we all can look and see what it says) and it’s ALTERABLE by none (none can change what it says), thus we embrace it as the most sound canon for the question before us. Yes, I agree - there does need to be some reason why Bob, you and I all agree to use the Sears Measuring Tape. But the point is: it’s objective, it’s not me or you or Bob, it’s knowable by all and alterable by none, and it’s regarded by all parties as reliable. it is a sound canon for the purpose before us: determining if that fense is 6 feet tall, as Bob claims.

it is our belief that God protects the Church from officially teaching error; as you probably know.

No one denies that, the question is: is it true?

The LDS believes that God ultimately protects it from officially teaching error, as you probably know. Every cult I’m aware of insists that God protects it from officially teaching error. They all reject Sola Scriptura because they all reject accountability for whatever they alone say - each alone insisting for each alone that each alone is infallible, incapable of error - AND THUS… (here’s the whole point)… unaccountable, exempt from norming, everyone is lay aside the issue of correctness of self and just accept whatever it says “with docility.” Friend, it’s obvious that has nothing whatsoever to do with self being correct, it’s just self alone exempting self alone from the issue; it’s just self circumventing, evading the whole issue - replacing it with a “power play”: “Just accept whatever I alone say with docility!” “I’m right cuz I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - so just accept it with docility; I don’t need no norming cuz I alone can’t be wrong. When I speak, God speaks.”

Question: Which “denomination” gave us the list of the books of the NT?

None.

In order to use a Sears’ Measuring Tape, do I need to determine the names of all the workers who made it? In order for the policeman and I to subject to the Rule of Law (in the above case, that speed limit sign), so I need to know the names of who made the sign? Does he/she/they need to be INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE? If I don’t know their names, or if it cannot be proven each was INFALLIBLE, is it then better for me to just exempt me from accountability - me proclaiming me to be incapable of wrong and thus exempt from the whole issue of whether I was speeding when I was driving 80 MPH? Is the defendant just exempting the defendant from all accountability the most sound way to determine if the defendant is right or wrong in what he did?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I You are upset that the Catholic Church will take a position on other people or group’s doctrines** without allowing its own doctrines to be scrutinized**.

My response was to the point often made by Catholics that The Catholic Church is accountable, but “to God on Judgment Day.” It’s obviously a direct contradiction of its own position to then argue that ALL OTHERS are accountable right here, right now - except for just one: self, exclusively.

Yes, you are right. The Catholic Church embraces - even insists - on accountability for every single OTHER person, teacher, organization, church body, institution, denomination, etc. This, it argues, it critical and absolutely essential to the issue of truth! I agree. But it makes ONE (and only one) rather interesting exception: itself. It’ alone insists that this is entirely moot when it comes to itself. Why? Because itself insists that itself is right - so obviously there’s no need to inquire as to whether it alone is right sine it says it is and it’s right so it’s right about that. Some might regard this as profoundly hypocritical. But I just see it as self simply circumventing the issue of correctness with a power-ploy, changing the topic from truth to power.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, for he knows the light reveals truth and he cares for truth - not his ego, power, authority, lording it over others. The false teacher hides in the dark, he knows he must evade accountability and norming, and so he exempts self from such - demanding instead that whatever he says simply be accepted “with docility.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I You are upset that the Catholic Church will take a position on other people or group’s doctrines without allowing its own doctrines to be scrutinized

The Catholic Church acts exactly as you would expect the Church Commissioned by God to hold and teach the truths about salvation to act. It spreads the truth that it has been taught and counsels those that teach alternatives. It has no Norm to check, other than what it was given by its predecessors to pass on. This is contained in a combination of tradition and scripture and is interpreted by the Magesterium acording to what was taught by the Apostles and passed down through the centuries by the Popes and the bishops in communion with them.

For Catholics, the credibility of the church is sufficient to believe that it is indeed accurately and infallibly passing on the truths it was given.

