GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind  (Read 22333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2010, 11:07:58 PM »
So your argument is just that Catholics are dumb?   I guess with this post and your response to Winsome would mean that you are dropping your assertion that Catholic priest "do not encourage it", then.   As there is the class by your admission and there is no higher authority of priests within the Church than the Vatican, it is of course, encouraged by them.   

As I said before, I haven't claimed anything about the church in general.   ::eek::  Only my experiences with the church and with the Catholic people I've known.


Your experiences seem jaded and spotty. 


A question for you:

Did you and your family pray the Rosary together at home when you were a child?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2010, 11:07:58 PM »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #61 on: August 13, 2010, 01:27:59 AM »
Yes we did, Chesterton.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #61 on: August 13, 2010, 01:27:59 AM »

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #62 on: August 13, 2010, 06:30:52 AM »
Josiah,

Two problems with your viewpoint:

1. The scripture that you use is only a subset of God’s revelation. It is incomplete because it has books missing and because it is only the written down canonised part of that revelation.

The Catholic Church believes it has the fullness of God’s revelation in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

From the Vatican II document Dei Verbum:
And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes……

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.


2. Scripture (and Tradition) needs to be interpreted. Despite what protestants try to claim it is not self interpreting.

From Dei Verbum:
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #63 on: August 13, 2010, 11:42:58 AM »
Josiah posted

"Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  


First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).


1.  Where did I post ANYTHING about anyone or anything defining dogma????   Our conversations will be MUCH more profitable if you read what's posted and respond to such?


2.  Let's READ your Catechism # 87:   Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.


Some questions:

1.  Who/what wrote The Catholic Catechism (including paragraph 87)?  Who/What insists on a docilic embrace of whatever is taught?


2.  Who/What are we told to accept "with docility?"  Exclusively the Bishop in Rome?  Our Bishop?  Bishops ordained in the RCC?  Lutheran pastors?  Ah, it's very specific, isn't it?  "The teachings and directives that their Catholic pastors give them."  THAT is what you are to do, according to the RCC:  Accept whatever you are told, "with docility." 

3.  And why?  Because such has been normed correct?  Because such has been confirmed by a true Ecumenical Council?  Nope, but because Jesus said, "whoever hears you, hears me."  (BTW, did you know this paragraph of the Catholic Catechism contains a very foundation, key, critical statement that is actually a fallacy?  Jesus never promised this to ANY Apostle - ever (thus the whole implication of Apostolic Succession is entirely moot).  Ah, you are to surrender all norming in the singular, exclusive, sole, particular case of whatever the RCC says (and the pastors thereof) BECAUSE you are to just accept with docility that the RCC is right.  Does this sound like "blind" to you?


Quote
An ecumenical Council (or the Pope speaking ex Cathedra) does not err on dogmatical issues. Why?? because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error.

1.  Sorry, that's just a pure claim.

2.  There hasn't been an ecumenical council in over 1,200 years.  NONE of the distinctive RCC dogmas has EVER been approved by ANY Ecumenical Council.  For 1,200 years, the RCC has had a LOT of denomination meetings (as virtually all denominations have) but that's it, that's all.   

3.  You are STILL working very hard to confirm the point of the opening post:  In the RCC, it's people blindly following thier denomination.  You may just accept by faith that your denomination CANNOT be wrong because it alone says that it alone is - but then you are defending the same rubric as used in all the cults and as was used in the LDS until about a century ago.  I'm NOT saying you can't do that, I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that - but you do seem to be confirming the accusation.

4.  AND... you are doing a wonderful job of confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC (like the LDS as well as all cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) is because the RCC rejects norming in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone - by ANY rule/canon/norma normans (Scripture or otherwise).  What it instead insists upon is that whatever IT teaches just be accepted "with docility."  You may agree to do that (as the RCC instructs you to do - CCC 87) but that doesn't change the reality that that's what it demand in lieu of norming, and thus why it rejects norming (in the case of itself).





.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #63 on: August 13, 2010, 11:42:58 AM »

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #64 on: August 13, 2010, 12:47:30 PM »
Is not the norma normans non normata Jesus Christ himself?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #64 on: August 13, 2010, 12:47:30 PM »



Offline AvrilNYC

  • Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Manna: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #65 on: August 13, 2010, 12:49:57 PM »
Josiah posted

"Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  


First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).


