Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Your conclusion is a logical fallacy because it excludes a very real possibility without cause.

My point, as you well know, is that the Catholic Church does what Christ told it to do: teach the truths to the nations that he taught them. Therefore the truths it teaches is the norm on which other truths should be measured.

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.”

You know I wasn’t evading the issue. I was making the point that the Catholic Church’s position that the truth’s it teaches are the norm for all moral teaching is the correct one, given that it was taught those Truth’s by Christ. You can’t measure it against another inferior set of measurements.

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.

/QUOTE]

No, You have no grounds for your cynicism. The church rejects Sola Scripture because it is not true. sola Scriptura, as you practice it, is simply a means to making your particular interpretation of scripture the metric for all others. You have no such authority.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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?

Sorry, but I’m again at a loss to see how your response has anything to do with what I posted or the issue of this thread. Sorry…

As to your question (and I’ve not a clue why it is relevant), there’s absolutely nothing to so indicate. That goes before the Resurrection, too. Didn’t Jesus spend much of His ministry correcting the Apostles? Didn’t He call one of the “Satan?”

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.

No. Look up the verse. We are told - in literal words on the page - to whom Jesus said this. And, sadly, The Catholic Church consistently, formally, officially is misstating the reality (and it MUST know that).

Why does it misstate the reality? Because there is only one verse in all of Scripture that remotely can be interpreted to imply infalliblity. And that IS the one it quotes, the one it uses as the foundation for its remarkable insistence that there is just one that is unaccountable, exempt from norming - and can replace the issue of whether it is correct with the demand that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” BUT, in order to do that, it somehow must connect this promise to itself. It does it by applying it’s doctrine of Apostolic Succession and by arguing that Jesus promised the Apostles infallity - thus He promised The Catholic Church. It is a remarkable, very weak, flizy house of cards - but it all DEPENDS on one key thing: Jesus promised infallibility to the Apostles. Thus, it quotes this verse (which, I admit, CAN be understood as infallibility - a stretch but possible). But it has to CHANGE to whom it was spoken. And it does. It specifically, consistently, officially declares that Jesus promised this to the APOSTLES when the undeniable, objective REALITY is: He did not. The whole house of cards crashes - for it is founded on a falsehood.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

My point, as you well know, is that the Catholic Church does what Christ told it to do: teach the truths to the nations that he taught them. Therefore the truths it teaches is the norm on which other truths should be measured.

1. And the reality is: Jesus never told it to do anything.
2. You are continuing to confuse authority with infallibility/unaccountability. They are unrelated.
3. Yes, The Catholic Church insists that ALL teachers, persons, organizations, institutions, denominations, bodies - they are ALL accountable for what they teach - right here, right now. And yes, it DOES have a rule/canon for THAT: itself. If others agree with itself, it must be right cuz self is rigth cuz self is right and self says self is right. But, friend, it does NOT submit it’s OWN teachings to that (that would be absurd, the embrace of a perfect circle of self-authentication), no, it just lays the whole issue of whether it is correct aside, replacing it with the demand of itself alone that whever itself alone says is to be accepted with docility.

I was making the point that the Catholic Church’s position that the truth’s it teaches are the norm for all moral teaching is the correct one, given that it was taught those Truth’s by Christ.

Of course, it alone so claims such for it alone. Oddly, it rejects this rubric - even ridiculing the very insistence that it makes. You know that the LDS and all the cults sayt the very same thing, and yet I doubt you insist the ERGO, all such are unaccountable, exempt from norming, infallible, whatever it says God says, and it all must be accepted with docility.

Again, you are NOT presenting an alternative norming process (better or worse), you are simply arguing that there is ONE that is exempt from such, whether it is right or not is to be laid aside and that ONE is to be accepted with docility as that ONE so insists for itself exclusively. And you are NOT suggesting an alternative norma normans for this (better or not), you are simply TRYING to justify why ONE may exempt ONE from accountability - if that one is The Catholic Church.

Friend, self exempting self from examination of it’s positions has NOTHING to do with that one being correct (much less infallible), it’s just self circumventing the issue for self and replacing it with a power-ploy, the demand that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Have you studied any of the cults?

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.

Nope. If it did, it would propose an alternative norm. It does not. It rejects it for the very reason you (and others here) have been working so very, very, very hard to defend: That it is unaccountable, it cannot be wrong (under certain circumstances) and thus is exempt from accountability - period. It alone is rather to be accepted “with docility” as it alone so demands.

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
My point, as you well know, is that the Catholic Church does what Christ told it to do: teach the truths to the nations that he taught them. Therefore the truths it teaches is the norm on which other truths should be measured.

1. The reality is that Jesus told the church to pass on what he taught them, Just because you don’t recognize the Apostles who he was directly speaking to in Matthew 28: 18-20 as the Church does not mean it is not true. What special insight and authority do you have to make your statement above?
2. The authority came with a guarantee that christ would be with his church to the end of the age, thus the statement of infalliblity of doctrine
3. The reason the church speaks for Jesus is because he authorized them to do so. Now, in reality, you probably won’t have the opportunity to ask Jesus himself whether the Chruch really had this authority until you meet him when you are being judged. So how are you to judge wether the church really has this authority or not? Well, you could read the accounts of the witnesses in scripture, You could judge the motivations of the church by its fruits., you could look at how consistent the teachings have been through the ages, you could ascertain whether the church is really the Church of God by the supernatural evidence of the saints and martyrs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I was making the point that the Catholic Church’s position that the truth’s it teaches are the norm for all moral teaching is the correct one, given that it was taught those Truth’s by Christ.

