Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Des]

At the end of the day, your statement that “if everyone had known all these things, Jesus would not have had to sacrifice Himself” is compleeeetly nonsensical and out of order.

What’s nonsense are protestants who continue to seriously believe they are each ‘The Man of God’ that Timothy was who was a student of Paul and therefore, obviously well taught. And how easily that verse could change in meaning to where ‘complete’ would simply mean a tool that completes a man along with other things like the oral teachings giving the ‘Man of God’ a perfect understanding of what exactly was written. Same way a medical manual guide would complete a doctor for any task at hand. So long as he knew what it was saying of course along with oral instructions or on hands practice to become the perfect doctor with it. The dangers of protestantism are clearly at work here as you attempt to use these verses to make an infallible declaration as to their precise meaning to pull Catholics to your own heretical truths. News flash. It won’t work on this forum. Nothing you’ve said in your post above is new material unheard by Catholic ears.

And you deceive yourself to suggest God left us all a book that can only cause divisions amongst fallible arrogant men. Prove me wrong.

 

[kepha1]

*Do I have this right?

The Catholic Church is unaccountable to nothing but itself when the 27 books of the New Testament were afffirmed from a previous list possessed by an invisible non-catholic church. *

Is that what happened, AmericanJosiah?

 

[kepha1]

I utterly disagree with you in that this is not a battle. The N.T. has numerous references to battle, not the least of which is the admonition to dress in the whole ARMOR of God per Eph 6, and elsewhere being classified as “soldiers of Christ”, who use “weapons of warfare”, and Paul telling Tim to “war a good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)…God’s word being a “SWORD”.

I find your observation that I come off as “young”—quite amusing. Do the things that I say reflect the words of a “babe” in Christ? They most certainly do not, so I have no idea how you can even think such a thing. If you MUST know, I am 51, and am quite familiar with your doctrines, having left the RCC 25 years ago and have not looked back since.

Next, is your erroneous leap of monumental proportions that just because Paul refers Tim to the things that he taught him, DOES NOT FOR A MINUTE, mean that Paul was referring to some sort of extra-biblical, unwritten infallible tradition to be passed down through time till kingdom come! Not one Bible commentary on planet earth will carry that little bit of eisegesis, including my NAB St. Joseph edition with footnotes. Your legs are quite long my dear Mr. Leapfrog. No where does Holy Writ designate “oral tradition” as some sort of continuing revelation. Scripture reserves this norm for itself alone and by self-designation, as previously reported, unites to itself the function of making men wise for salvation and being profitable for all manner of rebuke, correction and instruction. There is NO other revelation that God pronounces to be “God-breathed” to make the man of God complete, and since we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor 4:6)…that, as they say, is that!

Well now that’s all well and good, following a Protestant definition of Sacred or Oral Tradition. Sorry, but according to Catholic definition YOU HAVE IT TOTALLY WRONG. Catholics have the right to our own definitions, especially when they predate yours. You wouldn’t like it if I invented falsehoods about your beliefs.

Stick around. You might discover how badly you have been lied to.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Posts in circumvention of a ban have been pruned from this thread.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,

A speed limit sign might look like this:
View attachment 7306

Now even as simple as it is, unless you know how to interpret it, it is useless.

So, do you reject the Rule of Law, and instead insist it is more sound for a defendant to designate himself alone to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error and thus exempt from norming according to any rule/canon, right cuz he alone insists that he is an thus it is undeniable that he is - and this must be accepted with docility? THAT, are you suggesting, is a better rule/canon for the determination of whether one was speeding that the Rule of Law?

