Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[AmericanJosiah]

Repeating the same thing for a month is not productive.

A teacher just repeating, “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right; just forget about accountability and all that in the case of me and just accept whatever I say with docility, as God speaking” doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make that teacher right.

You keep saying, over and over, that Jesus promised all sorts of things to The Catholic Church exclusively - without ever acknowledging the undeniable: Jesus never so much as even mentioned it, for anything, about anything. You keep saying that the Apostles promised that The Catholic Church alone and exclusively is and ever will be infallible and unaccountable without ever acknowledging the undeniable: None of them even once mentioned The Catholic Church or infallible or unaccountable.

Does truth matter, especially truth about our eternal souls? Are teachers accountable for what is taught as doctrine? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine? IF you answer “yes” to those things (and as a faithful Catholic, I realize you cannot), then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches. And I agree with it that this accountability is not JUST by God alone on Judgment day - but is appropriate here and now. Here’s where we disagree: as you must. The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone be exempt from accountability and norming, rather it alone insits that it alone is INCAPABLE of error in these matters, right cuz it’s right so it’s right - and it alone demands that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” That you do so is an act of faith (exactly the same as the Mormon or the cultist who does exactly the same thing in response to exactly the same demand), and I won’t get into that. But I disagree on the soundness of that as a rubric for determining correctness. The Bible, my study of the cults, and my life experience tell me that a teacher exempting himself from accountability is a pretty poor approach to accountability.

You disagree with some “protestant” setting himself up as the sole, infallible interpreter without ever noticing that the most extreme example of that is The Catholic Church (CCC 85, 87, 113). You disagree with self declaring self as exempt from accountability while defending it. You insist on everyone being accountable for what they teach and yet insist that one is not. You insist that self agreeing with self is entirely irrelevant to anything and yet insist that is an infallible indicator of infallibility. I don’t think you agree with yourself on all this. Thus, I having a hard time understanding why you think we should?

Paul, does truth matter? Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine? IF you answer “yes” to those questions (and as a Catholic, you must not - I realize that), then The Catholic Church is as accountable for its teachings as any other teacher. And the whole epistemology it demands crashes to the ground - for it requires that you accept its claim of self alone for self alone that self alone is incapable of error, exempt from accountability, and rather all must just accept whatever it alone says. I find that rubric entirely unrelated to whether it is correct in what it teaches. You find it infallible.

.

 

[LionHeart777]

American Josiah,

You said:

And I know that Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church doesn’t permit, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and for declaring them to be false.

I would argue that the CC does hold it’s teacher’s accountable; Arius, Novatian, Nestor, etc. were all accountable to the CC for what they tought. It seems as though you want to take the whole institution of the Church and hold it accountable to Scripture; that’s where these other questions come in and points we have been trying to make: hold the CC accountable to whose interpretation of Scripture? Not all agree. Whose Canon? Not all agree.

We, as Catholics, I think would argue that such a thing was never meant to be for the very institution itself was founded by God Himself. Therefore, it is only accountable to God. Teachers w/in the Church (here I will go back to using “the Church” as a synonym for the CC) however, are responsible to the Church here and now just as individuals are responsible for their actions to the Church here and now (Mathew 18: 15-17) Remember the immoral Corinthian? He was responsible there and then for what he was up to. Anyway, we know that Hebrews tells us to submit ourselves to those who are over us in the Lord. (These points I made in the paragraph were points and Scripture Staples pointed out to Gregg in their debate.) I think that what I pointed out in Hebrews, St. Ignatius of Antioch carries on in his Epistles exhorting his readers to obey the Bishop, the Presbyters, and the Deacons. To submit to them is to submit to Divine Authority for St. Ignatius.

I believe that paul c mentioned to you that the Church is the arbitrer, as we Catholics see it. (Perhaps a different thread could be started on who is the arbitrer.) This is a key issue for you seem to want to arbitrate the arbitrer. How do we know that the Church is the arbitrer? We know this, in part, by reading Mathew 18. We also know that the Church is an arbitrer with authority (Mathew 16, 18, and John 20: 21-23.)

