Christian Forums

Well I thought this topic was dead but I'm glad to be met with some opposition.

There was a Josiah guy who acknowledged me directly. Forgive me. I'm going to let the Bond and Chester finish out their dialogue then we can mix it up after wards.

Looking forward to our discussion.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Sun May 23, 2010 - 21:38:28

Quote from: BondServant on Sun May 23, 2010 - 15:41:54
So you would both agree that God is THE authority and man is subsurvient to Him?

You also agree that man's authority is delegated by God and thus also subsurvient to Him?

Is that correct?

Bond

Absolutely.

ditto

Avril, I am not quite sure what you are asking....

chesterton (I hope you don't mind if I keep abbreviating your name), winsome, I think the three of us are all in agreement on that point. 

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, we are disagreeing about what level of authority the Bible has.  I believe the Bible is God's Authority and that supplemental teachings and traditions, while helpful for study and growth and worship and fellowhip, do not have the same level of authority.  I believe they are subsurvient to God's Word, just as our leader's authority is subservient to God's.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you both believe that the supplemental teachings and traditions are equal in authority to God's Word. 

Am I going down the right road or did I fall in the ditch?

Bond

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 24, 2010 - 07:56:07
Avril, I am not quite sure what you are asking....

chesterton (I hope you don't mind if I keep abbreviating your name), winsome, I think the three of us are all in agreement on that point.  

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, we are disagreeing about what level of authority the Bible has.  I believe the Bible is God's Authority and that supplemental teachings and traditions, while helpful for study and growth and worship and fellowhip, do not have the same level of authority.  I believe they are subsurvient to God's Word, just as our leader's authority is subservient to God's.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you both believe that the supplemental teachings and traditions are equal in authority to God's Word.  

Am I going down the right road or did I fall in the ditch?

Bond

You fell in a ditch.  

The Bible does not have authority. It is authoritative (meaning true and reliable) and it records authority being given to people. But in itself it is not authority.

Authority resides in persons. The Bible records authority being given to Jesus (Mt 28:18), and it records Jesus passing on his authority to the apostles, for example Mt 28:19 (implicitly), Jn 20:23, Mt 16:19.

The Bible also records apostles handing on authority to others for example Acts 6:1-6 and 1Tim 4:14

The Bible also records instructions to those that have been given authority to pass it on in their turn (Titus 1:5 & 2Tim 2:2) and to be careful in who they choose (1Tim 5:22, Titus 1:7-9).

The passing on of authority is done by the laying on of hands, for example Acts 6:6, 1Tim 4:14 2Tim 5:22.

This is how authority was passed on from the apostles to bishops & priests down the ages.

The record of the passing on of authority is not just in scripture, but in the records of the early church, for example:-

Pope Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


Hegesippus
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).


Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Quote from: winsome on Sun May 23, 2010 - 06:28:08

Quote from: Josiah on Sat May 22, 2010 - 15:20:28

Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything.  Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS that embraces Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines being taught among us.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of looking to Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions.
Yes, it IS "incomplete" in that the evaluation also requires arbitration, but that's another subject for another day.
Let me use this illustration:  Let's say you and your neighbor decided to build a wall on your property line, and this wall is to be 6 feet tall.  You mutually hire a contractor and he builds the wall.  The wall is now finished, and he claims it is 6 feet tall.  The issue then is this:  Is the wall 6 feet tall?  Is the position of the contractor correct?   Now, YES, you could accept the insistence of the contractor that he and he alone is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from any norming, and that whatever he says is simply to be accepted with docility because he so insists that he is; in that case, accountability is rejected by one for the self same one and we're done.  But let's say, for the sake of this illustration, the contractor doesn't so insist and accountability is embraced.  There is a mutual concern for truth.  There are thus two primary issues:  WHAT will serve as the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the "norma normans" (the norm that norms)?   The more objective, the more knowable by all and alterable by none, the more universally accepted as reliable, the more outside and above all parties involved, the better this norma normans will be for this purpose.  THIS is the ONLY issue addressed by Sola Scriptura:  The norma normans will be Scripture.  The inerrant, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white, written words of God.  Now, yes, you are correct, there is a second issue too:  HOW will it be determined if the position "measures up" to the "measuring stick?"   This is called arbitration.   It's moot in Protestant/Catholic discussions, however, since we don't agree on the first step, the common norma normans.  We don't even agree on the presumption - that the correctness/truthfulness of positions matters and thus must be accountable, for The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INCAPABLE of error in matters of dogma and thus the entire issue is moot, it and it itself alone is right because it says it's right so it can't be wrong, whatever it says is NOT be to normed (by WHATEVER the norma normans might be) but is rather to be accepted as dogmatic truth "with docility."   Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for starters.

Whilst it is true that sola scriptura as a rule of faith is a praxis

Yes, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing/using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for our evaluation of doctrines among us.   

