Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Philthy]

You seem to agree on the necessity of accountability for every man, woman, child, group, organization, body, teacher among us - with one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. You seem to agree on the need and soundless of a rule/canon and an arbitration both OUTSIDE and above the defendant - but with one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. You seem to agree that teachers should be held responsible for what they teach as doctrine, and you do, but you make one glaring exception: The Catholic Church. In this, you have no choice for this is required of you by one: The Catholic Church. THAT you do is not questioned by me (you can’t be Catholic otherwise). I do question the soundless of this rubric you are defending. Not only because of reason and life experience, but because of my study of the LDS and the cults (who say just as you do).

You sound pretty passionate in your condemnation of the Catholic Church. No problem, I’ve heard worse. As I said though, I’m waiting to hear your proposal for how “accountability” is meant to function in the NT Church. Its easy to criticize others without exposing yourself to the possibility of the same criticism. This will now be the third time I have asked you to put forth your functional model of a NT teaching authority
with an accountability superior to the Catholic Church…
You’ll forgive me if I dont hold my breath?

lMO, the humble and true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild his teaching from accountability, hide behind a wall of amazing claims of self for self, and insist that there is one who is just right cuz he just is: self.

I agree. I dont think this is at all representative of the Catholic Church though.

Blessings!

 

[kepha1]

The apostle Paul says to Timothy:

“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14,15).

A question for Josiah:

Let’s assume for a minute you are right, and “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” is defined in whatever way you want. How does your definition of “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” be pillar and ground of truth?

I did a search on “house of God”, and I admit I raced through 87 references. It seems that all the Old Testament quotes refer to a physical structure. There are only 3 in the Gospels and they refer to “house of God” as a physical structure. But then it gets interesting.

Hebrews 10:20-22 (King James Version)
20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 4:16-18 (King James Version)
16Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

You are sure your definition of “house of God” is consistent with Hebrews 10:21, and 1 Peter 4?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The apostle Paul says to Timothy:

“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14,15)

A question for Josiah:

Let’s assume for a minute you are right, and “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” is defined in whatever way you want. How does your definition of " the house of God, which is the church of the living God" be pillar and ground of truth?

1. How does this verse support that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable, that IT exclusively is exempt from norming?
2. You seem to have the situation reversed. It is MY position that this comment is exactly as you quoted it. It is the Catholic Church position that the verse says, “The Catholic Church is the infallible/unaccountable teacher of truth - exempt from norming.” But you are correct in noting what it actually says.
3. I believe that Christians are people rather than a geopolitical/legal, organizational/structural, intracongregational, institutional, denominational entity. So since Christians are people, the gathering/assembly/family/oikos of Christians is people. As far as I know, no institutional IT is capable of having faith or of being a Christian (at least I see no indication of such), faith happens in the heart and souls of PEOPLE. So, can PEOPLE uphold the truth? Yes. In fact, I think we are called to do that. Which should suggest to you that truth matters - which means accountability matters.

I did a search on “house of God”, and I admit I raced through 87 references. It seems that all the Old Testament quotes refer to a physical structure. There are only 3 in the Gospels and they refer to “house of God” as a physical structure. But then it gets interesting.

1. How many of those 87 references were to The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively to that singular, particular denominational, institutional entity? How often was the teaching that such is infallible, incapable of error and exempt from accountability?
2. If this reference is to a physical building, then A) Where is this building with the fine Greek pillars? B) How is a BUILDING unaccountable for the teachings of itself exclusively? Are you aware that in the ancient world, buildings were constructed and normed according to a “canon?”

Hebrews 10:20-22 (King James Version) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21And having an high priest over the house of God Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 4:16-18 (King James Version) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

You are sure your definition of “house of God” is consistent with Hebrews 10:21, and 1 Peter 4?

1. What is clear is that there is NOTHING here about The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively being infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming.
2. It would seem that the oikos of God (the family of God) does refer to PEOPLE. These verses seem strange if the “house of God” refers to some specific building you have yet to identify or to a denomination.

