Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[cfrancis]

Repost from #386

I’ve been lurking in this thread, with interest. AJ, can we use your analogy?
Bob, you and I are going to decide with what we will “norm” his fence. You mention a “Sears Measuring Tape” but I think that’s a bit ahead of the game (a presumption?)

You mentioned earlier that Scripture is the norm no matter what/how much Scripture there is (eg, when only the Pentateuch existed, that was it, etc…)

Here we are, Bob, you and me, and his fence extends beyond what we know to be the norm; that is, his fence extends beyond the reach of the Sears Measuring Tape. To make the connection to our Scriptural discussion, all we have the OT, but we are obviously beyond that with the new teachings of Jesus.

So, we need to add to the norm, thus creating a new norm. Or, we need to figure out what to add to the OT to account for this new Revelation.

• How do we do this?
• How do we add to the Sears Measuring Tape?
• What is the norm by which we measure that which will be added to the existing norm?

Bump again for AJ

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Protestant definition of “church” as “all believers in every church” is nothing less than an assault on the Mother Tongue. The word “church” is singular. By means of the new definition, “the Church” is thousands of churches, each place where “the Word” will be interpreted for you in keeping with Protestant oral tradition.

The continuing shell game, ANYTHING to evade the question of whether teachers of doctrine (including The Catholic Church) is accountable for that teaching, and if so to WHAT.

You are imposing the Catholic and Mormon concept of institutionalism on Protestants that do not share it. NO Protestant ever said that the church is thousands of churches - and you know that, so why base your evasive attempt here on what you KNOW is wrong? What Protestants believe (and you know it) is this: That Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the family of Christians, the mystical union of Christians, the communion of Christians is PEOPLE. And yes, it is one union, one communion, one community so the church is one, holy and catholic - thus we use the term “church” in this sense in the singular: is the the mystical union, the communion of BELIEVERS - and thus is PEOPLE. You know that.

Maybe we can return to the issue here: Do you or do you not believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and John Wesley? Augustine and Arius? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The Catholic Church? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The United Methodist Church USA? Me, you, your priest and my pastor? Are they accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? Which is it? And if they are all accountable, to WHAT? WHAT serves as the most sound rule, canon, norma normans for the evaluation?

All you’ve been able to offer is a rule your denomination rejects: that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct - if Catholic Tradition agrees with Catholic Tradition then Catholic Tradition is infallible. But you seem to be confusing the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for all OTHER teachers (itself) with the rule it uses for itself (which doesn’t exist, it alone exempts itself alone from norming - whatever the rule/canon might be). Anything you suggest is going to be REJECTED by The Catholic Church, it will reject it for the same reason that it rejects Scripture as such, because it rejects accountability - but only, exclusively, solely for it itself alone. It has no alternative to Scripture for this purpose because it doesn’t matter what the rule/canon might be: The Catholic Church won’t allow it, because it circumvents the issue of accountability for the teachings of it and it itself exclusively - just as you and your fellow Catholics have been doing for weeks now, in this thread and others.

**IMHO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self alone from norming (to ANY rule/canon outside of self), insist all that just be circumvented in the exclusive instance of self alone, and substitute instead that all rather just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking”(you might be interested in reading Catholic Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, as well as studying all the cults on this point). **

A Catholic "hear the Church (Matthew 18:17), he listens to the Church, because “He that heareth [listens to] you, heareth [is listening to] me; and he that despiseth you, dispiseth me; and he that dispiseth me, dispiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).

1. The capitolization is a grammatical mistake.
2. You neglect to mention the obvious and undeniable: that Jesus doesn’t so much as even mention The Catholic Church. Here or anywhere else. Nor does any Apostle. Not here, not anywhere. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any regard. Not even just in passing about anything at all.

Your attempts to divert the discussion with your mischaracterization of the Protestant concept of Christians as people does not substantiate why the most sound way to determine if a defendant is correct is for the self same to exempt himself exclusively from accountability, himself alone to just declare himself alone to be incapable of being wrong and thus is right, and to circumvent the issue by himself demanding that all others rather just accept whatever he alone says/does as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” You continue to support that The Catholic Church is so exempt and that such is the case (but only if The Catholic Church employs the rubric you are defending - you reject the very rubric you are defending otherwise), but you have yet to offer anything that suggests THIS is the best way to determine if a defendant is right or not.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Tomster:

Refer to: John 14:26; John 16:7; John 16:13;Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 18:17-18.