The church is not exempting itself from the rules it sets. It has the truth and it teaches it. You can either accept or discard this truth but you will be held accountable for your actions either way

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

The norm the church proposes is its fullness of teachings, both scripture and tradition as interpreted by the magesterium. You know that, Scripture alone is insufficient , especially when it is not coupled with valid interpretations tha tonly the magesterium can provide with full confidence.

Why are you so convinced that the Church’s motivations are to be held unaccountable to men. Do you really think the church cares what men think? The Church is after all in the service of God and each member will answer for his actions on judgement day. If the Chruch operated based only on what men think, it would have dissolved into the secular rubble long ago…

Lets get right to the point. Your thesis that sola Scriptura is the norma norman has failed the most fundamental test of a norma norman in that the results are not reproduceable. The evidence of that non-reproducability is obvious because there is such wide disagreement on fundamental doctrine by the various bible based non-Catholic Christian denominations. The Catholic view of doctrine, on the other hand, is extremely reproduceable, both over time and across the 1.2Billion Catholics on earth. You personally may not agree with the doctrines, but you absolutely know what they are. This is because the Church documents its teachings with more than just scripture and it has official representatives (the clergy) around the world to clarify any misconceptions.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1. The reality is that Jesus told the church to pass on what he taught them,

Yes. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church. And it has nothing to do with the soundness of self alone exempting self alone from accountability by self alone declaring that self alone is “infallible” and whatever self alone says is what Jesus says so all must accept whatever self alone says “with docility.”

Over and over, God warned us of false teacher, antichrists, those that lead many astray. He never exempted The Catholic Church from that. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands - for holding their teachers as accountability, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them to be false.

And again, you seem to be confusing authority with infalliblity. They had their orders. That doesn’t imply they will always, consistently, do so “with infallibility” “without the possibility of error.” Indeed, Jesus spent most of His ministry CORRECT those very Apostles. One He even called “Satan” (which one was that?). It means even less for those living 2000 years later. Yes, we all agree, Jesus gave authority to believers. He told us to go to all nations, Baptizing them and teaching them. He told us to love one another even as He first loved us. We have that command. We have that authority. But your entire premise is illogical and unbiblical - that if we have a command or authority, ERGO we are INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE in such and for such. This is absurd, and I have asked you repeatedly to explain some justification for this. You seem to have some wild idea that since God infallibly leads us, ERGO there must be INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE following. Where do you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible! God infallibly lead Adam and Eve but they did not infallibly follow and God did not give them a “pass” on accountability for their actions. God infallibly lead all those Hebrew kings we learned about in Sunday School but none of them infallibly followed and God gave none of them a “pass” on accountability. Where DO you get this idea?

1. The authority came with a guarantee that christ would be with his church to the end of the age, thus the statement of infalliblity of doctrine

1. A truly remarkable, illogical, abiblical statement…
2. Authority is command and permission. I have the authority to do my job. Does it mean I alone am INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable, whoever hears me hears Jesus, all must accept whatever I say “with docility.” But only if that is ME, exclusively. You are making a HUGE, HUGE leap here - and it’s entirely baseless.
3. Of course, we all know that Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church.
4. You are returning to your good work as a Catholic apologist. You are TRYING to “justify” why it is most sound for one alone to just exempt one alone (self) from the whole issue of accountability and norming, substituting that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m rigtht, thus I’m right. Instead, just accept whatever I alone say with docility. I don’t need no norming cuz I say I’m right so I am.” You are simply TRYING to justify the epistemological soundness of that rubric. And you are mostly using all the classic Catholic arguments (except - ODDLY - the most foundational one, that Jesus promised the Apostles that whoever hears them hears Jesus, the key of this whole Catholic apologetic. I tell you, I AM more than curious why you are going going to the well, the most used, the most common apologetic of all).

… continuing in the post below

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continuing from the post above

1. The reason the church speaks for Jesus is because he authorized them to do so.

FOR Him?

Um, He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything.

So how are you to judge wether the church really has this authority or not?

I’m not sure what “authority” you are speaking of, but yes - the church has the authority to teach. Of course, that’s entirely irrlevant to the issue of The Catholic Church (he never authoritzed it for anything) and to the issue of infalliblity/unaccountability (they aren’t connected).

you could look at how consistent the teachings have been through the ages, you could ascertain whether the church is really the Church of God by the supernatural evidence of the saints and martyrs.

… Yes, I could do what The Catholic Church does not permit and examine it. I did. And left.

… Yes, no denomination has changed its teachings more than The Catholic Church.

I DO think that Christianity has been affirmed in many and powerful ways. And I generally have a pretty high regard for The Catholic Church. But that’s moot to any discussion here.