Whether or not you believe the church’s claim is credible, however, has no bearing on whether sola scripture as a norma norman is a valid concept. I have already proved that it is not because unlike a measuring tape, no two people get the same answer out of scripture unless they agree on the interpretation, which actually becomes the norma norman. That interpretaton comes form the Catholic Church. Finally, it is not encumbent on me or anyone else to provide an alternative standard. The only thing we need to do is to show that sola scriptura is insufficient as a starndard… .

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It has no Norm to check, other than what it was given by its predecessors to pass on. This is contained in a combination of tradition and scripture and is interpreted by the Magesterium acording to what was taught by the Apostles and passed down through the centuries by the Popes and the bishops in communion with them.

For Catholics, the credibility of the church is sufficient to believe that it is indeed accurately and infallibly passing on the truths it was given.

Whether or not you believe the church’s claim is credible, however, has no bearing on whether sola scripture as a norma norman is a valid concept. I have already proved that it is not because unlike a measuring tape, no two people get the same answer out of scripture unless they agree on the interpretation, which actually becomes the norma norman. That interpretaton comes form the Catholic Church. Finally, it is not encumbent on me or anyone else to provide an alternative standard. The only thing we need to do is to show that sola scriptura is insufficient as a starndard… .

… exactly as I’ve stated. You DO well represent the insistence of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone.

But yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with why it rejects Sola Scriptura. It is an aspect of norming, which - as you correctly point out - The Catholic Church exempts itself from. Rather than addressing the issue of whether it is correct, it demand that we lay all that aside and just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

Yes, it uses the claims of itself alone for itself alone as “justification” for why it does for self what it insist must not be done in the case of any and all others. And yes, it will - on occasion - even reference Scripture but as you have so very well documented, it’s never the actual words of any Scripture on any page, but it’s the “interpretretation” of itself alone of the Scripture “in the heart” of itself alone that it “references” - self does agree with self alone (as is typical).

But IMHO, self alone exempting self alone from accountability and instead, self alone insisting that self alone is right cuz it alone says it is, has ZERO relevance to it being correct. I think any reasoning person would come to the same conclusion - even without my study of the LDS and the cults. In fact, self hiding from examination and accountability, self exempting self from norming, self instead insisting that all just accept whatever “with docility” rather suggests falsehood. For it seems to me, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident the light will reveal the truth, focused on truth rather than upholding the power, control, authority and unquestioned obedience to self alone. The false teacher is the one who desires to hide in the dark, exclude his teachings from accountability and norming, circumvent the whole issue by a power ploy of insisting that what self alone says just be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” Catholic Catechism # 87, etc., etc., etc.

.

 

[paul_c]

… exactly as I’ve stated. You DO well represent the insistence of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone.

But yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with why it rejects Sola Scriptura. It is an aspect of norming, which - as you correctly point out - The Catholic Church exempts itself from. Rather than addressing the issue of whether it is correct, it demand that we lay all that aside and just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”

Yes, it uses the claims of itself alone for itself alone as “justification” for why it does for self what it insist must not be done in the case of any and all others. And yes, it will - on occasion - even reference Scripture but as you have so very well documented, it’s never the actual words of any Scripture on any page, but it’s the “interpretretation” of itself alone of the Scripture “in the heart” of itself alone that it “references” - self does agree with self alone (as is typical).

But IMHO, self alone exempting self alone from accountability and instead, self alone insisting that self alone is right cuz it alone says it is, has ZERO relevance to it being correct. I think any reasoning person would come to the same conclusion - even without my study of the LDS and the cults. In fact, self hiding from examination and accountability, self exempting self from norming, self instead insisting that all just accept whatever “with docility” rather suggests falsehood. For it seems to me, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident the light will reveal the truth, focused on truth rather than upholding the power, control, authority and unquestioned obedience to self alone. The false teacher is the one who desires to hide in the dark, exclude his teachings from accountability and norming, circumvent the whole issue by a power ploy of insisting that what self alone says just be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” Catholic Catechism # 87, etc., etc., etc.