Re: your study of the cults and the JW’s and Mormon’s. I see this as similar to the problem of when a king leaves a throne vacant and then many others come along as claimants to that throne. Just because there are many claimants does not mean that all are wrong or lying. Perhaps one of them is the legitimate claimant to that throne. How do we know? That’s how we look at the pedigree and so on. As I think it is painfully obvious, the JW’s and the Mormons are false claimants because they do not have the Apostolic pedigree. The many claimants issue, IMO is a non-issue.

You mentioned accountability was an issue. It is. Teachers are accountable to the Church (an institution) here and now and, “…Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2018&version=KJV) (Accessed 2/ 13/ 10)

Ultimately, we are all responsible to God as I’m sure you would agree. As Scripture tells us, we must all give an account and teachers will be judged harder.

So, I think from a Catholic perspective you are trying to arbitrate the arbitrater, which doesn’t make sense looking at it that way. The fact that there is an arbitrater here on earth is clear from Mathew 18. The question is, who is that arbitrater that the Scripture speaks of, “the Church”, ? We say it is the Catholic Church. Is there a better candidate in your mind?

-peace

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I would argue that the CC does hold it’s teacher’s accountable

Oh, it firmly and passionately insists that every teacher on the planet and throughout history is accountable for what that teacher teaches as doctrine - and it insists that accountability is right here, right now - not JUST by God on Judgment day. It just makes one remarkable, stunning and singular exception: itself. What IT alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking.

Does truth matter, especially truth about our eternal souls? YES, we all agree! Does The Catholic Church teach doctrines? YES, we all agree! Are teachers accountable for what they teach as such? YES, all noncatholics agree. The Catholic Church, however, insists, "ALL but one: me. Whatever I alone say is right cuz I’m right and I say I’m right so I’m right, thus I’m right. I alone am incapable of error so accountability is moot in the single and exclusive and sole instance of me. Just accept whatever I alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

We, as Catholics, I think would argue that such a thing was never meant to be for the very institution itself was founded by God Himself.

I “get” your point. It’s the same “problem” at the foundation of the LDS and all the cults. IF self is going to insist that ALL OTHERS are accountable - here and now, so that self can declare everyone else wrong, but then how do you justify the inverse of that for self exclusively - that self alone is NOT accountable? They all do it the same way, by insisting that God (or Jesus or some Apostle) “founded” it and this (by some mysterious line of thought that never makes any sense at all), this means self alone is unaccountable. The problem (besides the nonsensical connecting of dots in that “logic”) is the undeniable: Jesus never said anything about any of them, in each case, self alone is CLAIMING this for self alone - with nothing to substantiate it. Self is just exempting self. But no other. Self is defending that self may exempt self while rebuking as absurd if self exempts self. It’s a tough act, hard to pull this one off.

Therefore, it is only accountable to God. Teachers w/in the Church (here I will go back to using “the Church” as a synonym for the CC) however, are responsible to the Church here and now

See, SOMEHOW, self MUST get all OTHERS as accountable. Right here and right now. But get self as unaccountable. Hard to pull off in any credible manner.

Anyway, we know that Hebrews tells us to submit ourselves to those who are over us in the Lord.

First of all, any discussion of this REQUIRES accountability. If you are going to permit one to just exempt self from this, then we really can’t have a discussion about correctness, can we?

When we read Scripture on this, I think several things come out:

1. Over and over and over, we have bold, clear, divine warnings of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and teachers that lead many astray. Jesus spoke of those in sheeps’ clothing. He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church won’t permit, regarding teachers as accountable, for testing and norming them, for arbitrating the issue, for declaring them false. All this makes no sense if teachers are unaccountable and we are to just accept whatever we are tuaght “with docility.” And we all note the obvious: NONE of these verses exempt ANY teacher from this. Including The Catholic Church. Or The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Or Pope Benedict or Jerry Kieschnick.
2. On the other hand, we are told to submit to those with authority, to listen to sound instruction. To be open to correction. I think this applies to all (I see nothing that exempts The Catholic Church or me or you). But to “submit” does not imply that the object of such is INFALLIBLE or UNACCOUNTABLE or INCAPABLE of error. If a policeman asks to to pull over, I submit. It doesn’t mean that the policeman is INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable for anything he says or does, whatever he says is what Jesus says. We can press this to the absurd.
3. There’s a balance here. One The Catholic Church has entirely abandoned. At least for ITSELF. While it takes # 2 to absurd and clearly abiblical extremes, it entirely ignores # 1 (for itself anyway).