The church is not exempting itself from the rules** it **sets.

… well, it is for itself. The Catholic Church is exempt from any accountability, thus from any rule/canon/norma normans. It alone simply exempts it alone for the whole issue of whether it is correct, replacing that with the insistence that whatever it alone ways be accepted with docility.

… Yes, in a sense, it DOES make a point that it alone agrees with it alone. It agrees with what IT alone has established (which it what it alone says). It does agree with the ONE it sees in the mirror. But even it rejects this as a norma normans (it would be a totally absurd and perfect circle of self-authentication, it MUST reject that as absurd, and it does). It doesn’t “norm” it’s own teachings with its own teachings, it exempts itself from norming its teachings at all. Rather, all must just accept them with docility.

you will be held accountable

You mean you regard it as unsound for self to exempt self from accountability? I wonder, then, how you can be Catholic?

Lets get right to the point. Your thesis that sola Scriptura is the norma norman has failed the most fundamental test of a norma norman in that the results are not reproduceable. The evidence of that non-reproducability is obvious because there is such wide disagreement on fundamental doctrine by the various bible based non-Catholic Christian denominations. The Catholic view of doctrine, on the other hand, is extremely reproduceable, both over time and across the 1.2Billion Catholics on earth. You personally may not agree with the doctrines, but you absolutely know what they are. This is because the Church documents its teachings with more than just scripture and it has official representatives (the clergy) around the world to clarify any misconceptions.

1. I never said that the ARBITRATION is infallible. The ONLY ONE exempting self from accountability is The Catholic Church (well, the LDS once did and all the cults still do, but let’s stick to true Christian organizations).
2. You are confusing self alone agreeing with self alone with Truth. Friend, AT LEAST as much can be said for all other persons, teachers, organizations, bodies, institutitons and denominations. They ALL agree with SELF (at least as The Catholic Church does - formally, officially, currently and only in those things that self alone regards as right to agree upon). The RCC is larger than the LDS, but it is no more in agreement with itself alone than the LDS is. You have yet another very flawed and entirely moot premise.
3. As I think of those that reject Sola Scriptura and accountability, of those who insist that self alone is infallible and unaccountable, I see a GREAT range of beliefs. I could list for you many cults - all with the epistemology you are trying so hard to defend, all also insisting that self is right cuz self is right so self is right - just accept it. And the corpus of doctrines they all agree on is next to nothing. Now, I agree with you that my Calvinist friend and I have a tiny few things we disagree about but our corpus of agreements is FAR, FAR greater embracing accountability and the norm of Scripture than your agreement with be with my Mormon friend, both of you passionately rejecting accountability (for your denominations alone) and thus Sola Scriptura.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

.

Quote: Paul c Lets get right to the point. Your thesis that sola Scriptura is the norma norman has failed the most fundamental test of a norma norman in that the results are not reproduceable. The evidence of that non-reproducability is obvious because there is such wide disagreement on fundamental doctrine by the various bible based non-Catholic Christian denominations. The Catholic view of doctrine, on the other hand, is extremely reproduceable, both over time and across the 1.2Billion Catholics on earth. You personally may not agree with the doctrines, but you absolutely know what they are. This is because the Church documents its teachings with more than just scripture and it has official representatives (the clergy) around the world to clarify any misconceptions.

Lets focus. You have a thesis… That thesis is that Sola Scriptura is the Norma Norman by which all moral and theological judgements can be made. I have made my objection that your thesis fails the very first tenet of a Norma Norman in that Individual Scriptural Interpretation as you describe it does not yield consistent results from person to person.
Do you deny this? In fact you do not, you have admitted it in the paragraph above.

All other arguments you have made are irrelevant to the point at hand so I will not discuss them further in this thread because this thread is concerned with determining whether Sola Scriptura is valid.

Do not try to confuse the argument with unrelated tangents that have already been addressed over and over:

Whether or not the Catholic Church is the Apostolic church matters not to this point
Whether or not the Catholic Church exempts itself from Norming does not matter.
Whether on not the Catholic Church has a better system does not effect whether sola Scriptura is itself valid.

Demonstrate that Sola Scriptura results in consistent results or admit your thesis is wrong. I will not be distracted further from this point and I will continue to press you on it until you give in or give up because we both know that you can not prove your thesis.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Lets focus. You have a thesis… That thesis is that Sola Scriptura is the Norma Norman by which all moral and theological judgements can be made. I have made my objection that your thesis fails the very first tenet of a Norma Norman in that Individual Scriptural Interpretation as you describe it does not yield consistent results from person to person.
Do you deny this? In fact you do not, you have admitted it in the paragraph above.

Not exactly, my friend…

I have a “thesis” that teachers are accountable for what they teach. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. It is the reason The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, because it rejects accountability (for self exclusively) and thus norming and all aspects of norming (including ANY norma normans) - for self alone anyway.

Yes, I hold that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It is the Rule of Scripture.

No, I’ve said NOTHING about the arbitive process since that’s not permitted by the rules here. But I HAVE said I reject individualism - in interpretation AND arbitration - both of which places me in direct conflict with The Catholic Church which insists that it and it itself exclusively is the sole interpreter and sole arbiter.