**
Continues in the next post…**

 

[AmericanJosiah]

… continues from the post above…

The issue is this: Do you believe God was right to warn us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - never exempting The Catholic Church or any other human teacher, person, organization, institution, group, congregation, denomination? Do you believe Jesus was right to do the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands in praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and declaring those teachers to be false? Do you believe that it is the most sound rubric for a defendant to simply declaring himself alone to be unaccountable for what he says/does, exempt from any rule or arbitration for he himself alone declares he himself alone to be incapable of wrong, and in lieu of accountability, he alone insists that whatever he alone says/does is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility?” Is THAT the rubric you desire to defend as not only most sound in determining the correctness of the defendant - but that such is infallible?

Bottom line: Do you regard teachers to be ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine? Martin Luther and Joseph Smith, Augustine and Arius, Pope Benedict and Brigham Young, John Calvin and Jim Jones, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church, The Methodist Church and The Church of Christ - Scientist? Are teachers accountable or not? Not JUST by God alone on judgment day, but as The Catholic Church insists - right here, right now?

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture for exactly the same reason as do the others (LDS, all the cults) - NOT because it has an alternative rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines (it doesn’t) but because it rejects accountability in the sole, exclusively, singular case of it itself alone - thus also norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such). “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right - so there. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Forget all that and just accept whatever I exclusively say and do it with docility - for when I speak, God speaks.” See your Catechism # 87 for starters. I find this claim of self for self to not only be ENTIRELY and WHOLLY unrelated to that self being correct, but my study of the cults causes this to raise a big, red flag for me. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that God’s truth is revealed by the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, hide behind a wall of remarkable claims for self alone, and circumvent the whole issue - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted with docility.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hi AJ!
Scripture is not written as laws are written - with “stand alone” clarity.

In epistemology, the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is tecnically known, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) is WHAT is embraced as the standard, plumbline. Let’s say Bob the Builder is contracted to build a fense between our houses, and that is to be 6 feet tall. He is finished and says the fense is six feet tall (that becomes his teaching, his position). If you are a raging relativist and truth is entirely moot to you - then I guess it doesn’t matter if it’s 6 feet tall. Or perhaps Bob will not permit the examination of his teaching, insisting that there is one - and only one - builder on the planet and in history that is INCAPABLE of being wrong about such things so he will not accept accountability for his actions and positions. That that case, the issue has been circumvented. But let’s say Bob the Builder is humble enough to accept correction and confident enough that the fense is six feet tall that he welcomes accountability. The first issue then becomes WHAT will serve as the canon (“measuring stick”) for this determination? Perhaps we all mutually agree that a Sears Measuring Tape is the most sound meansuring stick for this. We all have one, we all agree that it is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all of us, knowable to all and alterable by none. In that case, the Sears Measuring Tape is the canon, the rule, the norma normans. In the Rule of Law (embraced by most civilized societies), the written, knowable law is the Rule for issues of behavior - above, beyond all parties. In my field (physics) we use math and laborative evidence. A rule need not be “infallible” or neatly coded to be sound and good, but of course in theology, we have the perfect rule since it is the only one that IS inerrant for God Himself is the Author. But, what we need is something with an ecumenical, historic, universal embrace as reliable, something knowable to all and alterable by none, something outside and above and beyond all parties. In my opinion, Scripture qualifies. And since The Catholic Church has no alternative, I suspect it normally would think so, too. But of course, it just circumvents the whole issue in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone.

Catholicism has a canon of Scripture and an authoritative arbiter - The Magisterium.

1. The Catholic Church as a rule/canon FOR ALL OTHERS. It itself alone, however, is exempt from accountability and thus norming. It has no rule/canon for self.
2. The Rule/canon it has for OTHERS is thus:

A. Catholic Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
B. The Scripture not found in words on any page or in any tome that is knowable by all or alterable by none but RATHER as is found in the “heart” of it itself, and as interpreted by it itself exclusively. (CCC 85, 113, etc.)
C. The Magisterium of it itself alone as chosen by it itself alone from men pledged unto death to support and affirm the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church alone - and the views, perspectives, rulings, decisions, interpretations and teaches of the self same.
Friend, obviously and undeniably, this is simply self declaring self to be the rule/canon. This is why The Catholic Church does NOT use this as a rule for itself - if it did so, it would be insisting that the views of self are the most sound rule for the evaluation of the views of self - absurd and meaningless and useless (self always agrees with self, using this rubric, the LDS would be correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS). The Catholic Church correctly rejects this rule for ITSELF (it rejects ALL for itself since it rejects accountability for itself) - but it is what it uses for OTHERS. “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right. Thus others are right if they agree with me exclusively.” That’s the Catholic position. It would be absurd to say, “My positions agree with my positions, ergo I must be correct.”