The Catholic Church does not reject Sola Scriptura because it needs to be interpted (we all agree on that point) but because it rejects accountability (for it itself alone, exclusively) - and thus norming and everything involved in that - including WHATEVER may serve as the rule/canon for such. It’s accountability it rejects, not hermeneutics.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

When one realizes that the Church has actual authority to “bind and loose” and to :forgive sins", as Scripture teaches

1. The Scriptures say NOTHING about The Catholic Church. About authority, about infallibility, about unaccountability, about being incapable of error, about being the sole interpreter, about “binding” or the forgiveness of sins. It’s not even so much as mentioned in passing in Scripture. I know that. You know that. Everyone who can read knows that.
2. This thread is not about whether a geopolitical/legal, organizational, structual, intercongregational denominational entity may or may not forgive sins (I disagree that it may, I believe only God through PEOPLE does that - but that’s another discussion for another day and thread not permitted here). This thread is (in part) about the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines. The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) embraces Scripture for such. The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and of course all the cults) rejects that NOT because it has an alternative norm/rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines but because it rejects accountabilit[y for its doctrines - itself exclusively insisting that itself exclusively CANNOT err and thus does not, it exclusively insists that it exclusively is INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable, it exclusively insists that whatever it exclusively teaches is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility.” THAT’S why it rejects the Rule of Scripture - and any other rule/canon - it alone insists that such is moot in the singular case of itself alone since it alone declares that it alone is unaccountable and thus exempt from norming - no matter WHAT the rule/canon.

.

 

[Tomster]

1. The Scriptures say NOTHING about The Catholic Church. About authority, about infallibility, about unaccountability, about being incapable of error, about being the sole interpreter, about “binding” or the forgiveness of sins. It’s not even so much as mentioned in passing in Scripture. I know that. You know that. Everyone who can read knows that.
2. This thread is not about whether a geopolitical/legal, organizational, structual, intercongregational denominational entity may or may not forgive sins (I disagree that it may, I believe only God through PEOPLE does that - but that’s another discussion for another day and thread not permitted here). This thread is (in part) about the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines. The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) embraces Scripture for such. The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and of course all the cults) rejects that NOT because it has an alternative norm/rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines but because it rejects accountabilit[y for its doctrines - itself exclusively insisting that itself exclusively CANNOT err and thus does not, it exclusively insists that it exclusively is INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable, it exclusively insists that whatever it exclusively teaches is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility.” THAT’S why it rejects the Rule of Scripture - and any other rule/canon - it alone insists that such is moot in the singular case of itself alone since it alone declares that it alone is unaccountable and thus exempt from norming - no matter WHAT the rule/canon.

.

You couldn’t be more wrong!

 

[paul_c]

So, do you reject the Rule of Law, and instead insist it is more sound for a defendant to designate himself alone to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error and thus exempt from norming according to any rule/canon, right cuz he alone insists that he is an thus it is undeniable that he is - and this must be accepted with docility? THAT, are you suggesting, is a better rule/canon for the determination of whether one was speeding that the Rule of Law?

The Catholic Church does not reject Sola Scriptura because it needs to be interpted (we all agree on that point) but because it rejects accountability (for it itself alone, exclusively) - and thus norming and everything involved in that - including WHATEVER may serve as the rule/canon for such. It’s accountability it rejects, not hermeneutics.

I’m not rejecting the rule of law. Nor am I rejecting Scripture as a means of understanding what is required for salvation. I am pointing out to you that it is not the ONLY thing required. You need Catholic tradition to explain scripture and to also fill in the blanks, where scripture is not clear or complete.

You keep saying the Catholic Church rejects accountability. That is simply your incorrect understanding of the Catechism. Too bad you don’t take the time to really understand Catholic teaching. Why are you wasting our time by making the same tired claim over and over without ever justifying it once.

 

[paul_c]

1. The Scriptures say NOTHING about The Catholic Church. About authority, about infallibility, about unaccountability, about being incapable of error, about being the sole interpreter, about “binding” or the forgiveness of sins. It’s not even so much as mentioned in passing in Scripture. I know that. You know that. Everyone who can read knows that.
2. This thread is not about whether a geopolitical/legal, organizational, structual, intercongregational denominational entity may or may not forgive sins (I disagree that it may, I believe only God through PEOPLE does that - but that’s another discussion for another day and thread not permitted here). This thread is (in part) about the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines. The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) embraces Scripture for such. The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and of course all the cults) rejects that NOT because it has an alternative norm/rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines but because it rejects accountabilit[y for its doctrines - itself exclusively insisting that itself exclusively CANNOT err and thus does not, it exclusively insists that it exclusively is INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable, it exclusively insists that whatever it exclusively teaches is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility.” THAT’S why it rejects the Rule of Scripture - and any other rule/canon - it alone insists that such is moot in the singular case of itself alone since it alone declares that it alone is unaccountable and thus exempt from norming - no matter WHAT the rule/canon.

