Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Cristian_B]

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.

Nope. Just by believing in Christ you are saved. All the other “good works” are so you can maintain you “saved” status. For example, I accept Jesus Christ in my life, get baptized and that’s it: I’m saved. But in order to improve and remain saved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you do all those “good deeds” so you prove that you are indeed saved. When you do good works or when you do God’s will you do not get saved, but you show everyone that you are saved and that you listen to God. Of course, if you are saved, that does not mean that you cannot improve. My big point is that when you accept Christ you are saved, and the works show whether you are saved of not. Good deeds are just something we live trough. We have almost no credit for it.

edit: *so yes… what you said at the end is basically true and what I said as well *

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
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.

Crisitian, There may not be much difference between us in practice, but there is a huge chasm between us in understanding. Your words could be taken to mean that Faith without works is sufficient, in direct contrast to James 2 which famously says: Faith without works is dead.

How do you address the question of someone who believes at one time that he has faith in Jesus but later apostacizes or commits heinous crimes? Is this person saved by his belief?

 

[Cristian_B]

Crisitian, There may not be much difference between us in practice, but there is a huge chasm between us in understanding. Your words could be taken to mean that Faith without works is sufficient, in direct contrast to James 2 which famously says: Faith without works is dead.

How do you address the question of someone who believes at one time that he has faith in Jesus but later apostacizes or commits heinous crimes? Is this person saved by his belief?

The good deeds are nothing else but a way to live our faith. They were prepared for us, who believe in Jesus Christ, so we could walk in them. It is written:

[bibledrb]Ephesians 2:10[/bibledrb]

The deeds, or works, can be divided in good or bad. It is either good or bad. Perhaps deciding whether it is moral (good) or immoral (bad) can be difficult, but there is not “between”, or course that it also depends on the situation. The apostle of the Gentiles, the apostle Paul, wrote:

[bibledrb]Romans 6:1-6[/bibledrb]

So, as the apostle said, we are dead towards sin (immoral) and we walk in the newness of life being servants of justice (moral). Since we are dead to sin, we cannot walk in sin (in immorality). As I said, deeds are divided in good or bad. Since you are dead to the bad (i.e., sin), it means you are alive to the good (God). You cannot be neutral. In order to be neutral you’d have to be in a coma (or dead). So, since we are dead to sin, and alive to righteousness, and there is no “between” those two, we can walk in righteousness only. So, since we are born again in righteousness, we cannot live in sin. God knows that this is a sinful world, so He prepared us from the beginning of the world good deeds (or works) so we might live trough them, not saved by them. If you cannot do the wrong, then only the right is left, and since we are newborn in God, we can only (or should only) do good. So, regarding your misunderstanding of my post… faith itself is sufficient to save us, but if we are saved, it means that we are born again. If we are born again, it means we are born in God. If we are born again in God, it means we are dead to sin, therefore we cannot live in sin, but in righteousness. So good works do not save you: they are not a requirement of salvation. They are just something that saved people use to walk in. Saved people walk in good works, but are not saved by them. Faith is what gives us power to accept Christ, be born again and faith (and hope) is what keeps us alive… alive to Christ. What maintains us alive so we can continue our journey. If faith keeps us alive in Christ, then we must give the expected fruit of the Spirit, which we receive when we are born again in Christ. This is why it is said: “Faith without works is dead”. If there aren’t good works, then we aren’t living in Christ. If we aren’t living in God, then we are living in sin. And if we live in sin, we are dead. We must keep doing good deeds so we might keep living. If we stop living, then we die. And, on the other hand, good deeds are what keep the faith alive. Whenever a new born person does something good, the person remembers that there is a God in heaven that rewards us for our good works. When we remember that, we have faith, and faith strengthens the hope, and hope of a reward (and fear of punishment) is what makes us walk in good deeds. And again, good deeds strengthen the faith and so on. So faith saves you… faith is what makes you be born again. But when you are born again, you do good works which strengthen the faith. Of course, by having faith in Christ, it logically means acceptance of Christ, not just mere belief, in my opinion. Every time I say “faith in Christ” I myself understand acceptance of Christ. But I know that my understanding is not universal, so sorry if there have been any misunderstandings. Apart from belief, you must also accept Him. If you accept Him then He works in your life. If He works in your life you’ll get born again, and when you get born again you are saved. So, sorry if there have been any misunderstandings… I sometime forget that people don’t see everything like I see it. About your last question… no, that person is not saved. He must be born again, and the fruit of being born again is good deeds. I don’t believe in “saved and always saved”. If you think you are standing up, be careful so you might not fall! Please tell me if I left a question unanswered.

