GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind  (Read 23148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #70 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 12:28:47 »
.


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?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #70 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 12:28:47 »

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #71 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 12:36:17 »
.


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.). 





.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #71 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 12:36:17 »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #72 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 12:41:39 »
.


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: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #73 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 13:19:36 »
.


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?  







.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #73 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 13:19:36 »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #74 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 13:33:37 »

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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 13:50:14 by winsome »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #74 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 13:33:37 »



Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #75 on: Mon Aug 16, 2010 - 16:38:02 »


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?  





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


READ the above.




Quote
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)


No doubt, but does the RCC embrace that?  No.  It has been holding EVERY OTHER teacher fully and immediately accountable - RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just to God on Judgement Day.   The RCC was doing this LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, regarding, holding, considering EVERY teacher of doctrine fully accountabile, testing them, norming them, evaluating and arbitrating the issue - never hesitating to condemn, rebuke, judge, excommunicate, declare a heretic , even occasionally dispatching the teacher to his/her appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   It has been passionately embracing full and IMMEDIATE accountability for many centuries before Luther or Calvin was born.  WE all know that.  It's just that it makes ONE remarkable, stunning, absolute, exclusive, particular, singular exception to this:  ITSELF.    All OTHERS are fully and immediately accountable - right here, right now.  IT however insists that there is ONE teacher that is fully, absolutely, totally exempt - and it is it itself alone, exclusively, particularly, solely.  Whatever IT exclusively says is rather to be embrace "with docility" (ie blindly).  






.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #76 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 03:14:09 »


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?  





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


READ the above.

You have provided no scripture that says teachers are accountable and to whom they are accountable. None of the verses you reference say that.

I must conclude therefore that this is another of your unscriptural traditions of men..



Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #77 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 03:15:41 »
Josaih,

Let try another approach.

Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #78 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:25:27 »
Josaih, Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?


Of course. that would be true in all things - so that there's no need for laws, historical records, scientific data, etc. - Truth must match He who is Truth.   But, are you thereby insisting that we do away with all laws (including the Ten Commandments) and all arbitration according to it?  Are you hereby condemning the RCC for it arbitrating teachers (even burning some at the stake) according to Councils, Traditions, Scriptures, etc. and not simply according to the Rule of Christ?  And of course, you are suggesting something your own RCC rejects, it has never excommunicated anyone for being outside the Rule of Christ but rather for being in disagreement with the RCC.  


The RCC insists that all be blind (Catholic Catechism # 87 for example) - and just embrace whatever IT (exclusively) says, circumventing any norming, arbitrating, any rule/canon/norma normans; just leave all that aside in the singular, exclusive, particular case of the RCC alone.  Thus, IMHO, with the RCC it IS the blind following......    


Your continued effort to suggest that the accountability and arbitration that the RCC insists MUST be embraced for all teachers of doctrine is to be forgotten for ONE (exclusively, particularly, solely):  the RCC.   Yes, that IS the disagreement between the RCC and all the rest.   The RCC insist that it is NOT subject to any rule -- not Scripture, not Christ, not any - because it alone insists that it alone can't be wrong (in these matters).  It is the insistence of the RCC that what it demands of all others, it itself is absolutely exempt from; that the most sound way to determine if a defendant is correct/true is for that defendant to exempt self alone from the question and process, the defendant alone instead insisting that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong if the defendant is self exclusively, as long as that self is the RCC.   We disagree.  







.
« Last Edit: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:35:45 by Josiah »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5203
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #79 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:26:22 »
Josaih,

Let try another approach.

Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?

It would be nice if we could speak in simple English. Don't you think? ::pondering:: ::whistle:: ::shrug::

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #80 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:28:56 »
Josiah, could there be a better use of your time and ministry than to beat the same old horses over and over again?  Your posts are so long and tedious that I've given up on reading most of them.  Not sure this is a formula for success for you.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #81 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:49:08 »
Josaih,

Let try another approach.

Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?

It would be nice if we could speak in simple English. Don't you think? ::pondering:: ::whistle:: ::shrug::

Josiah doesn't understand simple English.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #82 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 09:54:39 »
Josaih, Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?