.

Let’s just stop this now. You have nothing more to add and you are not receptive to listening to what anyone else says. This argument is based completely on your denial, without any substantiation at all, that the Catholic Church is in fact the Apostolic Church described in the New Testament. You make the bold claim that it is not the same church but you never, ever defend your position. Unless you are willing to do so, these arguments are simply empty words.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Nor am I rejecting Scripture as a means of understanding what is required for salvation. I am pointing out to you that it is not the ONLY thing required. You need Catholic tradition to explain scripture and to also fill in the blanks, where scripture is not clear or complete.

IF this thread were about hermeneutics, and IF we were discussing Christian Tradition instead of the unique confessions of one denomination (yours, mine or any other), then you and I would be surprisingly in agreement. But, of course, that’s not the issue here.

The issue here is accountability: Are the doctrines of The Catholic Church accountable or are they as The Catholic Church alone insists: infallible, incapable of error, and beyond the scope of accountability and thus norming? And - further - is the exemption of self alone from accountability for the teachings of self alone, replaced by the requirement of self alone that whatever self alone is simply to be accepted with docility, is THAT the most sound rubric to determine if that self is correct?

IF you accept that that is a poor rubric, and IF you accept that teachers ARE accountable for what they/it teaches (especially as dogma), then you have just embraced that The Catholic Church is accountable (no less and no more than any other – The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Jim Jones, St. Augustine, you, me). The first question, then, becomes WHAT shall be embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation? Since The Catholic Church has no suggestion, what is yours? What do you regard as EQUALLY or SUPERIORLY inerrant than Scripture, inspired by God than Scripture, knowable by all and alterable by none (including The Catholic Church) than Scripture? Ecumenically embraced as God’s inscripturated words than Scripture? What should hold this role in lieu of Scripture or ABOVE it or EQUAL to it?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This argument is based completely on your denial, without any substantiation at all, that the Catholic Church is in fact the Apostolic Church described in the New Testament.

No.

MY “argument” is that I don’t accept as most sound epistemology what you are defending: that self alone simply exempts self alone for accountability for whatever self alone teaches as dogma, and we replace accountability with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone simply be accepted as correct with docility for self alone CANNOT be wrong and thus is infallibly, dogmatically correct.

Friend, IF you accepted that The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches, then we would be having a discussion about the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of that. But you kept going back to the Catholic position: The whole question is moot in the singular instance of The Catholic Church exclusively because of the claims that it alone makes of it alone that it alone cannot err and whatever it says must just be accepted “with docility” instead.

You make the bold claim that it is not the same church but you never, ever defend your position.

1. Since The Catholic Church is the only major Christian denomination that exempts self from accountability, insisting that there is one that is incapable of error and that one just happens to be itself, then the “burden of proof” to substantiate that remarkable, accountability-evading claim likes with the only one making it.
2. You seem to be making an illogical and unbiblical premise. Let’s say your entirely unsubstantiated claim is true and Jesus founded The Catholic Church. And let’s say that He doesn’t lead people, but instead only leads The Catholic Church. And He made no promises to Christians but only to The Catholic Church. Friend, what it the WORLD does that have to do with it being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, and we must lay aside the issue of whether it is right and just accept whatever with docility? We must just forget about all of God’s stern warnings about false teachers, Jesus’ praise for doing what The Catholic Church doesn’t permit - just ignore all that, and permit it to claim it’s infallible? You seem to have this very odd idea that if God leads, there MUST be an infallible following and a mandated unaccountability. Where in the world did you ever get that idea? Certainly not from the Bible! God made Adam and Eve, God established His exlusive and special relationship with them, God infallibly lead them. Were they thus infallible, incapable of error? Did God thus hold them as unaccountable? God established the Hebrew Kingdom, even directed appointed some of the kings. God infallibly lead them. Were they all thus perpetual and constantly infallible? Did God hold them as unaccountable for what they said and did? Or in life. When someone rises to power, claims that he speaks for God, rejects all accountability, establishes self as above the law or any other rule/canon for that matter, does that indicate to you that THUS that singular one is infallible, incapable of error and MUST be regarded as unaccountable for whatever he says or does? Where do you get this idea? EVEN if the claim that God founded the specific, singular, particular Catholic Church, all His promises were to IT and IT itself alone (rather than to Christians), even if all that were true (and there’s no only NOTHING to support it, but I find all that biblically and historically problematic), then it doesn’t IN ANY SENSE “follow” that that would be infallible and unaccountable.