 

[paul_c]

The good deeds are nothing else but a way to live our faith. They were prepared for us, who believe in Jesus Christ, so we could walk in them. It is written:

[bibledrb]Ephesians 2:10[/bibledrb]

The deeds, or works, can be divided in good or bad. It is either good or bad. Perhaps deciding whether it is moral (good) or immoral (bad) can be difficult, but there is not “between”, or course that it also depends on the situation. The apostle of the Gentiles, the apostle Paul, wrote:

[bibledrb]Romans 6:1-6[/bibledrb]

So, as the apostle said, we are dead towards sin (immoral) and we walk in the newness of life being servants of justice (moral). Since we are dead to sin, we cannot walk in sin (in immorality). As I said, deeds are divided in good or bad. Since you are dead to the bad (i.e., sin), it means you are alive to the good (God). You cannot be neutral. In order to be neutral you’d have to be in a coma (or dead). So, since we are dead to sin, and alive to righteousness, and there is no “between” those two, we can walk in righteousness only. So, since we are born again in righteousness, we cannot live in sin. God knows that this is a sinful world, so He prepared us from the beginning of the world good deeds (or works) so we might live trough them, not saved by them. If you cannot do the wrong, then only the right is left, and since we are newborn in God, we can only (or should only) do good. So, regarding your misunderstanding of my post… faith itself is sufficient to save us, but if we are saved, it means that we are born again. If we are born again, it means we are born in God. If we are born again in God, it means we are dead to sin, therefore we cannot live in sin, but in righteousness. So good works do not save you: they are not a requirement of salvation. They are just something that saved people use to walk in. Saved people walk in good works, but are not saved by them. Faith is what gives us power to accept Christ, be born again and faith (and hope) is what keeps us alive… alive to Christ. What maintains us alive so we can continue our journey. If faith keeps us alive in Christ, then we must give the expected fruit of the Spirit, which we receive when we are born again in Christ. This is why it is said: “Faith without works is dead”. If there aren’t good works, then we aren’t living in Christ. If we aren’t living in God, then we are living in sin. And if we live in sin, we are dead. We must keep doing good deeds so we might keep living. If we stop living, then we die. And, on the other hand, good deeds are what keep the faith alive. Whenever a new born person does something good, the person remembers that there is a God in heaven that rewards us for our good works. When we remember that, we have faith, and faith strengthens the hope, and hope of a reward (and fear of punishment) is what makes us walk in good deeds. And again, good deeds strengthen the faith and so on. So faith saves you… faith is what makes you be born again. But when you are born again, you do good works which strengthen the faith. Of course, by having faith in Christ, it logically means acceptance of Christ, not just mere belief, in my opinion. Every time I say “faith in Christ” I myself understand acceptance of Christ. But I know that my understanding is not universal, so sorry if there have been any misunderstandings. Apart from belief, you must also accept Him. If you accept Him then He works in your life. If He works in your life you’ll get born again, and when you get born again you are saved. So, sorry if there have been any misunderstandings… I sometime forget that people don’t see everything like I see it. About your last question… no, that person is not saved. He must be born again, and the fruit of being born again is good deeds. I don’t believe in “saved and always saved”. If you think you are standing up, be careful so you might not fall! Please tell me if I left a question unanswered.

Cristian,
We would both agree, therefore, that to be saved, you must have both faith and good works. You would say that you do good works because of your faith or to demonstrate your faith , I would say you do good works to complete your faith. But either way, the effect is still the same. You need to have both. Because afterall, you agree that a person that falls from his faith by doing evil is not saved.

 

[Philthy]

Cristian,
We would both agree, therefore, that to be saved, you must have both faith and good works. You would say that you do good works because of your faith or to demonstrate your faith , I would say you do good works to complete your faith. But either way, the effect is still the same. You need to have both. Because afterall, you agree that a person that falls from his faith by doing evil is not saved.

Wanna make this conversation very easy? Dont discuss merely being saved, but differentiate between being saved and actually going to Heaven - they’re different. Being saved is the beginning of our journey to Heaven. This is where the greatest confusion between Protestants and Catholics exists. Scripture is very clear that entrance into Heaven has conditions beyond being saved. This is most clearly articulated in Pauls letters to the Corinthians (1Cor6:9) Ephesians (Eph5:5) and Galatians (Gal5:20) where he warns them (saved Christians) that certain behaviors are incompatible with inheriting the Kingdom of God(Heaven).

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

Just by believing in Christ you are saved.

God saves those who believe - I agree.

All the other “good works” are so you can maintain you “saved” status.

Failure to live by the Spirit can result in falling from a state of Grace - I agree.

For example, I accept Jesus Christ in my life, get baptized and that’s it: I’m saved. But in order to improve and remain saved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you do all those “good deeds” so you prove that you are indeed saved.

Interesting - who do you think you prove salvation to? Yourself?

My big point is that when you accept Christ you are saved, and the works show whether you are saved of not. Good deeds are just something we live trough. We have almost no credit for it.

Again, fair enough. One thing you are forgetting to include though is that although doing good works does not result in saving us, failure to do good can lead to condemnation, loss of salvation and loss of our inheritance of Heaven. Your comment that “good deeds are just something we live through” is confusing - you seem to be minimizing their importance. Dont forget that God created good deeds for us to walk in - and He did so for good reason, we cannot casually ignore them without eternal consequence.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

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.