.

If what the Catholic Church states about itself is true, there is no possible authority on earth it can be accountable to. You do realize that, right?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If what the Catholic Church states about itself is true, there is no possible authority on earth it can be accountable to. You do realize that, right?

Of course, and IF there are 6 billion people living on the Moon, then there are 6 billion people living on the Moon; ANY conditional clause - if true, is true. But you DO realize you are simply continuing to defend an evasion of the question of truth - insisting instead that if self alone insists that self alone is correct, then self alone is - as long as that self is The Catholic Church, exclusively.

But this question is not IF one alone exempts self alone from accountability, then self alone exempts self alone from accountability. The issue is truth. Self alone excluding self exclusively from the question and rather insisting that whatever self alone says just be accept “with docility” has nothing whatsoever to do with self being correct. In fact, it’s a pretty good indication that that self realizes he/she/it needs to exclude self from accountability. You do realize that, right?

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If what the Catholic Church states about itself is true, there is no possible authority on earth it can be accountable to. You do realize that, right?

Since I’ve encountered Josiah making these same arguments for the last 2 years on other forums, permit me to contribute that which I think damns his position against the Catholic Church.

Regarding who “validates” who, I would approach it like this. Who validates the authority of the first Church leaders, the Apostles? When they claim authority are they “validating themselves?” Does their authority come from themselves? We don’t have any letters from Jesus stating Who God commissioned. We have apostles (or their associates) writing down that Jesus gave them authority. Is this circular? I say no.

A study of the early Church reveals coherence in the Resurrection, martyrs attesting to the truths of the faith (such as Justin Martyr who died for his beliefs in the Real Presence, regenerative quality of baptism, and other ECFs attested consistently to infant baptism, Church hierarchy, liturgical worship, sacramental life, etc…), and the earliest letters of the Church. An important study is of St. Irenaeus who debated with the Gnostics who authentically held apostolic succession (Against Heresies. 3.3.1-3ff). Note that the debate was NOT whether or not succession existed, but rather who had it. The Gnostics not only clung to a different set of Scripture, but had no known capacity to demonstrate succession. Irenaeus wrote around 170-180. Justin around 150-160. And long before them, Clement explicitly stated around 90 A.D. the following: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians , #44). According to multiple antiquated historical accounts of Church history, this Clement is likely the very same Clement referred to as Paul’s “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. (See Jerome, : Also, Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 4, #10) and others.) All of these Church Father’s espousing apostolic succession, a Church hierachy, as well as foundational Catholic dogma, wrote well before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament. We take the truth of the Gospel on the testament of the early Christians and the death’s they welcomed, the miracles they performed—it is these testaments which demonstrate that the commission of the Church is divine. And it is their surviving accounts which demonstrate identification of the true Church as one with a successive line of bishops. In following centuries, other succession accounts can be read that dovetail from Irenaeus’. And so by this, by the doctrines taught in the early Church, by the canon of Scripture that was assembled, the Catholic Church is identified as that same Church given the divine commission.

It is by patterns such as this which we identify God as the one who validates the authority of the Catholic Church. If Josiah were to trust the description of apostolic succession both from Scripture and in the early Church, he would know de facto that the true bishops are identifiable. His argument completely rests on the notion that we “cannot know” who has true succession or that it doesn’t exist. He appeals to the claims of Mormons or whoever, permitting their claims to blur the reality of history. The problem that Josiah struggles with some 1800 years later had long been solved by Irenaeus writing against the Gnostics. You will notice that neither Clement, nor Irenaeus, nor Augustine, nor Eusebius, nor any other Early Church Father giving an account of successors has a problem identifying authentic bishops the way Josiah does, despite the competing religions of their day. Nor do they encounter challenge that such succession is false.