All other arguments you have made are irrelevant to the point at hand so I will not discuss them further in this thread because this thread is concerned with determining whether Sola Scriptura is valid.

Actually, you’ve been doing a rather solid job of giving the apologetic of The Catholic Church on this point, why it rejects Sola Scriptura, working HARD and from all angles (some conforming to Catholic apologetics, some not) from WHY you think it is more sound for The Catholic Church to exempt itself alone from accountability and norming, replacing that with the demand of itself for itself that itself is infallible and thus unaccountbale and simply to be accepted with docility. My only curiosity is why you have failed to bring up the foundational, most common apologetic for this - and the one that is officially used by The Catholic Church: that Jesus promised the APOSTLES infalliiblity and thus, via Apostolic Succession, to ITself. They have a verse on that, the only verse in the entirely Bible that can REMOTELY be interpreted to imply infallibility. I’ve had THAT discussion with many Catholics before, but you curiously have evaded that.

Demonstrate that Sola Scriptura results in consistent results or admit your thesis is wrong.

When did I ever, remotely, suggest that it does? The RULE is inerrant, but the ARBITRATION is not infallible.

But you are evading the point: How is self exempting self from accountability BETTER in this regard? How is each one delcaring: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right - lay aside the issue of whether I’m right cuz I just am and replace that with just accepting whatever I say with docility, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.” Studied any of the cults? How is THAT praxis result in more consistent results?

we both know that you can not prove your thesis.

… perhaps you’ve now given up trying to be the apologist for The Catholic Church here. Okay. But then we cannot assume that it’s correct, and must subject it to EXACTLY what it insists and demands that ALL teachers be subject to (whether such be a teacher, congregation, organization, institution, body, group, denomination, whatever) - be accountable, right here and right now. We then must reject CCC #87, etc. And then the question comes up: To WHAT shall WE look as the rule, canon, norma normans? IF you have something MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE above and beyond ALL parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable ALL and alterable by NONE (including The Catholic Church) - a better alternative than Scripture - then ONCE AGAIN, tell us. And why it meets all those qualifications MORE than Scripture - especially the one about being MORE outside and above The Catholic Church and unalterable by it.

.

 

[paul_c]

Not exactly, my friend…

I have a “thesis” that teachers are accountable for what they teach. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. It is the reason The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, because it rejects accountability (for self exclusively) and thus norming and all aspects of norming (including ANY norma normans) - for self alone anyway.

Yes, I hold that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. It is the Rule of Scripture.

No, I’ve said NOTHING about the arbitive process since that’s not permitted by the rules here. But I HAVE said I reject individualism - in interpretation AND arbitration - both of which places me in direct conflict with The Catholic Church which insists that it and it itself exclusively is the sole interpreter and sole arbiter.

Actually, you’ve been doing a rather solid job of giving the apologetic of The Catholic Church on this point, why it rejects Sola Scriptura, working HARD and from all angles (some conforming to Catholic apologetics, some not) from WHY you think it is more sound for The Catholic Church to exempt itself alone from accountability and norming, replacing that with the demand of itself for itself that itself is infallible and thus unaccountbale and simply to be accepted with docility. My only curiosity is why you have failed to bring up the foundational, most common apologetic for this - and the one that is officially used by The Catholic Church: that Jesus promised the APOSTLES infalliiblity and thus, via Apostolic Succession, to ITself. They have a verse on that, the only verse in the entirely Bible that can REMOTELY be interpreted to imply infallibility. I’ve had THAT discussion with many Catholics before, but you curiously have evaded that.

When did I ever, remotely, suggest that it does? The RULE is inerrant, but the ARBITRATION is not infallible.

But you are evading the point: How is self exempting self from accountability BETTER in this regard? How is each one delcaring: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right - lay aside the issue of whether I’m right cuz I just am and replace that with just accepting whatever I say with docility, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.” Studied any of the cults? How is THAT praxis result in more consistent results?

… perhaps you’ve now given up trying to be the apologist for The Catholic Church here. Okay. But then we cannot assume that it’s correct, and must subject it to EXACTLY what it insists and demands that ALL teachers be subject to (whether such be a teacher, congregation, organization, institution, body, group, denomination, whatever) - be accountable, right here and right now. We then must reject CCC #87, etc. And then the question comes up: To WHAT shall WE look as the rule, canon, norma normans? IF you have something MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE above and beyond ALL parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable ALL and alterable by NONE (including The Catholic Church) - a better alternative than Scripture - then ONCE AGAIN, tell us. And why it meets all those qualifications MORE than Scripture - especially the one about being MORE outside and above The Catholic Church and unalterable by it.

.

As I anticipated, you are pushing on all fronts, but the one in question. Can you prove your thesis: Is sola Scriptura valid as a norma norman? This can only be true if it is reproduceable. Don’t try to change your thesis now. The OP is on the validity of Sola Scriptura. Do you agree now, that Sola scriptura is invalid as a norma norman since use of scripture is not reproduceable without authoritative interpration ? We are going to zero in on this, as promised, until you understand that your thesis is invalid.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Do you agree now, that Sola scriptura is invalid as a norma norman since use of scripture is not reproduceable without authoritative interpration ? We are going to zero in on this, as promised, until you understand that your thesis is invalid.