You are puzzled because you cannot follow the conversation. I never once made any claim regarding knowledge of, or use as normative of, any or all words of all 14 Apostles. As far as I can tell you made it up. Your failure to provide a link to me saying anything remotely to that effect will follow shortly.

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.

No, AJ, that is not what you said. Perhaps that is what you intended to say, but here is what you actually said:
AJ:

Did you know that every known word - indeed syllable - ever uttered or written by the Apostles is contained in The New Testament?

Perhaps you meant to say “DO you know…”, rather than “Did you know…” but you didnt. I only went by what you actually said rather than what you intend to say.

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?).

No I wouldnt say that at all. There is no such thing as the Rule of the Words of the Apostles - that would be the first problem, and then there is the little issue of those words of the Apostles that didnt get recorded, but were spoken.

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.

Apart from the Church we have no words from the Apostles, written or otherwise. The words we do have by Apostles are not rules at all. That would be the 6 th time I have pointed that out to you. Deuteronomy? Rule book. Leviticus? Rule book. New Testament? Not a rule book. I know its a deep concept - take your time with it.

Blessings!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Philthy:

Josiah:

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.

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.

.

No, AJ, that is not what you said.

The point was made that everything Luther said should be normed by the words of the Apostles. I asked WHERE we would find those words, and asked if there was an awareness of every word they ever spoke that we know about is found in the New Testament. Of course, I did not say that every word they uttered is found there, but rather ever word WE KNOW ABOUT is found there. You evaded the point. What you were actually suggesting is what you are trying so very, very hard to condemn: Holding a teacher accountable and using Scripture as the rule for the norming of that.

.

.

 

[Tomster]

Part of it (the Sola Scriptura part) is about the embraced rule/canon for the norming of doctrines. Those that embrace norming also embrace accountability. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (RCC, LDS and all the cults) do so not because they have an alternative rule/canon for such but because they reject accountability (but only for self exclusively) and thus norming and everything associated with it (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon or the evaluation of their doctrines).

No

I have rejected the idea that a rule/canon (ANY rule/canon) can or does interpret itself. You seem to be unaware of the topic of this thread, eager to hijack the thread (a rule violation, I believe), preferring to circumvent and bypass the issue of the rule/canon in norming and instead try to divert the dicussion to hermeneutics.

The rules here require we stay on topic, thus we cannot discuss hermeneutics here.

A rule/canon in norming need not be infallible and need not have an infallible interpreter. When you drive your car, MUST you regard the rules of the road to be INFALLIBLE, MUST you regard you and all other drivers and all law enforcement persons to be INFALLIBLE interpreters of such? You seem to desire to do anything - even outside the rules - to evade the topic we are here discussing, with hijacks and diversions and moot points.

The true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and norming, reject any rule/canon, and insist that all examination of his teachings (exclusive) be simply laid aside, replacing that issue with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says rather simply be accepted with docility, as God speaking. Read your Catechism # 87. Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, study the cults.

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), IF you agree with Jesus who praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church itself alone demands for itself alone, praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them false - then you embrace accountability for teachers of doctrine. Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and St. Augustine, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church. The first question then becomes, WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this norming? THAT is the issue we are discussing. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) for the rule in evaluating its teachings, but because it rejects the evaluating of its teachings, requiring instead that they just be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

“Mindful of Christ’s words to his Apostles: “He who hears you, hears me,” (Luke 10:16) the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” CCC # 87.

What you fail to understand is that the hierarchy carries a two-fold power of order and jurisdiction, and is therefore not only the “Church teaching” but also the “Church sanctifying”.

To these terms would be opposes “the Church taught” and “the Church sanctified”; or rather, the Church believeing and the Church loving. That of course is not a division of the Church into two distinct societies, or two halves of a society each with its own distinctive set of members. It is a division between a power assisted by Christ to define the truth, speculative and practical, on the one hand, and all who recognize this power, not excluding the Sovereign Pontiff, the bishops, the clergy, on the other. Inasmuch as they are the depositaries and the organs of the power of jurisdiction, the Pope and the bishops constitute the Church teaching, but inasmuch as they too have souls to save, minds and hearts to be dedicated to God, they are parts of the Church believing and loving. They are bound, like all other Christians, under pain of endangering their eternal salvation, to accept all utterances pertaining to the divine law, even when it falls to their lot to propose them solemnly to the world for the first time: thus, not to lose his faith, Pius XI had to believe, alomg with the rest of us, the dogmas, for example, of the Immaculate Conception and of Papal Infallibility. As to decrees resting on ecclesiastical law that they themselves have promulgated, here again the hierarchy are bound to conform; not, doubtless, because a ruler can bind himself juridically before men by his own decrees, but because he binds himself morally before God, who will accuse him at the Last Day of “having said and not done”, with having laid heavy burdens on men’s shoulders and stirred no finger to llift them (Matthew 23: 3-4).