His argument also completely dissolves his own religion. His hermeneutic of history discredits all strains of Christianity and the Apostles themselves. After all, there are other religions claiming to have the truth, claiming to have divine books, therefore if he applies the same standard to them that he does to the Catholic Church, all religions are self-authenticating. Any true religion would thus be false or unidentifiable. That is the essence of his argument. And it has not changed in at least 2 years despite its own implosive consequences.

And that’s all to not even address the poverty of the sola scriptura norma norms praxis argument…

Carry on…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
If what the Catholic Church states about itself is true, there is no possible authority on earth it can be accountable to. You do realize that, right?

Your conclusion is a logical fallacy because it excludes a very real possibility without cause. If the Catholic Church was given a set of truths by Jesus to spread to the nations, as Catholic contend and Matthew 28:18-20 documents, then the authority it claims is God given and can not be normed by any source on earth because those teachings are the normative value… You seek to exclude this possibility without any data to support your poiint of view.

And again, the OP was interested in Sola Scriptura. None of this pertains. The only thing that matters to this argument is that Sola Scripture Can not be the norma norman since it can’t be interpreted reliably with an authority to guide it. No alternative need be given to prove this point.

 

[paul_c]

Since I’ve encountered Josiah making these same arguments for the last 2 years on other forums, permit me to contribute that which I think damns his position against the Catholic Church.

Regarding who “validates” who, I would approach it like this. Who validates the authority of the first Church leaders, the Apostles? When they claim authority are they “validating themselves?” Does their authority come from themselves? We don’t have any letters from Jesus stating Who God commissioned. We have apostles (or their associates) writing down that Jesus gave them authority. Is this circular? I say no.

A study of the early Church reveals coherence in the Resurrection, martyrs attesting to the truths of the faith (such as Justin Martyr who died for his beliefs in the Real Presence, regenerative quality of baptism, and other ECFs attested consistently to infant baptism, Church hierarchy, liturgical worship, sacramental life, etc…), and the earliest letters of the Church. An important study is of St. Irenaeus who debated with the Gnostics who authentically held apostolic succession (Against Heresies. 3.3.1-3ff). Note that the debate was NOT whether or not succession existed, but rather who had it. The Gnostics not only clung to a different set of Scripture, but had no known capacity to demonstrate succession. Irenaeus wrote around 170-180. Justin around 150-160. And long before them, Clement explicitly stated around 90 A.D. the following: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians , #44). According to multiple antiquated historical accounts of Church history, this Clement is likely the very same Clement referred to as Paul’s “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. (See Jerome, : Also, Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 4, #10) and others.) All of these Church Father’s espousing apostolic succession, a Church hierachy, as well as foundational Catholic dogma, wrote well before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament. We take the truth of the Gospel on the testament of the early Christians and the death’s they welcomed, the miracles they performed—it is these testaments which demonstrate that the commission of the Church is divine. And it is their surviving accounts which demonstrate identification of the true Church as one with a successive line of bishops. In following centuries, other succession accounts can be read that dovetail from Irenaeus’. And so by this, by the doctrines taught in the early Church, by the canon of Scripture that was assembled, the Catholic Church is identified as that same Church given the divine commission.

It is by patterns such as this which we identify God as the one who validates the authority of the Catholic Church. If Josiah were to trust the description of apostolic succession both from Scripture and in the early Church, he would know de facto that the true bishops are identifiable. His argument completely rests on the notion that we “cannot know” who has true succession or that it doesn’t exist. He appeals to the claims of Mormons or whoever, permitting their claims to blur the reality of history. The problem that Josiah struggles with some 1800 years later had long been solved by Irenaeus writing against the Gnostics. You will notice that neither Clement, nor Irenaeus, nor Augustine, nor Eusebius, nor any other Early Church Father giving an account of successors has a problem identifying authentic bishops the way Josiah does, despite the competing religions of their day. Nor do they encounter challenge that such succession is false.

His argument also completely dissolves his own religion. His hermeneutic of history discredits all strains of Christianity and the Apostles themselves. After all, there are other religions claiming to have the truth, claiming to have divine books, therefore if he applies the same standard to them that he does to the Catholic Church, all religions are self-authenticating. Any true religion would thus be false or unidentifiable. That is the essence of his argument. And it has not changed in at least 2 years despite its own implosive consequences.