I believe that paul c mentioned to you that the Church is the arbitrer, as we Catholics see it. (Perhaps a different thread could be started on who is the arbitrer.)

Yes, it is so required. Of course, The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole authoritive arbiter. IT alone will determine if IT is correct when IT agrees with ITSELF. My experience tells me that generally teachers think they are right, and usually teachers DO agree with self. I just find zero relevance to that teacher being correct.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[LionHeart777]

American Josiah,

1. just in case you were not aware I did address the issue of the JW’s and Mormons and explained why I believe that the fact that there are more than one claimant to the “throne” which the Catholic Church also lays claim to doesn’t mean that all claimants are false. Again, IMO Mathew 18 refers to a visible institution.* The same one which I would argue that Saint Ignatius of Antioch was writing his Epistles to parts of. If not the CC, who is the true heir to the authority Jesus speaks about in this verse?

*a point brought up by Staples in the Staples vs. Greg debate on cd.

1. I also addressed your argument about Scripture warning about false teachers. The Catholic Church has seen plenty of them come and go.

I would finally like to say that the institution spoken of in Mathew 18, is one which sounds like it has the authority to exempt “self” since “self” itself is the very authority that Jesus established to do the arbitrating while He is away:

" 15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

(biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2018&version=KJV) (Accessed 2/ 13/ 10.)

Who, in your opinion, is a better claimant to what is described here as “the church”?

How are you personally living out these verses?

-peace

 

[CWBetts]

Why is it that I give solid Biblical evidence for Church authority, and AJ won’t give a response?

 

[paul_c]

Why is it that I give solid Biblical evidence for Church authority, and AJ won’t give a response?

Because he cant bear the truth because he has so much invested in the false theory of sola scriptura. Right now, He seems more worried about saving face than he is about saving his soul. Hopefully, that will change with time.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Why is it that I give solid Biblical evidence for Church authority, and AJ won’t give a response?

You gave nothing that even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. About authority. About it exclusively being unaccountable. About it alone being infallible/incapable of error. About it being exempt from norming. About anything. Concerning anything. Regarding anything. IF you had, we could discuss those verses, but we all know none of them so much as even MENTIONED it - or any of those issues.

Do you believe truth matters? Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught? Do you believe The Catholic Church teaches doctrines? IF you answer yes to those (and it is telling that you won’t answer them at all), then undeniably, The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches - no less than any other teacher. You, me, Joseph Smith, Pope Benedict, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jim Jones, Arius, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Since they are accountable, they are subject to norming. The first issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such?

Where we disagree is whether The Catholic Church exclusively is infallible/unaccountable and exempt from norming - to ANY rule/canon, right cuz it alone says it alone is. I find that rubric circular, worthless, and entirely moot to whether that teacher is correct. My study of Scripture, life and of the cults makes this rather clear. Again, the reason why The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and all the cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture is not because any of them has an alternative (better or worse) but because each rejects accountbility - but only, exclusively, solely in the singular instance of self alone, each instead simply proclaiming self alone as incapable of being wrong and thus right, each substituting the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility, as God speaking.

.

 

[CWBetts]

You gave nothing that even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. About authority. About it exclusively being unaccountable. About it alone being infallible/incapable of error. About it being exempt from norming. IF you had - we could discuss those verses, but we all know none of them so much as even MENTIONED it - or any of those issues.

Do you believe truth matters? Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught? Do you believe The Catholic Church teaches doctrines? IF you answer yes to those (and it is telling that you won’t answer them at all), then undeniably, The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches - no less than any other teacher. You, me, Joseph Smith, Pope Benedict, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jim Jones, Arius, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Since they are accountable, they are subject to norming. The first issue then becomes WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for such?

Where we disagree is whether The Catholic Church exclusively is infallible/unaccountable and exempt from norming - to ANY rule/canon, right cuz it alone says it alone is. I find that rubric circular, worthless, and entirely moot to whether that teacher is correct. My study of Scripture, life and of the cults makes this rather clear. Again, the reason why The Catholic Church (as well as the LDS and all the cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture is not because any of them has an alternative (better or worse) but because each rejects accountbility - but only, exclusively, solely in the singular instance of self alone, each instead simply proclaiming self alone as incapable of being wrong and thus right, each substituting the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility, as God speaking.

.