Of course.

That bit is the answer to my question.



The following is just rant.
that would be true in all things - so that there's no need for laws, historical records, scientific data, etc. - Truth must match He who is Truth.   But, are you thereby insisting that we do away with all laws (including the Ten Commandments) and all arbitration according to it?  Are you hereby condemning the RCC for it arbitrating teachers (even burning some at the stake) according to Councils, Traditions, Scriptures, etc. and not simply according to the Rule of Christ?  And of course, you are suggesting something your own RCC rejects, it has never excommunicated anyone for being outside the Rule of Christ but rather for being in disagreement with the RCC.  


The RCC insists that all be blind (Catholic Catechism # 87 for example) - and just embrace whatever IT (exclusively) says, circumventing any norming, arbitrating, any rule/canon/norma normans; just leave all that aside in the singular, exclusive, particular case of the RCC alone.  Thus, IMHO, with the RCC it IS the blind following......    


Your continued effort to suggest that the accountability and arbitration that the RCC insists MUST be embraced for all teachers of doctrine is to be forgotten for ONE (exclusively, particularly, solely):  the RCC.   Yes, that IS the disagreement between the RCC and all the rest.   The RCC insist that it is NOT subject to any rule -- not Scripture, not Christ, not any - because it alone insists that it alone can't be wrong (in these matters).  It is the insistence of the RCC that what it demands of all others, it itself is absolutely exempt from; that the most sound way to determine if a defendant is correct/true is for that defendant to exempt self alone from the question and process, the defendant alone instead insisting that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong if the defendant is self exclusively, as long as that self is the RCC.   We disagree.  







.


I suppose it's a bit pointless of me to ask why you do this Joasiah. It would only elucidate yet more screen pollution.







But to go back to your answer.

You agree that Jesus Christ is the norma normans non normata. So why do you insist that Jesus norms himself to scripture when he is the norm above scripture?

The simple answer is that he doesn't. But you don't go in for simple answers.

Cue for you to blow off another rant.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #83 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 10:01:02 »


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.  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?  





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


READ the above.

You have provided no scripture that says teachers are accountable and to whom they are accountable. None of the verses you reference say that.




READ the Scriptures.   Teachers are held accountable.  NONE is exempt from such because self alone declares that self alone is (the rubric of the RCC).


Where is the Scripture that says the RCC (exclusively, absolutely, particularly) is exempt from accountability and whatever IT and IT itself exclusively says is rather just to be accepted blindly, "with docility?"   Ah, you have none.


2 Peter 2:1,  "False teachers arise among people...."   IF there are false teachers, then obviously they shouldn't be exempt from accountability/norming.  Over and over and over, in OT and NT, we are warned to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, that requires that they be accountable for what they teach, otherwise we would not to told to beware of them but rather to embrace whatever is said "with docility" as the RCC insists (in the singular case of itself alone).


Titus 2:1, "Teach what is in accord with sound doctrine."   IE, what is normed with sound doctrine.   The teacher is accountable.  Where does this verse say, "But the RCC is exempt, whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be embraced"?


1 Timothy 6:3, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine than the words of our Lord Jesus Christ...."  ALL teachers are accountable, here to the words of Jesus (not the teaching of the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict).  Where does it say the RCC exclusively, particularly, solely, absolutely is exempt from this?


Revelation 2:2
, "I know that you test those who teach and have found them to be false."   Jesus praises people for doing what the RCC says must not be done.


James 3:1, "We who teach will be judged...."   No exemptions!   Not, "A defendant is exempt from accountability if the self same alone so exempts the self same alone."


Luke 20:46, "Beware of the scribes....."   Not, "Just wave accountability for what they say and do and embrace WHATEVER with docility"  Contrast this (and MUCH of Scripture) with the demand for blind, docilic embrace that the RCC demands for whatever the RCC teaches (in these matters).  Not only is the RCC insistence without any biblical substantiation, but it is contrary to what Scripture tells us (as well as what we should learn from the cults).  