What you seem to be proposing is that a defendant simply exempt self exclusively from any accountability for his actions, from any rule/canon and any arbitration. He simply appoints his own views about himself as the rule, and simply appoints himself as the court/jury/judge - moot since it predeclares that there is one and only one person on the planet and in all history who is INCAPABLE of being wrong - and that one just happens to be himself, so OF COURSE he is correct, just skip the whole issue and accept with docility that whatever he says or does is correct. I find that rubric absurd and dangerous. I can’t image my trying to do what you suggest if I were arrested by a friendly policeman. I can’t image my submitting a paper to a respected scientific journal and insiting, “I don’t need to norm this via math and laborative evidence, and I don’t need any review of my position, because there is one who is INCAPABLE of being wrong in his position, who is INFALLIBLE in all matters of physics, and thus one who is UNACCOUNTABLE for whatever - and I alone declare that that one is me. So, just publish this and just accept whatever I alone say with docility. I’m right cuz I’m right - I don’t need no norming. Just accept it.” Don’t worry, I don’t have the ego for that and I have much to great of a respect for truth to do that.

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

continuing the post above…

The Supreme Court RULES and is basically accountable to no one that I am aware of.

1. You seem to be confusing the arbitration with the rule/canon for such.
2. Actually, it is subject to the Rule of Law. I agree with you that the liberal, activist judges of late have often behaved as if they believe they are unaccountable.
3. You seem to be missing the point. A defendant does not declare self alone to be infallible, incapable of wrong and unaccountable. He does not become the judge/jury. He does not arbitrate the issue (he’s not even a part of it). You seem to want The Catholic Church to be defendant, judge, court, jury - all just itself, moot of course since it alone delcares that it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong (so why waste your time? Just accept whatever it alone says with docility. I agree: it IS a waste of time for the defendant to serve as the rule and court for himself. I think I know what the verdict would be.

The Catholic Church holds teachers from both within and from outside of itself accountable.

Exactly as I said. It holds all OTHERS as accountable. Very much so! Right here, right now! It historically has often proclaimed OTHERS to be heretical, it has excommunicated many, it has even occasionally dispatched others to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. Yes, it boldly and passionately embraces accountability for every person, teacher, group, organization, body, assembly, denomination except ONE: itself. It declares itself exclusively to be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. Whatever IT says is just to be accepted “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87 for starters.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
You continually fail to recognize that the truths the Catholic Chruch teaches are eternal. They do not change. They can be reapplied to new circumstances, but the doctrines themselves don’t change. The Catholic Church is as accountable to those truths as any one else. Your concerns about self norming are simply not valid.

 

[Tomster]

Josiah,
You continually fail to recognize that the truths the Catholic Chruch teaches are eternal. They do not change. They can be reapplied to new circumstances, but the doctrines themselves don’t change. The Catholic Church is as accountable to those truths as any one else. Your concerns about self norming are simply not valid.

paul c,

He just does not understand.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
The Catholic Church is as accountable to those truths as any one else.

To WHAT? As arbitrated by WHOM/WHAT?

Read CCC # 87 before you answer.

And before you insist, “To whatever it teaches,” then how do you defend your rubric that if self agrees with self, then self is infallible and unaccountable? I agree with me, so by your rubric, I MUST be infallible and unaccountable and you MUST accept whatever I say “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” And before you say, “as arbitrated by itself” then how you defend that the best practice is for a defendant to simply exempt himself alone from any rule/canon and the courts and simply appoint his own views as the rule for his own views and himself as the sole arbiter of the correctness of his own self - so that the defendant alone decides if the defendant is right or wrong?

