Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes, the apostles warned about false teachers, like Martin Luther, who created their own doctrines out of thin air instead of sticking to the teachings of the Apostles.

So, you believe God was right to warn all of false teachers (never exempting The Catholic Church) and Jesus was right to praise the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids, praising them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them false? You regard Luther as accountable - perhaps every other man, woman, child; every organization, denomination, body and denomination. Just one exception. Just one: The Catholic Church?

Did you know that every known word - indeed syllable - ever uttered or written by the Apostles is contained in The New Testament? So, where would we go to determine if Martin Luther (whom you hold as accountable) taught in conformity with the Apostles?

If Martin Luther had the need and ego to exempt himself exclusively from accountability and norming, insisting that he alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from norming and all such should be laid aside in the singular and exclusive case of himself alone, and instead, whatever he alone says is just to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” would you defend that as the infallible rubric for determining if Luther is correct? I have a hunch not, which is why I suspect you don’t agree with the position you are working SO hard to defend as most sound (indeed, infallible).

It all comes down to this: Is The Catholic Church (no less than others) accountable for what it teaches as doctrine - not JUST to God on judgment day but agreeing with The Catholic Church also right here, right now? IF so, then you have left The Catholic Church and have embraced norming. The first question thus becomes: WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for such? The Catholic Church has no alternative (better or worse) than Scripture, indeed, it knows of nothing more inspired, more inerrant, more the inscripturated words of God, more above and beyond and above all parties, more knowable by all and alterable by none, more embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose - it has no alternative. You have suggested the rule of self, so that if self agrees with self than self is correct - but The Catholic Church rejects this rubric (and I agree) since self agreeing with self has no relevance at all to self being correct. You have suggested that if self exempts self from examinating, that THAT is the best rule/canon for the evaluation of whether that self is correct, but since you disagree with the cults and they all use that, I think you actually disagree with your own view there. Any other suggestions?

Again, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has an alternative rule (it doesn’t) but because it singularly rejects accountability exclusively, solely, only for itself alone. Because it rejects accountability for itself exclusively, it therefore rejects the norming of its teachings and all associated with that (including WHATEVER might serve as the norma normans); it simply sets the issue aside, circumventing it in the singular case of itself alone, and substitutes the insistence of itself alone that all must rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” I find that rubric entirely moot to the issue of the correctness of The Catholic Church and simply a circumvention of the issue, substituting power for truth. IMHO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, create a wall of self claims of infallibility, and simply replace the issue with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” See the Catholic Catechism # 87. Read, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Sola Scriptura:**

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).** “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it”** (Ditto, 9).

"The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the role of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the corpus of Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

.

**
Sola Scriptura:**

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).** “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it”** (Ditto, 9).

"The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the role of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the corpus of Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Are you going to publish this every 8 posts? The issue here isn’t your definition of sola Scriptura. The issue is whether it is a valid as a doctrine or a praxis. The Lutherans had to make such a statement because they separated themselves from the valid norm, othodox Catholic Teaching, and had nothing else to link to but scripture. Yet, there is nothing in scripture that says it contains all truth. It does say that its useful for teaching, which indeed it is. But no where in scripture do you find the statements that you have listed above. If Scripture was really to be taken as the norm, you would think scripture would say so. In fact since the Canon was not decided until 382AD, that would have been impossible for the first 10-15 generations of Christians. And besides, the scripture canon was defined to support Catholic teaching. If you read into it anything other than that, you are interpreting it incorrectly. Therefore, Catholic Teaching is the norm that must be applied.

 

[Philthy]

I know that IS the position of The Catholic Church.

No it isnt. It is my position based on the analogy that we have been discussing - one which has no defendant.

Now, justify the soundness of self insisting that self be exempt from accountability, and rather whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking.

Jesus identified himself with the Church. “Why are you persecuting me?”
As I have already pointed out, the Catholic church is not a self. Your point - despite your repeating it 5 times - does not quite conform to this reality.

Read your Catechism # 87.The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

OK, I’ve read it. I find nothing problematic.

IF you agree with God who repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray (and never exempted The Catholic Church from such),

I agree with God and I don’t agree with you. The question of whether the Catholic Church is exempted is not as clear as you would like. Ultimately its irrelevant because you arent actually listening and we arent actually having a discussion. You keep regurgitating the exact same information over and over as if I didnt read and respond to it the first 4 times. In addition you have failed to put forth a working model of a Church that has an accountability in the fashion you describe. I assume you are too embarassed to put forth the Lutheran Church as the model of the functioning NT Church - I would be too.