1.  Where did I post ANYTHING about anyone or anything defining dogma????   Our conversations will be MUCH more profitable if you read what's posted and respond to such?


2.  Let's READ your Catechism # 87:   Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.


Some questions:

1.  Who/what wrote The Catholic Catechism (including paragraph 87)?  Who/What insists on a docilic embrace of whatever is taught?


2.  Who/What are we told to accept "with docility?"  Exclusively the Bishop in Rome?  Our Bishop?  Bishops ordained in the RCC?  Lutheran pastors?  Ah, it's very specific, isn't it?  "The teachings and directives that their Catholic pastors give them."  THAT is what you are to do, according to the RCC:  Accept whatever you are told, "with docility."  

3.  And why?  Because such has been normed correct?  Because such has been confirmed by a true Ecumenical Council?  Nope, but because Jesus said, "whoever hears you, hears me."  (BTW, did you know this paragraph of the Catholic Catechism contains a very foundation, key, critical statement that is actually a fallacy?  Jesus never promised this to ANY Apostle - ever (thus the whole implication of Apostolic Succession is entirely moot).  Ah, you are to surrender all norming in the singular, exclusive, sole, particular case of whatever the RCC says (and the pastors thereof) BECAUSE you are to just accept with docility that the RCC is right.  Does this sound like "blind" to you?


Quote
An ecumenical Council (or the Pope speaking ex Cathedra) does not err on dogmatical issues. Why?? because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error.

1.  Sorry, that's just a pure claim.

2.  There hasn't been an ecumenical council in over 1,200 years.  NONE of the distinctive RCC dogmas has EVER been approved by ANY Ecumenical Council.  For 1,200 years, the RCC has had a LOT of denomination meetings (as virtually all denominations have) but that's it, that's all.  

3.  You are STILL working very hard to confirm the point of the opening post:  In the RCC, it's people blindly following thier denomination.  You may just accept by faith that your denomination CANNOT be wrong because it alone says that it alone is - but then you are defending the same rubric as used in all the cults and as was used in the LDS until about a century ago.  I'm NOT saying you can't do that, I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that - but you do seem to be confirming the accusation.

4.  AND... you are doing a wonderful job of confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC (like the LDS as well as all cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) is because the RCC rejects norming in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone - by ANY rule/canon/norma normans (Scripture or otherwise).  What it instead insists upon is that whatever IT teaches just be accepted "with docility."  You may agree to do that (as the RCC instructs you to do - CCC 87) but that doesn't change the reality that that's what it demand in lieu of norming, and thus why it rejects norming (in the case of itself).

.

I do not find your posts coherent. You do not comprehend my posts. You never address them anyway. You seem completely ignorant of basic Catholic Theology. You seem ignorant of Orthodox theology. You keep repeating the same five sentences over and over again for months now.

Thus, I'm stoping the dialogue with you Josiah. I wish you the best about making yourself feel better about your decisions

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #66 on: August 15, 2010, 07:31:50 AM »
Josiah posted

"Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  


First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).


1.  Where did I post ANYTHING about anyone or anything defining dogma????   Our conversations will be MUCH more profitable if you read what's posted and respond to such?


2.  Let's READ your Catechism # 87:   Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.


Some questions:

1.  Who/what wrote The Catholic Catechism (including paragraph 87)?  Who/What insists on a docilic embrace of whatever is taught?


2.  Who/What are we told to accept "with docility?"  Exclusively the Bishop in Rome?  Our Bishop?  Bishops ordained in the RCC?  Lutheran pastors?  Ah, it's very specific, isn't it?  "The teachings and directives that their Catholic pastors give them."  THAT is what you are to do, according to the RCC:  Accept whatever you are told, "with docility." 

3.  And why?  Because such has been normed correct?  Because such has been confirmed by a true Ecumenical Council?  Nope, but because Jesus said, "whoever hears you, hears me."  (BTW, did you know this paragraph of the Catholic Catechism contains a very foundation, key, critical statement that is actually a fallacy?  Jesus never promised this to ANY Apostle - ever (thus the whole implication of Apostolic Succession is entirely moot).  Ah, you are to surrender all norming in the singular, exclusive, sole, particular case of whatever the RCC says (and the pastors thereof) BECAUSE you are to just accept with docility that the RCC is right.  Does this sound like "blind" to you?