Have you studied any of the cults? Just curious.

.

 

[paul_c]

To WHAT? As arbitrated by WHOM/WHAT?

Read CCC # 87 before you answer.

And before you insist, “To whatever it teaches,” then how do you defend your rubric that if self agrees with self, then self is infallible and unaccountable? I agree with me, so by your rubric, I MUST be infallible and unaccountable and you MUST accept whatever I say “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” And before you say, “as arbitrated by itself” then how you defend that the best practice is for a defendant to simply exempt himself alone from any rule/canon and the courts and simply appoint his own views as the rule for his own views and himself as the sole arbiter of the correctness of his own self - so that the defendant alone decides if the defendant is right or wrong?

Have you studied any of the cults? Just curious.

.

1. The Catholic church is not a cult… You are being unnecessarily provocative.
2. The church is not a defendent. It is the holder and judge of orthodoxy. It is the supreme court on this side of death.

You have never identfied who you think it should be accountable to. You can’t be accountable to a book. The book can’t think, interpret or enforce anything.

 

[Tomster]

1. The Catholic church is not a cult… You are being unnecessarily provocative.
2. The church is not a defendent. It is the holder and judge of orthodoxy. It is the supreme court on this side of death.

You have never identfied who you think it should be accountable to. You can’t be accountable to a book. The book can’t think, interpret or enforce anything.

The possibility exists (I am trying to be nice here.) that our esteemed adversary believes that matters of faith and morals are to be interpreted by the individual and that individual’s own “norming” process whatever that process may consist of.

It’s called private judgment, the scourge of divided Protestantism.

Get a group a Protestants together from different traditions, ask them all a question regarding faith and/or morals and you will probably get as many different answers. With no authoritative voice able to speak for that particular tradition you get what I like to call the tower of Babel effect. For you see, Paul, that is the inherent, built-in weakness of Protestantism. Each Protestant, according to Protestant dogma, is free to have his or her own individual “norming” process or to have none at all. It just does not matter. They are free to believe what they want and there is no authoritative mechanism within Protestantism to stop them. Hence thousands and thousands of denominations all claiming to be the invisible church of God. It’s the blind leading the blind.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The possibility exists (I am trying to be nice here.) that our esteemed adversary believes that matters of faith and morals are to be interpreted by the individual and that individual’s own “norming” process whatever that process may consist of.

On a related note, here’s a interesting take from the Westminster Confession:*IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.*I had a conversation with a Presbyterian blogger on this. Essentially, when a decision of a council or Church declares a Christian truth, that should be tested against Scripture. However, I then pressed that the tester’s conclusion should itself be tested against Scripture by a future tester…and so on… Essentially, he acknowledged that what binds a follower of the Westminster Confession at the end of the day is the conscience of the individual. And in reading the WCF text above, I’d say there’s really no other choice!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The possibility exists (I am trying to be nice here.) that our esteemed adversary believes that matters of faith and morals are to be interpreted by the individual and that individual’s own “norming” process whatever that process may consist of.

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration, and I understand it is a rule violation to hijack a thread for other topics.
2. It is my position that teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine, and I do not accept that it most sound praxis for such is for oneself to exempt oneself from accountability and thus norming, replacing and substituting that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says be accepted as correct “with docility” “as God speaking.”
3. While it is not permissible to discuss at length, let it also be noted that I’m opposed to self designating self as the sole interpreter (CCC 85) or of self designating self as the sole arbiter for the issue of correctness, as The Catholic Church does.

Get a group a Protestants together from different traditions, ask them all a question regarding faith and/or morals and you will probably get as many different answers.

Get together a group where each designates self as the sole authority, sole arbiter, sole interpreter; where each insists that self alone is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable - exempt from norming; where each insists that whatever self alone says is rather to simply be accepted “with docility” (RCC, LDS, cults) and I think you will find the range of teachings to be remarkable! And every single one of them will be infallibly correct according to each one of them.

Hence thousands and thousands of denominations all claiming to be the invisible church of God.

There’s only two denominations known to me that claim to be the church: The RCC and LDS. Both use that as the excuse for why every OTHER teacher is accountable but there’s one (and exclusively, solely, only one) that is not. Wanna guess which one each claims?