What I provided Church authority. If it does not then give me your exegesis so I can show you how it is wrong.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

American Josiah,

I would finally like to say that the institution spoken of in Mathew 18, is one which sounds like it has the authority to exempt “self” since “self” itself is the very authority that Jesus established to do the arbitrating while He is away:

" 15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Some comments:

1. These words were spoken to people, not to The Catholic Church.
2. There’s nothing here that even mentions The Catholic Church or about it exclusively being infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming for its doctrines.
3. The context here is not the norming of doctrine or the infallibility of any specific denomination, the context here is personal reconciliation because of sin. It deals with sin, not doctrine.
4. The “ye” here a personal, plural pronoun. It’s about US, not any it.
5. This seems to suggest that people are accountable. I see nothing here that a teacher is unaccountable for what he says or does if he so declares that he is.

Who, in your opinion, is a better claimant to what is described here as “the church”?

Actually, I think there is MUCH wisdom here. I think “church” here means Christians, not the singular, specific, particular The Catholic Church. But then I beleive Christians are people and thus the communion, community, assembly of Christians (the church) is also people. I think ONE of our ministries as Christians is one of reconciliation and forgiveness.

But we are WAY off topic. The issue before us is doctrine, and the teachers of such. Are they accountable or not? And is one correct if he exempts self from the question and instead insists that he alone is incapable of being wrong and whatever he says is simply to be accepted as correct (even infallible) “with docility” “as Jesus speaking?”

How are you personally living out these verses?

I embrace accountability in my life. I firmly believe in the confession of sins. And I look to my fellow Christians for wisdom, correction, strength. I look to fellow Christians for the application of both Law and Gospel.

Let’s see if we can return to the subject permitted for us to discuss here: Do you think truth matters? Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? IF you answer “yes” to those 3 things (and carefully read CCC 87 before you do - I don’t want you to be uncatholic here), then undeniably, The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as doctrine. The question then becomes: WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for the norming of such? THAT is the issue addressed in the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura).

Thank you! I appreciate your “tone” in this regard.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What I provided Church authority. If it does not then give me your exegesis so I can show you how it is wrong.

No, you did not.

None of the verses you quoted even so much as MENTIONED The Catholic Church - even in total passing. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. In any regard, for any issue. I know that, you know that, all who can read know that. A little honesty goes a long way in our discussions…

And NONE of them so much as even MENTIONED unaccountability or infalliblity or that a teacher is exempt from norming if the self same so insists for the self same, or that whatever a teacher says is simply to be accepted with docility if the self same so insists for self.

Do you think truth matters, especially concerning our eternal souls?
Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
Do you think teachers of such are accountable for what they teach?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions, then you accept that The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as such - no less than any other teacher, and is thus subject to norming. So the first question becomes WHAT will serve as the norma normans for that norming? You and I disagree because we disagree on those 3 foundational questions. I answer them with a “yes,” you are not permitted by your denomination to do so. You are required by The Catholic Church to lay accountability aside in the singular, exclusively, sole case of just ONE teacher - The Catholic Church, and rather just accept with docility whatever it alone says in these matters. You reject the Rule of Scripture because you are required to reject accountability - but only for ONE, The Catholic Church as The Catholic Church so insists.

I find that self exempting self from accountability is not a sound approach to the norming of that one’s teachings, and that self alone declaring self alone to be correct has zero relevance to that one being correct. Thus, our fundamental disagreement. But then, to be a faithful Catholic, you have no choice. And I understand and appreciate that fully and completely.

.

 

[CWBetts]

Let me spell it out for you.
From Matthew chapter 16:

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

First, we must understand that even though the oldest extant copies of Matthew are in Greek, Aramaic was the language spoken by the Jews. So any argument regarding Petra/Petros are thoroughly invalid. Why? The word actually spoken by Jesus was the Aramaic “kepha.” Truthfully the only reason for the variation in the Greek is because the Greek word for “rock” (petra) is feminine in gender, and is inappropriate to use as a man’s name, and the masculine form (petros) does not convey the metaphor properly. Another language issue to bring up is “church”. The Greek there is “ekklisia.” Translated in the Old Testament as “the people,” “congregation” or “assembly,” it makes reference to the people of God. So in essence, Jesus is saying He will (future tense–this happens at Pentecost in its fullness) build His Kingdom, that is His covenential people, on the leadership of Peter. Now let us turn to the “gates of death” (other translations use hades, hell, powers of death, or netherworld). This indicates not only the final victory over death that the faithful will experience, but also the permanence of the Church.