 

[Apologist78]

Are you going to publish this every 8 posts?

Yes, he will. This is vintage Josiah. This is what he did over at CARM too.

But— he is pretty intelligent and well thought out.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The definition of sola Scriptura.

The issue here is this: “What is Sola Scriptura?”

Yes, it IS related to the issue of accountability. Without accountability, there is no need for norming and thus no need for a norm - which is the point of The Catholic Church. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability and thus norming (and all associated with it - including whatever may or may not serve as the rule/canon in such) itself alone insisting for itself alone that itself alone is exempt from accountability for its doctrines and rather whatever it says here is simply to be accepted with docility, as God speaking.

The issue is whether it is a valid as a praxis.

So, is it your position that the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable - no less than any other doctrines of any other teacher?

IF so (and I don’t think you can be Catholic if you do so stand), then I’ll yet even yet again: what is your alternative? What, rather than Scripture, is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE above and beyond all parties, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE embraced by all as reliable to this purpose? The Catholic Church has no alternative, but I keep wondering (and asking) if you do…

Now, before you suggest anything (and you need to be careful here as a Catholic, always keeping the words of CCC # 87 ringing in your ears), The Catholic Church itself rejects the rule of the views of self, since self agreeing with self has ZERO relevance to self being correct. And while The Catholic Church permits Scripture as PART of a rule for the norming of all and every OTHER (but itself), this is NOT Scripture on any page or in writing that all can see, it’s found only in the “heart” of itself alone, as interpeted by itself exclusively (CCC 85, 113, etc.).

Yet, there is nothing in scripture that says it contains all truth.

There’s nothing in Sola Scriptura that says that either. I suggest that you read the post you quoted from me.

If Scripture was really to be taken as the norm, you would think scripture would say so.

1. Actually, very few praxis are TAUGHT in Scripture. Such does not suggest the praxis is unsound. What we sometimes DO see is a praxis exampled. This, of course, is all over Scripture. From the appearance of the very first Scripture, for as Moses came down the Mountain with the very first Scripture, that Scripture was the rule/canon for morality. Jesus used the Rule of Scripture some 50 times. James used it as the very first ecumenical council - the Council of Jerusalem.
2. See, while I agree your point is pretty moot, as a Catholic, it was the opposite that bothered me… IF all these extremely remarkable, self-serving, accountability-evading things were true about The Catholic Church, wouldn’t you think Jesus would have AT LEAST mentioned it? I mean, even just totally in passing?

In fact since the Canon was not decided until 382AD

No. The list or corpus of books embraced as canonical was not formally embraced by your denomination until 382 (actually, technically, not until the Council of Trent in the 16th century). But it’s absurd to argue that no one regarded The Ten Commandments as normative for morality until 382 AD - you seem to be confusing normative function with an embraced list of books (admittedly, two different meanings of the same word) and you seem to be confusing how almost all denominations have formally embraced that list of books with the formation of that list - apples and oranges.

We come back to the question of accountability. Do you disagree with The Catholic Church and hold that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? IF so (and again, be careful before you say you agree with that!!!), then you embrace norming - for ALL teachers, including The Catholic Church (no less than any and all others). IF you agree, then we can talk about WHAT should serve as the rule/canon for that norming.

.

 

[Philthy]

Did you know that every known word - indeed syllable - ever uttered or written by the Apostles is contained in The New Testament?
This is just plain foolish - no, Im afraid that doesnt quite cover it - this is moronic. For beginners, MOST of the Apostles didnt even contribute to the NT. Did you forget that little fact? In addition, there is nowhere that it is claimed that everything they said was recorded. And lastly Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians before 1Cor, and we dont have it! 1 Cor 5:9 "

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate …" that letter, and all of syllables it contained, never made it into Scripture.

Blessings!

 

[paul_c]

Yes, he will. This is vintage Josiah. This is what he did over at CARM too.

But— he is pretty intelligent and well thought out.

