P
- Status
P
paul_c
Guest
D
Des
Guest
lol they totally spoke and wrote with God given authority. Only a blind man couldn’t see this. Nowhere does it ever once indicate that within their letters they had doubts about what they were teaching. I’d agree with you if I read alot of ‘maybe this or maybe that’ in their posts though.
Irrelevant to my question.
K
kepha1
Guest
No, that is not why you left the Catholic Church, because that is not what the Catholic Church says about herself. I dare say you left the Catholic Church for emotional reasons, certainly not doctrinal reasons, and if your reasons are doctrinal, it is because of this nonsensical definition you have accepted which are the unqualified opinions of outsiders.
FYI, the Catholic Church uses Scripture as its PRIMARY source for doctrine, which further refutes your erroneous opinion of the character of the Church.
K
kepha1
Guest
Originally Posted by CWBetts forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Protestant claim is that each individual is accountable to no one except their own interpretation
2Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work.
Note well:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, {TRADITION}
knowing from whom you learned it {MAGISTERIUM}
and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings {SCRIPTURE}
It is only in light of ALL THREE of these that the man of God is “fully equipped for every good work.”
Sola scripturists avoid verse 14 and 15 because it doesn’t fit their man made systems.
The Bible on St. Paul’s list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity
The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.
Verse 16 says “all scripture”. It does not say “only scripture”.
Nowhere in the whole Bible is “man of God” any individual bible reader, it is an ordained clergyman, or one who is called directly by God who is accompanied by signs and wonders. This can be demonstrated in any bible search engine.
AmericanJosiah, your opinion of the Church being self-serving and unaccountable is unbiblical, unhistorical and patently false.
The Protestant claim is that each individual is accountable to no one except their own interpretation
That statement is a lie. Anyone can interpret the Bible, provided there is no conflict or contradiction from which the sacred writers originally intended. That is what proper exegetics is for. One of the reasons the Church has not infallibly defined most of the bible is because the Word of God is fluid, not a flat plane, and leaves the written Word open for further clarification and development. Individuals have no business interpreting the Bible to mean something it was never meant to mean in the first place, this is one thing that distinguishes cults from the Real Church.
WRONG. The authority of Scriptures has always been a Sacred Tradition of the Church, 3 centuries before the canon of the Bible. “rule with the arbitration” is at complete odds with Tradition, The Magisterium, and Scriptures working in harmony.
2Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work.
Note well:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, {TRADITION}
knowing from whom you learned it {MAGISTERIUM}
and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings {SCRIPTURE}
It is only in light of ALL THREE of these that the man of God is “fully equipped for every good work.”
Sola scripturists avoid verse 14 and 15 because it doesn’t fit their man made systems.
The Bible on St. Paul’s list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity
The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.
Verse 16 says “all scripture”. It does not say “only scripture”.
Nowhere in the whole Bible is “man of God” any individual bible reader, it is an ordained clergyman, or one who is called directly by God who is accompanied by signs and wonders. This can be demonstrated in any bible search engine.
AmericanJosiah, your opinion of the Church being self-serving and unaccountable is unbiblical, unhistorical and patently false.
K
kepha1
Guest
Sola scriptura (SS) says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear. That should cover what most Protestants accept as a definition.
I submit that this doctrine is man made, unbiblical, unhistorical, devisive, and indefensible. If attacking the Church is all the defense that is offered on this thread to support this false doctrine, then SS is a doctrine that rests on sand.
To avoid confusion, the material sufficiency of scripture is valid, whereas the sole sufficiency of scripture is invalid.
I submit that this doctrine is man made, unbiblical, unhistorical, devisive, and indefensible. If attacking the Church is all the defense that is offered on this thread to support this false doctrine, then SS is a doctrine that rests on sand.
To avoid confusion, the material sufficiency of scripture is valid, whereas the sole sufficiency of scripture is invalid.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Wow. Amazing that you know more about me than I do!Josiah:
Thank you.
Pax
.
- Josiah
No, that is not why you left the Catholic Church, because that is not what the Catholic Church says about herself. I dare say you left the Catholic Church for emotional reasons, certainly not doctrinal reasons, and if your reasons are doctrinal, it is because of this nonsensical definition you have accepted which are the unqualified opinions of outsiders.