IF one accepts accountability and if one embraces that truth matters, then norming is necessary.   The first question in that is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans among us as we evaluate the correctness of a position.   The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it holds there is a better norma normans for this process but because it rejects the process; it insists that there is ONE and exclusively one that is incapable of error in doctrines, and that one is itself - thus it claims that it alone is exempt from norming (no matter what the norma normans might be); this is where we disagree.   In the RCC, the RCC insists that whatever itself alone says is simply to be accepted "with docility" (CCC 87, for example) - there's no accountability (except, at most, to it's own teachings as arbitrated by its own self; if self agrees with self as determined by self, then self is correct - a moot determination since self cannot be wrong).  Accountability is the foundational issue; that's where the disagreement lies.  We actually have nearly identical views of Scripture.  But let's return to the issue:

Over and over, God warned us of false teachers, false prophets, coming antichrists and those that would lead many astray.  Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for considering their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue,  and finding their teachers to be false (Rev. 2:2).  MANY times, Scripture speaks of false teachers, which, IMHO, makes it possible for teachers to be false.   This implies accountability and the necessity of norming.  So, we have our first question:  WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans among us for this purpose?  What is the most objective, knowable by all and alterable by none?  What is the most ecumenically, historically, universally embraced?  What is the most outside and above all parties involved in the normative process?   IF not Scripture, then what?  The RCC doesn't answer because, again, this is a "non-issue" for it in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone, for it insists that it CANNOT be wrong (in these matters) and thus accountability and norming are moot in the exclusive case of it itself alone. 




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 09:39:46
WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans among us for this purpose?  What is the most objective, knowable by all and alterable by none?  What is the most ecumenically, historically, universally embraced?  What is the most outside and above all parties involved in the normative process?   IF not Scripture, then what?  The RCC doesn't answer because, again, this is a "non-issue" for it in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone, for it insists that it CANNOT be wrong (in these matters) and thus accountability and norming are moot in the exclusive case of it itself alone. 

Jesus made it clear where authority lies:

Matt 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 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.

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."

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


And the apostles understood this authority:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Acts 15
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon May 24, 2010 - 10:06:10

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 09:39:46


WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans among us for this purpose?  What is the most objective, knowable by all and alterable by none?  What is the most ecumenically, historically, universally embraced?  What is the most outside and above all parties involved in the normative process?   IF not Scripture, then what?  The RCC doesn't answer because, again, this is a "non-issue" for it in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone, for it insists that it CANNOT be wrong (in these matters) and thus accountability and norming are moot in the exclusive case of it itself alone.  

Jesus made it clear where authority lies:

.... you didn't answer any of my questions or reply to any of my points.  In my post or in this snippet from it.

QuoteMatt 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 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.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you[/u]." 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."

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


And the apostles understood this authority:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Acts 15
24We have heard that some went out from us without our [/u] authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us;[/u] but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Correct.  No mention WHATSOEVER of The Catholic Church.
For anything. About anything.  Concerning anything.
Nothing about it being infallible/unaccountable.
Nothing about it being the sole interpreter.
Nothing about it being the sole authority.
Nothing about it being the sole arbiter.
Nothing about it being accepted "with docility."
The claims of RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that.


Back to the issue of accountability, and the reality that over and over and over, God warns of us false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray; the reality that Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Catechism forbids (compare Rev. 2:2 with CCC 87).   It seems to me that, on the one hand, you are defending self alone declaring self alone to be infallible/unaccountable and the sole authority while rejecting the very rubric you are defending, seeming to mock the very position you are working so hard to defend.  

Now, IF you accept that teachers (such as the RCC and Luther) are accountable, then you embrace the necessity of norming and the first question becomes WHAT best serves as the norma normans among us in this evaluation?  The RCC has no alternative to Scripture, but then it rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has a better, more objective, more ecumenical, more outside all rule but because it rejects accountability in doctrine (but only and exclusively in the sole case of it itself alone).  


The issue is:  Are teachers accountable for the dogmas they teach (INCLUDING the RCC)?  [Note: a "yes" reply necessitates a departure from the RCC]
If so, what is the best rule/canon/norma normans for this?  What iamong us is the most objective, knowable by all and alterable by none, most outside and above all parties, the most ecumenically and historically embraced?  



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 09:39:46

In the RCC, the RCC insists that whatever itself alone says is simply to be accepted "with docility" (CCC 87, for example) - there's no accountability (except, at most, to it's own teachings as arbitrated by its own self; if self agrees with self as determined by self, then self is correct - a moot determination since self cannot be wrong).  Accountability is the foundational issue; that's where the disagreement lies.  We actually have nearly identical views of Scripture.  But let's return to the issue:

Seemingly Lutherans as well as other denominations do exactly the same thing, else they would not be here correcting others. Is there jealousy over which wrong doctrines of any given organization are the worst?

Quote from: larry2 on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:26:57

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 09:39:46

In the RCC, the RCC insists that whatever itself alone says is simply to be accepted "with docility" (CCC 87, for example) - there's no accountability (except, at most, to it's own teachings as arbitrated by its own self; if self agrees with self as determined by self, then self is correct - a moot determination since self cannot be wrong).  Accountability is the foundational issue; that's where the disagreement lies.  We actually have nearly identical views of Scripture.  But let's return to the issue:

Seemingly Lutherans as well as other denominations do exactly the same thing, else they would not be here correcting others. Is there jealousy over which wrong doctrines of any given organization are the worst?

1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.  