.

 

[Philthy]

A rule need not be “infallible” or neatly coded to be sound and good, but of course in theology, we have the perfect rule since it is the only one that IS inerrant for God Himself is the Author. But, what we need is something with an ecumenical, historic, universal embrace as reliable, something knowable to all and alterable by none, something outside and above and beyond all parties. In my opinion, Scripture qualifies.

AJ you are wasting much typing attempting to refute my claim that the NT is not a rule book. The fact that Scripture is inerrant, “outside and above all parties” and God-breathed is irrelevant to the question of whether it can function as a rule book. You keep stumbling - quite verbosely - over this simple point. If you disagree with my position simply provide evidence of the NT functioning as a stand alone rule book. I predict, that despite all your bluster you will fail to provide any concrete support for your claim just as you have failed to provide your vision of how, exactly, accountability is meant to be practiced by the church today.

1. The Catholic Church has a rule/canon FOR ALL OTHERS. It itself alone, however, is exempt from accountability and thus norming. It has no rule/canon for self.

I disagree. Scripture and ecumenical councils serve as the rule/canon for ALL - the Church and those outside of her.

A. Catholic Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
B. The Scripture not found in words on any page or in any tome that is knowable by all or alterable by none but RATHER as is found in the “heart” of it itself, and as interpreted by it itself exclusively. (CCC 85, 113, etc.)
C. The Magisterium of it itself alone as chosen by it itself alone from men pledged unto death to support and affirm the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church alone - and the views, perspectives, rulings, decisions, interpretations and teaches of the self same.Friend, obviously and undeniably, this is simply self declaring self to be the rule/canon.

The Magisterium is not a “self”, it is a collection of individuals with the education, commitment and proven devotion to service to the Church. Not everyone gets to be part of the Magisterium, though anyone can speak to a Bishop to have their views heard and considered…just like the Supreme Court. You and I have the opportunity to be on the Supreme Court, but not the right to. For the fourth time, why dont you tell how it should be done differently. Hint: do not talk about what the Catholic Church does, but talk about specifically how, I dont know, your own church maybe?, does it better. Otherwise we will have to assume that you don’t actually have a real plan for improvement but are just a long-winded complainer!

This is why The Catholic Church does NOT use this as a rule for itself - if it did so, it would be insisting that the views of self are the most sound rule for the evaluation of the views of self - absurd and meaningless and useless (self always agrees with self, using this rubric, the LDS would be correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS). The Catholic Church correctly rejects this rule for ITSELF (it rejects ALL for itself since it rejects accountability for itself) - but it is what it uses for OTHERS. “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right. Thus others are right if they agree with me exclusively.” That’s the Catholic position. It would be absurd to say, “My positions agree with my positions, ergo I must be correct.”

Please BRIEFLY articulate how this is ANY DIFFERENT than what the Apostles did.

There is no defendant in the simply exempt self exclusively from any accountability for his actions, from any rule/canon and any arbitration. He simply appoints his own views about himself as the rule, and simply appoints himself as the court/jury/judge - moot since it predeclares that there is one and only one person on the planet and in all history who is INCAPABLE of being wrong - and that one just happens to be himself, so OF COURSE he is correct, just skip the whole issue and accept with docility that whatever he says or does is correct. I find that rubric absurd and dangerous.

This is a horrible run on sentence which ends with your personal opinion standing as the rule/canon: “I find that…dangerous”. If you find it unbiblical that might mean something, but it would mean no more than my finding it biblical and we will left in need of an arbiter. The Apostles and their successors to this day have always functioned in that capacity. Do you have an alternate plan? I dont think so, or you would have offered it by now.

Blessings!

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
You know it doesn’t really matter how you perceive the Catholic Church. This thread is about sola Scriptura. You seem to have forgotten that. You have demonstrated nothing to support that the truth of the faith can be gleaned accurately through personal interpretation of scripture. We all know that personal interpretation of scripture is not repeatable and that sola scriptura, therefore is a failed doctrine.