19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The “keys of the kingdom” is an important image of what really is going on. We must remember that the main theme of Matthew is the Kingdom of Heaven. This is evidenced by several passages. First is the genealogy in Matthew 1. This establishes Jesus as a Son of David. He had the proper lineage to be the Messiah. In Matthew 13, Jesus gives several parables that establish the Kingdom as the Church. Other things that show that Jesus is reestablishing the Davidic Kingdom includes His baptism (Solomon was anointed with a prophet (Nathan) and a priest (Samuel) presiding–Jesus was anointed by a prophet of a priestly lineage), selection of the Twelve (Solomon had twelve officers, plus there are some non-Canonical Hebrew writings that say that in the Messianic age, the Patriarchs would be brought back from the dead, which they were, in the same way that John the Baptist was Elijah). The Kingdom must be understood because the Keys of the Kingdom refers to a specific office in the Davidic Kingdom. Details of this office can be found in Isaiah 22:

20: In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,
21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
24: And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.

Jesus is Giving Peter this office. Also note that it is an office, meaning that when the first person (Peter) leaves the office, he is to be replaced by another. An office implies permanency. What is the nature of this office? It carries with it a measure of authority. The last thing that needs to be addressed is the concept of “binding and loosing.” This phrase is not explained in the Scriptures. What this refers to is the authority to declare what is right and wrong.

Matthew 16:13-20 FIRMLY establishes the infallibility and authority of the Church. And I should not need to remind you, as I have said this several times, the word “Catholic” is was not needed. No other Church existed at the time. Jesus only intended to found one Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Let me spell it out for you.
From Matthew chapter 16:

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

First, we must understand that even though the oldest extant copies of Matthew are in Greek, Aramaic was the language spoken by the Jews. So any argument regarding Petra/Petros are thoroughly invalid. Why? The word actually spoken by Jesus was the Aramaic “kepha.” Truthfully the only reason for the variation in the Greek is because the Greek word for “rock” (petra) is feminine in gender, and is inappropriate to use as a man’s name, and the masculine form (petros) does not convey the metaphor properly. Another language issue to bring up is “church”. The Greek there is “ekklisia.” Translated in the Old Testament as “the people,” “congregation” or “assembly,” it makes reference to the people of God. So in essence, Jesus is saying He will (future tense–this happens at Pentecost in its fullness) build His Kingdom, that is His covenential people, on the leadership of Peter. Now let us turn to the “gates of death” (other translations use hades, hell, powers of death, or netherworld). This indicates not only the final victory over death that the faithful will experience, but also the permanence of the Church.

… in other words, the text doesn’t so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church, infallibility, unaccountability or states that a teacher is correct if the self same so self claims that the self same is.

Okay, so how does this verse indicate that The Catholic Church itself, specifically and exclusively, is constantly and in perpetuity infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming and whatever it alone says concerning dogma MUST be simply accepted with docility? Where?

19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The “keys of the kingdom” is an important image of what really is going on. We must remember that the main theme of Matthew is the Kingdom of Heaven. This is evidenced by several passages. First is the genealogy in Matthew 1. This establishes Jesus as a Son of David. He had the proper lineage to be the Messiah. In Matthew 13, Jesus gives several parables that establish the Kingdom as the Church. Other things that show that Jesus is reestablishing the Davidic Kingdom includes His baptism (Solomon was anointed with a prophet (Nathan) and a priest (Samuel) presiding–Jesus was anointed by a prophet of a priestly lineage), selection of the Twelve (Solomon had twelve officers, plus there are some non-Canonical Hebrew writings that say that in the Messianic age, the Patriarchs would be brought back from the dead, which they were, in the same way that John the Baptist was Elijah). The Kingdom must be understood because the Keys of the Kingdom refers to a specific office in the Davidic Kingdom. Details of this office can be found in Isaiah 22:

… in other words, the text doesn’t so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church, infallibility, unaccountability or states that a teacher is correct if the self same so self claims that the self same is. And nor does Isaiah 22. Gotcha.