Ephesians 4:14
,  "Do NOT be children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by men who are cunning in deceitful schemes."   We are not to be gullible, docilic CHILDREN who just "buy" whatever they are told by someone/something that claims self to to correct.  We are to be on guard against "deceitful SCHEMES" (such as, "All used car salesmen are to be carefully considered and held accountable - but there is ONE absolute, individual, singular, specific, particular exception - and that one is me."  



Now, do you want examples of where Jesus and the Apostles do this?   And use Scripture as the Rule in such?   Here you go:   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.  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.  NOTHING about how all this is just to be waved in the singular, exclusive, singular, particular, sole case of the RCC alone.









.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #84 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 10:16:48 »
Josaih, Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?


Of course.

That bit is the answer to my question.



The following is just rant.



that would be true in all things - so that there's no need for laws, historical records, scientific data, etc. - Truth must match He who is Truth.   But, are you thereby insisting that we do away with all laws (including the Ten Commandments) and all arbitration according to it?  Are you hereby condemning the RCC for it arbitrating teachers (even burning some at the stake) according to Councils, Traditions, Scriptures, etc. and not simply according to the Rule of Christ?  And of course, you are suggesting something your own RCC rejects, it has never excommunicated anyone for being outside the Rule of Christ but rather for being in disagreement with the RCC.  


The RCC insists that all be blind (Catholic Catechism # 87 for example) - and just embrace whatever IT (exclusively) says, circumventing any norming, arbitrating, any rule/canon/norma normans; just leave all that aside in the singular, exclusive, particular case of the RCC alone.  Thus, IMHO, with the RCC it IS the blind following......    

.  



You agree that Jesus Christ is the norma normans non normata. So why do you insist that Jesus norms himself to scripture when he is the norm above scripture?

READ what I said.



Quote
So why do you insist that Jesus norms himself to scripture when he is the norm above scripture?

The simple answer is that he doesn't. But you don't go in for simple answers.


You seem to be reversing our positions.   I'm the one taking the position that the teachers among us are accountable, you agree but you submit to the RCC's insistence that there is ONE unique, exclusive, particular, singular, absolute exception:  itself. 

You asked for where Scripture indicates that teachers of doctrine are accountable.  I gave it, you ignored it.
You asked for where Jesus and the Apostles embrace this accountability and how they use Scripture as the norm.  I gave some examples, you ignored it. 

I agree, it's rather stunning that not even Jesus - GOD incarnate in the flesh, NOT a human teacher among us - doesn't even do what the RCC does, exempt self exclusively from accountability.  But I don't know how your point that the RCC does more than Jesus helps your case.  I gave you the 50+ times Jesus uses the Rule of Scripture - in most cases for His own teaching!   



Now, where is the Scripture that says, "but there is ONE singular, particular, exclusive, absolute, unique, exception - the RCC, IT gets a "pass" on all this and whatever IT says is just to be embraced with docility."   We've seen where accountability is embrace "for everyone" but where is it stated that the RCC is the singular exception?



Ah, but you continue to make my point:   The RCC rejection of Sola Scriptura is simply that it exempts itself from accountability.  You are TRYING to justify that double standard, that 180 that the RCC makes, but you are simply verifying my point that that IS the basis of its rejection:  it exempts itself from accountability, thus norming - to ANY norma normans.  It insists that whatever it says just be embraced "with docility" (CCC 87 for example), with "blindness" (the issue of this thread.






.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #85 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 10:40:55 »
Quote from: winsome
Josaih, Would you not agree that the norma normans non normata is Jesus Christ himself?

Quote from: Josiah
Of course.

Quote from: winsome
You agree that Jesus Christ is the norma normans non normata. So why do you insist that Jesus norms himself to scripture when he is the norm above scripture?

Quote from: Josiah
READ what I said.

Josaih,

It's very difficult to extract an answer to a question from a load of anti-catholic verbiage.

Please can you just give a straight and simple answer to the question

why do you insist that Jesus norms himself to scripture when he is the norm above scripture?




Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #86 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 10:42:38 »
You asked for where Scripture indicates that teachers of doctrine are accountable.  I gave it, you ignored it.
You asked for where Jesus and the Apostles embrace this accountability and how they use Scripture as the norm.  I gave some examples, you ignored it. 



No I haven't ignored it. I just haven't got to answering it yet.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #87 on: Tue Aug 17, 2010 - 11:29:42 »


Now, do you want examples of where Jesus and the Apostles do this?   And use Scripture as the Rule in such?   Here you go:   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.  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.  NOTHING about how all this is just to be waved in the singular, exclusive, singular, particular, sole case of the RCC alone.[/size]




Josiah,

You are confusing the use of scripture with norming to scripture alone.

Take just the first of your examples

Mt 21:24
Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures:
    ‘The stone that the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
    by the Lord has this been done,
    and it is wonderful in our eyes’?


Jesus quotes from scripture. But then look at how he follows on from this in the next two verses:
Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.  The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.
What he says does not follow from the quote. There is nothing in the quote about the kingdom of God being taken away or being dashed to pieces on a rock.
Jesus is not norming his teaching to scripture.



Jesus uses scripture but uses it to make new statements that go well beyond scripture, You cannot therefore claim that he norms his teaching to scripture.

Let me take two examples.

Mt 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus quotes scripture but then goes beyond scripture to a new teaching. The "I say to you" clearly indicates he is teaching from his authority not from scripture.
If you say he norms his teaching to scripture then where in the OT does it say that looking at a woman with lust is committing adultery in his heart?


Here is another example:
Mark 12:18-25
Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and put this question to him,  saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’  Now there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants.  So the second married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise.  And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died. the resurrection (when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #88 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 08:21:53 »
]READ the Scriptures.   Teachers are held accountable.  NONE is exempt from such because self alone declares that self alone is (the rubric of the RCC).




The Church is not self appointed.  Jesus started a Church, not multiple denominations.  Unity in the fullness of Truth is not possible in multiple contradictory denominations.

Matt 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matt 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


The Church has authority because it was given authority by Jesus.

Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

k-pappy

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #89 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 08:36:50 »
ummm, the church is not an organization.

It is not a building.

It is the body of believers.  It is people who follow Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior.

bond

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #90 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 08:44:45 »
ummm, the church is not an organization.

It is not a building.

It is the body of believers.  It is people who follow Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior.

bond

Yes, it is a body of believers, one that is united in their beliefs, under and in obedience to the leadership that Jesus put in place.

If you read the scriptures and the history of the early Church it is quite clear that Jesus left a structure with authority and that those leaders had to battle hard to guard and maintain the purity of the “treasure “ they had been entrusted with (1Tim 6:20 & 2Tim 1:14). Many groups left the Church – Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, Donatists, Arians etc, treading the same path the reformers trod a 1,000+ years later.



k-pappy

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #91 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 09:21:40 »
ummm, the church is not an organization.

It is not a building.

It is the body of believers.  It is people who follow Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior.

bond

Yes, it is a body of believers, one that is united in their beliefs, under and in obedience to the leadership that Jesus put in place.

No, it is not beliefs that unite us...beliefs divide us.  Only Christ can unite us.


If you read the scriptures and the history of the early Church it is quite clear that Jesus left a structure with authority and that those leaders had to battle hard to guard and maintain the purity of the “treasure “ they had been entrusted with (1Tim 6:20 & 2Tim 1:14). Many groups left the Church – Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, Donatists, Arians etc, treading the same path the reformers trod a 1,000+ years later.

Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #92 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 09:29:57 »

Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?


That does seem to be a common theme among some of the posters here.   ::nodding::

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #93 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 09:44:33 »
ummm, the church is not an organization.

It is not a building.

It is the body of believers.  It is people who follow Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior.

bond

Yes, it is a body of believers, one that is united in their beliefs, under and in obedience to the leadership that Jesus put in place.

No, it is not beliefs that unite us...beliefs divide us.  Only Christ can unite us.

But we are not united in Christ. Following Christ does not mean we are united.

They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. (Acts 2:42).
Protestants only devote themselves to some of the teaching of the apostles.