The division of the Church into Church teaching and sanctifying on the one hand, and the Church believing and loving on the other, does not correspond to any division into active and passive. The Church teaching and sanctifying is, admittedly, active with respect to the Church believing, loving and doing; but this latter, in order to be PROFOUNDLY DOCILE to the jurisdiction that Jesus has left in the world, is by no means inert. There is nothing more alive than a faith that knows what it has to believe, than a love that knows what it ought to love and to do.

cont.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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.

Thank you, but you evaded the question.

You keep defending that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for the self same teacher to exempt himself exclusively form the question and insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever he alone says is simply to be accepted with docility (but ONLY if that one is The Catholic Church). I’ve asked repeatedly why you think this is the most sound way to determine the correctness of that teacher?

That is not a defendant, that is a dominating dictator, a demonized image.

I agree with you.

If teachers of doctrine are accountable, then they are the “defendant” for what they teach as such. The Catholic Church refuses to be a defendant because it rejects accountability - but only, solely, exclusively for itself alone. ALL OTHERS are defendants for what they teach, but The Catholic Church is not.

As for your characterization of such, I’ll leave that without comment.

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.

Yes.

The rule that The Catholic Church has for EVERY OTHER TEACHER (for every OTHER is accountable, just not it itself alone) is simply itself. The “three-legs” are:

1. The Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. The Scripture not in writing or on any page, knowable to all and alterable by none, but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church and as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church.
3. The Leadership of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church that have pledged themselves upon death to uphold all the views of The Catholic Church.

You’re right, these 3 are equal and inseparable. So, if the Leadership has a view, Scripture MUST also teach that, even if in totally invisble words that only The Catholic Church can “see” in the “heart” of it itself exclusively. God’s words MUST agree with the words of The Catholic Church cuz The Catholic Church insist that The Catholic Church cannot err and nor can God err so therefore, God MUST agree with The Catholic Church or God would be errant - an unthinkable conclusion.

But this is NOT a rule/canon for the teachings of itself. Only for all OTHERS. Because only OTHERS are accountable for what they teach as doctrine but all OTHERS are fallible, The Catholic Church is not. Accountability is not approrpriate with The Catholic Church itself alone, docility is the appropiate response it alone insists for it itself exclusively.

The Church did not assign herself the charism of infallibility, it came from God.

Quote Him.

A reading of the Bible reveals a very important and undeniable point that you keep evading: God, Jesus, the Apostles - none every so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any context. In any regard. Not even in passing. Nope. Not once. IMHO, a little honesty here would be helpful to our discussion.

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

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination and norming, claim himself exclusively to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability, laying aside the issue of the correctness of his view and rather insisting that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility.

My study of the LDS and the cults tells me that the rubric you are defending is entirely moot to the issue of correctness and indeed is a very dangerous thing. It’s absurd to argue: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I can’t be wrong. So just forget about all that and rather just accept with docility whatever I alone say, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.” Have you studied any of the cults?

.

 

[Tomster]

It would seem the part of a Christian to be purely passive when he enters on the common life, and receives his new being immediately from the totality of believers. But in fact this passivity involves the greatest possible activity, the greatest free and personal work conceivable. The contrary opinion is based on a narrow view of personal and independent activity, one which reduces it to giving or generating, and quite overlooks our human capacity for receiving. Receiving often makes harder demands on us than giving - that is to say if it is to be a genuinely personal act . . . The personal and independent impulse that prompts us to acceptance is predominantly one of abnegation and love; and by allowing another to act on us we become active in our turn. Whoever would make of giving an activity truly his own, must first of all have learned to receive; and it is just this which sets up and maintains relations between men. To give without having received and without ever receiving , is the preogative of God.

Some much for docility.

 

[Philthy]

Of course, I did not say that every word they uttered is found there,

As I said, perhaps you didn’t intend to say that (I believe you didnt), but using your posts as the “norm” reveals that you did in fact say that. We all make occassional mistakes when posting - as you apparently did here - its not a big deal. Most of us simply acknowledge when we have goofed rather than continuing to deny what is plainly obvious to all. I recommend you emulate such behavior…

but rather ever word WE KNOW ABOUT is found there.

You may claim to know those words are the words of the Apostles, but on what basis do you do so?

You evaded the point. What you were actually suggesting is what you are trying so very, very hard to condemn: Holding a teacher accountable and using Scripture as the rule for the norming of that.