Okay, so how does this verse state that The Catholic Church itself particularly and exclusively is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming and whatever it alone says concerning dogma MUST be simply accepted with docility?

Jesus is Giving Peter this office. Also note that it is an office, meaning that when the first person (Peter) leaves the office, he is to be replaced by another. An office implies permanency. What is the nature of this office? It carries with it a measure of authority. The last thing that needs to be addressed is the concept of “binding and loosing.” This phrase is not explained in the Scriptures. What this refers to is the authority to declare what is right and wrong.

Jesus said NOTHING about ANY office or successor.
Jesus said NOTHING about The Catholic Church.
Jesus said NOTHING about any teacher being infallible and unaccountable for the doctrine taught by such.

Matthew 16:13-20 FIRMLY establishes the infallibility and authority of the Church.

Not even in the wildest of dreams. He never so much as even MENTIONS your denomination or infalliblity or authority.

And again, I have not questioned the authority of Christians to teach (you must not either because YOU are teaching and you are not Peter), but authority does not mean infalliblity/unaccountability. Need I remind you that President Obama has great authority - yet you don’t regard him as infallible/unaccountable, whatever he says must be accepted with docility; I doubt you are insisting that abortion-on-demand MUST be infallibly correct because one with authority so says it is.

… continued in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

“Catholic” is was not needed. No other Church existed at the time. Jesus only intended to found one Church.

And He did found only one church, but there’s ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church existed at the time or that Jesus had anything at all to do with it. So, where is it indicated that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - is exempt from accountability and norming? You say it does, so just quote it. In fact, at this point, I think I would accept any verse that so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about ANYTHING, even if its’ entirely unrelated to your point, just to move the discussion forward. And while you are at it, ANY verse that mentions ANY teacher among us as infallible/unaccountable.

Friend, if I said, “Jesus said that I am the most handsome guy on the planet!” I just have a hunch your first question would be, “Where?” If I responded, “well, actually, he never once so much as mentioned me” I just have a hunch you’d laugh out loud.

You are building your entire apologetic on one point: That Jesus “FIRMLY” stated that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - is INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE and EXEMPT from norming. Okay. Where?

Friend, does truth matter, especially truth about our eternal souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what is taught?
IF you answer yes to the above, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. And the first question is: WHAT best serves as the norma normans for the norming of doctrines? The Catholic Church has no suggestion on that, at least for itself, because it alone exempts it alone from accountability in the teaching of doctrines. Why do you believe, so firmly, that the best evidence that a teacher is correct is for that teacher to insist that he alone is exempt from the question and rather must just be accepted as correct “with docility?”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[CWBetts]

.

And He did found only one church, but there’s ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church existed at the time or that Jesus had anything at all to do with it. So, where is it indicated that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - is exempt from accountability and norming? You say it does, so just quote it. In fact, at this point, I think I would accept any verse that so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about ANYTHING, even if its’ entirely unrelated to your point, just to move the discussion forward. And while you are at it, ANY verse that mentions ANY teacher among us as infallible/unaccountable.

Friend, if I said, “Jesus said that I am the most handsome guy on the planet!” I just have a hunch your first question would be, “Where?” If I responded, “well, actually, he never once so much as mentioned me” I just have a hunch you’d laugh out loud.

You are building your entire apologetic on one point: That Jesus “FIRMLY” stated that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - is INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE and EXEMPT from norming. Okay. Where?

Friend, does truth matter, especially truth about our eternal souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what is taught?
IF you answer yes to the above, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. And the first question is: WHAT best serves as the norma normans for the norming of doctrines? The Catholic Church has no suggestion on that, at least for itself, because it alone exempts it alone from accountability in the teaching of doctrines. Why do you believe, so firmly, that the best evidence that a teacher is correct is for that teacher to insist that he alone is exempt from the question and rather must just be accepted as correct “with docility?”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

If you read the early fathers, you will see that they were Catholic in doctrine and practice. I notice you have nothing to dispute about the rest of my post. SO when will you be starting RCIA?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you read the early fathers, you will see that they were Catholic in doctrine and practice.

I realize that the snippets that The Catholic Church chooses from the “Catholic Church Fathers” that The Catholic Church chooses, as The Catholic Church exclusively interprets to agree with The Catholic likely are viewed by The Catholic Church as agreeing with The Catholic Church - fundamentally in some issues, anyway.