If you read the scriptures and the history of the early Church it is quite clear that Jesus left a structure with authority and that those leaders had to battle hard to guard and maintain the purity of the “treasure “ they had been entrusted with (1Tim 6:20 & 2Tim 1:14). Many groups left the Church – Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, Donatists, Arians etc, treading the same path the reformers trod a 1,000+ years later.

Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

I was not referring to modern protestants but to those who left the Church.

Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #94 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 15:22:42 »


READ the Scriptures I referenced.   Teachers are held accountable.  NONE is exempt from such because self alone declares that self alone is (the rubric of the RCC).





The Church is not self appointed.  Jesus started a Church, not multiple denominations.  Unity in the fullness of Truth is not possible in multiple contradictory denominations.

1.  It's hard to have a discussion when the reply has nothing to do with the quote you are referencing....   I will try anyway.

2.  I agree with everything you posted.  It's just one reason to reject that Jesus founded the RCC, and why it is not signficant that the RCC has a unity with just one - itself.  But again, I'm lost to see any connection with what you quoted from me.



Quote
 Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matt 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.


Yup.  Exactlu!  Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED the RCC - for anything, about anything, concerning anything.  He never promised it anything, He never authorized it for anything.  You have at least made a good beginning at documenting that.

And yes, He DID tell us to beware of false teachers, false prophets, coming antichrists and those that lead many astray - and, yes, He never exempted the RCC from the norming that warning requires.  Yes, Jesus DID praise the Ephesian Christians for doing what the RCC suggests not be done, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming their teachings and claims, for arbitrating the issue and for finding their teachers to be false (Rev. 2:2).  IF there is but just ONE teacher that is wholly, totally, absolutely, completely exempt from norming - uniquely, particularly, singularly just one - the RCC, then where is that so stated?


But again, thank you for so well confirming my point:  The reason why the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming is simply because it itself alone rejects norming for it itself alone (by any norma normans, any rule).  All OTHERS are fully and immediately accountable for all that is taught, but the RCC insists that in the singular, exclusively, sole, particular case of it itself alone, whatever it says is rather to just be embraced "with docility."  THUS, it's rejection of the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) - and any other norm in any other norming process where self is concerned.      

OBVIOUSLY, you accept this demand (as you must, insists the RCC) - and that's fine, that's your choice,  I have no desire to discuss if such is good or sound for you or the Mormon or for cultists or for any other where the same exemption from norming is mandated by the denomination/teacher; I'll respect it in you to the EXACTLY THE SAME as you respect it in others (fair enough?  I'm SURE you think so). But it is what it is, your attempts to "defend" or "explain" it don't change it into something else, and you continue to stress that it is just as you and I have stated.  It's WHY it alone exempts self alone from accountability, but it doesn't change that that's what it's doing.



Thank you.    ::smile::


Blessings!


- Josiah






.
« Last Edit: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 15:29:07 by Josiah »

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #95 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 17:14:16 »


Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

Protestants are heretics by definition.

All the original protestants were Catholics.


heretic:   a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5203
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #96 on: Wed Aug 18, 2010 - 21:17:15 »


Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

Protestants are heretics by definition.

All the original protestants were Catholics.


heretic:   a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.


What happens if the church accusing one of being heretic is in fact a heretc

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #97 on: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 00:09:18 »


Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

Protestants are heretics by definition.

All the original protestants were Catholics.


heretic:   a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.


What happens if the church accusing one of being heretic is in fact a heretc

A heretic is one who rejects Church teaching.


Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5203
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #98 on: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 01:31:38 »


Are seriously comparing protestants to heretics?

That's what a reasonable reader gleans from your post.


Bond

Protestants are heretics by definition.

All the original protestants were Catholics.


heretic:   a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.


What happens if the church accusing one of being heretic is in fact a heretic

A heretic is one who rejects Church teaching.


and who is the church? Who is it that constitutes the church, And where does the church derive  church teaching ? What church was among the first to stray from the original teaching of the church after the apostles. In this I am referring to what was not taught but added which in affect changed church teaching. One who strays from original church teaching is a heretic, right ?


Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #99 on: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 09:34:23 »
[ and who is the church? Who is it that constitutes the church, And where does the church derive  church teaching ? What church was among the first to stray from the original teaching of the church after the apostles. In this I am referring to what was not taught but added which in affect changed church teaching. One who strays from original church teaching is a heretic, right ?



Jesus established the Church and gave it authority. He sent the apostles as God had sent him.  They, in turn, chose other men to succeed them in the ministry.  The Church has never faded away, it has grown continuously for nearly 2000 years and now has over 1.2 billion members. 

The Church has consistently protected and proclaimed the Truth of the gospel.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #100 on: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 09:48:08 »
[ and who is the church? Who is it that constitutes the church, And where does the church derive  church teaching ? What church was among the first to stray from the original teaching of the church after the apostles. In this I am referring to what was not taught but added which in affect changed church teaching. One who strays from original church teaching is a heretic, right ?



Jesus established the Church and gave it authority.


Jesus never did or said or promised or granted the RCC anything.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  He never so much as even MENTIONED it - or any other denomination or teacher among us - in any regard at all.  I know this and I strongly suspect everyone who has read the NT does, too.  


Jesus never gave any denomination any authority at all.  To do anything.  Not the RCC or LDS or any other.
 

"Authority" does not mean nonresponsibility, nonsubmission, nonaccountability.  In fact, generally, the greater the authority the MORE accountable/responsible such is.  President Obama may have the greatest authority of all the 6.8 billion people of the planet Earth (at least in terms of military, economics and politics, in regard to civil matters).  Is he therefore exempt from responsibility?  Exempt from accountability?  Exempt for the Rule of Law?  All are to lay all that aside and rather just embraced WHATEVER he says or does "with docility?" (compare with the Catholic Catechism # 87, what the RCC alone insists for the RCC alone)  OBVIOUSLY not!  Your premise is baseless.  





Quote
The Church has consistently protected and proclaimed the Truth of the gospel.


Thanks for CONTINUING to confirm our point.

The reason why the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) in the evaluation of doctrines among us is that it rejects accountability in the singular, sole, unique, particular, exclusive case of it itself alone.   IT demands that IT be singularly exempted from accountability for what it officially teaches since IT alone insists that whatever it alone says just be embraced "with docility."   THAT is the basis of our disagreement.   The RCC insists the best and most sound way to determine if a defendant is right or wrong is for the defendant to give self alone a "pass" from the whole question - and just embrace that singular defendant with docility, but ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY if the defendant is the RCC.  The insistence of the RCC on blind embrace of whatever it says (note the question of this thread).   Catholics trying to justify the excuse of self alone for self alone from accountability does not change that that's what it is.   IMHO, it's very unbiblical, unsound and dangerous (as many study of the cults - all of which use the same rubric and thus also reject Sola Scriptura should make obvious).  







.
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 10:00:34 by Josiah »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5203
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #101 on: Thu Aug 19, 2010 - 21:50:37 »
Quote from: mclees8 on Today at 01:31:38 AM
[ and who is the church? Who is it that constitutes the church, And where does the church derive  church teaching ? What church was among the first to stray from the original teaching of the church after the apostles. In this I am referring to what was not taught but added which in affect changed church teaching. One who strays from original church teaching is a heretic, right ?



Jesus established the Church and gave it authority.




Mike> I just ask a very fundamental question. Who is the church? Are you avoiding it? If one adds his own religious doctrines and beliefs that in fact changes the original projected Idea and precepts are they not then heretical ? 

God bless


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #102 on: Fri Aug 20, 2010 - 11:55:47 »



.READ the Scriptures.   Teachers are held accountable.  NONE is exempt from such because self alone declares that self alone is (the rubric of the RCC).


Where is the Scripture that says the RCC (exclusively, absolutely, particularly) is exempt from accountability and whatever IT and IT itself exclusively says is rather just to be accepted blindly, "with docility?"   Ah, you have none.