I evaded nothing. I stated plainly for you earlier that I believe in accountability to teachers here: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6243743&postcount=271
I even believe in Scripture has a unique place in that accountability, which I articulated for you here: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6247848&postcount=284 What I do not believe is the impossibly vague, completely unworkable concept of using the “rule of Scripture” for the norming of that. The NT is not a rule book and it does not contain rules and it requires something outside of itself to help it function in the process of accountability. You and I have a basic disagreement. I could easily turn to Scripture and justify my position , you would have folks agreeing with you on your position, and we would remain at an impass despite both claiming to use Scripture as the norm. This process is affectionately known as the Protestant experiment. This process has gone on for almost 500 years not only between Protestants and Catholics, but between Protestants and Protestants. Holding others accountable using Scripture as the norm in the manner you suggest has not resulted in anyone being held accountable to anything. Instead, it has resulted in division, confusion and lack of accountability. So please dont placate yourself through mistaking your inability to grasp my position (or mere disagreement with it) for my evading the issue of holding accountable those who teach. To do so would simply be to delude yourself.
I reiterate…
Philthy from post 290:

…rather than propose a solution, you simply tear down. I find most of the rest of your points … filled with anger and not particularly developed. The Catholic Church holds teachers from both within and from outside of itself accountable. You are mistaken to claim otherwise - people from within the Church have been censured or excommunicated - aka they were held accountable.
Anyhow, the analogy of a Supreme Court and a Rule of Law most strongly works for the Catholic Church than any other church I can think of. If you disagree, pony up your nominee for the position - otherwise its hard to take you seriously.

Blessings!

.

 

[Tomster]

Thank you, but you evaded the question.

You keep defending that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for the self same teacher to exempt himself exclusively form the question and insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever he alone says is simply to be accepted with docility (but ONLY if that one is The Catholic Church). I’ve asked repeatedly why you think this is the most sound way to determine the correctness of that teacher?

I agree with you.

If teachers of doctrine are accountable, then they are the “defendant” for what they teach as such. The Catholic Church refuses to be a defendant because it rejects accountability - but only, solely, exclusively for itself alone. ALL OTHERS are defendants for what they teach, but The Catholic Church is not.

As for your characterization of such, I’ll leave that without comment.

Yes.

The rule that The Catholic Church has for EVERY OTHER TEACHER (for every OTHER is accountable, just not it itself alone) is simply itself. The “three-legs” are:

1. The Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. The Scripture not in writing or on any page, knowable to all and alterable by none, but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church and as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church.
3. The Leadership of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church that have pledged themselves upon death to uphold all the views of The Catholic Church.

You’re right, these 3 are equal and inseparable. So, if the Leadership has a view, Scripture MUST also teach that, even if in totally invisble words that only The Catholic Church can “see” in the “heart” of it itself exclusively. God’s words MUST agree with the words of The Catholic Church cuz The Catholic Church insist that The Catholic Church cannot err and nor can God err so therefore, God MUST agree with The Catholic Church or God would be errant - an unthinkable conclusion.

But this is NOT a rule/canon for the teachings of itself. Only for all OTHERS. Because only OTHERS are accountable for what they teach as doctrine but all OTHERS are fallible, The Catholic Church is not. Accountability is not approrpriate with The Catholic Church itself alone, docility is the appropiate response it alone insists for it itself exclusively.

Quote Him.

A reading of the Bible reveals a very important and undeniable point that you keep evading: God, Jesus, the Apostles - none every so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any context. In any regard. Not even in passing. Nope. Not once. IMHO, a little honesty here would be helpful to our discussion.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination and norming, claim himself exclusively to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability, laying aside the issue of the correctness of his view and rather insisting that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility.

My study of the LDS and the cults tells me that the rubric you are defending is entirely moot to the issue of correctness and indeed is a very dangerous thing. It’s absurd to argue: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I can’t be wrong. So just forget about all that and rather just accept with docility whatever I alone say, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.” Have you studied any of the cults?

.

From the beginning of the Christian revelation to the present day the Church appears as suspended from God by the visible chain of a hirearchy. This is a mystery that at once raises certain questions.

"As the Father hath sent me I also send you . . . " (John 20:21). “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven . . .” (MATTHEW 18:18). “All power is given me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them . . . teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28:18-20).

The Father, Christ, the apostolic body composed of Peter and the other Apostles, the people - these are the links of a chain proclaimed by the whole Gospel. An impulse of extraordinary power began, at the opening of our era, to work for the salvation of men; it comes down to them by steps, passing first into Christ (now hidden from us by the luminous cloud of the Ascension), then from Christ into the Apostolic body which is endure till the end of the world, to teach and baptize all peoples. This extraordinary energy issuing from God, made manifest in Christ, continues operative in the apostolic body (for though its members, as individuals, are constantly replaced, it subsisits like a unique living thing from generation to generation). It may be called the virtue of apostolicity, and is the proper cause of the Church, as fire is the proper cause of heat. It is always in act, forming in this world what St. Paul calls the Body of Christ. The Church, in the proper sense of that word, can come to birth and flourish only where the Blessed Trinity, through our Lord and through the apostolic body, touches our earth; that, presumably, is what we mean when we call her apostolic. The religion of the Gospel is not egalitarian but apostolic; it is not a religion without intermediaries, but hierarchic.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

Thank you, but you evaded the question.

You keep defending that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for the self same teacher to exempt himself exclusively form the question and insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever he alone says is simply to be accepted with docility (but ONLY if that one is The Catholic Church). I’ve asked repeatedly why you think this is the most sound way to determine the correctness of that teacher?

I agree with you.