 

[Philthy]

1. You seem to be confusing the arbitration with the rule/canon for such.

Not at all, though it is pointless to attempt to separate the two. The bigger point is that there is no rule book in the NT analogous to the Rule of Law that the Supreme Court uses. It is you who continues to be confused on this simple point. The NT is vague while God has clearly demonstrated His ability to write a rule book (Deut, Lev) IF HE HAD WANTED TO. It is clear that He did not write the NT to serve as a rule book. That is the simple, clear as a bell point that you continue to miss.

1. Actually, it is subject to the Rule of Law. I agree with you that the liberal, activist judges of late have often behaved as if they believe they are unaccountable.

The Supreme Court is subject to the Rule of Law as it has been interpreted by past Supreme Courts - just like the CC. When the CC applies the same standard you call it being “accountable to self”.

1. You seem to be missing the point. A defendant

No, you have apparently missed the point - for the second or third time - that** there is no defendant in our analogy**. There is the rule of law (Constitution and Scripture) and the arbiter (Supreme Court and Magisterium). If you continue to regurgitate this same nonsense over and over without appearing to have taken the courtesy of reading my posts I will probably opt out of further “discussion”.

Exactly as I said. It holds all OTHERS as accountable.

The Church is the means (it is not a “self”) by which EVERYONE is held accountable - those visibly united to her (for ex, some of the ECFs) and those not visibly united. Everyone is held accountable. Now why dont you quit pontificating and reveal what church you believe is functioning properly according to your understanding of sola scriptura and accountability. And if you prefer not to, simply say so …

Blessings!

 

[Tomster]

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics or arbitration, and I understand it is a rule violation to hijack a thread for other topics.
2. It is my position that teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine, and I do not accept that it most sound praxis for such is for oneself to exempt oneself from accountability and thus norming, replacing and substituting that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says be accepted as correct “with docility” “as God speaking.”
3. While it is not permissible to discuss at length, let it also be noted that I’m opposed to self designating self as the sole interpreter (CCC 85) or of self designating self as the sole arbiter for the issue of correctness, as The Catholic Church does.

Get together a group where each designates self as the sole authority, sole arbiter, sole interpreter; where each insists that self alone is infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable - exempt from norming; where each insists that whatever self alone says is rather to simply be accepted “with docility” (RCC, LDS, cults) and I think you will find the range of teachings to be remarkable! And every single one of them will be infallibly correct according to each one of them.

There’s only two denominations known to me that claim to be the church: The RCC and LDS. Both use that as the excuse for why every OTHER teacher is accountable but there’s one (and exclusively, solely, only one) that is not. Wanna guess which one each claims?

.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, you have absolutely no concept of the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit who infallibly leads the Catholic Church in all truth.

 

[Tomster]

Josiah,
You know it doesn’t really matter how you perceive the Catholic Church. This thread is about sola Scriptura. You seem to have forgotten that. You have demonstrated nothing to support that the truth of the faith can be gleaned accurately through personal interpretation of scripture. We all know that personal interpretation of scripture is not repeatable and that sola scriptura, therefore is a failed doctrine.

It most certainly is a failed doctrine. And it seems that our esteemed adversary certainly has forgotten that this is what this thread is about.

He has failed miserably trying to demonstrate how an inanimate object, a book, can interpret itself. An infallible book needs an infallible interpreter. And I would like to hear from him if he considers his interpretation of Scriptures infallible.

It certainly seems that our esteemed adversary is trying to prove that the book can intepret itself but that we all need to accept his “norming” process to do it. A nifty piece of bogus Protestant oral tradition. For if the book can interpret itself, what need have we of A.J.'s “norming” process?

 

[Tomster]

Not at all, though it is pointless to attempt to separate the two. The bigger point is that there is no rule book in the NT analogous to the Rule of Law that the Supreme Court uses. It is you who continues to be confused on this simple point. The NT is vague while God has clearly demonstrated His ability to write a rule book (Deut, Lev) IF HE HAD WANTED TO. It is clear that He did not write the NT to serve as a rule book. That is the simple, clear as a bell point that you continue to miss.