John 14:26, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

1. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church or about it exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
2. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will come. The Holy Spirit will teach us and remind us of what Jesus said (a promise fulfilled in the inspiration of the New Testament?). But a perfect teacher does not mean an infallible/unaccountable teacher.

John 16:7, " But I tell you the truth, it is for your good that I go away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; if if I go, I will send him to you."

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church or it exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming.
2. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will come to us. My Catholic teachers taught me that we receive this at our Baptism. I agree.

John 16:13, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church and about it exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming.
2. This promise is generally thought to have been fulfilled at Pentecost. Yes, the Spirit guides to truth. But while God ALWAYS leads infallibly and correct, there’s no evidence that THEREFORE The Catholic Church singularly, exclusively, solely, consistently, perpetually INFALLIBLY follows. That’s absurd and entirely irrational and illogical. Did God guide Adam and Eve in the Garden? ERGO, did they infallibly follow that lead? Did God regard them as unaccountable? Obviously not.

Mark 16:15, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church or about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming.
2. Yes, the Spirit makes things known (a reference to His inspiration of Scripture?). But again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a single, particular denomination being infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability and norming, and that we must lay aside any question of correctness and just accept whatever that one singularly says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” cuz that one exclusively so insists for self exclusively. Have you studied any of the cults on this point?

Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age.”

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in this about The Catholic Church. There’s nothing here about The Catholic Church exclusively being infallible or incapable of error or unaccountable or exempt from norming. There’s nothing here about the mandate that all must lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone and rather just accept whatever it and it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” NOTHING here at remotely supports the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability and norming.
2. The Great Commission means the church is to teach and baptize. But obviously, this does not mean whatever each wants - and all must just accept whatever that one says “with docility.” The Scriptures are filled with divine, stern, bold warnings about FALSE teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. If such is impossible, then the warnings are misleading and moot. Nowhere are we told, “The Catholic Church alone is to Baptize and Teach (how DOES a denomination do EITHER of those things??) and WHATEVER it alone says is to be exempt from accountability and just accepted as correct with docility as Jesus speaking.”

**A few verses for you:

Revelation 2:2
2 Peter 2:1
Acts 17:11
James 3:1
Matthew 7:15
Luke 20:46**

.

 

[cfrancis]

I think one of the main points AmercianJosiah is overlooking in his insistence on “norming” is the development of the norm.
Using his “Sear Mearsuring Tape” analogy, he is overlooking the definition of “inch” and its increments. Someone had to develop, define and decide that this was a norm to be used.
Seems to me that if we agree with AmericanJosiah that:

1. Scripture alone is the norm; and,
2. at all times - from Genesis to now - that no matter what Scripture existed (be it the Pentateuch or the OT or the OT and NT), it was the only norm…
   …then we should be able to find in Scripture (the norm) that which defines the norm, such that we can see the norm being appealed to as the norm is expanded.

 

[paul_c]

The continuing shell game, ANYTHING to evade the question of whether teachers of doctrine (including The Catholic Church) is accountable for that teaching, and if so to WHAT.

No, Josiah. Ironically, we have answered that question mutliple times, while you have not.
Here is our answer: The Catholic church was given a set of truths to teach to the nations. It is accountable to God to insure that it doesn’t vary those teachings. You personally can check whether it has changed those teachings by reading scripture and the Early Church fathers.

You on the other hand, have been asked multiple times who you think the Catholic church should be accountable to. You have never answered.

You are imposing the Catholic and Mormon concept of institutionalism on Protestants that do not share it. NO Protestant ever said that the church is thousands of churches - and you know that, so why base your evasive attempt here on what you KNOW is wrong? What Protestants believe (and you know it) is this: That Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the family of Christians, the mystical union of Christians, the communion of Christians is PEOPLE. And yes, it is one union, one communion, one community so the church is one, holy and catholic - thus we use the term “church” in this sense in the singular: is the the mystical union, the communion of BELIEVERS - and thus is PEOPLE. You know that.

The church includes all those who share the same beliefs with the Pope. That is how you know that they are part of the church. And no, Catholics don’t impose their institutions on anyone. In fact, they are open to all those that want to join but no one is forced to be in communion with Rome. You have chosen to separate yourself from the church. That is your right.

Maybe we can return to the issue here: Do you or do you not believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and John Wesley? Augustine and Arius? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The Catholic Church? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The United Methodist Church USA? Me, you, your priest and my pastor? Are they accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? Which is it? And if they are all accountable, to WHAT? WHAT serves as the most sound rule, canon, norma normans for the evaluation?