2.  Dialogue - even passionate ones - does not imply that any party in such insists that self alone is the sole, infallible/unaccountable interpreter or arbiter in the matter, much less that whatever self alone says is simply to be accepted "with docility" for self is incapable of being wrong.  Nor have I a Protestant denomination that states that whatever it says is what Christ says - simply because self is saying it.   IMHO, there is not an equal situation here.  

3.  This is not to suggest that people of all persuasions cannot insist on the correctness of their position; that (obviously) happens a LOT!  Conviction is not the same as insisting on unaccountability and the docilic acceptance of whatever self alone says.  I might post that Pluto has one moon - and I might even be quite passionate in that view.   However, that would not suggest that I regard myself as INCAPABLE of being wrong in this regard, infallible and unaccountable, and that whatever I say is just to be accepted with docility for when I speak, God is speaking.  Follow me?  

4.  The fundamental issue here is accountability.  In my Catholic years, I found loudly and clearly that the objection to Sola Scriptura was an objection to accountability in dogmas in the singular, exclusive case of the RCC (accountability is insisted upon for any and all others).  It was NOT that there's a different theology of Scripture or even that a better alternative rule is suggested (although some laity go down that path), but rather that ANY norma normans is to be rejected in the singular case of the dogmas of the RCC, indeed, the RCC IS the rule - that self just looks in the mirror; if self agrees with self in the current opinion of self, then self is correct - moot since self predeclared self alone to be incapable of being wrong even before self bothered to look in the mirror at self.   In the discussions of Sola Scriptura, we often find Protestants speaking of accountability, and the RCC rejecting such for exclusively itself.   T

5.  "I'm right!" is a common position, lol.   When self becomes closed to the possibility of correction and growth, when self looks only to self for arbitration, then it certainly is possible to become "locked" in that position.  We've all met people like that on some topic; it happens to us all on some level in some area(s).  But while I admit the problem, I don't defend it.  IMHO, truth matters more than my personal ego or need to be accepted as correct.  The issue is truth, not ego or power.    

The issue before us is this:   Are teachers (Luther, Arius, the RCC, the LDS, etc.) accountable for what is presented as dogma?  IF so, then WHAT is the most sound norma normans among us for our evaluation of the correctness of such?   As I noted, in the RCC,  the objection to the Rule of Scripture was not because it felt Scripture the incorrect rule, but because accountability in dogmas was rejected in the sole case of the RCC.


At times, Catholics like to change the topic from truth and accountability, to power and authority; it's made political.  IMHO, this is an evasion of the issue.  But it's also largely moot, for it confuses two aspects of authority.  The RESPONSIBILITY to do something does not imply INFALLIBILITY in such.  Let's consider the diversion here into the role of police.  Yes, a law enforcement person has the RESPONSIBILITY to enforce the law, but he is not the law (that is a written canon BEYOND, ABOVE and OUTSIDE of him - the Rule of Law) and he is ACCOUNTABLE for what he does in this role.   This is moot to the issue in the RCC where the RCC designates the RCC to be the Rule and unaccountable since self declares self to be infallible/incapable of error (in these matters). 



Thank you very much for the conservation!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 10:39:45


Correct.  No mention WHATSOEVER of The Catholic Church.
For anything. About anything.  Concerning anything.

The Church was one, apostolic, and holy.  There was only one Church at the time, and this is still the case.  Which Church do you think it was?  Which Church was founded on Peter?  Which Church has that authority to forgive sins?  Which Church has existed since Pentecost?  Which Church chose the books of the New Testament?  Which Church was called Catholic by 105 AD at the latest?  

In fact, what other Church even claims to be the first Church?(Orthodox, I know, but that's a separate debate)

There is only one possible answer, and you know it as well as I do.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:51:36
1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.   

Of course you haven't because Protestantism was born in rebellion against Christ's Church and has no legitimate authority.

Authority implies docile acceptance by those under authority of the exercise of that authority by those that have it. This is the nature of authority.

In the army for example, would you not expect docile acceptance by a private soldier of orders given by the sergeant who has authority over him? Or would you expect the private to argue?

There is a good example of this in scripture. Take the incident with the centurion in Mt 8:5-9
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 08:53:27
The Bible does not have authority. It is authoritative (meaning true and reliable) and it records authority being given to people. But in itself it is not authority.

Authority resides in persons. The Bible records authority being given to Jesus (Mt 28:18), and it records Jesus passing on his authority to the apostles, for example Mt 28:19 (implicitly), Jn 20:23, Mt 16:19.

This is where we disagree...I believe that the Bible IS the authority.  You say it has no authority...if it has no authority how can we trust anything it says?

We can trust it because it does have authority.  The Bible even speaks to its own authority:

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17

16He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.  2 Peter 3:16-17

The Bible is not just the Word of God, but is literally Words of God.  We agree that God is the authority, right?  Why then argue that His Words have no authority?

Bond

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:29:51

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:51:36
1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.   

Authority implies docile acceptance by those under authority of the exercise of that authority by those that have it. This is the nature of authority.

In the army for example, would you not expect docile acceptance by a private soldier of orders given by the sergeant who has authority over him? Or would you expect the private to argue?