Yes, The Catholic Church that I “left” is the same one that wrote The Catholic Catechism, INCLUDING paragraphs 85 and 87. Your “problem” was with self declaring self to be the sole interpreter and being unaccountable - simply to be accepted “with docility.” Ironically, your “problem” is with The Catholic Church.
.
P
paul_c
Guest
Do you not understand that Catholics will humbly follow the church’s teaching because they recognize it as truth? Do you also not understand that it is your lack of humility that causes you to rebel against the church, seeing your own interpretations as superior to that of God’s Holy and Inspired church? Do you not understand that it is YOU who want to be the sole interpreter of the Bible, being completely unwilling to be taught what it means by the Church that was founded by Christ for that very mission. To say that we have a problem with the church is hugely ironic. We in fact, love the Church. It is clearly YOU that has a problem with the church. Isn’t that obvious to you?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Agreed. But this authority was never given to The Catholic Church. In fact, The Catholic Church was never promised or authorized anything by anyone anywhere.
As far as I know, only PEOPLE can teach. So, it seems reasonable to conclude that this commission is given to PEOPLE - not The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Southern Baptist Convention.
And you still seem to be confusing “authority” with infalliblity and unaccountability. Evidently, you think YOU have authority to teach because that’s exactly what you’ve been doing in this thread. Do you REALLY believe that ERGO you are infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever you say is what Jesus says, and all must just accept whatever you say “with docility?” Perhaps you do. Friend, I have the authority to do my job. No one regards me as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever I say is what God says, and it all must be accepted with docility. My driver’s license gives me the authority to drive. It doesn’t mean that the Rule of Law is moot in the singular case of me alone, that the friendly policeman regards me exclusively as infallible, incapable of error or wrong, right cuz I can’t be wrong. You continue this premise that authority = infallibility, and yet you’ve continue to avoid my question for the substantiation for this remarkable presumption on your part.
Ironcially, your “problem” is not with me. I do NOT claim to be the sole interpreter or the sole authority or to be infallible and unaccountable in such. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH does. It is the only Christian teacher that does (the LDS did until about a century ago; it’s universal in all the cults, of course).
Funny, you regard ME as potentially errant, as accountable. Even though I don’t have the ego (or need) to demand such for myself exclusively. And yet you DO regard The Catholic Church as such. Odd. You again seem to be rebuking your own position, rebuking the very thing you are trying to defend.
You need to decide if teachers are accountable or not. IF all of God’s stern warnings about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray (WITH NO EXEMPTION FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) is valid and to be embraced. IF Jesus’ praise of the Ephesians for NOT regarding their teachers as unaccountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for finding them false (all in direct conflict with The Catholic Catechism #87) is correct. IF you conclude that teacher are accountable (as you have me, Luther, etc.) then it becomes a contradiction and absurd for self to be able to exempt self from such and your “problem” is with The Catholic Church (CCC 87, etc., etc.) as the only one that does what you reject as unsound, invalid epistemology. It TOO must be accountable and subject to norming (note: accepting that means you must leave The Catholic Church since it makes you - at the min. - an unfaithful Catholic, or as my Deacon put it, “A Protestant hiding in the Church” - worse than a noncatholic"). But if you decide that self alone may exempt self alone from accountability and replace the whole issue of whether he is correct with the demand of self for self that self alone is simply to be accepted “with docility” then you need to come to terms with all the cults (they all embrace that epistemology) and consider the application of your epistemology (for example, all defendants in the USA simply each exempting self from accountability, from the Rule of Law, and declaring self alone to be incapable of error).
Again. 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 for it itself exclusively - and thus norming and all aspects of norming (including WHATEVER might be the embraced norma normans). Rather, it lays aside the issue of whether it is correct, demands it alone be exempt from norming, and replaces that with the demand of itself alone for itself alone that whatever itself alone teaches be accepted “with docility.” The rationale is: “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right - just accept it with docility, as God speaking.” IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light will reveal the truth, without care for the power or control or lordship of self. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, get the light off its teachings, exempt what it teaches from norming, lay all that aside and replace it with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone teaches just be accepted “with docility.”