The only true norm is the complete teachings of the Catholic chruch, which have been protected for 2000 years.

All you’ve been able to offer is a rule your denomination rejects: that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct - if Catholic Tradition agrees with Catholic Tradition then Catholic Tradition is infallible. But you seem to be confusing the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for all OTHER teachers (itself) with the rule it uses for itself (which doesn’t exist, it alone exempts itself alone from norming - whatever the rule/canon might be). Anything you suggest is going to be REJECTED by The Catholic Church, it will reject it for the same reason that it rejects Scripture as such, because it rejects accountability - but only, exclusively, solely for it itself alone. It has no alternative to Scripture for this purpose because it doesn’t matter what the rule/canon might be: The Catholic Church won’t allow it, because it circumvents the issue of accountability for the teachings of it and it itself exclusively - just as you and your fellow Catholics have been doing for weeks now, in this thread and others.

The church is accountable to God, not to your interpretation of the Bible. Get over it.

IMHO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self alone from norming (to ANY rule/canon outside of self), insist all that just be circumvented in the exclusive instance of self alone, and substitute instead that all rather just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking” (you might be interested in reading Catholic Catechism # 87 and “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, as well as studying all the cults on this point).

why do you persist in your hatred?

1. The capitolization is a grammatical mistake.

this is just being petty.

1. You neglect to mention the obvious and undeniable: that Jesus doesn’t so much as even mention The Catholic Church. Here or anywhere else. Nor does any Apostle. Not here, not anywhere. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any regard. Not even just in passing about anything at all.

He mentions his Church, which clearly is what we now call the Catholic Church. Anyone willing to do actual research can see the continuity from the Apostles through the present time through the succession of popes and bishops and the continuity of doctrine. You are just showing your ignorance by repeating this complaint over and over. The name evolved, the essence of the church remained. Remember, at the time the gospels were written, the church had not yet become universal. It was the responsibility of the Apostles and their successors to make it so by preaching to and baptizing all the nations.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

tqualey:

it requires something outside of itself to function in the process of accountability.

.

Ah…

1. So, you DO believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach, The Catholic Church no less than any other, no less than The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or any other.
2. So, you DISAGREE with The Catholic Church that a teacher is to be exempted from accountability and norming, insist for self alone that self alone is infallible and incapable of being wrong in these matters, and demand that all just accept whatever that self-same teacher exclusively says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking.”
3. Then, YES, such accountability REQUIRES a norm/rule/canon, as you put it, “outside of itself.”

Thus, the question I’ve been asking you for some weeks now…

WHAT is this rule/canon for the teachings of The Catholic Church that is “outside of itself” as you yourself stress is absolutely essential?

The Catholic Church says it needs none - inside or outside of itself - because it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, it and it itself exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong, it and it itself alone is infallible in these matters. It itself alone demands that people just accepts whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” “I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - so there. Just forget about accountability or norming, forget about examination, and rather just accept whatever I myself alone say.”

Now, some here have confused the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for OTHERS (because it passionately embraces accountability for every OTHER teacher, just not it itself alone). THAT rule is as follows:
A) Catholic Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
B) Scripture not in words on any page or in any book - knowable and unalterable - but rather as written in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
C) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church.
See the common denominator there? Yup. Undeniably. It’s just itself. Nothing “outside of itself” as you demand is necessary.

.

 

[cfrancis]

.
3. Then, YES, such accountability REQUIRES a norm/rule/canon, as you put it, “outside of itself.”

We still need someone to define the norm/rule/canon for us.
And we need to know what norm/rule/canon was used to define the norm/rule/canon.
And we need to be able to know that the norm/rule/canon used to define the norm/rule/canon to which all will be held accountable was indeed infallible so the norm/rule/canon to which we all will be held accountable is infallible.
That is, the norm/rule/canon to which we all will be held accountable must be accountable to something/someone outside itself.

 

[Murphs10]

AJ - Your question is answered many times and I am not sure why you can’t grasp what people are telling you.

Simply: After Christ’s Ascension, who were the Apostles accountable to? When you are able to answer that you will have your answer and there will be no need to spend weeks bouncing the same questions off of the people here. I know you don’t like that answer, but Christ sent the Apostles with the Authority that was given to Him. You are trying to mix human rationale with God’s Plan.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You on the other hand, have been asked multiple times who you think the Catholic church should be accountable to. You have never answered.

Answered many, many times. Scripture.