1.  IMHO, here we find the typical Catholic diversion, from Truth and accountability to power and politics.  The attempt to divert it into a discussion of the exercise of POWER.    Here's the point:  Over and over, Scripture warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - thus implying that teachers CAN be wrong and thus must be accountable.  Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians NOT for doing as the Catholic Catechism (#87) instructs, but the very opposite; He praises them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming and arbitrating the issue, and even for regarding them as false (Rev. 2:2). 

2.  The usual diversion into a discussion of power politics instead of truth and accountability is flawed.  You are confusing two different aspects of authority.  Yes, a policeman has the RESPONSIBILITY to enforce the law (authority in the sense of having a responsibility for a task), but that in no manner suggests that a law enforcement personnel is thereby INCAPABLE of error, is infallible and unaccountable or that whatever he/she says or does is to be accepted as dogmatic truth "with docility."  In reality, he/she is accountable to the written canon of the corpus of Law - The Rule of Law, and his/her application of such is fully accountable. 

QuoteFrom the Catechism
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Correct.   The RCC designates the RCC "alone" as the sole interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.  It makes it abundantly clear that it means only and exclusively itself.   Does it indicate that this authority comes from outside of it itself alone?  Not here.  It attempts to do this in #87 by misrepresenting the text, as if Jesus promised this to the Apostles (which, as all know who read the text, He did not) and the - by imposition of another baseless Catholic insistence of self for self - to itself. 


Now, let's return to the issue.   Do you think that teachers of dogma are accountable for such, whether said teacher among us be Luther or the RCC or the LDS?   Do you think God meant what He said about the presence of false teachers and our need to beware of them or not?  If you embrace accountability for the teaching of dogma, then you thereby embrace the need for the norming of such.  And the question then becomes:  WHAT best serves as the norma normans for evaluation of the teachings of those among us?   In my years in Catholicism, the objection to the Rule of Scripture was not that it had some alternative but that it rejected the whole question; self alone declares that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong in dogma and thus accountability is a waste of time in the sole, singular, exclusive case of the RCC.   It's accountability it rejects (in the sole case of itself). 



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:39:14

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 08:53:27
The Bible does not have authority. It is authoritative (meaning true and reliable) and it records authority being given to people. But in itself it is not authority.

Authority resides in persons. The Bible records authority being given to Jesus (Mt 28:18), and it records Jesus passing on his authority to the apostles, for example Mt 28:19 (implicitly), Jn 20:23, Mt 16:19.

This is where we disagree...I believe that the Bible IS the authority.  You say it has no authority...if it has no authority how can we trust anything it says?

We can trust it because it is authoritative, meaning true and reliable.

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:39:14
We can trust it because it does have authority.  The Bible even speaks to its own authority:

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17

No it speaks of its usefulness, and if you like its authoritativeness.

authority
   noun (plural authorities)
the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Another definition I have seen  is The right to command and to enforce obedience; the right to act by virtue of office, station, or relation; as the authority of the parent over the child.

Authority can only be exercised by a person. You can only receive authority from person .

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:39:14
16He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.  2 Peter 3:16-17

That scripture can be hard to understand is why we need those with God given authority to interpret it.

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:39:14
The Bible is not just the Word of God, but is literally Words of God.  We agree that God is the authority, right?  Why then argue that His Words have no authority?

Bond

The Bible is not the Word of God (capital "W

ok,  you are getting into semantics, so this is where I bow out.

I hope we can agree to disagree...

bond

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:04:57

authority
   noun (plural authorities)
the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Another definition I have seen  is The right to command and to enforce obedience; the right to act by virtue of office, station, or relation; as the authority of the parent over the child.

Authority can only be exercised by a person. You can only receive authority from person .

The issue of this thread is NOT is a person/persons or institution may have a responsibility to a task.

The issue here is whether a teacher of dogma is accountable for such, whether such is TRUE or not.  
The issue is truth, not political power.  
The issue is accountability.

IF you believe there is or has ever been an example of someone teaching something errant, then perhaps you can appreciate the Protestant position that such is possible.  IF you have read the very frequent divine proclaimations in Scripture warning us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, then perhaps you can understand why Protestants think it wise to beware.  IF you agree with Jesus in Rev. 2:2 where He praises the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Catechism (#87) rejects in that they held their teachers as accountable, tested/normed them, arbitrated the issue and found them to be false, then perhaps you can understand how Protestants tend to think Jesus was good in doing that.

The issue is singular:  Are the teachers of dogma among us ACCOUNTABLE for such?   Perhaps, with the above clearly in mind and believing that truth matters (especially that impacting the very salvation of  our souls), you can understand the Protestant issue here.  IF accountability is embraced (and THIS is where we part company) then norming has been embraced and the first issue becomes: WHAT best serves as the norma normans?  What is the rule/canon among us for this norming process?