No, You are confusing the rule with arbitration and interpretation.

But your “rationale”, the Rule of Law in civil societies in invalid because not every INDIVIDUAL “interprets” and “arbitates” every situation identically - even with the same Rule, so - to go with your position, the more sound Rule is to not have one, instead each defendant declares himself exclusively to be infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, right cuz he alone just is, and just accept it with docility.

NO ONE here has said that EVER INDIVIDUAL’S interpretation of Scripture or arbitration according to it is INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE. You seem to be confusing Catholicism with Protestantism, it’s Catholicism that argues that there is ONE interpreter (itself) and ONE arbiter (itself) and ONE what is exempt from accountability and norming, rather to be just accepted “with docility” and that’s itself. Exclusively. That’s the position you are defending.

.

 

[CWBetts]

No, You are confusing the rule with arbitration and interpretation.

But your “rationale”, the Rule of Law in civil societies in invalid because not every INDIVIDUAL “interprets” and “arbitates” every situation identically - even with the same Rule, so - to go with your position, the more sound Rule is to not have one, instead each defendant declares himself exclusively to be infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, right cuz he alone just is, and just accept it with docility.

NO ONE here has said that EVER INDIVIDUAL’S interpretation of Scripture or arbitration according to it is INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE. You seem to be confusing Catholicism with Protestantism, it’s Catholicism that argues that there is ONE interpreter (itself) and ONE arbiter (itself) and ONE what is exempt from accountability and norming, rather to be just accepted “with docility” and that’s itself. Exclusively. That’s the position you are defending.

.

The Protestant claim is that each individual is accountable to no one except their own interpretation, which would explain the chaos of Protestantism. You have simply tried to educate yourself out of belief.

 

[kepha1]

First I would like to briefly address some of the red herrings and misleading statements that have been repeated throughout this thread.

I disagree that the Church is accountable to no one but itself. This implies that the Catholic Church is purely and totally a man made institution that organized itself sometime after the death of the last Apostle. If the Church is totally a man made institution, then mere men must be given credit for all that the Church has accomplished, which includes preserving civilization itself. An overview of history confirms this. The first century, second and third generation Christians were wholly Catholic in practice and belief, in the consensus of the writings of the pre-Niacene Fathers. To deny this is pure revisionism and contrary to mountains of evidence.

To deny that Jesus gave the Church His very own authority is to re-invent the definition of Church, and even the Incarnation itself. Jesus promised to be with us always. Jesus was not speaking to individuals with sentiments. “I am with YOU always” YOU meaning the Apostles and their successors, because the Apostles He was speaking to would not be on earth forever, but Jesus said He would be with YOU always. That demands succession or Jesus is a liar. “He who hears YOU hears me, he who rejects YOU rejects Me.” That is but one statement of infallibility. NONE of AmericanJosiah’s statements on infallibility shows he understands what it is. It is Jesus who speaks infallibly, it is Jesus who is in the Teaching Church on earth. To deny this is to call Jesus a liar.

AmericanJosiah:
“He (Jesus) never authorized The Catholic Church for anything.”

The only way this statement can make sense is if you follow a definition of “Catholic Church” that is foreign to history, and you use a definition that we Catholics do not use. You wouldn’t like it if we said LDS’s worship green men on the moon.

You must explain what you mean by “authorize”, and if you are going to continue redefining what “Catholic Church” is, you should at least clarify your perceptions so we know what you are talking about. Briefly, and I mean very briefly, we understand “Catholic Church” to mean an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist. I submit that you cannot grasp our definition of the Catholic Church because you have bought into a false view of the Incarnation. I urge you to be a bit more cautious in readily accepting false definitions invented in the last 400 years or less, while rejecting consistent teaching.

CATHOLIC: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is in inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe. (en HOLO to kosmo)
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures –

AmericanJosiah, this statement ““He (Jesus) never authorized The Catholic Church for anything.” needs to be retracted. It should read: “He never authorized my understanding of the Catholic Church for anything.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. Tell me, AmericanJosiah, what year did the Apostolic Church stray from the truth, and what was the teaching or council that marked this monumentous event that went unnoticed for centuries?

 

[kepha1]

it’s Catholicism that argues that there is ONE interpreter (itself) and ONE arbiter (itself) and ONE what is exempt from accountability and norming, rather to be just accepted “with docility” and that’s itself. Exclusively. That’s the position you are defending.
.

No, that is the position you are asserting, and it’s misleading.

For the Catholic, the locus of meeting is the Church, which for its task of bringing men to God uses many means:

• The teaching of authorized masters, i.e., the bishops and their primate: the Pope;
• The liturgy; books written by men of the Church under divine inspiration,
• The Scriptures, the common beliefs and practices of Catholics stretched out over time and space.
• The inspired books, which have God as their author in consequence of their inspiration, are ecclesiastical instruments for teaching, building and exhorting. They are not over the Church, but rather a part of the Church’s panoply to be used in her work of accomplishing the task of uniting man to God.
  