Now, how does that reveal that Jesus said that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly and exclusively - is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming? Where? It’s been stated for page and after page that He did - even that He “FIRMLY” did, and the whole apologetic here by Catholics has been founded on THAT specific point: JESUS said so. So, I repeat: Where?

Do you believe truth matters, especially Christian doctrine?
Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable for what they teach?
Do you believe The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions, then The Catholic Church is accountable for its teachings - no less than any other. And the question then becomes, WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for the norming of such?

.

 

[LionHeart777]

CW Betts,

AJ would be a re-vert… unlike us converts Like paul c I think said, just a trip to the confessional. But, it doesn’t seem he’s quite there yet:bighanky:

AJ,

re: “the church” IMO it has to be a visible Church for this to play out and the context (scan up some) is of grave matter (i.e. the mill stone and the sea and leading the little ones astray.) I am shamelessly making the exact points Staple made to Gregg, but, they are good points IMO.

So, if “the church” is as you see it, and both CW Betts and you are members of “the church” how can you make that paradigm work for you?

 

[kepha1]

CW Betts,

AJ would be a re-vert… unlike us converts Like paul c I think said, just a trip to the confessional. But, it doesn’t seem he’s quite there yet:bighanky:

AJ,

re: “the church” IMO it has to be a visible Church for this to play out and the context (scan up some) is of grave matter (i.e. the mill stone and the sea and leading the little ones astray.) I am shamelessly making the exact points Staple made to Gregg, but, they are good points IMO.

So, if “the church” is as you see it, and both CW Betts and you are members of “the church” how can you make that paradigm work for you?

That’s a good question, LH. I have another one in a similar vein that AJ won’t answer. Where in all of Protestant (or other) history has sola scriptura been used to settle doctrinal disputes resulting in greater unity?

I’ll answer both questions, so no one holds their breath.

1. So, if “the church” is as you see it, and both CW Betts and you are members of “the church” how can you make that paradigm work for you?

MY ANSWER: The only paradigm that works is the one that hasn’t changed any doctrines, especially in the process of unfolding clarity. I’ve yet to see anyone prove otherwise with any intellectual rigor. The only paradigm that works is the one with parallel structure of the Council of Jerusalem.

When in all of Protestant (or other) history has sola scriptura been used to settle doctrinal disputes resulting in greater unity?

MY ANSWER: Never!

Just two more, I can’t resist:

If Jesus and the Apostles were sola scripturists, why did it take 1500 years for anyone to notice?

What would be the name of one “true believer”, after the Apostolic Age, in the first millenium of Church history? Now that’s nealy 1000 years to pick from. That’s a lot of people. Surely there must be somebody not named in the Bible that was a true believer in that long timespan. AJ’s refusal to answer any questions is a very sad thing, but not as sad as obstinate denial of revealed truth.

Invincible ignorance does not apply to AJ. He has been told. He has been deceived and open for deception for reasons that only God knows. Surely God in his mercy will diminish AJ’s culpability for his spiritual blindness.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, if “the church” is as you see it, and both CW Betts and you are members of “the church” how can you make that paradigm work for you?

Lost me… How does that confirm that Jesus stated that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - was/is/ever will be infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and that whatever it and it alone says is to rather just be accepted as correct with docility? How does it confirm that a defendant is correct if the defendant exempts himself from accountability and norming, simply declaring himself exclusively, constantly and perpetually to be incapable of wrong and thus always right, and thus just is and is to be accepted with docility; how is your comment a confirmation that that is not only the most sound way to determine if the defendant is correct but actually is infallible?

Do you believe that truth matters, especially doctine concerning our very souls?
Do you think The Catholic Church is a teacher of doctrine?
Do you think teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teaching as such?
IF you answer yes to these (and you cease to be Catholic if you do), then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches - no less than any other teacher. And the first issue then becomes WHAT best serves as the rule/canon for the norming of that teaching? Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture think Scripture is that. The Catholic Church has no alternative (at least for the unique teachings of itself alone), but it rejects the Rule of Scripture in such because it rejects accountability (but only, exclusively, solely in the singular case of itself alone) - and thus norming and everything assoicated with norming, including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon in such. Instead, it just insists, “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, so there. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. So forget about all that and just accept whatever I alone say with docility, as Jesus speaking.” Have you studied the epistemology of the LDS and all the cults?