Quote

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of looking to Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions.
Yes, it IS "incomplete" in that the evaluation also requires arbitration, but that's another subject for another day.
Let me use this illustration:  Let's say you and your neighbor decided to build a wall on your property line, and this wall is to be 6 feet tall.  You mutually hire a contractor and he builds the wall.  The wall is now finished, and he claims it is 6 feet tall.  The issue then is this:  Is the wall 6 feet tall?  Is the position of the contractor correct?   Now, YES, you could accept the insistence of the contractor that he and he alone is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from any norming, and that whatever he says is simply to be accepted with docility because he so insists that he is; in that case, accountability is rejected by one for the self same one and we're done.  But let's say, for the sake of this illustration, the contractor doesn't so insist and accountability is embraced.  There is a mutual concern for truth.  There are thus two primary issues:  WHAT will serve as the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the "norma normans" (the norm that norms)?   The more objective, the more knowable by all and alterable by none, the more universally accepted as reliable, the more outside and above all parties involved, the better this norma normans will be for this purpose.  THIS is the ONLY issue addressed by Sola Scriptura:  The norma normans will be Scripture.  The inerrant, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white, written words of God.  Now, yes, you are correct, there is a second issue too:  HOW will it be determined if the position "measures up" to the "measuring stick?"   This is called arbitration.   It's moot in Protestant/Catholic discussions, however, since we don't agree on the first step, the common norma normans.  We don't even agree on the presumption - that the correctness/truthfulness of positions matters and thus must be accountable, for The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INCAPABLE of error in matters of dogma and thus the entire issue is moot, it and it itself alone is right because it says it's right so it can't be wrong, whatever it says is NOT be to normed (by WHATEVER the norma normans might be) but is rather to be accepted as dogmatic truth "with docility."   Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for starters.


.

That scripture can be hard to understand is why we need those with God given authority to interpret it.[/quote]


... another issue for another day.   This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics (we actually overwhelming AGREE on those principles), the issue is ACCOUNTABILITY.  


And, of course, the RCC doesn't even suggests taht it limits things to the written words of Scripture.   It alone designates it alone as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter NOT of any objective, written words on any page but of the word "written on the heart of ITSELF" (CCC #113) - the Scripture hidden in its own "heart!"  And all thus must be "through the lens" of the Tradition of ITSELF - as defined, chosen and interpreted by itself so as to agree with itself (# 95, etc., etc.).   This isn't a hermeneutical issue because the RCC is in no sense subjecting itself to the words of the text,  AT MOST, it might be said that it is subjecting itself to the interpretation of itself alone to the Scripture in heart of itself alone as in agreement with the Tradition as chosen and understood by itself alone.   Now, if I did that - I have a hunch the RCC would regard me as accountable for any dogmas I draw from that; well - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, wise rubric is wise rubric.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:02:12

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:29:51

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:51:36
1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.   

Authority implies docile acceptance by those under authority of the exercise of that authority by those that have it. This is the nature of authority.

In the army for example, would you not expect docile acceptance by a private soldier of orders given by the sergeant who has authority over him? Or would you expect the private to argue?

1.  IMHO, here we find the typical Catholic diversion, from Truth and accountability to power and politics.  The attempt to divert it into a discussion of the exercise of POWER.    Here's the point:  Over and over, Scripture warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - thus implying that teachers CAN be wrong and thus must be accountable.  Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians NOT for doing as the Catholic Catechism (#87) instructs, but the very opposite; He praises them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming and arbitrating the issue, and even for regarding them as false (Rev. 2:2). 

It is not a diversion. power and authority are linked.
Matthew 28:18
All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me (NAB)
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (NRSV)
All authority (all power of rule)in heaven and on earthhas been given to Me (Amplified Bible)

Authority without power is impotence.

Yes, scripture warns us of false teachers, and scripture also tells us who has authority to teach.
Jesus said to the apostles:
"All power [authority] in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Jesus gave authority for teaching to the apostles.

you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors (Rev 2:2)

We know who are false apostles – those who are not legitimate successors to the apostles. True authority need legitimacy. Power/Authority without legitimacy is usurpation. This is what the reformers did.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:26:18

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:04:57

authority
   noun (plural authorities)
the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Another definition I have seen  is The right to command and to enforce obedience; the right to act by virtue of office, station, or relation; as the authority of the parent over the child.

Authority can only be exercised by a person. You can only receive authority from person .

The issue of this thread is NOT is a person/persons or institution may have a responsibility to a task.

The issue here is whether a teacher of dogma is accountable for such, whether such is TRUE or not.  
The issue is truth, not political power.  
The issue is accountability.

The issue in the OP was authority

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:26:18
IF you believe there is or has ever been an example of someone teaching something errant, then perhaps you can appreciate the Protestant position that such is possible.  IF you have read the very frequent divine proclaimations in Scripture warning us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, then perhaps you can understand why Protestants think it wise to beware.  IF you agree with Jesus in Rev. 2:2 where He praises the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Catechism (#87) rejects in that they held their teachers as accountable, tested/normed them, arbitrated the issue and found them to be false, then perhaps you can understand how Protestants tend to think Jesus was good in doing that.

The issue is singular:  Are the teachers of dogma among us ACCOUNTABLE for such?   Perhaps, with the above clearly in mind and believing that truth matters (especially that impacting the very salvation of  our souls), you can understand the Protestant issue here.  IF accountability is embraced (and THIS is where we part company) then norming has been embraced and the first issue becomes: WHAT best serves as the norma normans?  What is the rule/canon among us for this norming process?