If teachers of doctrine are accountable, then they are the “defendant” for what they teach as such. The Catholic Church refuses to be a defendant because it rejects accountability - but only, solely, exclusively for itself alone. ALL OTHERS are defendants for what they teach, but The Catholic Church is not.

As for your characterization of such, I’ll leave that without comment.

Yes.

The rule that The Catholic Church has for EVERY OTHER TEACHER (for every OTHER is accountable, just not it itself alone) is simply itself. The “three-legs” are:

1. The Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. The Scripture not in writing or on any page, knowable to all and alterable by none, but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church and as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church.
3. The Leadership of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church that have pledged themselves upon death to uphold all the views of The Catholic Church.

You’re right, these 3 are equal and inseparable. So, if the Leadership has a view, Scripture MUST also teach that, even if in totally invisble words that only The Catholic Church can “see” in the “heart” of it itself exclusively. God’s words MUST agree with the words of The Catholic Church cuz The Catholic Church insist that The Catholic Church cannot err and nor can God err so therefore, God MUST agree with The Catholic Church or God would be errant - an unthinkable conclusion.

But this is NOT a rule/canon for the teachings of itself. Only for all OTHERS. Because only OTHERS are accountable for what they teach as doctrine but all OTHERS are fallible, The Catholic Church is not. Accountability is not approrpriate with The Catholic Church itself alone, docility is the appropiate response it alone insists for it itself exclusively.

Quote Him.

A reading of the Bible reveals a very important and undeniable point that you keep evading: God, Jesus, the Apostles - none every so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any context. In any regard. Not even in passing. Nope. Not once. IMHO, a little honesty here would be helpful to our discussion.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination and norming, claim himself exclusively to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability, laying aside the issue of the correctness of his view and rather insisting that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility.

My study of the LDS and the cults tells me that the rubric you are defending is entirely moot to the issue of correctness and indeed is a very dangerous thing. It’s absurd to argue: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I can’t be wrong. So just forget about all that and rather just accept with docility whatever I alone say, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.” Have you studied any of the cults?

.

Why a hierarchy? Here certainly is a great mystery. God could be the sole Actor if He wished. He was under no necessity to mingle human nature, always circumscribed, almost always sinful, with the work of sanctification of the world. He fully foresaw that in having recourse to the ministry of men He would be only too often ill-served, and would provide some with arguments against His goodness. “What !” said Rousseau. “Always these human witnesses, always men who report what other men have reported, always between God and myself !” And indeed it is true that between God and myself I encounter human nature at every turn, first that of Christ sent by the Father, and then that of the Apostles and their successors sent by Christ. Why do think that is A.J.?

cont.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

F

Josiah:

Thank you, but you evaded the question.

You keep defending that the most sound way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for the self same teacher to exempt himself exclusively form the question and insist that he alone is infallible, incapable of error and thus whatever he alone says is simply to be accepted with docility (but ONLY if that one is The Catholic Church). I’ve asked repeatedly why you think this is the most sound way to determine the correctness of that teacher?

I agree with you.

If teachers of doctrine are accountable, then they are the “defendant” for what they teach as such. The Catholic Church refuses to be a defendant because it rejects accountability - but only, solely, exclusively for itself alone. ALL OTHERS are defendants for what they teach, but The Catholic Church is not.

As for your characterization of such, I’ll leave that without comment.

Yes.

The rule that The Catholic Church has for EVERY OTHER TEACHER (for every OTHER is accountable, just not it itself alone) is simply itself. The “three-legs” are:

1. The Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2. The Scripture not in writing or on any page, knowable to all and alterable by none, but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church and as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church.
3. The Leadership of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church that have pledged themselves upon death to uphold all the views of The Catholic Church.

You’re right, these 3 are equal and inseparable. So, if the Leadership has a view, Scripture MUST also teach that, even if in totally invisble words that only The Catholic Church can “see” in the “heart” of it itself exclusively. God’s words MUST agree with the words of The Catholic Church cuz The Catholic Church insist that The Catholic Church cannot err and nor can God err so therefore, God MUST agree with The Catholic Church or God would be errant - an unthinkable conclusion.

But this is NOT a rule/canon for the teachings of itself. Only for all OTHERS. Because only OTHERS are accountable for what they teach as doctrine but all OTHERS are fallible, The Catholic Church is not. Accountability is not approrpriate with The Catholic Church itself alone, docility is the appropiate response it alone insists for it itself exclusively.

Quote Him.

A reading of the Bible reveals a very important and undeniable point that you keep evading: God, Jesus, the Apostles - none every so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any context. In any regard. Not even in passing. Nope. Not once. IMHO, a little honesty here would be helpful to our discussion.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from examination and norming, claim himself exclusively to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability, laying aside the issue of the correctness of his view and rather insisting that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility.

My study of the LDS and the cults tells me that the rubric you are defending is entirely moot to the issue of correctness and indeed is a very dangerous thing. It’s absurd to argue: “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I can’t be wrong. So just forget about all that and rather just accept with docility whatever I alone say, for when I alone speak - Jesus speaks.”