Well, however intelligent and well thought out you might think he is, he has not proven his case over the last two months or so on this thread. His central tenet, that Sola scriptura is the norma normans has failed the very first test of a norma norman, in that it is not reproducible in practice, as proven by the wide variability in the interpretation of the very same scripture by the thousands of Protestant denomination that follow sola scriptura. Having failed that, Josiah has spent the last several weeks disparaging the Catholic church, comparing it to a cult, denying its history and claiming that it operates in Darkness. And to that, he continues to repeat unsubstantiated claims even after they have been disproved. For example, he falsely claims that the Catholic Church denies sola scriptura because it doesn’t want to be held accountable, refusing to even acknowledge the truth that he has been given about the Church’s intentions. In everything, he sees the worst in the Catholic Church.

As far as I can tell, He is not here to learn or to grow spiritually- only to win an argument. Its like a debate competition for him, and his technique for winning seems to be being the last man standing. This thread is way past being productive.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Philthy:
This is just plain foolish - no, Im afraid that doesnt quite cover it - this is moronic. For beginners, MOST of the Apostles didnt even contribute to the NT. Did you forget that little fact? In addition, there is nowhere that it is claimed that everything they said was recorded. And lastly Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians before 1Cor, and we dont have it! 1 Cor 5:9 “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate …” that letter, and all of syllables it contained, never made it into Scripture.

Blessings!

Thus I’m puzzled why you are evidently of the position that we can KNOW - and use as normative - all words of all 14 Apostles that proceeded from their mouths.

What I stated (and you labeled “moronic”) is that the only words of the Apostles that we KNOW about are recorded in the New Testament. Since this is “moronic”, perhaps you insist that every word that ever proceeded from the mouths of all 14 is found somewhere else, do you have a link to this record of their words, where each word they uttered is recorded?

The point, of course, was that Luther should be normed according to “THE RULE OF THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES.” ( Rather close to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t you say?). If you have a record of other words uttered by them that should be used for that purpose, where are those words literally recorded? I HOPE you won’t say, “In the revelation given to Joseph Smith” or something like that, I’m looking for the verbatim record.

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah.
For about the 15th time, the church does not deny that it is accountable to the teachings of Christ. In fact, that is its whole mission, to pass on the teachings of Christ and to administer the sacraments. Why do you continually tell us Catholics what the Catholic church teaches? Try focusing more on what you believe and let us tell you what we believe. That only makes sense.

The Church says the faithful will follow the teachings of the church with docility. And we do. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t allowed to ask why they are the truth or where they came from. In fact, the Church is happy to oblige because it values reasons and does not demand blind faith. But those that are being saved will follow the beatitudes (blessed are the meek) as well as the ten commandments.

The issue the Catholic Church has is not that it doesn’t recognize the validity of scripture. It wrote them as a teaching tool, afterall and most Catholic Apologetics is done from Scripture because it is usually sufficient to prove the point to Protestants. The Catholic Chruch does points out that not EVERYTHING is in scripture and that unless you interpret scripture with the catholic viewpoint in which it was written, you will be in error.

And the Canon was DEFINITELY defined in 382AD and only confirmed at Trent. But because Catholic doctrine does not rely on Scripture, it was teaching the same truth prior to that date (using many of the same writings by the way).

Josiah,
as I said a couple of posts back, You really need to think about what your motivations are here. Coming on to a Catholic website to disparage the Catholic Church will ultimately get you banned. The purpose of this site is to give Catholic Answers to questions of faith and morals. We are here to help people understand what we teach. You do not seem interested in that. So what are you doing here?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

His central tenet, that Sola scriptura is the norma normans has failed the very first test of a norma norman, in that it is not reproducible in practice, as proven by the wide variability in the interpretation of the very same scripture by the thousands of Protestant denomination that follow sola scriptura.

1. My “central tenet” is that teachers are accountable for what they present as doctrine, and THAT is what we disagree on. IF accountability is accepted (and you don’t), then the next question is: WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of that teaching? I have asked you for months if you have an alternative rule, but the only one you presented is rejected by The Catholic Church - at least for itself, and by you since you don’t agree that if self agrees with self then self is correct.
2. Yes, I think that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of doctrines. I gave my reasons for that, particularing in the “Defending Sola Scriptura” thread. Ironically, I got very little rebuttal.
3. No one ever said that all arbitration was or is infallible, but I disagree with that therefore the defendant must be infallible. In the Rule of Law, lawyers may not interpret the law indentically. Courts may not rule identically. And yet I don’t hear you screaming that the Rule of Law is moot and to be rejected, and instead - the best rubric is for the defendant to exempt himself from accountability, circumvent the rule, and instead simply insist that whatever he alone says/does is to be accepted as correct “with docility.” You have yet to explain why such is preferable to the Rule of Law (indeed, more sound than any rule/canon).
4. See, I look at those that take your position: that self is infallible, incapable of wrong, unaccountable - right cuz he is, and thus to just be accepted with docility as God speaking. All those I studied back when I was quite into what makes cults “tick” and what "holds’ people to them - I look at those (they all insist on the same thing you do), and to ME - they reveal your position not only moot to the issue of correctness, but it can be a very, very dangerous rubric. To me, any purposeful circumvention of accountability by self alone for self alone sends up a “red flag.” To me, the true teacher welcomes the light and walks in the light - eager for the truth to be revealed in the light. It’s the false teacher who knows he must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination and accountability and norming, try to circumvent all that and instead, insist that he is incapable of error and whatever he alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as God speaking. See, I’m of the view that self exempting self from accountability is a poor indicator that that one is correct.