  It is the Church, which teaches, the Church, which sanctifies, the Church, which builds and vitalizes.  The Church is not a fruit of the Book but rather the Book is the fruit of the Church.
  
  Hence it is that the Catholic does not say in the first instance, “What does the Book say”? Rather he asks, “What does the teaching Church say”?  The Church and the Book say the same thing, and since the Book is in a peculiar sense God's Word, he will turn to the Book.

However, this is not his ultimate recourse. He has only one ultimate recourse, the Church herself, and the Book is accepted from her hand and with her explanation. The Book is not the proof but only a divine expression in human language of the Church’s teaching.

Over the Book stands the Church, while according to the Reformation conception, over the Church stands the Book. This fundamental vision of the Church causes the Catholic to look to the episcopate for doctrine, because the bishops are the authentic exponents of God’s message to the world.

  The Church is an organized visible fellowship.  Because it is divine institution and dynamism, the Holy Spirit dwells in it, keeping it alive, keeping it true, and making it grow. The Spirit is the source of the life of the Church, but that life is the life of a body.

The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, that is the position you are asserting, and it’s misleading.

For the Catholic, the locus of meeting is the Church, which for its task of bringing men to God uses many means:

• The teaching of authorized masters, i.e., the bishops and their primate: the Pope;
• The liturgy; books written by men of the Church under divine inspiration,
• The Scriptures, the common beliefs and practices of Catholics stretched out over time and space.
• The inspired books, which have God as their author in consequence of their inspiration, are ecclesiastical instruments for teaching, building and exhorting. They are not over the Church, but rather a part of the Church’s panoply to be used in her work of accomplishing the task of uniting man to God.
  

  It is the Church, which teaches, the Church, which sanctifies, the Church, which builds and vitalizes.  The Church is not a fruit of the Book but rather the Book is the fruit of the Church.
  
  Hence it is that the Catholic does not say in the first instance, “What does the Book say”? Rather he asks, “What does the teaching Church say”?  The Church and the Book say the same thing, and since the Book is in a peculiar sense God's Word, he will turn to the Book.

However, this is not his ultimate recourse. He has only one ultimate recourse, the Church herself, and the Book is accepted from her hand and with her explanation. The Book is not the proof but only a divine expression in human language of the Church’s teaching.

Over the Book stands the Church, while according to the Reformation conception, over the Church stands the Book. This fundamental vision of the Church causes the Catholic to look to the episcopate for doctrine, because the bishops are the authentic exponents of God’s message to the world.

  The Church is an organized visible fellowship.  Because it is divine institution and dynamism, the Holy Spirit dwells in it, keeping it alive, keeping it true, and making it grow. The Spirit is the source of the life of the Church, but that life is the life of a body.

The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.

An excellent summery of the position of The Catholic Church…

Yup, it demands that whatever it says (under certain conditions) just be accepted “with docility” as Jesus speaking. It’s right because it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right. It needs no norming because it’s right.

Now, I disagree with you that that rubric is sound epistemology or has any relevance whatsoever to that self being correct. But you are well stating the Catholic position.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Protestant claim is that each individual is accountable to no one except their own interpretation

Actually, that it the position of The Catholic Church (at most).

And it’s a rejection of the Rule of Scripture and a confusion of the rule with the arbitration.

BTW, I’m a Protestant and I REJECT self appointing self as the sole arbiter for self (it’s just one of the reasons why I left The Catholic Church). I also reject self exemting self from accountability and replacing that with the demand of self that whatever self says must just be accepted with docility (another reason why I left The Catholic Church).

To the point of this thread, Sola Scriptura is not a theory and it has nothing to do with justification. It is the praxis of using Scripture as the rule/canon in norming doctrine.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, that it the position of The Catholic Church (at most).

And it’s a rejection of the Rule of Scripture and a confusion of the rule with the arbitration.

BTW, I’m a Protestant and I REJECT self appointing self as the sole arbiter for self (it’s just one of the reasons why I left The Catholic Church). I also reject self exemting self from accountability and replacing that with the demand of self that whatever self says must just be accepted with docility (another reason why I left The Catholic Church).

To the point of this thread, Sola Scriptura is not a theory and it has nothing to do with justification. It is the praxis of using Scripture as the rule/canon in norming doctrine.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

Sola Scriptura defines the Scripture as the sole rule of faith, which is not defined in the Scriptures and therefore becomes self-refuting. Come back home.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I disagree that the Church is accountable to no one but itself.

Actually, The Catholic Church insists that it is infallible, incapable of error (at least in official matters of faith and morals) and thus unaccountable to ANYTHING. It’s right, so it’s right when it says it’s right, so it’s right - no norming is needed, only docility.

This implies that the Catholic Church is purely and totally a man made institution that organized itself sometime after the death of the last Apostle.