Have you studied any of the cults?

.

"As the Father hath sent me I also send you . . . " (John 20:21). “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven . . .” (MATTHEW 18:18). “All power is given me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them . . . teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28:18-20).

1. What do these 3 verses have to do with what you quoted from me?
2. Where do these verses state that The Catholic Church, specificially, solely, exclusively - is exempt from accountability, that it alone is infallible and incapable of error, and that whatever it alone says is simply to be accepted with docility?
3. I wonder if you noted that The Catholic Church is not so much as even mentioned here, for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in reference to anything, in any way, in any regard, in any fashion, not even totally in passing?
4. Where do these verses that that the best and most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that self-same teacher to exempt himself exclusively from examination, himself alone declare himself alone as incapable of error, whenever he alone speaks, Jesus is speaking, and whatever he alone says is simply to be accepted with docility?

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The NT is not a rule book and it does not contain rules

Actually, it does. But I never once said that the Bible is a rule book, but I said is that The Rule of Scripture means that in nomring, it is embraced as the rule/canon for such. You know the difference.

Bob the builder builds a fence. He teaches that it is six feet tall. IF you care about truth, and IF you hold Bob accountable for what he does and says (not permitting Bob alone to exempt Bob alone from any consideration), then the issue becomes: Is his teaching correct? The issue of that question is called “norming.” And the first issue in that is: WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is technically called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). The most sound is the most objective, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond all parties, accepted by all as reliable for this purpose. Perhaps all involved in the issue of Bob’s teaching choose to embrace a Sears Measuring Tape (recall the meaning of the word “canon”) for this purpose. In that case, that tape would become the rule in this case of norming. The Sears Measuring Tape has no rules in it, but it is serving here as a rule/canon/norma normans. You are confusing two different meanings of the word “rule.”

The Catholic Church argues passionately that ALL are accountable for what is taught. ALL. All men, women and children. All groups, organizations, institutions, bodies, congregations and denominations. Why? Because truth matters! Because God so often warned us about false teachers! They are ALL accountable - to a rule/canon OUTSIDE of them and to an arbitration that not only is not by self but actually excludes self. But it alone makes one glaring, stunning, quite remarkable exception: itself. In regard to the teachings of itself exclusively, accountability is to be laid aside for it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, thus accountability is moot in the singular, particular, exclusive and sole case of it itself alone. It alone declares that whenever it alone teaches, God is teaching so all must just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” THAT, it insists, is the most sound way to determine correctness. Problem is: it has two entirely contradictory approaches here: one for every other teacher on the planet and all of history, the exact opposite for it itself alone, exclusively.

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[Tomster]

As I said, perhaps you didn’t intend to say that (I believe you didnt), but using your posts as the “norm” reveals that you did in fact say that. We all make occassional mistakes when posting - as you apparently did here - its not a big deal. Most of us simply acknowledge when we have goofed rather than continuing to deny what is plainly obvious to all. I recommend you emulate such behavior…
You may claim to know those words are the words of the Apostles, but on what basis do you do so? I evaded nothing. I stated plainly for you earlier that I believe in accountability to teachers here: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6243743&postcount=271
I even believe in Scripture has a unique place in that accountability, which I articulated for you here: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6247848&postcount=284 What I do not believe is the impossibly vague, completely unworkable concept of using the “rule of Scripture” for the norming of that. The NT is not a rule book and it does not contain rules and it requires something outside of itself to help it function in the process of accountability. You and I have a basic disagreement. I could easily turn to Scripture and justify my position , you would have folks agreeing with you on your position, and we would remain at an impass despite both claiming to use Scripture as the norm. This process is affectionately known as the Protestant experiment. This process has gone on for almost 500 years not only between Protestants and Catholics, but between Protestants and Protestants. Holding others accountable using Scripture as the norm in the manner you suggest has not resulted in anyone being held accountable to anything. Instead, it has resulted in division, confusion and lack of accountability. So please dont placate yourself through mistaking your inability to grasp my position (or mere disagreement with it) for my evading the issue of holding accountable those who teach. To do so would simply be to delude yourself.
I reiterate…

Blessings!

.

Deluded ! Great word.

With the false Protestant teaching of “private judgment” as his guide our esteemed adversary has effectively painted himself into a corner.

As I have mentioned to so many other non-Catholic Christians on these message boards because of the Protestant dogma of “private judgment” their own, personal, individual interpretations of Scripture have led them, some more than others, down a very, very dark road. Their interpretations in the field of Incarnational theology vary from individiual to individual. They will do just about anything to deny the Church Jesus has established has divine and binding authority to teach infallibly They have substituted another false Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura to verify “private judgment”.

It interesting, and our esteemed adversary, up to this point has not addressed the fact, that these Protestant dogmas were instituted by the oral tradition of his spiritual forefathers. They are not found in the Bible and I now ask him, again, to show us, from the Bible, where these false doctrines appear. His whole “norming process” depends on it according to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Tomster]

Actually, it does. But I never once said that the Bible is a rule book, but I said is that The Rule of Scripture means that in nomring, it is embraced as the rule/canon for such. You know the difference.