You have not revealed a better norma normans for the evaluation of the teachings of The Catholic Church. AT BEST, you have suggested that if it alone agrees with itself alone - then it MUST be correct (failing to realize that every teacher agrees with himself).

Having failed that

You’ve tried to argue that Jesus promised The Catholic Church all sorts of remarkable things - failing to quote a single passage or verse where ANY of this was promised to ANYTHING or ANYONE - much less the specific, particular and sole Catholic Church.

I’ve been accused of being a moron, anti-Catholic, and all sorts of absurd things - all it seems in lieu of any substantiation for why it is the most sound rubric for the evaluation of correctness for a teacher to exempt himself exclusively from accountability/norming and instead insist that whatever self alone rather just be accepted with docility, as God speaking. In lieu of sharing what better rule/canon for this evaluation you would have us use as we hold The Catholic Church accountable for its doctrines, as it insists on holding all OTHERS accountable for such.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You really need to think about what your motivations are here.

Simple. The thread is to explain what Sola Scriptura is. Catholics like to say that Luther invented this (absurd, but this IS a Catholic website so it’s the perspective here), so I presented the historic, Protestant (and Lutheran) view.

Predictably, all the Catholics jumped on it - as they must with ANY rule/canon for norming, at least vis-a-vis the teachings of The Catholic Church. I WELL understand that, and as you know, do not seek to change that. It is what “faithful” Catholics do. It’s what they are required to do. You must accept whatever your denomination alone says (in these matters) with docility, as God speaking - and you do. I’ve actually affirmed you on that count, regarding you as a faithful and good Catholic.

Predictably, Catholics here have insisted that the Rule is not acceptable to The Catholic Church. We all knew that. I asked for the alternative (knowing - from over 10 years of asking this question, including of priests - that the Catholic Church has none). What I got - predictably - was post after post after post about how The Catholic Church is infallible - and thus unaccountable. Yup. That IS the reason given for rejecting the Rule of Scripture in this thread and all other threads on this topic by Catholics.

Coming on to a Catholic website to disparage the Catholic Church

1. I thought this was about apologetics? Isn’t the forum called “Catholic APOLOGETICS?”
2. Once again, here is my position on The Catholic Church. Read it carefully and fully this time. I’ll put it in bold, red font to help you. When you are done carefully reading it, I’ll have some remarks on the other side: I regard The Catholic Church as a valid and highly esteemed church body. I regard all the believers in it as my full, unseparated and equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments as all valid. I overwhelmingly agree with the vast majority of what it officially teaches (my priest said far more than most Catholics do - and I suspect he is right), and I regard nothing it officially teaches to be heresy in the sense of being contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition. I pray daily and earnestly for God’s richest blessings to her ministers, ministries and Holy Father." Now, that you must regard me as “anti-Catholic” in lieu of responding to my posts, I can understand. But I ask: Will you here state MORE positive things about the denomination that my congregation belongs to, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? IF SO, then I am more “disparaging” toward The CC than you are toward the LCMS. IF NOT, then you are more “dispagaring” toward the LCMS than I am toward the CC - and maybe you should be careful about playing that “anti” card instead of responding to the points I raise?

I did not bring up the issue of norming or accountability - the opening poster (a Catholic) did. I gave the definition of the praxis - verbatim right from the Lutheran Confessions and from the official website of my denomination. Yes, it does embrace that we are accountable - and yes that DOES cause the reaction from Catholics that we see in this thread and all others on this topic. Always does. But don’t blame me, it’s YOUR denomination claiming all this for itself alone, not mine.