.

 

[paul_c]

IF this thread were about hermeneutics, and IF we were discussing Christian Tradition instead of the unique confessions of one denomination (yours, mine or any other), then you and I would be surprisingly in agreement. But, of course, that’s not the issue here.

The issue here is accountability: Are the doctrines of The Catholic Church accountable or are they as The Catholic Church alone insists: infallible, incapable of error, and beyond the scope of accountability and thus norming? And - further - is the exemption of self alone from accountability for the teachings of self alone, replaced by the requirement of self alone that whatever self alone is simply to be accepted with docility, is THAT the most sound rubric to determine if that self is correct?

IF you accept that that is a poor rubric, and IF you accept that teachers ARE accountable for what they/it teaches (especially as dogma), then you have just embraced that The Catholic Church is accountable (no less and no more than any other – The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Martin Luther, Pope Benedict, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Jim Jones, St. Augustine, you, me). The first question, then, becomes WHAT shall be embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation? Since The Catholic Church has no suggestion, what is yours? What do you regard as EQUALLY or SUPERIORLY inerrant than Scripture, inspired by God than Scripture, knowable by all and alterable by none (including The Catholic Church) than Scripture? Ecumenically embraced as God’s inscripturated words than Scripture? What should hold this role in lieu of Scripture or ABOVE it or EQUAL to it?

.

Its not about accountability. Its about you not recognizing the Church’s authority and mission to teach what it has been taught. The Catholic Church was given a set of truths, orally and through apostolic revelation that it was commissioned to teach. Most, but not all of these truths are contained in the Bible and nothing in the bible contradicts any of these truths. You want to truncate the Church’s traditions to only what is written in scripture. But the church has no authority to do that. It must teach the fullness of truth as it knows it. For instance, the sacraments are discussed in the bible, but the formulas for their application are not. The order of the mass is not in the Bible. That doesn’t make it any less valid. The concept of the trinity is not fully discussed in the Bible - that doesn’t make it any less true. The church must teach what it has been commanded to teach, despite your protests, it will continue to do so.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Its not about accountability. Its about you not recognizing the Church’s authority and mission to teach what it has been taught.

Nope.

I have NEVER remotely posted (or thought) that Catholics may not teach. You are teaching, and I’ve never challenged your “authority” or responsibility or “right” to do so. Nor you me.

I’m arguing that teachers are accountable.
You agree, but defend that there is exclusively one that is exempt: The Catholic Church
You’ve used most of the classic Catholic apologetics for that (and a couple you seem to have invented but quickly abandoned), but they all just are the claims of self alone for self alone - as has been shown.

You want to truncate the Church’s traditions to only what is written in scripture. But the church has no authority to do that. It must teach the fullness of truth as it knows it.

You have an amazingly ability to continuously change the topic - often to rebuke things I never remotely said.

Friend, there is ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever declared that The Catholic Church is infallible, incapble of error, exempt from accountability, and rather whatever it says is to be accepted with docility. I think you know that.

No one is remotely talking about the traditions of anyone or anything. The issue is this: Are the things being taught as doctrine accountable? Now, yes - you or a Mormon or a Lutheran or a Muslim may “teach” what you regard as “the fullness of truth.” Sure. WHOEVER said otherwise? But is it all dogmatically, infallibly CORRECT? You seem to have waved that issue is the case of just one: The Catholic Church, by just accepting the demand of itself for itself that itself IS correct cuz it cannot be incorrect. Friend, studied any of the cults?