Maybe we can return to the issue here: Do you or do you not believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, John Calvin and John Wesley? Augustine and Arius? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The Catholic Church? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The United Methodist Church USA? Me, you, your priest and my pastor? Are they accountable for what they teach as doctrine or not? Which is it? And if they are all accountable, to WHAT? WHAT serves as the most sound rule, canon, norma normans for the evaluation?

**IMHO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light - confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self alone from norming (to ANY rule/canon outside of self), insist all that just be circumvented in the exclusive instance of self alone, and substitute instead that all rather just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking” **

.

The only true norm is the complete teachings of the Catholic chruch, which have been protected for 2000 years.

Your only “alternative” - and it is one REJECTED by your denomination…

So, if self agrees with self, then self is correct. Is THAT the “something OUTSIDE of itself is essential?” You know that I agree with myself, thus - by the rubric you are so persistently defending, I am correct.

Your perfect circle becomes ever stronger: You make these entirely unsubstantiated claims (“The Catholic Church has been protected for 2000 years”) and then, just bypassing any thought of whether that’s true or not, make leaps worthy of a gold metal to get to your necessary point: It is the most sound way to determine the correctness of a defendant for that defendant alone to exempt self alone from accountability and norming, for that self alone to claim that that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is right, and for that defendant alone to rather just insist that all accept whatver that self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

1. You neglect to mention the obvious and undeniable: that Jesus doesn’t so much as even mention The Catholic Church. Here or anywhere else. Nor does any Apostle. Not here, not anywhere. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any regard. Not even just in passing about anything at all.

.

He mentions his Church, which clearly is what we now call the Catholic Church.

Read what you quoted from me.

He said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The United Methodist Church (USA)” or “The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” - or “The Catholic Church.” The entire basis of your apologetic is that Jesus promised and authorized The Catholic Church and IT exclusively all these remarkable things, it’s all based on that. And yet all that can read note the UNDENIABLE: He never even mentioned it!!! You claim is entirely, completely, absolutely, undeniably BASELESS. As you continue to make so obvious.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

That is, the norm/rule/canon to which we all will be held accountable must be accountable to something/someone outside itself

.

So…

1. So, you DO believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach, The Catholic Church no less than any other, no less than The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or any other.
2. So, you DISAGREE with The Catholic Church that a teacher is to be exempted from accountability and norming, insist for self alone that self alone is infallible and incapable of being wrong in these matters, and demand that all just accept whatever that self-same teacher exclusively says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking.”
3. Then, YES, such accountability REQUIRES a norm/rule/canon, as you put it, “outside of itself.” Thus, the views of self is a rule/canon to be rejected.
4. Thus, you reject SELF being the sole arbiter for the correctness of self, thus The Catholic Church being the arbiter for the correctness of The Catholic Church is an arbiter you reject. Arbitration is not permitted for us to discuss in this thread, and beyond the scope of Sola Scriptura, but I just note that you not only believe the rule/canon must be OUTSIDE, ABOVE The Catholic Church (and any and all other teachers under review) but ALSO the arbitration. I happen to agree on both points.

**
Thus, some questions…**

WHAT is this rule/canon for the teachings of The Catholic Church that is “outside of itself” as you yourself stress is absolutely essential?

The Catholic Church says it needs none - inside or outside of itself - because it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, it and it itself exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong, it and it itself alone is infallible in these matters. It itself alone demands that people just accepts whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” “I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - so there. Just forget about accountability or norming, forget about examination, and rather just accept whatever I myself alone say.”

Now, some here have confused the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for OTHERS (because it passionately embraces accountability for every OTHER teacher, just not it itself alone). THAT rule is as follows:
A) Catholic Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
B) Scripture not in words on any page or in any book - knowable and unalterable - but rather as written in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
C) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church.
See the common denominator there? Yup. Undeniably. It’s just itself. Nothing “outside of itself” as you demand is necessary.

In epistemology, the most sound rule/canon/norma normans is generally regarded as the one most OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties, regarded as reliable for this purpose by all parties, knowable by all and alterable by none. WHAT do you think is better than Scripture for this purpose? The Catholic Church has no alternative (better or worse) but maybe you do? The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scripture because it rejects accountability (solely, exclusively in the singular case of itself alone) - and thus norming and everything associated with it - including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Murphs10]

Answered many, many times. Scripture.

And scripture directs us to the Church for the truth. Is this an error?

Your only “alternative” - and it is one REJECTED by your denomination…

So, if self agrees with self, then self is correct. Is THAT the “something OUTSIDE of itself is essential?” You know that I agree with myself, thus - by the rubric you are so persistently defending, I am correct.