The bishops of the Catholic Church are accountable to the one who gave them authority.

On the issue of truth Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

Now I believe in Jesus' promises.

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17)

And the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42)

Do you believe that the Father would honour Jesus' prayer? I do.

I am therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:27:13

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:02:12

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:29:51

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:51:36
1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.   

Authority implies docile acceptance by those under authority of the exercise of that authority by those that have it. This is the nature of authority.

In the army for example, would you not expect docile acceptance by a private soldier of orders given by the sergeant who has authority over him? Or would you expect the private to argue?

1.  IMHO, here we find the typical Catholic diversion, from Truth and accountability to power and politics.  The attempt to divert it into a discussion of the exercise of POWER.    Here's the point:  Over and over, Scripture warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - thus implying that teachers CAN be wrong and thus must be accountable.  Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians NOT for doing as the Catholic Catechism (#87) instructs, but the very opposite; He praises them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming and arbitrating the issue, and even for regarding them as false (Rev. 2:2). 

It is not a diversion. power and authority are linked.
Matthew 28:18
All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me (NAB)
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (NRSV)
All authority (all power of rule)in heaven and on earthhas been given to Me (Amplified Bible)

Authority without power is impotence.

The issue before us is ACCOUNTABILITY.....

IMHO, you are confusing two different aspects of authority (as well as confusing the word "you" with "The Roman Catholic Church."

I have the "authority" to do my job.  No one regards me as INCAPABLE of error, INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE, whatever I say and do is to be accepted with docility as Jesus speaking.  

A policeman has the responsibility to carry out his job description (NOT written  by himself, BTW) and to enforce the law.  But  HE is not the law - he is SUBJECT and ACCOUNTALBE to the written corpus of the law (we call this the Rule of Law), and he is fully and entirely accountable for everything he says and does in the exercise of his responsibility.   Authority in a task in no way suggests unaccountability, infallibility, and that all must be accepted with docility.   You may know that a policeman can be fired for what he does or says on the job, he can even go to jail.  Ah, accountability - not an insistence of the incapability of error.

No one on the planet probably has more power or authority than President Obama.  Do you thereby accept everything he says or does as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, vicarious of God, to be accepted with docility; that he is above the Rule of Law?  If not, then I think you might see how you are confusing the nature of the performance and excerise of authority.

Quote

QuoteYes, scripture warns us of false teachers, and scripture also tells us who has authority to teach.

Jesus said to the apostles:
"All power [authority] in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Jesus gave authority for teaching to the apostles.

Yup.  

Where did He state that The Roman Catholic Church - exclusively and eternally - is incapable of teaching error, infallible and unaccountable, exempt from norming, and that WHATEVER it says is just to be accepted "with docility?"  

Friend, NO ONE here is denying that you may teach (as you are doing).   However, your responsibility to teach is not the same thing as a statement that you exclusively are infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and whatever you say is just to be accepted with docility as Jesus speaking.  You are confusing different things.






.


[/quote]

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:35:40

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:26:18


IF you believe there is or has ever been an example of someone teaching something errant, then perhaps you can appreciate the Protestant position that such is possible.  IF you have read the very frequent divine proclaimations in Scripture warning us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, then perhaps you can understand why Protestants think it wise to beware.  IF you agree with Jesus in Rev. 2:2 where He praises the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Catechism (#87) rejects in that they held their teachers as accountable, tested/normed them, arbitrated the issue and found them to be false, then perhaps you can understand how Protestants tend to think Jesus was good in doing that.

The issue is singular:  Are the teachers of dogma among us ACCOUNTABLE for such?   Perhaps, with the above clearly in mind and believing that truth matters (especially that impacting the very salvation of  our souls), you can understand the Protestant issue here.  IF accountability is embraced (and THIS is where we part company) then norming has been embraced and the first issue becomes: WHAT best serves as the norma normans?  What is the rule/canon among us for this norming process?

On the issue of truth Jesus promised his Church....

Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.
He never so much as even MENTIONED it.
At all.  For anything.  About anything. Concerning anything.  In any regard.

These are claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone.
Exemptions form accountability by self alone for self alone.

QuoteHe promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

.... at best, you are confusing infallibly leading with one denomination infallibly FOLLOWING.
NO ONE is suggesting that God misleads anyone.   But you'd agree perhaps that that doesn't mandate that ergo everyone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error.   Have you read Genesis chapter 3?  Did God mislead Adam and Eve?  Did that make them incapable of wrong?  Were they held accountable?   You are confusing promises to lead US with the unaccountability of a denomination.

QuoteNow I believe in Jesus' promises.

Me, too.  Show me one promise He made to The Catholic Church?




Back to the issue of accountability of the teachers among us, and what best serves as the norma normans for the evaluation of such.








.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:47:32

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:35:40

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:26:18


IF you believe there is or has ever been an example of someone teaching something errant, then perhaps you can appreciate the Protestant position that such is possible.  IF you have read the very frequent divine proclaimations in Scripture warning us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, then perhaps you can understand why Protestants think it wise to beware.  IF you agree with Jesus in Rev. 2:2 where He praises the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Catechism (#87) rejects in that they held their teachers as accountable, tested/normed them, arbitrated the issue and found them to be false, then perhaps you can understand how Protestants tend to think Jesus was good in doing that.