Bob the builder builds a fence. He teaches that it is six feet tall. IF you care about truth, and IF you hold Bob accountable for what he does and says (not permitting Bob alone to exempt Bob alone from any consideration), then the issue becomes: Is his teaching correct? The issue of that question is called “norming.” And the first issue in that is: WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is technically called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). The most sound is the most objective, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond all parties, accepted by all as reliable for this purpose. Perhaps all involved in the issue of Bob’s teaching choose to embrace a Sears Measuring Tape (recall the meaning of the word “canon”) for this purpose. In that case, that tape would become the rule in this case of norming. The Sears Measuring Tape has no rules in it, but it is serving here as a rule/canon/norma normans. You are confusing two different meanings of the word “rule.”

The Catholic Church argues passionately that ALL are accountable for what is taught. ALL. All men, women and children. All groups, organizations, institutions, bodies, congregations and denominations. Why? Because truth matters! Because God so often warned us about false teachers! They are ALL accountable - to a rule/canon OUTSIDE of them and to an arbitration that not only is not by self but actually excludes self. But it alone makes one glaring, stunning, quite remarkable exception: itself. In regard to the teachings of itself exclusively, accountability is to be laid aside for it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, thus accountability is moot in the singular, particular, exclusive and sole case of it itself alone. It alone declares that whenever it alone teaches, God is teaching so all must just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” THAT, it insists, is the most sound way to determine correctness. Problem is: it has two entirely contradictory approaches here: one for every other teacher on the planet and all of history, the exact opposite for it itself alone, exclusively.

… continues in the next post.

.

Obviously you have not read the presentation I made for you today. It’s all Bible based by the way.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

… continuing the post above

You and I have a basic disagreement.

This case requires that you and I are ACCOUNTABLE for what we say. This is exactly were the heart of our disagreement lies. The Catholic Church regards all OTHERS has accountable and thus THEY ALL MUST be subject to norming - to a rule outside of them and an arbitration that is not by them. But, in regard to its’ own position, it alone simply insists that it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters), it alone is INFALLIBLE, it alone is except from accountability, and rather, whatever it says is simply to be accepted with docility. It tries to justify this accountability-evading claim of it itself alone for it itself alone (read the Catholic posts in this thread for those arguments) but it is what it is.

I could easily turn to Scripture and justify my position , you would have folks agreeing with you on your position, and we would remain at an impass despite both claiming to use Scripture as the norm.

It’s possible, in which case it would need to go to arbitration, another subject for another day and thread. But contrast that to the Catholic position of itself for itself exclusively: A defendant claims his innocence (correctness of his position). Is the best way to determine if that is true simply for the defendant to declare the defendant INCAPABLE of being wrong, EXEMPT from accountability, and that we all must simply accepted whatever he alone says “with docility” for when he alone speaks, God is speaking? Or will what he says/does be regarded as accountable? Will there be a rule in this norming (say, the Rule of Law)? Will there be an arbitration that is not simply the defendant determining if the self-same is correct - rather moot since the defendant has already declared that he alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong?

Friend, my study of the cults has revealed quite powerfully that a teacher simply exempting himself exclusively from accountability and demanding instead that all just rather accept whatever he/it alone says “with docility” “as God speaking” leads to a bewildering range of ideas - all infallibly correct because all insist they cannot be otherwise - and don’t permit any norming of them. It’s an epistemology that has ZERO relevance to correctness for it is simply the circumvention of the question by self alone for self alone.

I agree on this: Having a common knowable/unalterable rule does not mean that all will be correct or that all arbitration according to it will be “infallible.” My life as a citizen in a country with the Rule of Law reveals such. But I regard that - difficult as it may be - to be referrable to each one simply exempting self alone from accountability, each insisting that self alone is the sole authority/arbiter, each alone insisting that each alone is INCAPABLE of error, each alone insisting that whatever each alone does is simply rather to be accepted as correct “with docility.” Nor do I agree that the best arbiter for the correctness of self is self, or that the best rule for self is if self agrees with self that self is correct because self alone insists self alone cannot be otherwise.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

With the false Protestant teaching of “private judgment”

Your “issue” is only and exclusively with one: The Catholic Church. It is the only one known to me that appoints itself as the sole interpreter (CCC 85) and demands that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as God speaking” (CCC 87). The position is exclusively that of The Catholic Church (the LDS once had it but dropped it over a century ago).

What we’re waiting for is the defense (this is the Apologetics section) for why it is the most sound epistemological rubric for determining the correctness of a teacher for that teacher alone to exempt himself alone from acccountability, himself alone declare himself alone to be incapable of error, himself alone declare that whatever he says rather just be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking? The Catholic Church rejects this rubric in every other case under the sun, but defends it as infallible but only when it alone, exclusively, solely, uses it.

.