Your perfect circle becomes ever stronger: You make these entirely unsubstantiated claims (“The Catholic Church has been protected for 2000 years”) and then, just bypassing any thought of whether that’s true or not, make leaps worthy of a gold metal to get to your necessary point: It is the most sound way to determine the correctness of a defendant for that defendant alone to exempt self alone from accountability and norming, for that self alone to claim that that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is right, and for that defendant alone to rather just insist that all accept whatver that self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Read what you quoted from me.

He said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The United Methodist Church (USA)” or “The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” - or “The Catholic Church.” The entire basis of your apologetic is that Jesus promised and authorized The Catholic Church and IT exclusively all these remarkable things, it’s all based on that. And yet all that can read note the UNDENIABLE: He never even mentioned it!!! You claim is entirely, completely, absolutely, undeniably BASELESS. As you continue to make so obvious.

This is one of the worst arguments I have read here at CA.

.

 

[cfrancis]

You still have not addressed the issue raised in posts 414 and 417 .
And I won’t be answering any questions until you’ve answered the ones I’ve asked in replies #386 and #411:

I’ve been lurking in this thread, with interest. AJ, can we use your analogy?
Bob, you and I are going to decide with what we will “norm” his fence. You mention a “Sears Measuring Tape” but I think that’s a bit ahead of the game (a presumption?)

You mentioned earlier that Scripture is the norm no matter what/how much Scripture there is (eg, when only the Pentateuch existed, that was it, etc…)

Here we are, Bob, you and me, and his fence extends beyond what we know to be the norm; that is, his fence extends beyond the reach of the Sears Measuring Tape. To make the connection to our Scriptural discussion, all we have the OT, but we are obviously beyond that with the new teachings of Jesus.

So, we need to add to the norm, thus creating a new norm. Or, we need to figure out what to add to the OT to account for this new Revelation.

**- How do we do this?

• How do we add to the Sears Measuring Tape?
• What is the norm by which we measure that which will be added to the existing norm?**

Now you stated:

In epistemology, the most sound rule/canon/norma normans is generally regarded as the one most OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties, regarded as reliable for this purpose by all parties, knowable by all and alterable by none. WHAT do you think is better than Scripture for this purpose?

Hey, I’d be with you on this had Jesus Christ, upon His Ascension, handed off a copy of Holy Writ. Because at that point, we’d truly have something totally “OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties.”
And yet, the norm you are espousing - The Bible as you hold it in your hands today - is not the same norm used by Jesus; or the Apostles, or the early Church before 400 AD.
So, something, someone outside the norm you are advocating did two things:

1. added to an existing norm
2. declared ths new norm to be the norm.

To what “OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND” norm was the person/thing that took these two actions accountable?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hey, I’d be with you on this had Jesus Christ, upon His Ascension, handed off a copy of Holy Writ. Because at that point, we’d truly have something totally “OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties.”

1. How is The Catholic Church ‘OUTSIDE, ABOVE AND BEYOND’ The Catholic Church? How is The Catholic Church pointing to “the three legged stool” (below) more OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND itself than the written Scriptures?
   A) Catholic Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
   B) Scripture not in words on any page or in any book - knowable and unalterable - but rather as written in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
   C) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church.
   See the common denominator there? Yup. Undeniably. It’s just itself. Nothing “outside of itself” as you demand is necessary.

But, remember, The Catholic Church doesn’t accept ANY rule/canon (outside itself or otherwise) for the norming of it’s OWN teachings - only for those of all OTHER teachers. Where those of The Catholic Church is concerned, it simply circumvents the issue and substitutes that whatever IT alone says is simply rather to just be accepted as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” How is that the “it must be accountable to something OUTSIDE of itself” that you insisted must be the case?

I asked all here if have an alternative (The Catholic Church doesn’t) - one MORE outside, above and beyond all parties (INCLUDING The Catholic Church), more knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE embraced as reliable for this purpose by all? The Catholic Church has no suggestions, do you?

The Bible as you hold it in your hands today - is not the same norm used by Jesus; or the Apostles, or the early Church before 400 AD.

Of course, the SIZE of the corpus of Scriptures increased from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Such is moot. The SIZE of the Law in my State increases nearly every day the State legislature is in session, but that does not suggest that the Rule of Law is thus moot. The Rule of Law applies to the Law AT THAT TIME. The same with the Rule of Scripture. Your point is not a justification to ignore your point: that teachers ARE accountable and this must be to a rule/canon OUTSIDE the parties involved.