The issue is singular:  Are the teachers of dogma among us ACCOUNTABLE for such?   Perhaps, with the above clearly in mind and believing that truth matters (especially that impacting the very salvation of  our souls), you can understand the Protestant issue here.  IF accountability is embraced (and THIS is where we part company) then norming has been embraced and the first issue becomes: WHAT best serves as the norma normans?  What is the rule/canon among us for this norming process?

On the issue of truth Jesus promised his Church....

Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.
He never so much as even MENTIONED it.
At all.  For anything.  About anything. Concerning anything.  In any regard.

These are claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone.
Exemptions form accountability by self alone for self alone.

See chesterton's post #44

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:47:32

QuoteHe promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

.... at best, you are confusing infallibly leading with one denomination infallibly FOLLOWING.
NO ONE is suggesting that God misleads anyone.   But you'd agree perhaps that that doesn't mandate that ergo everyone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error.   Have you read Genesis chapter 3?  Did God mislead Adam and Eve?  Did that make them incapable of wrong?  Were they held accountable?   You are confusing promises to lead US with the unaccountability of a denomination.

See chesterton'spost #44

The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 13:47:32

QuoteNow I believe in Jesus' promises.

Me, too.  Show me one promise He made to The Catholic Church?

See chesterton's post #44

This post deleted as it was thought to be off topic. My apologies.

Quote from: winsome on Mon May 24, 2010 - 12:29:51

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:51:36
1.  I have found NO equal of CCC 87 in the official documents of any Protestant denomination.   

Of course you haven't because Protestantism was born in rebellion against Christ's Church and has no legitimate authority.

Authority implies docile acceptance by those under authority of the exercise of that authority by those that have it. This is the nature of authority.

In the army for example, would you not expect docile acceptance by a private soldier of orders given by the sergeant who has authority over him? Or would you expect the private to argue?

There is a good example of this in scripture. Take the incident with the centurion in Mt 8:5-9
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:57:39

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 10:39:45


Correct.  No mention WHATSOEVER of The Catholic Church.
For anything. About anything.  Concerning anything.

The Church was one, apostolic, and holy.  There was only one Church at the time, and this is still the case.  Which Church do you think it was?  Which Church was founded on Peter?  Which Church has that authority to forgive sins?  Which Church has existed since Pentecost?  Which Church chose the books of the New Testament?  Which Church was called Catholic by 105 AD at the latest?  

In fact, what other Church even claims to be the first Church?(Orthodox, I know, but that's a separate debate)

There is only one possible answer, and you know it as well as I do.

1.  Where is the statement that all teachers are accountable for the dogma they teach except for The Catholic Church?

2.  Where is the statement that The Catholic Church - exclusively and eternally - is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming in matters of faith and morals?

3.  Anything or anyone can CLAIM anything whatsoever; it's another issue whether such is true.  If only one claims to be founded by Jesus, then only one has the burden of proof to historically confirm that.  

4.  Jesus never promised or authorized The Catholic Church about or for anything.   As we all know, He never even mentioned it - entirely in passing or otherwise, about anything, concerning anything.  

5.  I find zero confirmation that The Catholic Church or any other denomination existed at Pentecost (or before the 4th century); some CONGREGATIONS existed before then, and certainly BELIEVERS existed before then (and thus the one holy catholic church) but no evidence that The Catholic Church did.  But let's pretend that it did (as we must since there is zero evidence of such).   How does that document that it and it exclusively is infallible and unaccountable, exempt from all norming and whatever IT says is to be accepted with docility?  Jesus Himself rebuked several church that existed, how does that support that if it existed in His time that ergo it is incapable of error and thus to rebuke such (as Jesus did) would be errant on Jesus' part?  


Back to the issue before us:

1.  Do you accept that teachers of dogma are accountable for such?
2.  Do you agree with God that we should beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, and ergo we should regard teachers of dogma as accountable?
3.  If so, WHAT best serves among us as the norma normans/rule/canon for the evaluation of such?





.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 15:45:08

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon May 24, 2010 - 11:57:39

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 10:39:45


Correct.  No mention WHATSOEVER of The Catholic Church.
For anything. About anything.  Concerning anything.

The Church was one, apostolic, and holy.  There was only one Church at the time, and this is still the case.  Which Church do you think it was?  Which Church was founded on Peter?  Which Church has that authority to forgive sins?  Which Church has existed since Pentecost?  Which Church chose the books of the New Testament?  Which Church was called Catholic by 105 AD at the latest?  

In fact, what other Church even claims to be the first Church?(Orthodox, I know, but that's a separate debate)

There is only one possible answer, and you know it as well as I do.

1.  Where is the statement that all teachers are accountable for the dogma they teach except for The Catholic Church?

2.  Where is the statement that The Catholic Church - exclusively and eternally - is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming in matters of faith and morals?

3.  Anything or anyone can CLAIM anything whatsoever; it's another issue whether such is true.  If only one claims to be founded by Jesus, then only one has the burden of proof to historically confirm that.  