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
The Catholic church was given more truth than what was included in scripture. It was charged with holding and teaching all those truths. To limit itself to a subset of those teachings (as scripture is ) would be a failure to carry out its mission. The test for orthodoxy is always against the full range of Catholic Tradition, not just what is found in scripture. Everything the Catholic Church does is consistent with scripture but it also does things that are not found in scripture but also do not contradict scirpture. To say that these are wrong is incorrect. And by the way, this is much more than a teacher agreeing with himself. This is a 1Billion+ member church agreeing with what it taught 2000 years ago.

You are coming at this as a non-Catholic who can not accept the Catholic Church’s historical role. You won’t even acknowledge that the Catholic church was the church of the Apostles because it upsets your predefined notions.

Why do you always think the Catholic Church has nefarious motives?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic church was given more truth than what was included in scripture.

The LDS claims EXACTLY the same thing. Is it correct because it so claims? Do you hold it accountable for that claim? Do you seek substantiation for it, or is the LDS infallible, incapable of error and thus exempt from the norming of the issue?

What does this have to do with it alone being infallible, incapable of error, and whatever it alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as God speaking?

It was charged with holding and teaching all those truths.

Where? By whom?

Did you know that the LDS claims EXACTLY - verbatim - the very same thing? Do you know what all Catholics immediately ask? “Where?” “By whom?”

What does that have to do with it alone being infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, and whatever it alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking?

No Protestant denomination claims this for itself. You would say because it cannot, I would say because it need not and simply doesn’t have the ego to do so. But either way, just as you would insist with the LDS, so I insist with you. It’s a goose/gander thing. I find it difficult to accept that a rubric is infallible when the very one so insisting calls it absurd.

Everything the Catholic Church does is consistent with scripture but it also does things that are not found in scripture but also do not contradict scirpture.

Then which is it? Do you hold The Catholic Church accounhtable NO LESS THAN ALL OTHERS? AND your embraced rule/canon is Scripture? Or not?

For The Catholic Church to insist for itself alone that in the view of itself alone, all it teaches is “consistent” with Scripture is simply to indicate that The Catholic Church thinks The Catholic Church is correct. I find that remarkably unremarkable. And of course, this is all based on the Scripture “in the heart of The Catholic Church” (CCC 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 85). Self agrees with self. BTW, do you know that the LDS also insists that all it teaches is consistent with the Bible? It does. But like the RCC, it rejects Scripture as the canon for such.

To say that nothing it teaches is CONTRARY to such and thus is correct is the more troubling point (a poitn also made by the LDS). One could say that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and a hankering for fish tacos. Is any of that CONTRARY to Scripture? Is all that thus DOGMA? I hope you will some day see my point on this… It’s an amazingly flawed rubric - and I think if you were familiar with various teachings outside your denomination, you would “see” how moot and flawed it is.

And by the way, this is much more than a teacher agreeing with himself. This is a 1Billion+ member church agreeing

OFFICIALLY, yes. Read your Catechism # 87. They have no choice.

IN REALITY, we both know that very few of those 1 billion even know all those 2,875 points of the Catechism - and that’s jsut the tip of the iceburg! I very, very, very carefully studied those 2,875 points for 5 years with 3 Catholic teachers, reading every word many times, looking uyp and reading every single Scriptural reference in those 800+ pages. But even I could not begin to know what the CC teaches on everything. And I found that MANY Catholics not only didn’t agree with Transubstantiation but didn’t even know what it is! Friend, I was Catholic. Let’s not go down the road of insisting that every Catholic agrees with everything The Catholic Church teaches - we both know that’s wrong. And moot.

Why do you always think the Catholic Church has nefarious motives?

Do you think Lutherans have nefarious motives? And yet you regard us as accountable. Do you think the LDS has nefarious motives? Is THAT why you regard it as accountable?
SOMEHOW, in SOME way, the Catholic Church MUST find some way so that every single man, woman, child, group, institution, body, assembly, congregation, denomination is accountable - right here, right now - except one. Itself. Because that is it’s position.

Friend, I will GLADLY afford you exactly the same respect for the docility you give to The Catholic Church as you give to the Mormon who does the same to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For me, it’s not about acts of faith. But the issue here is ACCOUNTABILITY, for that is the basis of norming and of whatever is embraced as the rule/canon for norming. I will HERE speak not of acts of faith (for you, me, a Mormon, a Davidian or any other), I will speak of accountability and norming - since that’s the topic.