Where I’m disagreeing with you is on this: That the most sound way to determine if some teacher is correct is if that same one exempts self alone from accountability, alone claiming that self alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus exempt from the question - rather, what self alone says is just to be accepted with docility. I find that to be circular, evasive, moot, and profoundly dangerous. I think teachers are accountable - and that goes for The Catholic Church, too.

Now, IF we could agree that The Catholic Church is accountable (and we won’t - because you cannot), then we could have a reasonable discussion of norming. And the first issue there would be WHAT most soundly serves as the rule/canon for such?

.

 

[paul_c]

Nope.

I have NEVER remotely posted (or thought) that Catholics may not teach. You are teaching, and I’ve never challenged your “authority” or responsibility or “right” to do so. Nor you me.

I’m arguing that teachers are accountable.
You agree, but defend that there is exclusively one that is exempt: The Catholic Church
You’ve used most of the classic Catholic apologetics for that (and a couple you seem to have invented but quickly abandoned), but they all just are the claims of self alone for self alone - as has been shown.

You have an amazingly ability to continuously change the topic - often to rebuke things I never remotely said.

Friend, there is ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever declared that The Catholic Church is infallible, incapble of error, exempt from accountability, and rather whatever it says is to be accepted with docility. I think you know that.

No one is remotely talking about the traditions of anyone or anything. The issue is this: Are the things being taught as doctrine accountable? Now, yes - you or a Mormon or a Lutheran or a Muslim may “teach” what you regard as “the fullness of truth.” Sure. WHOEVER said otherwise? But is it all dogmatically, infallibly CORRECT? You seem to have waved that issue is the case of just one: The Catholic Church, by just accepting the demand of itself for itself that itself IS correct cuz it cannot be incorrect. Friend, studied any of the cults?

Where I’m disagreeing with you is on this: That the most sound way to determine if some teacher is correct is if that same one exempts self alone from accountability, alone claiming that self alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus exempt from the question - rather, what self alone says is just to be accepted with docility. I find that to be circular, evasive, moot, and profoundly dangerous. I think teachers are accountable - and that goes for The Catholic Church, too.

Now, IF we could agree that The Catholic Church is accountable (and we won’t - because you cannot), then we could have a reasonable discussion of norming. And the first issue there would be WHAT most soundly serves as the rule/canon for such?

.

The Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with Scripture. Nothing it teaches, contradicts scripture and you can feel free to try to contradict that, so long as you do it with proof. So it is fully accountable to that as far as it goes, so you can’t have an issue with that.

What you have an issue with is that it teaches things that aren’t in scripture. Things like the application of the sacraments and the order of the mass, the role of the Clergy and Apostolic Succession. You claim that these are man- made because you can’t find them in scripture, but in fact, you have no proof of your claim. It is your view verses the Catholic Church’s. There is no arbiter for this on this side of death. I obviously see the Catholic Church as credible so I believe what it says. You do not. so be it.

But by the way, your own Lutheran church also teaches things that are not in scripture. They also have an order for services and role of its own clergy, for instance. However, unlike the Catholic Church, the Lutehran church has views in direct contradiction to Scripture. For instance, it teaches salvation by Faith alone, when you know that James 2 says that Faith without works is dead and 1Corinthians 13 says that If you had faith enough to move mountains but did not have love, you are nothing.

And to go back to the original OP, sola scriptura is not the norma normans you have defined it to be because scripture alone, without. the benefit of authorized interpretation, is not repeatable.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with Scripture. Nothing it teaches, contradicts scripture and you can feel free to try to contradict that, so long as you do it with proof. So it is fully accountable to that as far as it goes, so you can’t have an issue with that.