Quote
An ecumenical Council (or the Pope speaking ex Cathedra) does not err on dogmatical issues. Why?? because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error.

1.  Sorry, that's just a pure claim.

2.  There hasn't been an ecumenical council in over 1,200 years.  NONE of the distinctive RCC dogmas has EVER been approved by ANY Ecumenical Council.  For 1,200 years, the RCC has had a LOT of denomination meetings (as virtually all denominations have) but that's it, that's all.   

3.  You are STILL working very hard to confirm the point of the opening post:  In the RCC, it's people blindly following thier denomination.  You may just accept by faith that your denomination CANNOT be wrong because it alone says that it alone is - but then you are defending the same rubric as used in all the cults and as was used in the LDS until about a century ago.  I'm NOT saying you can't do that, I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that - but you do seem to be confirming the accusation.

4.  AND... you are doing a wonderful job of confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC (like the LDS as well as all cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) is because the RCC rejects norming in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone - by ANY rule/canon/norma normans (Scripture or otherwise).  What it instead insists upon is that whatever IT teaches just be accepted "with docility."  You may agree to do that (as the RCC instructs you to do - CCC 87) but that doesn't change the reality that that's what it demand in lieu of norming, and thus why it rejects norming (in the case of itself).





.

Josaih,

Can you show me in scripture where it says that Scripture Alone is the rule of faith?

Thanks

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #67 on: August 16, 2010, 10:51:23 AM »


First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).


1.  Where did I post ANYTHING about anyone or anything defining dogma????   Our conversations will be MUCH more profitable if you read what's posted and respond to such?


2.  Let's READ your Catechism # 87:   Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.


Some questions:

1.  Who/what wrote The Catholic Catechism (including paragraph 87)?  Who/What insists on a docilic embrace of whatever is taught?


2.  Who/What are we told to accept "with docility?"  Exclusively the Bishop in Rome?  Our Bishop?  Bishops ordained in the RCC?  Lutheran pastors?  Ah, it's very specific, isn't it?  "The teachings and directives that their Catholic pastors give them."  THAT is what you are to do, according to the RCC:  Accept whatever you are told, "with docility."  

3.  And why?  Because such has been normed correct?  Because such has been confirmed by a true Ecumenical Council?  Nope, but because Jesus said, "whoever hears you, hears me."  (BTW, did you know this paragraph of the Catholic Catechism contains a very foundation, key, critical statement that is actually a fallacy?  Jesus never promised this to ANY Apostle - ever (thus the whole implication of Apostolic Succession is entirely moot).  Ah, you are to surrender all norming in the singular, exclusive, sole, particular case of whatever the RCC says (and the pastors thereof) BECAUSE you are to just accept with docility that the RCC is right.  Does this sound like "blind" to you?


You are STILL working very hard to confirm the point of the opening post:  In the RCC, it's people blindly following thier denomination.  You may just accept by faith that your denomination CANNOT be wrong because it alone says that it alone is - but then you are defending the same rubric as used in all the cults and as was used in the LDS until about a century ago.  I'm NOT saying you can't do that, I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that - but you do seem to be confirming the accusation.

4.  AND... you are doing a wonderful job of confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC (like the LDS as well as all cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) is because the RCC rejects norming in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone - by ANY rule/canon/norma normans (Scripture or otherwise).  What it instead insists upon is that whatever IT teaches just be accepted "with docility."  You may agree to do that (as the RCC instructs you to do - CCC 87) but that doesn't change the reality that that's what it demand in lieu of norming, and thus why it rejects norming (in the case of itself).






.

Josaih,

Can you show me in scripture where it says that Scripture Alone is the rule of faith?

Thanks


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.



Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.

In theology, accountability is also relevant for truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.



The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.







.



« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 11:02:50 AM by Josiah »

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #68 on: August 16, 2010, 11:03:26 AM »
Josiah posted

"Okay.  Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners."  Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind?   Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"  


First of all, Catholic priests never define dogma. So your first point just reveals how clueless you are about Catholic theology. Second, individual Bishops never define dogma either - again you reveal how clueless you are regarding Catholic faith - a faith you keep distorting. An Ecumenical council of Bishops can define dogma (did you know that?).


1.  Where did I post ANYTHING about anyone or anything defining dogma????   Our conversations will be MUCH more profitable if you read what's posted and respond to such?