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

Lete review your assertion for a second. At the time the Catholic Chruch was founded, Pentecost, the only scripture that existed was the old testament. So if it had normed to that, all the truth about Jesus Christ would have been discounted. Doesn’t that seem a little silly. Lets go forward in history to 382AD, when the bible canon was set. The new testament was written by Catholic authors and the entire bible compiled by Catholic theologians in council and ratified by Pope Damascus, who then commissioned St. Jerome to translate it all into latin. Now if the Catholic church was to norm to the scripture it just created, would it be any less circular than norming to its traditions? The advantage of norming to its traditions, of course, is that its more complete than scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah

.

The only true norm is the complete teachings of the Catholic chruch, which have been protected for 2000 years.

Your only “alternative” - and it is one REJECTED by your denomination…

So, if self agrees with self, then self is correct. Is THAT the “something OUTSIDE of itself is essential?” …

Your perfect circle becomes ever stronger: You make these entirely unsubstantiated claims (“The Catholic Church has been protected for 2000 years”) and then, just bypassing any thought of whether that’s true or not, make leaps worthy of a gold metal to get to your necessary point: It is the most sound way to determine the correctness of a defendant for that defendant alone to exempt self alone from accountability and norming, for that self alone to claim that that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is right, and for that defendant alone to rather just insist that all accept whatver that self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Since when is the Catholic church a defendent? its job is to hold and teach the Catholic faith. You can either submit to it or not, it is your choice. Why are you railing against this so incessantly. Its your choice whether or not to be Catholic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah

.

He mentions his Church, which clearly is what we now call the Catholic Church.

Read what you quoted from me.

He said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The United Methodist Church (USA)” or “The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” - or “The Catholic Church.” The entire basis of your apologetic is that Jesus promised and authorized The Catholic Church and IT exclusively all these remarkable things, it’s all based on that. And yet all that can read note the UNDENIABLE: He never even mentioned it!!! You claim is entirely, completely, absolutely, undeniably BASELESS. As you continue to make so obvious.

Well, lets look at your assertion

The Church of Jesus Crhist of LatterDay Saints was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith. so they weren’t around when Jesus said Church and they weren’t founded by him either…

The United Methodist Church USA was founded On April 23, 1968, The United Methodist Church was created when Bishop Reuben H. Mueller, representing The Evangelical United Brethren Church, and Bishop Lloyd C. Wicke of The Methodist Church joined hands at the constituting General Conference in Dallas, Texas. So they weren’t around either when Jesus said " church" and we know they were founded by Mueller and Wicke.

The First meeting of the new Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod at Granville church with John Muehlhaeuser as president was in 1850. It decended from the Lutheran Church which was created in the early 1500s by Martin Luther, who you DON’T follow, It was not around when Jesus said “church” and we know it was founded by Luther (and the Wisconsin branch by Muehlhaeuser.)

The Catholic Church was founded at Pentecost by the Apostles, under the leadership of St. Peter and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who entered them all in the upper room.

So which one’s teachings should we follow?

 

[cfrancis]

How is that the “it must be accountable to something OUTSIDE of itself” that you insisted must be the case?

That is not my insistence - it’s yours. Do I need to provide the links to your posts to prove this? I simply adopted your position and applied it to your premise.

And why is it you demand people to answer your questions, address your issues, yet you ignore the questions and issues of others? I see a disingenuous spirit in your participation here.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Lete review your assertion for a second. At the time the Catholic Chruch was founded, Pentecost, the only scripture that existed was the old testament. So if it had normed to that, all the truth about Jesus Christ would have been discounted. Doesn’t that seem a little silly.

Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine and Arius and Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict? The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? YES OR NO?

If yes, then The Catholic Church is accountable - no less so than is Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine and Arius and Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And if yes, do you agree that such accountability must be to something OUTSIDE of itself as arbitrated OUTSIDE of itself - as some of your Catholic friends have here insisted?

IF so, then WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such? The only thing you’ve suggested is one your denomination REJECTS (and it seems you do, too) that if self alone agrees with self alone then self alone is correct (thus you affirm that the LDS is correct becauses the LDS agrees with the LDS). You have not suggested anything OUTSIDE The Catholic Church to which it must be accountable.