1. IF so, then The Catholic Church should embrace rather than denounce the practice of using Scripture as the rule/canon for doctrines.
2. From the standpoint of The Catholic Church, OF COURSE it’s doctrines are “consistent with Scripture” since Scripture would be wrong otherwise. Remember: it claims The Catholic Church is the sole authority, The Catholic Church is infallible and incapble of error in these matters. Thus, if Scripture said something variently, that would make God wrong in His Scripture - and that’s unthinkable! Remember, too, that the “Scripture” you are speaking of is not found on any page, in words - no, it is “found” only in the “heart” of The Catholic Church (CCC # 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC # 85) whose teachings in that regard are simply to be accepted as correct “with docility” (CCC # 87, etc.).
3. To claim that teachings do not obviously CONTRADICT Scripture (as Mormons insist is the case with LDS doctrine) is a suprisingly moot point - even if we were talking about the written, knowable Scripture rather than a mystical aspect of the heart of The Catholic Church as seen, interpreted and understood by The Catholic Church alone. One could state, “Mary was 15 feet tall, pink hair and loved fish tacos!” Is any of that CONTRARY to Scripture? Nope. Actually, Scripture says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding any of those topics. Ergo, is all of that dogmatic fact, infallibly correct? I hope you see the absurdity of your rubric.

What you have an issue with is that it teaches things that aren’t in scripture. There is no arbiter for this on this side of death.

Actually, my “issue” is whether it is the most sound approach to simply accept that a defendant is correct because he alone insists that he alone is incapable of being wrong, insists that we circumvent any norming concerning such and rather simply accept with docility that he is correct. I find the epistemology you and The Catholic Church and the Catholic here are working so hard to defend to be moot - and dangerous. It actually has nothing whatsoever to do with that teacher being correct.

If there is no arbiter this side of death, then The Catholic Church needs to “take back” every time it has declared any person or group to be wrong. All the proclaimations of heresy, all the excommunications, all the inquasitions, all the times it dispatched souls to their appointed afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. But, frankly, I don’t agree with you. I agree with The Catholic Church on that point. I think teachers SHOULD be held accountable here and now - however fallibly (God will do so infallibly), elsewise, why would God have made such a major point of saying we should correct the errant, beware of false teachers, etc? Why would Jesus have praised the Ephesians for doing what The Catholic Church doesn’t permit and regarding teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue and for proclaiming them false? In this issue, I agree with your denomination and disagree with you.

For instance, it teaches salvation by Faith alone, when you know that James 2 says that Faith without works is dead

Funny how you, like The Catholic Church, regard every single OTHER teacher to be accountable! But The Catholic Church makes just one acception - although it is absolute. Yup, just one. Itself.

Actually, we teach that we are JUSTIFIED by God’s grace in Christ through faith in Christ. And that faith is active, typically accompanied by our works. The reference you have to James 2 is a part of our teaching, fully embraced. But you need to make up your mind: Are teachers accountable or not? If they are - then The Catholic Church is. If not, than The Lutheran Church is not. The Catholic Church has no alternative rule/canon to Scripture but maybe you do - if so, let’s discuss it, whatever you suggest is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE universally embraced as reliable, MORE outside and above all parties - MORE so than Scripture, then, again, suggest it. The Catholic Church knows of nothing that so qualifies, but maybe you do. It has a rule/canon for OTHERS (that “three-legged-stool” as Mormons call it) but we all know, that’s just itself which is why it never suggests it is appropriate for itself - to do so would be to embrace that if self agrees with self, then self is correct, a rubric that The Catholic Church realizes is absurd.

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with Scripture. Nothing it teaches, contradicts scripture and you can feel free to try to contradict that, so long as you do it with proof. So it is fully accountable to that as far as it goes, so you can’t have an issue with that.

The point is that Catholic believe in the inerrancy of scripture, properly interpreted, but don’t agree that all Truth is in scripture. That is the problem with sola scriptura, it limits the truth to only what is in scripture. I note that you discarded those parts of my quotes when answering me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c What you have an issue with is that it teaches things that aren’t in scripture. There is no arbiter for this on this side of death.