2 Peter 2:1,  "False teachers arise among people...."   IF there are false teachers, then obviously they shouldn't be exempt from accountability/norming.  Over and over and over, in OT and NT, we are warned to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, that requires that they be accountable for what they teach, otherwise we would not to told to beware of them but rather to embrace whatever is said "with docility" as the RCC insists (in the singular case of itself alone).


Titus 2:1, "Teach what is in accord with sound doctrine."   IE, what is normed with sound doctrine.   The teacher is accountable.  Where does this verse say, "But the RCC is exempt, whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be embraced"?


1 Timothy 6:3, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine than the words of our Lord Jesus Christ...."  ALL teachers are accountable, here to the words of Jesus (not the teaching of the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict).  Where does it say the RCC exclusively, particularly, solely, absolutely is exempt from this?


Revelation 2:2, "I know that you test those who teach and have found them to be false."   Jesus praises people for doing what the RCC says must not be done.


James 3:1, "We who teach will be judged...."   No exemptions!   Not, "A defendant is exempt from accountability if the self same alone so exempts the self same alone."


Luke 20:46, "Beware of the scribes....."   Not, "Just wave accountability for what they say and do and embrace WHATEVER with docility"  Contrast this (and MUCH of Scripture) with the demand for blind, docilic embrace that the RCC demands for whatever the RCC teaches (in these matters).  Not only is the RCC insistence without any biblical substantiation, but it is contrary to what Scripture tells us (as well as what we should learn from the cults). 


Ephesians 4:14,  "Do NOT be children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by men who are cunning in deceitful schemes."   We are not to be gullible, docilic CHILDREN who just "buy" whatever they are told by someone/something that claims self to to correct.  We are to be on guard against "deceitful SCHEMES" (such as, "All used car salesmen are to be carefully considered and held accountable - but there is ONE absolute, individual, singular, specific, particular exception - and that one is me." 



Now, do you want examples of where Jesus and the Apostles do this?   And use Scripture as the Rule in such?   Here you go:   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.  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.  NOTHING about how all this is just to be waved in the singular, exclusive, singular, particular, sole case of the RCC alone.






The Church is not self appointed.  Jesus started a Church, not multiple denominations.  Unity in the fullness of Truth is not possible in multiple contradictory denominations.

Matt 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matt 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.


Thank you.

So, you have NOTHING that substantiates that we must accept with blind docility whatever the RCC says (exclusively) but regard all other teachers as fully and immediately accountable. 

You clearly have NOTHING to support the RCC's exemption of the RCC from norming.

In fact, you couldn't produce a single Scripture that so much as even MENTIONS the RCC.  About anything, concerning anything.  No promises, no authorities, nothing.  Nothing about it exclusively being infallible/unaccoutable, exempt from norming, incapable of error, unque in that whatever IT says is rather just to be embraced "with docility" (CCC 87). 


Oh, and profoundly odd that you would bring up Acts 15, because we are specifically told what was the norma normans for the meeting and decision.  Read verses 15-18, and note the "therefore" that begins verse 19.  This rubric of using Scripture normatively has a name.  You know what it is?  It's "Sola Scriptura." 



But YES, you continue to make my point.  The reason the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture in the norming of doctrines is that it rejects the norming of its doctrines (by ANY rule/canon/norma normans).  It insists on a complete contradictory practice:  ALL OTHER teachers are fully and immediately accountable for all they teach, but there is ONE remarkable, exclusive, particular, singular, absolute and total exception to this:  ITSELF.   You're very, very pressed attempt to give this some validity doesn't change that that what it is, and that's why it rejects it. 






.

marc

  • Guest
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #103 on: Fri Aug 20, 2010 - 12:04:29 »
The Holy Spirit ain't blind.

The people who promoted the inquisition, otoh, were.

Offline chestertonrules

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
  • Manna: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Sola scriptura: what happens when the blind leads the blind
« Reply #104 on: Fri Aug 20, 2010 - 12:30:25 »
The Holy Spirit ain't blind.

The people who promoted the inquisition, otoh, were.


You know next to nothing about the inquistions.  Stick to subjects you understand.


Catholics, like all others, are sinners.  This has nothing to do with the Truth of the Church and the guidance provided by the Holy Spirit.