IF no, and you insist that the best and most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher alone to exempt that teacher alone from accountability, circumvent norming (to ANY rule/canon), lay all that aside in the singular and exclusive case of self alone, and rather self just insists that all accept whatever that self says as correct “with docility” “as God speaking,” then show me something that suggests THAT is the most sound rubric. In doing so, you will be in conflict with your denomination because it rejects that rubric.

The new testament was written by Catholic authors and the entire bible compiled by Catholic theologians in council and ratified by Pope Damascus, who then commissioned St. Jerome to translate it all into latin.

Even if there was an OUNCE of evidence for that, it’s moot. The governor signs a bill. He’s STILL accountable to it - not above it. But your attempt here is silly. We don’t know who penned most of the books of the Bible (and it couldn’t matter less), but most of them lived CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it came into existence (without a SHRED of anything to substantiate the claim), and there is ZERO evidence that St. Paul or St. James were officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with The Catholic Church - specifically and particularly - and you know that. And all The Catholic Church did at Trent was to AFFIRM the reality, it didn’t form it. I could officially declare that the sun came up this morning, but I didn’t cause it. Come on.

IF you know of some rule/canon that is MORE outside and above and beyond The Catholic Church, more knowable by all and alterable by none, more embraced as reliable by all parties than Scripture, one that fits the requirement Catholics have stated that "teachers must be held accountable to someTHING OUTSIDE of itself, " then what qualifies better than Scriptures, in your view?

The advantage of norming to its traditions, of course, is that its more complete than scripture.

Again, it doesn’t permit that for itself. It requires docilic acceptance of its teachings. The rule of which you speak is for all OTHER teachers…

But again, this rule - which The Catholic Church rejects for itself - is not outside itself, it just IS itself. Self looking in the mirror exclusively at self and self determining if self looks like self. Self almost always agrees with self - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with self being correct. And you know that.

Since when is the Catholic church a defendent?

It won’t permit accountability for itself exclusively, you’re right. All OTHERS are, it alone just insists that it alone is not.

What do you think? Are teachers of doctrine accountable for such or not?

.

 

[Murphs10]

Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine and Arius and Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict? The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? YES OR NO?

Here is the flaw in your whole position. You are putting the Catholic Church in the same teaching role as all of the denominations that sprung from Her. There is a HUGE and CRUCIAL difference between the two. One, the Catholic Church, was given the authority to teach and interpret by Jesus and the others He did not. Arguing what you are arguing makes no sense to a Catholic because we have the promises of Jesus Christ Himself. Other churches may benefit from this type of self scrutiny, but for Catholics it is unnecassary.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Here is the flaw in your whole position. You are putting the Catholic Church in the same teaching role as all of the denominations that sprung from Her. There is a HUGE and CRUCIAL difference between the two. One, the Catholic Church, was given the authority to teach and interpret by Jesus and the others He did not. Arguing what you are arguing makes no sense to a Catholic because we have the promises of Jesus Christ Himself. Other churches may benefit from this type of self scrutiny, but for Catholics it is unnecassary.

1. Then you are disagreeing with your Catholic friends here that teachers of doctrine ARE accountable, and that must be to someTHING **outside **of self.
2. Then you defending an epistemology that the best/most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself exclusively from the question, substituting instead self insisting that whatever self alone says simply be accepted as correct with docility, as God speaking. Have you studied the LDS and all the cults in their epistemology? If you were called to Jury Duty, would you excuse yourself insisting that the best way to determine if the defendant is right or wrong in the matter is for he himself to exempt he himself alone from accountability for the issue under review, and for he himself to insist that he himself is INCAPABLE of wrong and thus is right, and whatever he did/said is simply to be accepted as correct with docility?
3. Yes, you are doing exactly as The Catholic Church requires of you. CCC 87. You must accept that Truth matters and therefore teachers of doctrine MUST be accountable, but that it is most sound in the single, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone to simply require all to accept WHATEVER it alone says in these matters “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
4. Your whole argument is based on your claim that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - was promised by Jesus that IT alone would be infallible/unaccountable. Here’s the obvious and undeniable problem: Jesus never mentioned it. And nowhere in all of Scripture did Jesus or anyone else even mention infallible or unaccountable. Jesus NEVER promised this - to The Catholic Church or any other. And anyone who has ever read the Bible KNOWS that. Jesus never remotely said that, it’s The Catholic Church saying that. FRANKLY, if you didn’t so obviously and repeatedly insist on revealing the nonexistence of your claim about Jesus saying this, we could simply accept your position as an act of faith. In THAT case, I’d afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in this regard as you give to the Mormon for EXACTLY the same act of faith in EXACTLY the same issue with his denomination.
5. You fail to realize that your position: The self alone is correct is self alone exempts self from all accountability for what he teaches - has nothing to do with this thread. This thread accepts accountability, and thus norming, and thus the first question becomes: WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for norming. YOUR “alternative” is NOT to suggest a better rule/canon but to insist that a teacher is exempt from accountability and just to be accepted as correct with docility if the self same alone so insists for the self-same alone.