First of all, you don’t have to believe that the Catholic church teaches all truth, unless you want to be a catholic. Its purely optional on your part. When someone is excommunicated, called a heretic or hauled before an inquisition panel, it is because they claim to be catholic but are not. Non- Catholics can not be excommunicated. Jesus praised the Ephesians for identifying heretics in their midst, those claiming to be catholic while proclaiming anti-Catholic doctrine. The Church, as you point out here, absolutely does expect us to hold Catholics accountable for what they teach. The test for that is of course, acknowledged Catholic teaching

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c For instance, it teaches salvation by Faith alone, when you know that James 2 says that Faith without works is dead

YOu took my quote out of context? Why? Waht i was pointing out is that while Catholic teaching is consistent with scripture, yours is not. That reading was certainly not fully embraced by Luther. He called James Epistle “an epistle of Straw” and wanted to excise it from the Bible. This is very well documented.

And don’t try to separate me from the Catholic Church. you are creating a strawman.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

When someone is excommunicated, called a heretic or hauled before an inquisition panel, it is because they claim to be catholic but are not. Jesus praised the Ephesians for identifying heretics in their midst, those claiming to be catholic while proclaiming anti-Catholic doctrine.

Sorry, Jesus said NOTHING about ANYONE being a Catholic or teaching anti-Catholic doctrine.

The Ephesian Christians regarded Christian teachers to be ACCOUNTABLE. They tested them, arbitrating their correctness. And found them to be FALSE (not “at varience with The Catholic Church”). Jesus praised them for that. Compare that to your Catechism #87.

Over and over, God sternly and boldly warned about false teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray - and He never exempted The Catholic Church from any possiblity of such (or any other teacher).

I realize: The Catholic Church has exempted The Catholic Church from accountability by declaring that The Catholic Church exclusively is incapable of being wrong, and so the issue of its correctness is to be laid aside and whatever it alone says is just to be accepted “with docility.” You have done good work, my friend, in giving some of the apologetics The Catholic Church gives for this remarkable exemption of accountability by self alone for self alone - but it’s still what it is. And your excuses are just those of self for self, without any basis.

You’ve TRIED to say, “Jesus promised it this, Jesus promised it that” but the undeniable and unavoidable reality, my friend, is that He never so much as even MENTIONED it. Jesus didn’t promise any of this, Jesus never claimed any of that. It’s the Catholic Church doing so.

You’ve TRIED to suggest that since God promised to lead Christians, ergo The Catholic Church MUST infallibly follow and thus be unaccountable. But this is both illogical and unbiblical - as any recalling of Adam and Eve should make obvious. God ALWAYS infallibly leads (can He fallibly, errantly lead?) but that doesn’t mean all of us infallibly follow and God holds no one accountable.

You’ve TRIED to suggest that The Catholic Church MUST be infallibly correct and unaccountable because it alone agrees with itself alone. But this, too, is moot. Every teacher agrees with himself (at least). It has no significance to that one being correct.

What seems clear to me is, like The Catholic Church, you embrace accountability. You certainly regard Luther as accountable and you regard me as so. Okay. But I think you have something to resolve: are teachers accountable or not? If they are, then they are: The Catholic Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Pope Benedict and Martin Luther, Joseph Smith and John Calvin, you and me. And if they are not, then they are not: The Catholic Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Pope Benedict and Martin Luther, Joseph Smith and John Calvin, you and me. When you decide which it is, maybe we can proceed. If teachers are not accountable - the Catholic Church and Catholics need to stop calling others wrong and leave all such up to God (at most). And if teachers are accountable, we need to talk about norming - and the first issue there is WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for such? Friend, a defendant simply excusing himself from the whole matter of whether he is innocent or guilty and instead just declaring himself alone to be “infallible” achieves nothing. Friend, a defendant simply insisting that he’s right if he alone agrees with he alone also achieves nothing. I hope you realize that.

.

 

[paul_c]

Sorry, Jesus said NOTHING about ANYONE being a Catholic or teaching anti-Catholic doctrine.

The Ephesian Christians regarded Christian teachers to be ACCOUNTABLE. They tested them, arbitrating their correctness. And found them to be FALSE (not “at varience with The Catholic Church”). Jesus praised them for that. Compare that to your Catechism #87.

Over and over, God sternly and boldly warned about false teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray - and He never exempted The Catholic Church from any possiblity of such (or any other teacher).