And that’s all to not even address the poverty of the sola scriptura norma norms praxis argument…

Carry on…

You are right that Josiah denies apostolic succession and Catholc authority without supporting his position. This is because he must do so to justify his separation form the church which seems to be driven by his inability to obey some church teaching or theachings and is the subject of another thread… As for the sola scriptura norma normans argument, he now has acknowledged that it can not be truly a norma normans because of scripture will not be interpreted the same way by any independent reader. He has resorted to arguing (incorrectly) that the Catholic Church doesn’t have a better one, which of course does nothing to support his sola Scriptura argument. I’d say that this discussion is just about over.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Your conclusion is a logical fallacy because it excludes a very real possibility without cause.

Your conclusion is a logical fallacy because it assumes that if something is possible, it therefore is a dogmatic fact.

Your latest apologetic is “Well, Josiah, now it COULD be true, couldn’t it?” Hardly a defense that it IS true! Well, Paul, it COULD be true that there are furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor - but that HARDLY makes that a dogmatic fact! It COULD be that Mary had blue hair and 100 children - but that HARDLY makes it a dogmatic fact! It COULD be that Jesus founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and made it infallible/unaccountable - but that HARDLY makes it a dogmatic fact!

**If **,

Friend, ANY conditional clause - if true - is thereby true. All you are doing is EVADING the issue of whether it is true. You are being a good Catholic here, taking up the Catholic apologetic very well. I admit that. But it’s an EVASION, a CIRCUMVENTION of accountability, of norming, of the issue of whether the teaching is correct - and the substitution of the demand of self alone for self alone that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.”

Friend, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative rule/ canon/ norma normans (better or worse) - it doesn’t. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability (exclusively for itself alone) - and thus norming and all aspects of norming (for self, anyway), including whatever would serve as the rule/ canon in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m just right - accept it with docility. I don’t need no norming cuz I say I can’t be wrong so I can’t.” It has NOTHING to do with that one being right, only that that one needs/desires to evade the issue and be exempted from accountability.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Who validates the authority of the first Church leaders, the Apostles? When they claim authority are they “validating themselves?”

No. They had “authority” to teach and to forgive sins. They got it from Jesus, who is God. Is that “circular?” No.

Note that the debate was NOT whether or not succession existed, but rather who had it. The Gnostics not only clung to a different set of Scripture, but had no known capacity to demonstrate succession.

This thread is not about Apostolic Succession (which I do not deny, BTW). Are you too playing “the shell game” trying to constantly shift the topic to issues other than accountability? But note that none of the snippets The Catholic Church chooses from the authors The Catholic Churches that The Catholic Church insists is about this, none of them speak of infallibility/unaccountability of anyone or anything. THAT’S what we’re discussing. Is The Catholic Church exclusively, perpetually, continuously INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming. And if not, when WHAT is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for the evaluation of its doctrines (and those of all others)? WHAT is most reliable, most outside and beyond and above The Catholic Church and its doctrines, what is most knowable to all and alterable by none (including The Catholic Church), regarded by all parties as reliable for this purpose? The Catholic Church has no alternative to Scripture for this, nor do I.

these testaments which demonstrate that the commission of the Church is divine.

Okay. Now, what in the world does that have to do with the epistemological soundness of The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability for its doctrines, insisting instead that all just accept whatever it says “with docility?”

It is by patterns such as this which we identify God as the one who validates the authority of the Catholic Church

WAY too many connecting of man-made dots for me, but you seem to be confusing “authority” with “infalliblity.” There’s no connection.