Scripture warns us - over and over and over - of false teachers, never once exempting The Catholic Church from that warning. It’s moot if teachers are simply to be accepted with docility as infallible and unaccountable, as God speaking. Jesus praised The Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church doesn’t allow, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for declaring them false. IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident that the light reveals God’s Truth and unconcerned about his own power and lording it over others as the gentiles do. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, circumvent norming, lay aside all that and substitute the insistence of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says must rather just be accepted as correct with docility, as God speaking. Read your Catechism # 87.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Where has sola scriptura been used to settle doctrinal disputes resulting in greater unity?

Greater unity than WHAT? The “unity” of The Catholic Church? A unity of ONE: self alone agrees with self alone - and that only currently, officially and formally? You have a very odd definition of unity…

We all know that The Catholic Church agrees with just one: The Catholic Church EXCLUSIVELY. Self alone agrees with self alone. That’s it. That’s all. You keep pointing out the absolute LACK of any unity as if it’s suppose to have some significance. And yet, when The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod agrees with itself, you see no significance at all - indicating that you actually reject your own argument. Friend, self usually agrees with self. YOU think THAT means that self must be infallible. And yet I agree with me and you think I’m wrong. Make up your mind.

Friend, I agree with my Calvinist friend under the Rule of Scripture FAR, FAR, FAR more than you agree with my Mormon friend, both of you under the Rule of self agreeing with self, the teacher exempting self alone from accountability and rather just declaring self to be correct and everyone must just accept whatever self alone says with docility, as God speaking.

MY ANSWER: The only paradigm that works is the one that hasn’t changed any doctrines, especially in the process of unfolding clarity. I’ve yet to see anyone prove otherwise with any intellectual rigor. The only paradigm that works is the one with parallel structure of the Council of Jerusalem.

Odd you should direct our attention there, because it used Sola Scriptura.

Teachers taught, and they were held ACCOUNTABLE! The very thing you are fighting so hard to demand that they not be (at least if that teacher is The Catholic Church exclusively). The Council embraced ACCOUNTABILITY. It was a NORMING process - the very thing The Catholic Church won’t permit (at least for itself exclusively). NO TEACHER here was called infallible, unaccountable, right cuz the teacher insist self alone just is.

Verse 8. All teachings were accountable, normed. NOT by self alone (the only way The Catholic Church will permit).

Verse 5, 7-12. MANY spoke. Yes, Peter was just one of them, but his words are given no special significance, never referenced as infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, WHATEVER he says is just to be accepted with docility. Had that been the view, the Council of Jerusalem would not even have been necesary, they just would have asked Peter. As it is, he is just ONE of the speakers. Not the first, not the last, not the one that caused the whole assembly to become silent and to listen.

We don’t know how the arbitive process worked (it doesn’t say), but James (NOT Peter - and probably not even an Apostle) annoucing the decision of the ASSEMBLY, and (here comes the part no Catholic ever quotes - it destroys the Catholic position), he says the decison is right BECAUSE (verse 15), “The words of the Prophets (Scripture) are in agreement with this, AS IT IS WRITTEN…” He goes on to quote SCRIPTURE (not Peter, not Catholic Tradition). Then verse 19 nails this, “It is my judgement THEREFORE…” The “therefore” harkens back to the SCRIPTURE he just quoted. Scripture as the Rule/Canon here. You know what this is commonly called? Yup. “Sola Scriptura.”

MY ANSWER: Never!

Give me one example when self alone declaring self alone to be correct, exempting self alone from accountability and norming, self alone rather insisting taht everyone just accept whatever self alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” ever resolved anything or had any relevance WHATSOEVER to that one being correct? Ever studied the epistemology of the LDS and all the cults? You’ve never answered that question…

Do you believe that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
Do you think teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
IF so, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches as such, no less than any other - right here, right now - just as it insists for all OTHERS.

Why do you believe the most sound way to determine the correctness of a defendant is for that defendant to simply exempt himself from accountability? That if he alone declares that he alone is correct then he alone is - and must just be accepted as correct with docility, as God speaking? Why is that rubric not only the most sound, but infallible?

.

.

 

[kepha1]

http://www.parrot-bird.com/parrot-pictures/grey_parrot/african-grey-Parrot-23.jpg