I recommend you stop playing the “anti” card, the “why’s everybody alway pic’n on pur me” thing. It doesn’t advance anything and just makes it seem like you have nothing else in your hand. I’ve often given my view of The Catholic Church, you know what it is. It’s a whole lot more affirming than any Catholic here has been willing to return, so if any “anti” card is going to be justified, it’s not against me. Let’s talk about the issue, which is accountability for doctrine. And if embraced, the most sound rule/canon for the norming of that. Let’s leave the name-calling to other sites; I trust that’s agreeable.

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
one big difference between the Catholic Church and the LDS is that Catholic Church doctrines do not change, which those in the LDS do, frequently.

Despite your claims, you do not know the Catholic church very well if you think it is afraid of accountability. You have a bizarre way of reading CCC #87. Just another example of the dangers of personal intepretation.

I agree that many people call themselves Catholic who really are not. That is irrelavent to the discussion of sola scriptura.

I actually don’t think Lutheran’s have nefarious motives. I think Luther himself got caught up in his ego and led many people astray but I believe there are devout people in every religion and I try to give them all the benefit of the doubt in trying to do the right thing. here on CAF, I try to help people understand what the Catholic church teaches is the right way to heaven.

 

[kepha1]

Bottom line: The house of God, the pillar and ground of truth" has to refer to somebody. I am not arguing that it is the Catholic Church, I am trying to get you to tell me Who you think the “house of God” is.

Christians.

Christians are the pillar and ground of truth. Getting you to see that we are in agreement is like pulling the tusk out of an elephant.

If these verses are not indicating that The Catholic Church exclusively is exempt from any rule/canon because it is exempt from norming and accountability - then they are moot to the discussion here.

But discrediting the authority of the Magisterium has been your primary argument for sola scriptura. After all, if “Christians” are fallible, then so is the Magisterium. That is your untenable position.

  Being the “pillar and ground of truth” is an awesome responsibility for Christians. If Christians are fallible how can anyone be sure about “truth”?  A show of hands? Notice it does not say, “…pillar and ground of the Bible…”  I’m really having a problem understanding how a mystical body of true believers with no central authority could have survived such a perpetual onslaught of heresies. 

  Arius was a bishop as you pointed out, and was accountable for his teachings once they were proven to be false. But SOMEBODY had to prove why they were false. You either accept Arianism or you accept the authority of the Church to rule him as a heretic. Arius used private interpretation of scripture to support his heresy, and it was refuted by Anasthasius who used the Church’s understanding of the scriptures. This could never have been accomplished without  a hierarchical Church, who were Christians. SOMEBODY had to infallibly define the doctrine of the Trinity which was under attack, and the Bible alone does not explicitly define the relationship between the Three Divine Persons. That SOMEBODY, who were Christians, had to have the gift, the charism from God, to teach without error. They used Scriptures with authority, but they did not use scriptures alone.

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.”

… anything to try to divert the discussion of accountability/norming and the most sound rule/canon for such?

I NEVER remotely suggested that ANY Lutheran congregation or denomination is “the household of God.” Nor do I see any relevance of that to the issue of this thread.

You kept evading my question so I had to guess your definitions. The relevance is in your answer above. If Christians are the “pillar and ground of truth” does that mean an invisible mystical body of true believers with no hierarchy tells us truth from error? It appears you have to dichotomize “the house of the Living God” apart from this mystical body since “true believing” Christians have no central leadership or divinely given authority.

I am not diverting the discussion of accountability/norming and the most sound rule/canon, that is your offensive defense for sola scriptura. “accountability/norming and the most sound rule/canon” to define the Church, or the Magisterium or Infallibility is a misrepresentation and a false premises.

Three questions for you:

1. Do you accept teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?

The Church is a teaching Church, not a learning church. She gets her teaching from the Apostles, who get their teaching from Christ, who gets His teaching from God. You can start your accountability demands with Him.

1. Do you believe the most sound way to determine the correctness or error of a teacher is for that teacher to exempt himself alone from examination, accountability and norming (according to ANY rule/canon) and rather for that teacher to insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and whatever he alone says is rather to be accepted with docility as Jesus speaking?

Only if the teacher is superintended by the Holy Spirit to teach on faith and morals. Denial of the divine/human character of the Church of the Living God is just a form of Gnosticism.