Well, I think that;s true, but that’s not the point. The question is: Is it accountabile or is it infallible? If it is accountable, then we’ve just entered the realm of norming, and the first question is: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for that? THAT is the question addressed by Sola Scriptura. IF you accept that the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable, then WHAT is MORE inspired, MORE inerrant, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE outside and above all parties (including The Catholic Church), more ecumencially embraced as reliable than is Scripture? Because if YOU have an alternative rule/canon (The Catholic Church doesn’t), let’s hear what it is. We’re looking for something MORE outside and above The Catholic Church and unalterable by it.

To deny that Jesus gave the Church His very own authority is to re-invent the definition of Church, and even the Incarnation itself. Jesus promised to be with us always. Jesus was not speaking to individuals with sentiments. “I am with YOU always” YOU meaning the Apostles and their successors, because the Apostles He was speaking to would not be on earth forever, but Jesus said He would be with YOU always. That demands succession or Jesus is a liar. “He who hears YOU hears me, he who rejects YOU rejects Me.” That is but one statement of infallibility. NONE of AmericanJosiah’s statements on infallibility shows he understands what it is. It is Jesus who speaks infallibly, it is Jesus who is in the Teaching Church on earth. To deny this is to call Jesus a liar.

No. To say that Jesus promised or authorized The Catholic Church anything is simply to mistake the obvious reality, known to any who can read. He never promised or authorized IT anything. I think you know that. And we just aren’t going to make any progress if we just make up things or put words in Jesus’ mouth that clearly He never said.

Yes, Jesus promised to be with “you” always. He never so much as mentioned The Cathlic Church or any other denomination. And He never mentioned ANYTHING about ANY successors of ANYONE. You know that.

Yes, we all realize that The Catholic Catechism has a pretty serious mistake. It’s one The Catholic Church has been insisting upon for centuries. The whole basis of it’s claim to infalliblity and thus unaccountability is that Jesus promised the Apostles that “whoever hears you hears me.” It quotes this verse in its Catechism as the key, foundational point to why all such just accept whatever it alone says and do so “with docility” (CCC 87). It’s is its foundational point. Now, it takes that and desires to connect a whole lot of dots that it makes and to do so with its claims about Apostolic Succession, so that it can TRY to somehow suggest that what He said to the Apostles, He is also promising to a physical instititutional entity (itself, of course). But we all know. It’s all based on a falsehood. Jesus never promised that to ANY Apostle or group thereof. So the whole house of cards comes crashing down as the very foundational argument, the whole point on which everything else stands, is simply not true.

Actually, Jesus never once mentioned infalliblity or suggested that ANYONE is infallible. In fact, in Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the Ephesian Christians for doing the exact opposite of what The Catholic Church demands (for itself alone). He praises these Christians for NOT regarding their teachers as infallible and unaccountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for declaring them false.

… continues in the next post

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues from the post above

CATHOLIC: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus. It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

I agree. It was a common adjective. And as such, in proper English grammar, should always be used with a lower-case “c.” It is NOT the name of any instititutional, geopolitical/legal, denominational entity. It refers to CHRISTIANS, all of us, together: one and holy and catholic, the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers (past and present), the corpus of believers. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or The Methodist Church (USA). The communion of saints is not an institutional IT, the union of all believers is all believers.

Now, if you want to make the point that Jesus specificly meant The Catholic Church, then what you’ve simply done is commit a grammatical mistake and capitolize “church” and then just insert the word “Catholic” into Jesus mouth (capitolize so that it is a proper noun, not an adjective) and poof - “Jesus promised this to The Catholic Church.” No, He did not.

It is in inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Actually, that has nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church being infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming. Nothing at all. It is a commission to PEOPLE, not an exemption of accountability to a denomination.

AmericanJosiah, this statement ““He (Jesus) never authorized The Catholic Church for anything.” needs to be retracted. It should read: “He never authorized my understanding of the Catholic Church for anything.

No. If you are going to insist that He authorized The Catholic Church about something, then you need to quote the verse where he AT LEAST mentions it. Friend, I could just as easily say, “Jesus said that I alone am infallible!” I have a hunch your question would be, “where?” If I could not produce a single verse where Jesus so much as MENTIONS me - about anything, for anything, concerning anything - you would come to the unavoidable conclusion that my claim is baseless. And you’d be right.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Yes, but Paul said NOTHING about The Catholic Church. He wrote “church.”

Yes, our role to uphold the truth is not the same thing as a promise that The Catholic Church would be infallible and thus is unaccountable. You seem to be mixing entirely unrelated things.

AmericanJosiah, what year did the Apostolic Church stray from the truth, and what was the teaching or council that marked this monumentous event that went unnoticed for centuries?

1. I don’t know that The Catholic Church EVER was infallible/unaccountable. You seem to be confusing Protestantism with Restitutionalism. Take your question to the LDS.
2. You seem to be confusing authority with infalliblity. They are entirely unrelated. I have the authority to do my job, I’m not regarded as infallible, unaccountable, whatever I say is what God says, and it all must be accepted with docility.
3. You seem to be confusing the church with your specific organizational, denominational institution - just removing the word “church” whenever it appears in Scripture and inserting instead the current legal moniker of your denomination: The Catholic Church so that you can claim Jesus promised these things to IT and not to believers.