2.  Let's READ your Catechism # 87:   Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms.


Some questions:

1.  Who/what wrote The Catholic Catechism (including paragraph 87)?  Who/What insists on a docilic embrace of whatever is taught?


2.  Who/What are we told to accept "with docility?"  Exclusively the Bishop in Rome?  Our Bishop?  Bishops ordained in the RCC?  Lutheran pastors?  Ah, it's very specific, isn't it?  "The teachings and directives that their Catholic pastors give them."  THAT is what you are to do, according to the RCC:  Accept whatever you are told, "with docility."  

3.  And why?  Because such has been normed correct?  Because such has been confirmed by a true Ecumenical Council?  Nope, but because Jesus said, "whoever hears you, hears me."  (BTW, did you know this paragraph of the Catholic Catechism contains a very foundation, key, critical statement that is actually a fallacy?  Jesus never promised this to ANY Apostle - ever (thus the whole implication of Apostolic Succession is entirely moot).  Ah, you are to surrender all norming in the singular, exclusive, sole, particular case of whatever the RCC says (and the pastors thereof) BECAUSE you are to just accept with docility that the RCC is right.  Does this sound like "blind" to you?


Quote
An ecumenical Council (or the Pope speaking ex Cathedra) does not err on dogmatical issues. Why?? because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error.

1.  Sorry, that's just a pure claim.

2.  There hasn't been an ecumenical council in over 1,200 years.  NONE of the distinctive RCC dogmas has EVER been approved by ANY Ecumenical Council.  For 1,200 years, the RCC has had a LOT of denomination meetings (as virtually all denominations have) but that's it, that's all.  

3.  You are STILL working very hard to confirm the point of the opening post:  In the RCC, it's people blindly following thier denomination.  You may just accept by faith that your denomination CANNOT be wrong because it alone says that it alone is - but then you are defending the same rubric as used in all the cults and as was used in the LDS until about a century ago.  I'm NOT saying you can't do that, I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that - but you do seem to be confirming the accusation.

4.  AND... you are doing a wonderful job of confirming my point.  The reason why the RCC (like the LDS as well as all cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) is because the RCC rejects norming in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone - by ANY rule/canon/norma normans (Scripture or otherwise).  What it instead insists upon is that whatever IT teaches just be accepted "with docility."  You may agree to do that (as the RCC instructs you to do - CCC 87) but that doesn't change the reality that that's what it demand in lieu of norming, and thus why it rejects norming (in the case of itself).





.

Josaih,

Can you show me in scripture where it says that Scripture Alone is the rule of faith?

Thanks


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)



Ah,

So it's an unscriptural man made tradition of the Lutherans.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2010, 11:13:50 AM »
.


You forgot to quote the references:


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.




Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.



In theology, accountability is also relevant because truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.




The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.


No, the PRAXIS of using the Rule of Scripture in norming is not Tradition, it's praxis.  No, it's not Lutheran since none of the examples here are Lutheran, they are all from Jesus and the Apostles.   Now, contrast all this to self declaring self to be incapable of error and exempt from accountaiblity by any norm - exclusively if self is the specific RCC.  I think you'll find this not only NEVER traught but NEVER exampled.




.





Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2010, 11:28:47 AM »
.


You forgot to quote the references:


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.




Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.



In theology, accountability is also relevant because truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.




The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.


No, the PRAXIS of using the Rule of Scripture in norming is not Tradition, it's praxis.  No, it's not Lutheran since none of the examples here are Lutheran, they are all from Jesus and the Apostles.   Now, contrast all this to self declaring self to be incapable of error and exempt from accountaiblity by any norm - exclusively if self is the specific RCC.  I think you'll find this not only NEVER traught but NEVER exampled.



So practices don't have to have any scriptural basis?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2010, 11:36:17 AM »
.


You forgot to quote the references:


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.




Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.



In theology, accountability is also relevant because truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.




The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.


No, the PRAXIS of using the Rule of Scripture in norming is not Tradition, it's praxis.  No, it's not Lutheran since none of the examples here are Lutheran, they are all from Jesus and the Apostles.   Now, contrast all this to self declaring self to be incapable of error and exempt from accountaiblity by any norm - exclusively if self is the specific RCC.  I think you'll find this not only NEVER traught but NEVER exampled.



So practices don't have to have any scriptural basis?