 

[kepha1]

Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer. I wish you could read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie first, as well. And the insistence of nearly every cult and cult leader known to me - but let’s stick with CCC 87.

No. I won’t read #87 alone. Text without context is a pretext. Let’s try #86, 87, and 88. Catholics don’t read the Catechism, the Councils, the Church Fathers, or any official teaching the way you read the Bible. Nominalism was the dead end philosophy the time sola scriptura was spawned, but no one has discussed this yet. The LDS are blatant liars when it comes to history, so they have no credibility on church matters, but I see you have been impressed by them. Accepting definitions from outsiders and rejecting definitions from the source itself is plain dishonest. Do you think everybody has the right to define the church but not the Church herself?

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

     87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",[ 49](http://www.kofc.org/un/catechism/getnote.action?par=87&fnote=49) the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these."
#85 – 88 do not fit your erroneous perception of Magisterial Authority.

1. Do you believe it most sound for a defendant to insist that he is the sole arbiter for the correctness of himself, that self designate self as the judge/jury for this determination - exempting self alone from the law?

That is not a defendant, that is a dominating dictator, a demonized image. Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium cannot operate apart from one another. If the Magisterium, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, rules that human cloning is immoral, then a bishop or theologian, if he were to decide to have himself cloned, would be violating Church teaching. At the same time, the bishop or theologian or even the Pope could not change the Church’s teaching on cloning. It would be impossible. His erroneous behavior has nothing to do with the Church’s teaching against human cloning. His behavior would be a bad example, he would probably endure excommunication to bring him to his senses, but his behavior is not official teaching.

Or that he designate his own views as the rule/canon for his own self, so that he is correct if he alone agrees with he alone that he is? Are these the most sound rubrics for such in your opinion?

To be frank, it’s absolute gibberish. You are creating a straw man circular argument that is typical Protestant fiction. The Church did not assign herself the charism of infallibility, it came from God. But you want me to believe the Bible didn’t come from the Church, but a pre-existing list assumed to be inspired by an unorganized mystical body of true believers, making the bible the pillar and ground of truth, because an unorganized mystical body of true believers is fallible but not the Bible. That is illogical and self defeating, mildly speaking.

Consider this carefully in light of the Catholic arguments here that The Catholic Church is the sole arbiter for the correctness of The Catholic Church and that the rule/canon for such should be the self-same views of the self-same Catholic Church. Does this rubric have any relevance to that self being correct?

This rubric of yours is but graffiti on the gates of hell, and it has not, nor ever will, prevail.

 

[Cristian_B]

I do not know if my opinion is relevant or not… but I’ll post it:

In my opinion Scripture does not contain *all *truth or revelations from God, but it contains a massive deal of truths. If you read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and a huge part of the New Testament you’ll see that there are a lot of instructions about how to live and they contain the basic truth of how to be saved. I believe that apart from “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, the Scriptures also help us recognize evil spirits and teachings. For example and angel says: “Have me as your God!”, but you know that the Bible says: “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” and “have no other Gods besides Me”. In this case the Bible helped in “classifying” the message (whether it is from God or not). Or a teacher (pr a pastor, priest, etc.) tells you: “In order to be saved you must work hard all your life and then perhaps you’ll be saved”; this would be a false teaching since God says we only need be born again to be saved. The Bible (word of God) is a shield for the believer that protects him from false spirits or teachings, but that does not mean that the shield is the only thing that there is. It does not mean that it contains all truth of the world, but that it has the necessary truth for salvation and helps us determine whether a message is from God or not. I also believe that the Bible (Scripture) is the maximum authority and no book has the same authority as the Bible has. For me, Sola Scriptura means accepting the Bible as final and maximum authority, accepting that there is no set of books with the same authority as the Bible, accepting that all truth necessary for the self’s salvation is in the Bible, and not that it contains all truth or that it is the only message from God. This is my opinion.