**But let me try to HELP you Catholic Apologists. **

Let’s get to the “apologetic” (if we can call it that) which The Catholic Church uses for all this. Let’s quote its Catechism # 87, " Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The starting point, the foundational point, for The Catholic Church’s “justification” for the soundness of itself exempting itself exclusively from accountabillity is that Jesus promised the Apostles that “whoever hears you, hears me.” This is the “first step”, the foundational argument, the keystone to the whole “justification.” Because YOU (unlike many Catholics in this thread) understand: Apostolic Succession is key. Jesus promised this to THE APOSTLES. And it at least can be viewed as infallibility (a stretch - but a reasonable one). So, as the Catechism states, and as GOOD Catholic apologetics will state, IF Apostolic Succession is true (and it’s a very weak position - I’m not sure it’s WRONG, just very, very weak) and IF such can be substantiated (which, of course, it can’t - no Catholic clergy can substantiate such succession), THEN (so goes the Catholic apologetic), the CLERGY would be infallible today. Yes, it IS a whole chain of weak and unsubstantiated things - a house of cards - but it ALL goes back to that single quote (which oddly, the Catholics here have neglected to quote). Because nothing the Catholics in this thread have mentioned remotely, wildly, have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with infallibility.

But here’s the “problem.” Jesus never said that to any Apostle. The Catechism and The Catholic Church (to put it nicely) misstate the truth (and since it has been doing this for centuries, it KNOWS that it is doing that). The Catechism is just factually wrong. It says Jesus said this to THE APOSTLES - absolutely essential for it’s whole chain of incredibly weak arguments to have ANY credence whatsoever. But The Catholic Church is clearly, undeniably, factually wrong. The whole foundation, the point on which the WHOLE arguement flows - is a factual error that The Catholic Church MUST know is an error, but it keeps using it anyway. Officially. Constantly. Friend, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. WHATEVER they may or may not have meant vis-a-vis the 70 is interesting but entirely unknown, neither Scirpture or Tradition says a THING about it. But it’s moot, entirely, absolutely, completely, undeniably MOOT to The Catholic Church - and it knows it. Thus, it keeps misstating the fact, it keeps insisting that Jesus said this to the APOSTLES because that’s ESSENTIAL, FOUNDATIONAL to The Catholic Church’s “justification” for it exempting itself exclusively from accountability. But it’s a falsehood. The foundation doesn’t exist. It’s all built on a falsehood, and I cannot accept that it is ignorant of this and isn’t aware of that. But it keeps using it. Including in CCC 87. And in all the apologetics I’ve read on this form The Church. ** Sad, isn’t it?**

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[Des]

An interesting but moot question…

1. Your issue of “infalliblity” is moot. In the Rule of Law, MUST we accept that all laws are INFALLIBLE in order to embrace such as the rule/canon? If the policeman stops me for going 80 MPH and we BOTH are subject to the Rule of Law - that written, square, big, white sign with big black numerals and letters proclaiming: “MAX SPEED LIMIT 50 MPH”, do we all have to embrace that that law is INFALLIBLE? Obviously not.

Ridiculous since it nowhere even touches the problems with sS where an infallible authority is needed. What would you say if your speeding law came from a 2000 year old text translated a few times over into different languages where some are insisting that the 50mph is really a 60, 70, or 80 mph speed limit. Who do you go to then to settle the matter. Do you continue to let the individuals be their own interpreter and allow chaos on the highway, or would you prefer there to be even 2000 years later, a final ruling by a visible authority on what the speed limit really is where it can’t be reversed ever again.

No. They had “authority” to teach and to forgive sins. They got it from Jesus, who is God. Is that “circular?” No.

I’ve already asked you this before but you ignored it. Is everything that the Apostles taught either by word or letter, ‘post Resurrection’, 100 percent the Word of God? If you doubt it, then there’s no reason to even discuss it with you. However, if you say yes, then your norma normans theory collapses since self (Apostles) are exempting self alone (Apostles) from accountability and instead, self alone (Apostles) insisting that self alone (Apostles) are right.

But here’s the “problem.” Jesus never said that to any Apostle. .

This is called American Josiah’s fallible self interpretation of a given verse.