I realize: The Catholic Church has exempted The Catholic Church from accountability by declaring that The Catholic Church exclusively is incapable of being wrong, and so the issue of its correctness is to be laid aside and whatever it alone says is just to be accepted “with docility.” You have done good work, my friend, in giving some of the apologetics The Catholic Church gives for this remarkable exemption of accountability by self alone for self alone - but it’s still what it is. And your excuses are just those of self for self, without any basis.

You’ve TRIED to say, “Jesus promised it this, Jesus promised it that” but the undeniable and unavoidable reality, my friend, is that He never so much as even MENTIONED it. Jesus didn’t promise any of this, Jesus never claimed any of that. It’s the Catholic Church doing so.

You’ve TRIED to suggest that since God promised to lead Christians, ergo The Catholic Church MUST infallibly follow and thus be unaccountable. But this is both illogical and unbiblical - as any recalling of Adam and Eve should make obvious. God ALWAYS infallibly leads (can He fallibly, errantly lead?) but that doesn’t mean all of us infallibly follow and God holds no one accountable.

You’ve TRIED to suggest that The Catholic Church MUST be infallibly correct and unaccountable because it alone agrees with itself alone. But this, too, is moot. Every teacher agrees with himself (at least). It has no significance to that one being correct.

What seems clear to me is, like The Catholic Church, you embrace accountability. You certainly regard Luther as accountable and you regard me as so. Okay. But I think you have something to resolve: are teachers accountable or not? If they are, then they are: The Catholic Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Pope Benedict and Martin Luther, Joseph Smith and John Calvin, you and me. And if they are not, then they are not: The Catholic Church, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Pope Benedict and Martin Luther, Joseph Smith and John Calvin, you and me. When you decide which it is, maybe we can proceed. If teachers are not accountable - the Catholic Church and Catholics need to stop calling others wrong and leave all such up to God (at most). And if teachers are accountable, we need to talk about norming - and the first issue there is WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for such? Friend, a defendant simply excusing himself from the whole matter of whether he is innocent or guilty and instead just declaring himself alone to be “infallible” achieves nothing. Friend, a defendant simply insisting that he’s right if he alone agrees with he alone also achieves nothing. I hope you realize that.

.

So, Josiah, when the Ephesians held their teachers accountable, what did they hold them accountable to? I maintain it was Catholic Doctrine, because there was no Bible to hold them accountable to. Thatt is the same doctrine we hold everyone accountable, including the current Catholic Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, Josiah, when the Ephesians held their teachers accountable, what did they hold them accountable to? I maintain it was Catholic Doctrine, because there was no Bible to hold them accountable to. Thatt is the same doctrine we hold everyone accountable, including the current Catholic Church.

We aren’t told (so your theory is personal speculation), but you seem to have missed the point again. The Ephesian Christians held those teachers as ACCOUNTABLE. They tested them. They proclaimed them “false” (not “teaching contrary to the 2,875 points of the official Catholic Catechism”).

Do you regard teachers as accountable or not? Do you think God’s stern and bold and frequent warning about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astry - never exempting The Catholic Church from such - is to be heeded or not? Do you think Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids was right or wrong of Him? Do you hold teachers accountable or not? If you do - then they are. All of them. The Catholic Church no less or no more than any other, and you reject that The Catholic Church is exempt from norming because it’s infallible, incapable of error in these matters, and thus unaccountable and simply to be accepted with docility. And if you hold that teachers are NOT accountable, then they are not - including Martin Luther or Joseph Smith or me or you. Which is it?

No, you are coming dangerously close to suggesting what The Catholic Church rejects; that if self alone agrees with self alone, then self alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from norming, and whatever that self says must be accepted with docility. Friend, just about every teacher agrees with AT LEAST self. It indicates NOTHING vis-a-vis the correctness of that self same teacher. You know that. The Catholic Church knows that. The issue here is this: Jesus praised Christians for holding teachers as accountable - and even more, for testing them, arbitrating their correctness, and proclaiming them “false.” Read your Catechism # 87.

.