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Wow, out for 2 paragraphs in one document??? Methinks someone has a bit of a problem with authority.
The Peace of Christ to all.
bill
P
paul_c
Guest
Josiah, can you see that this has ceased to be about Sola Scriptura? It is now completely about your denial of the Catholic Church’s authority to teach the truth about Jesus Christ. Everything in this post is an attempt to claim that the Catholic Church’s authority is self generated. You even compare it over and over again to cults. Why would the church ever be accountable to how you interpret scripture? Do you really believe that because you read the scripture a certain way that is inconsistent with Catholic Church teaching that the Church is wrong and must change its long held views to meet your expectations? Perhaps that’s how your new church works.
The Catholic Church must stay true to its message and mandate: to hold and teach the truths given to it by Jesus Christ and to administer his sacraments. You clearly don’t believe this mandate, but don’t try to pretend that this is about Sola Scriptura. You know and have admitted that scripture can not stand on its own but requires authoritative interpretation to be inerrantly understood. Your whole problem is your prefer your own teaching to that of the church.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Me, too. There’s ONE who claims Jesus gave IT authority and then, with the claim of great humility, insists, “Because I alone have authority, I alone am INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, exempt from accountability and norming, whenever I alone speak, JESUS is speaking, everyone must just accept whatever I alone say with docility!”
Let’s examine:
- Jesus never gave IT anything. Exclusively or otherwise. It cannot so much as find anywhere were Jesus so much as even MENTIONED it, even in passing, about anything whatsoever. It’s just self claiming this for self.
- Authority does not imply infallibility/unaccountability. Anywhere. You think you have the authority to teach (because you just did), and yet do YOU actuaslly believe that ergo there is one (you, exclusively) who is INFALLIBLE, unaccountable, incapable of error, when you speak Jesus speaks, and whether you are correct must be laid aside and you should replace that with the demand of self for self that whatever self says just be accepted with docility? Perhaps you do. But, IMHO, THAT would be a problem with authority. President Obama has great authority, it doesn’t mean he (especially he alone) is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz he can’t be wrong, all must just accept whatever he says “with docility.” IF he said that, I think we’d conclude he has a problem with authority.
- There’s an odd Catholic understanding of humility, IMHO.
The Catholic insists, THIS is humility: “I alone am right. I am the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, infallible, incapable of being wrong, exempt from accountability and norming, whatever I alone say is what Jesus says, just accept whatever I say with docility!”
The Catholic insists, THIS is pride: “We are accountable and we come into the light, for we want truth to be revealed and error to be corrected, for that is what matters, not me.”
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
P
paul_c
Guest
Its hilarious that you left the Catholic Church because its not humble enough for YOU…
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
What I find amazing is that you regard The Catholic Church as “humble” when it alone insists, “I alone an imfallible, incapable of error, all I say must just be accepted with docility cuz when I alone speak, Jesus speaks.”Josiah:
.
Its hilarious that you left the Catholic Church because its not humble
But you find an embrace and welcome of accountability, the admission that self could be wrong, THAT is “pride.”
Odd. Very odd.
To the point: Sola Scriptura is not a theory and has nothing to do with justification. It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon in the norming of doctrines. It is rejected by The Catholic Church not because it has an alternative (better or worse) but because it alone rejects accountability for itself exclusively, thus it regards norming as moot in the singular case of itself and therefore rejects norming - and all things related to it (in the singular case of itself). It lays aside the issue of its correctness, and replaces that with the demand of self for self that whatever self says must just be accepted “with docility.”
IMHO, self alone rejecting accountability and just insisting that whatever self alone says must just be accepted with docility has NO relation to self being correct, and certainly no relation to humility. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light reveals the truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, get the focus off any examination of what is being taught, exempt self alone from norming, and replace the whole issue with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says must just be accepted with docility.
.
E
Echo_Angels
Guest
I wanted to say, that we (reformed/protestant) do no consider our interpretation of the scripture to be infallible. It’s the reason why we have so many denominations and debates though we do agree on certain issues.
It’s not that we believe interpretations (whether from the church or not) are infallible, but we believe there is a correct interpretation of the scripture and a will of God which can be known.