The Supreme Court is subject to the Rule of Law as it has been interpreted by past Supreme Courts - just like the CC. When the CC applies the same standard you call it being “accountable to self”.
No, you have apparently missed the point - for the second or third time - that** there is no defendant in our analogy**. There is the rule of law (Constitution and Scripture) and the arbiter (Supreme Court and Magisterium). If you continue to regurgitate this same nonsense over and over without appearing to have taken the courtesy of reading my posts I will probably opt out of further “discussion”.

The Church is the means (it is not a “self”) by which EVERYONE is held accountable - those visibly united to her (for ex, some of the ECFs) and those not visibly united. Everyone is held accountable. Now why dont you quit pontificating and reveal what church you believe is functioning properly according to your understanding of sola scriptura and accountability. And if you prefer not to, simply say so …

Blessings!

I ran across a doctrinal paper of a highly respected theologian in my archives today on this very topic. It was written over fifty years ago. I would like to reprint here, but it is very long. I will be giving bits and pieces of it on this thread if it survives.

I will give the name of theologian at the end of this presentation when I decide it is necessary to give his name.

 

[kepha1]

1. How does this verse support that The Catholic Church is infallible/unaccountable, that IT exclusively is exempt from norming?

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with my question. My question is what you think the church should be, your definition of “Church” as it is refered to in the verse.

1. You seem to have the situation reversed. It is MY position that this comment is exactly as you quoted it. It is the Catholic Church position that the verse says, “The Catholic Church is the infallible/unaccountable teacher of truth - exempt from norming.” But you are correct in noting what it actually says.

Again, that is not what I asked you. I asked you the position of your church, your definition, your understanding of what the Church is in the context of the verses provided. Not the Catholic Church. Your profile says you are Lutheran. I am asking you to provide evidence that the Lutheran Church is the “house of God” in the scriptural context that “house of God” is used in the New Testament.

1. I believe that Christians are people rather than a geopolitical/legal, organizational/structural, intracongregational, institutional, denominational entity. So since Christians are people, the gathering/assembly/family/oikos of Christians is people. As far as I know, no institutional IT is capable of having faith or of being a Christian (at least I see no indication of such), faith happens in the heart and souls of PEOPLE. So, can PEOPLE uphold the truth? Yes. In fact, I think we are called to do that. Which should suggest to you that truth matters - which means accountability matters.

Well, I can’t disagree with that. But last I checked, people make up institutions and organizations. “Which should suggest to you that truth matters - which means accountability matters.” Can human beings churn up “truth” in the absence of the Holy Spirit? I’m sure you would agree that PEOPLE on their own would not get the truth right 100% of the time. But if PEOPLE are SUPERINTENDED by the Holy Spirit, then “the pillar and ground of truth” makes sense. If we are saying the same thing then I don’t see why you would vehemenently disagree with me.

1. How many of those 87 references were to The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively to that singular, particular denominational, institutional entity?

I didn’t say any of them were referenced to the Catholic Church. I said all of the Old Testament and Gospel references containing the phrase “house of God” refer to physical buildings. I have no idea why you are so frantically resisting agreement. All I am asking you is to provide evidence that the Lutheran Church is THE “house of God”, specifically, “the house of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”

How often was the teaching that such is infallible, incapable of error and exempt from accountability?

Was St. Paul refering to a fallible, potentially erroneous pillar and ground of truth? Can’t you see the absurdity of such a position?

Again, my question has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but what your opinion of the definition of church as it applies to “the house of God” as it is found in three verses in the Epistles.

1. If this reference is to a physical building, then A) Where is this building with the fine Greek pillars? B) How is a BUILDING unaccountable for the teachings of itself exclusively? Are you aware that in the ancient world, buildings were constructed and normed according to a “canon?”
2. What is clear is that there is NOTHING here about The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively being infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming.

Again, my question has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but what your opinion of the definition of church as it applies to “the house of God” as it is found in three verses in the Epistles.

1. It would seem that the oikos of God (the family of God) does refer to PEOPLE. These verses seem strange if the “house of God” refers to some specific building you have yet to identify or to a denomination.

Well, I can’t disagree with that. But last I checked, people make up institutions and organizations.

Continues in the next post…