Sola Scriptura DOES, but no - practices do not have to be TAUGHT or exampled.   It's just that Sola Scriptura IS exampled - by Jesus and the Apostles (and of course, all over the OT as well). 


And yes, I think there are examples of people blindly following ("with docility") one who insists that he is to be blindly followed and self exclusively exempted from norming (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, and many, many other examples).   And yes, Scripture does not support that (2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14, etc., etc.). 





.

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2010, 11:41:39 AM »
.


You forgot to quote the references:


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.




Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.



In theology, accountability is also relevant because truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.




The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.


No, the PRAXIS of using the Rule of Scripture in norming is not Tradition, it's praxis.  No, it's not Lutheran since none of the examples here are Lutheran, they are all from Jesus and the Apostles.   Now, contrast all this to self declaring self to be incapable of error and exempt from accountaiblity by any norm - exclusively if self is the specific RCC.  I think you'll find this not only NEVER traught but NEVER exampled.



So practices don't have to have any scriptural basis?


Sola Scriptura DOES, but no - practices do not have to be TAUGHT or exampled.   It's just that Sola Scriptura IS exampled - by Jesus and the Apostles (and of course, all over the OT as well).  


And yes, I think there are examples of people blindly following ("with docility") one who insists that he is to be blindly followed and self exclusively exempted from norming (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, and many, many other examples).   And yes, Scripture does not support that (2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14, etc., etc.).  





.

So scripture doesn't say the scripture is the sole norm that must be followed.

This is an invention of Lutherans.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2010, 12:19:36 PM »
.


You forgot to quote the references:


Embracing Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines is a practice, thus it would not be expected to be TAUGHT.  (VERY few practices are).   It is not necessary that practices be EXAMPLED (illustrated) in Scripture (or we could not be chatting here on the internet) but the issues before us ARE thus illustrated.  What is NEVER illustrated is a denomination being regarded as INCAPABLE of error, exempt from norming, and whatever it itself says just embraced with docility.


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:  "The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3).  "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.


Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.

The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.




Norming:


Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."

The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.



In theology, accountability is also relevant because truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.




The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.  It requires that it be given a complete, absolute "pass" on the issue of correctness and rather whatever it says just be embraced "with docility."  To ME, this seems a lot like "with blindness" - and thus relevant to the issue of this thread.  The RCC's position is blind embrace, exempting it from accountability.


No, the PRAXIS of using the Rule of Scripture in norming is not Tradition, it's praxis.  No, it's not Lutheran since none of the examples here are Lutheran, they are all from Jesus and the Apostles.   Now, contrast all this to self declaring self to be incapable of error and exempt from accountaiblity by any norm - exclusively if self is the specific RCC.  I think you'll find this not only NEVER traught but NEVER exampled.



So practices don't have to have any scriptural basis?


Sola Scriptura DOES, but no - practices do not have to be TAUGHT or exampled.   It's just that Sola Scriptura IS exampled - by Jesus and the Apostles (and of course, all over the OT as well).  


And yes, I think there are examples of people blindly following ("with docility") one who insists that he is to be blindly followed and self exclusively exempted from norming (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, and many, many other examples).   And yes, Scripture does not support that (2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14, etc., etc.).  





.

So scripture doesn't say the scripture is the sole norm that must be followed.

This is an invention of Lutherans.


1.  Scripture affirms that teachers are ACCOUNTABLE - and never exempts the RCC.

2.  Scripture examples norming, and examples using Scripture as the rule (a praxis known as Sola Scriptura).

3.  No, this is not an "invention" of Lutherans.  Read the following (JUST A FEW examples, JUST from the NT) - none of which from Lutherans, all from Jesus or the Apostles:  Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.   Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, and these are just SOME examples of the praxis from just Jesus the New Testament.  The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.

Now, where did Jesus or any Apostle say that there is one teacher of doctrine that is exempt from accountability/norming and whatever that one specifically and exclusively says is to be given a "pass" on the issue of correctness and just embraced "with docility" - and that this singular, exclusive, particular teacher is the specific RCC?  







.


Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4482
  • Manna: 78
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2010, 12:33:37 PM »

1.  Scripture affirms that teachers are ACCOUNTABLE - and never exempts the RCC.




Where does scripture say teachers are accountable and to whom or what does it say they are accountable?

How about this
Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God, (Rom 3:9)

« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 12:50:14 PM by winsome »