To me, it’s more humble for us to be able to admit our fallacies as fallen sin men to interpret the will of God through His words and to reason the scripture through the study of the writings, the people who wrote it, the culture of the time, and the history of the era.
The reason I’m apart of the church that I am at is that it does reason through the scriptures, the culture, and era with logic. An if at a future time which a better supported logical argument, I will follow that argument.
It’s not that we believe interpretations (whether from the church or not) are infallible, but we believe there is a correct interpretation of the scripture and a will of God which can be known.
To me, it’s more humble for us to be able to admit our fallacies as fallen sin men to interpret the will of God through His words and to reason the scripture through the study of the writings, the people who wrote it, the culture of the time, and the history of the era.
The reason I’m apart of the church that I am at is that it does reason through the scriptures, the culture, and era with logic. An if at a future time which a better supported logical argument, I will follow that argument.
P
paul_c
Guest
We’ve ceased to have a discussion on Sola Scriptura, can’t you see that. This thread should be closed because its all about you whining that the Catholic Church has claimed authority that you don’t think it should have.
P
paul_c
Guest
Can’t you see the problems inherent in what you say? Without an authoritative intepretation of scripture, you simply don’t know what to do to be saved. Why would that ever be part of God’s plan? Confusion is the devil’s tool, not God’s.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Josiah:
.
.
We’ve ceased to have a discussion on Sola Scriptura, can’t you see that. This thread should be closed because its all about you whining that the Catholic Church has claimed authority that you don’t think it should have.
- Actually, you have done an excellent (and very Catholic) job of evading the whole topic all along, trying instead to defend why The Catholic Church is exempt from such. Sometimes you have used classic Catholic apologetics, something your own thoughts (which I’ve found remarkable). But, you’ve never engaged in a discussion of what is the most sound norma normans in norming for exactly the same reason (I suspect) that The Catholic Church doesn’t - it regards the whole topic moot in the singular and exclusive case of itself, since it replaces that issue with the demand of self for self that whatever self alone says must be accepted “with docility.”
- No. I sincerely think it’s The Catholic Church that has a “problem” with authority. I don’t deny that Catholics HAVE authority (no less than other Christians) but authority always carries with it accountability, it is this that The Catholic Church won’t permit (in the singular case of itself). It (like you - here you are being very Catholic) insist that authority = infallibility, even though it has NOTHING in Scripture or in Tradition or in human experience that remotely suggests that such is EVER the case. It gets around this by essentally equating itself with God.
- Again, the issue has NEVER been authority, it is the exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability that has been the issue. Norming flows from accountability, and the embraced rule/canon in such is one aspect of that. It’s accountability that The Catholic Church rejects for itself exclusively, and THAT is the reason why it rejects the resuling norming and the issue of the rule/canon in such. Like The Catholic Church, you INSIST that everyone be held accountable - right here, right now (as you have me) but it has just one exeption: itself. Self feeling a need to exempt self from accountability and replace that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER to that one being correct. Self just feels some need for that issue to be evaded.
E
Echo_Angels
Guest
No, no passages with scripture have ever shown that devil uses choas, but rather devils does deceive us knowing what the truth is and questioning what God really says.
Jesus himself tell us that He is the truth, and His word is truth. To know such truth is to study what we have received from him. The church did not write the bible, but rather the church received the scripture. It is rather our duty to study it and know what it says.
I thereby need to compare the theology of any system to what the scripture says. If it agrees, I know I have found the truth.
P
paul_c
Guest
Scripture is clear that the devil is the father of all lies and that there is no truth within him. With those lies, he strives to confuse and decieve people.
The Church did indeed write the bible, under divine inspiration. Don’t you recognize that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude were Catholics and that they indeed put pen to paper. And they wrote down what they had experienced through Catholic traditiion. They taught for years and even decades before they wrote anything down at all. Tradition begat Scripture, not the other way around.
This is fine as long as you can understand with confidence what Scripture actually says. But as you yourself pointed out, you don’t agree with even your reformed brother , leading to thousands of denominations, each thinking they got it right. Such is the confusion resulting form Sola Scriptura, one of the Devil’s more cleaver lies.
- Status