.

 

[Murphs10]

1. Then you are disagreeing with your Catholic friends here that teachers of doctrine ARE accountable, and that must be to someTHING **outside **of self.
2. Then you defending an epistemology that the best/most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself exclusively from the question, substituting instead self insisting that whatever self alone says simply be accepted as correct with docility, as God speaking. Have you studied the LDS and all the cults in their epistemology? If you were called to Jury Duty, would you excuse yourself insisting that the best way to determine if the defendant is right or wrong in the matter is for he himself to exempt he himself alone from accountability for the issue under review, and for he himself to insist that he himself is INCAPABLE of wrong and thus is right, and whatever he did/said is simply to be accepted as correct with docility?
3. Yes, you are doing exactly as The Catholic Church requires of you. CCC 87. You must accept that Truth matters and therefore teachers of doctrine MUST be accountable, but that it is most sound in the single, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone to simply require all to accept WHATEVER it alone says in these matters “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
4. Your whole argument is based on your claim that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - was promised by Jesus that IT alone would be infallible/unaccountable. Here’s the obvious and undeniable problem: Jesus never mentioned it. And nowhere in all of Scripture did Jesus or anyone else even mention infallible or unaccountable. Jesus NEVER promised this - to The Catholic Church or any other. And anyone who has ever read the Bible KNOWS that. Jesus never remotely said that, it’s The Catholic Church saying that. FRANKLY, if you didn’t so obviously and repeatedly insist on revealing the nonexistence of your claim about Jesus saying this, we could simply accept your position as an act of faith. In THAT case, I’d afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in this regard as you give to the Mormon for EXACTLY the same act of faith in EXACTLY the same issue with his denomination.
5. You fail to realize that your position: The self alone is correct is self alone exempts self from all accountability for what he teaches - has nothing to do with this thread. This thread accepts accountability, and thus norming, and thus the first question becomes: WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon for norming. YOUR “alternative” is NOT to suggest a better rule/canon but to insist that a teacher is exempt from accountability and just to be accepted as correct with docility if the self same alone so insists for the self-same alone.

.

Wow, did I really do,say, feel all of that? You are able to extract an impressive amount of information from one comment.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Let’s review your assertion for a second. At the time the Catholic Chruch was founded, Pentecost, the only scripture that existed was the old testament. So if it had normed to that, all the truth about Jesus Christ would have been discounted. Doesn’t that seem a little silly.

You completely ignored my point, which was that the Catholic Church could NOT have used scripture to Norm at its inception, since the only scripture that existed was the Old testament and it of course did not include the full truth about Jesus Christ . Look, your whole norming with scripture concept fails for a number of reasons:

• Christian scripture wasn’t available as a norm at the inception of the church. It only came later. Most of the new testament writings date from the 50s and 60s, 20 years or more after the church was established. How could it have used them to norm before they were written
• Scripture covers only some of the truths about salvation
• Scripture alone without a valid interpreter can be twisted to say anything. Even Satan uses it. (Luke 4)

These truths put an end to your sola scriptura norma noman theory. Give it up. You have no defense against these points. All you are doing now is protesting against the Catholic Church. You are no longer talking about sola scriptura’s validity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The new testament was written by Catholic authors and the entire bible compiled by Catholic theologians in council and ratified by Pope Damascus, who then commissioned St. Jerome to translate it all into latin.

The truths of the catholic faith are knowable by all and alterable by none and have always been the litmus test for heresies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c Since when is the Catholic church a defendent?

They are. The are accountable against the teaching of the Catholic Church. That is the gold standard by which heretics have always been identified.

You see, you approach this as if the Catholic Church is just another church. That is foolishness. It is not, it holds and teaches the Apostolic Faith. All non-Catholic Christian churches deviate from the truth when thye deviate form Catholic teaching, which is the bedrock from the Apostles. All the others are new innovations, including the whole concept of sola scriptura, which certainly is not an Apostolic teaching, since they were teaching things that did not exist as scripture at the time they taught. Come back into the light. If you were actually confirmed in the Catholic faith, all it would require is going to confession and repenting of all this foolishness you have been spouting.