 

[Philthy]

I do not know if my opinion is relevant or not… but I’ll post it:

In my opinion Scripture does not contain *all *truth or revelations from God, but it contains a massive deal of truths. If you read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and a huge part of the New Testament you’ll see that there are a lot of instructions about how to live and they contain the basic truth of how to be saved. I believe that apart from “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, the Scriptures also help us recognize evil spirits and teachings. For example and angel says: “Have me as your God!”, but you know that the Bible says: “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” and “have no other Gods besides Me”. In this case the Bible helped in “classifying” the message (whether it is from God or not). Or a teacher (pr a pastor, priest, etc.) tells you: “In order to be saved you must work hard all your life and then perhaps you’ll be saved”; this would be a false teaching since God says we only need be born again to be saved. The Bible (word of God) is a shield for the believer that protects him from false spirits or teachings, but that does not mean that the shield is the only thing that there is. It does not mean that it contains all truth of the world, but that it has the necessary truth for salvation and helps us determine whether a message is from God or not. I also believe that the Bible (Scripture) is the maximum authority and no book has the same authority as the Bible has. For me, Sola Scriptura means accepting the Bible as final and maximum authority, accepting that there is no set of books with the same authority as the Bible, accepting that all truth necessary for the self’s salvation is in the Bible, and not that it contains all truth or that it is the only message from God. This is my opinion.

Hi Cristian!

I agree with much of what you say, but there are some fundamental errors in considering Scripture an authority. The first fundamental error is that authority is something that only a person can have: it requires a will to exercise it. Sacred Scripture does not and cannot have this capacity. To accept the Bible as “final maximum authority” is simply unworkable. This is because what is recorded in Scripture(Im mostly referring to the NT here) must be read, comprehended and reflected upon BY SOMEONE. Scripture does not do it for us. Whoever is allowed - ie whoever you or I give this privelege - become the true authority that you intended to relegate to Scripture alone. Have a read through Deuteronomy and Leviticus and ask yourself, “Is this written as a rule book?” If you answer with a “yes” I would not disagree with you. You might be able to argue effectively for the type of Sola Scriptura you describe above in reference to those OT books. Then compare those books with ANYTHING in the NT and ask yourself, “Is this written as a rule book?” I dont think you will find it too difficult to see that the NT is not written like a rule book in the manner God chose to write Deut and Lev. Much of it is vague and able to be interpreted differently. The Protestant communities have, since the very introduction of the Sola Scriptura concept, proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Scripture can be interpreted many, many ways by well-intended, God fearing folks. People have HONEST DISAGREEMENTS over what is meant by what is recorded in Sacred Scripture. Does this mean that Scripture has failed or that these people have not genuinely sought the truth? No, it does not - it means that they have tried to make Scripture something God never intended it to be - a rule book - and by doing so they have created something that Scripture as their “authority” never tells them to do: “make me the pillar and foundation of truth”.

 

[paul_c]

I do not know if my opinion is relevant or not… but I’ll post it:

In my opinion Scripture does not contain *all *truth or revelations from God, but it contains a massive deal of truths. If you read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and a huge part of the New Testament you’ll see that there are a lot of instructions about how to live and they contain the basic truth of how to be saved. I believe that apart from “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, the Scriptures also help us recognize evil spirits and teachings. For example and angel says: “Have me as your God!”, but you know that the Bible says: “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” and “have no other Gods besides Me”. In this case the Bible helped in “classifying” the message (whether it is from God or not). Or a teacher (pr a pastor, priest, etc.) tells you: “In order to be saved you must work hard all your life and then perhaps you’ll be saved”; this would be a false teaching since God says we only need be born again to be saved. The Bible (word of God) is a shield for the believer that protects him from false spirits or teachings, but that does not mean that the shield is the only thing that there is. It does not mean that it contains all truth of the world, but that it has the necessary truth for salvation and helps us determine whether a message is from God or not. I also believe that the Bible (Scripture) is the maximum authority and no book has the same authority as the Bible has. For me, Sola Scriptura means accepting the Bible as final and maximum authority, accepting that there is no set of books with the same authority as the Bible, accepting that all truth necessary for the self’s salvation is in the Bible, and not that it contains all truth or that it is the only message from God. This is my opinion.

Christian, to add to what Philthy says below, you have come up with your own personal interpretation here: In order to be saved you must work hard all your life and then perhaps you’ll be saved"; this would be a false teaching since God says we only need be born again to be saved . That is incorrect and is a great example of the problem with Sola Scriptura. You will find no scriptural reading that says we only need to be born again to be saved. This is wishful thinking on the part of those unwilling to follow Jesus’ example of Love. Being born again, means you will follow Jesus. He showed us how throughout the Gospel, most specifically in the Sermon on the Mount. You do need to work hard all your life, persevering in the faith. But by the same token, you can’t work your way into heaven. Instead, you must be open to God’s will and cooperate with the graces he gives you, doing the work he calls you to do, loving God and neighbor to the best of your ability. And you must do this consistently if you are truly born again.