Again, Sola Scriptura is not a theory and it has nothing to do with justification. It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule in norming. It is rejected by The Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and all the cults because they each reject accountability (for self exclusively, each insists upon it for every and all others) and thus norming and all aspects of it - including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon/norma normans (including Scripture). It’s accountability it rejects (but only and exclusively for self). It replaces that with the demand of self that whatever self alone says (under certain circumstances) just be accepted with docility - as God speaking.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWBetts
The Protestant claim is that each individual is accountable to no one except their own interpretation

You have argued yourself into a corner. You can not use scripture as the rule/canon in norming doctrine because it can be interpreted in any number of ways as we all know. I am assuming you know that Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert in the 40 days after Jesus’ baptism. Just as Satan used scripture for his own purpose, so can anyone else.

Once you recognize that scripture alone means nothing, then you are forced to also recognize that scripture requires an authoritative interpreter for it to take on its inerrant properties. Who is that authority, if not the Catholic Church’s magesterium? Now that you have separated yourself from the Catholic Church, who do you recognize as the competant authority to interpret scripture? Isn’t it in reality yourself, as you pick and choose what to beleive… Don’t you see how foolish that is? Don’t you recognize yourself in Peter’s prophetic words from 2Peter 3:15-16:
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures

Repent of this foolishness.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You can not use scripture as the rule/canon in norming doctrine because it can be interpreted in any number of ways as we all know.

Absurd. The same can be said of nearly all rules in norming in various disciplines. By your rubric, you must reject the Rule of Law because we all know that attorney’s can interpret the law variously - thus YOUR alternative is that every one just declares self to be the sole authority, infallible, incapable of error - unaccountable. Each defendant just declares himself INCAPABLE of error, thus accountability is set aside, and the whole issue replaced with the demand of self that whatever self says or does just be accepted with docility. That’s hardly a more sound epistemology. Have you studied the cults? Are you aware that they all have one very strong common denominator? They all reject accountability, they all insist that self is unaccountable, that issue is discarded (but only for self exclusively, all OTHERS are accountable) and it’s replaced by the demand of self that self be accepted “with docility” as unto Jesus. Friend, it’s not a sound epistemology. And I’d hope you’d realize that a society under your rubric, where there is no rule, no accountability, self is unaccountable if self so claims for self - it’s not sound.

Just as Satan used scripture for his own purpose, so can anyone else.

Which SHOULD lead you to affirm accountability! Instead, you use it to denounce it (well, to defend The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from such - replacing that with a demand of self alone that whatever self alone says be accepted with docility). You want us to regard Satan as accountable because Scripture can be misinterpreted or misused, and then you seem to forget about your very point when we look to a different teacher, The Catholic Church. Odd. Very odd.

you are forced to also recognize that scripture requires an authoritative interpreter for it to take on its inerrant properties. Who is that authority, if not the Catholic Church’s magesterium?

This merry-go-round gets tiring. Again, you are just defending the very thing you are decrying: self appointing self as the sole interpreter and sole arbiter, self declaring self as infallible and thus unaccountable.

Yes, I don’t know how often this point needs to be said, there IS the issue of interpretation. If this thread were about hermeneutics, we could discuss that more. You seem to have a problem with just docilicly accepting the interpretation of one just cuz that one says he alone is right. And I’ve been AGREEING with you. Friend, your issue is with The Catholic Church (read # 85 and 87 for starters). I had the same issue you do, it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church.

And YES, as has been said over and over, there needs to be arbitration. And if this thread were about arbitration, we should discuss that without violating the site rules. But again, YOUR issue seems to be self appointing self as the sole, unaccountable arbiter for whether self is correct. And I AGREE with you, but again, your issue is with The Catholic Church - not Sola Scriptura. IT is the only Christian denomination that insists that self is the sole, infallible arbiter for whether the teachings of itself are correct. Even the LDS abandoned that perfect circle almost a century ago.

Now that you have separated yourself from the Catholic Church, who do you recognize as the competant authority to interpret scripture? Isn’t it in reality yourself, as you pick and choose what to beleive… Don’t you see how foolish that is?

I do! It’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church. It is the only one I know that does what you repudiate (well, Christian organizations; it’s universal in the cults). CCC 85. Don’t you see how foolish (and dangerous) that is?

Oh, and you make so many HUGE leaps that I just can’t address them all. And they almost always serve to try to divert the thread here. But when did I EVER say that I’m infallible or unaccountable or whatever I say is what Jesus says? Yes, I do place my hope in some things - as you do, too. But I’m not God and I don’t claim to be His equal or His boss. I could be wrong. I WELCOME correction, for to ME Truth matters. I don’t matter for squat. My ego, my power, my lordship are all things I’m trying to decrease, not protect and promote and defend and extend.

To me, self desiring/needed to exempt self alone from accountability and replacing that with the demand of self alone for self alone that self alone is infallible and just accepted “with docility” has NOTHING to do with that one being correct. In fact, I strongly suspect that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, get all attention off self, exempt self alone from accountability and norming and examination, and rather demand that whatever self says just be accepted “with docility.”

.