4.  Jesus never promised or authorized The Catholic Church about or for anything.   As we all know, He never even mentioned it - entirely in passing or otherwise, about anything, concerning anything.  

5.  I find zero confirmation that The Catholic Church or any other denomination existed at Pentecost (or before the 4th century); some CONGREGATIONS existed before then, and certainly BELIEVERS existed before then (and thus the one holy catholic church) but no evidence that The Catholic Church did.  But let's pretend that it did (as we must since there is zero evidence of such).   How does that document that it and it exclusively is infallible and unaccountable, exempt from all norming and whatever IT says is to be accepted with docility?  Jesus Himself rebuked several church that existed, how does that support that if it existed in His time that ergo it is incapable of error and thus to rebuke such (as Jesus did) would be errant on Jesus' part?  


Back to the issue before us:

1.  Do you accept that teachers of dogma are accountable for such?
2.  Do you agree with God that we should beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray, and ergo we should regard teachers of dogma as accountable?
3.  If so, WHAT best serves among us as the norma normans/rule/canon for the evaluation of such?





.

Brother I think you may misusing and misunderstanding what the Catholic position is.

First off the Pope is only infallible when he's speaking about doctrine. If he says tomorrow that it the sky is green that doesn't make it true.

The Catholic isn't infallible in the sense that it can do whatever it wants or create any false doctrine. The promise that Christ gave to His Church is one that guarantees that falsehood will simply never happen. He will never allow His Church to be corrupted by man or any other force. The Truth will always reside with the Church even if a snake manages to gain leadership of it.

That doesn't mean everything the Catholics (whether they be Coptic, Orthodox or Roman) say is automatically indisputable.

There's a big difference between divine protection through divine intervention then divine protection through divine exemption.

Quote from: larry2 on Mon May 24, 2010 - 14:45:30

As to accountability, in Revelation Chapters two and three I see only two of the seven churches commended but they remain the Church though judged.

Lost me....

1.  It seems to me Jesus does not speak to the church in Revelation 2-3; He is addressing seven congregations.  Yes, some are commended and some rebuked, and yes - it appears that Christians remained Christians.  

2.  IMHO, that they are all commended and rebuked (well, the congregation at Laodicea is just rebuked, lol) suggests they are not INCAPABLE of being wrong, infallible/unaccountable.  If such were the case, there would be no reason to commend any and errant to rebuke them.

3.  Note that one of the congregations commended is the one in Ephesus.  Why are those people praised?  It seems because they regarded their teachers as potentially errant and accountable, they tested them, they arbitrated the issue, and found them to be false.  I fail to see how this shows that we are to accept with docility whatever teachers say is true, or that a teacher is infallible/unaccountable and incapable of error if the self same so self claims for self alone.  

QuoteWhere does Lutheranism fit there?

It doesn't.  There was no Lutheran congregation at the time, nor does Jesus address any.   I don't think Catholicism fits here, either.  Jesus doesn't address any denomination here (or even the congregation in Rome), He is addressing 7 congregations.    Although I find it good to apply the principles here - why Jesus praises or condemns - to all congregations, and perhaps because of their associations (denominations), also with them.  

QuoteI see five portions of the Church told to repent or suffer tribulation to some extent

It does seem Jesus is finding fault with 5 congregations.   That, to me, suggests accountability and doesn't to me support that we are to accept whatever a teacher says with docility and regard teachers (persons, congregations, denominations) as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and exempt from norming.  

QuoteMy next question has to be what constitutes "The Church?" Is it not made up of all the body of Christ regardless of their creeds or denominations? Do they believe upon Christ our Savior?

Being a moderator, I'm accepting that we can go off into that discussion....

IMHO, the term "church" is used in 3 ways:

1.  The mystical union of all believers, the communion of saints, the community of Christians; as it is stated in the ancient Creed, the "one holy catholic church, the communion of saints."  In my view, the Body is all believers - past, present, perhaps even future - in one mystical, holy, spiritual union.  

2.  It is also used in Scripture to refer to a local assembly thereof.   In theology, we call these "congregations" and I usually try to use that term when speaking of this.   A congregation is a tiny subset of the church; it is a given group (2 or more) of Christians in a given place and time.  In time, such CAN take on institutional aspects but those aspects aren't the church but functional products of such.   A congregation (such as the one in which I hold membership) is not the church in the first sense since it does not include ALL believers (not even close to the 2.2 billion CURRENTLY alive) and only believers (some in our church are seekers who have not yet come to faith), and I certainly would not confuse the institutional "stuff" of my congregation (constitutions, by-laws, articles of incorporation, governance polities, property, etc.) with the church catholic.  

3.  Not found in Scripture (or, it seems to me, for centuries) is the use to refer to an association of congregations, which is more techically called "denominations."  A denomination is an institutional association of congregations, usually for the purpose of mutual fellowship, edification, cooperation, support and accountability.  IMHO, these are neither mandated or forbidden in Scripture - although I regard community to be good and so support the idea.  But even though a denomination might have the word "church" in its legal moniker (ie The Presbyterian Church in the USA), this is not meaning 1 or 2.  

Now, the question becomes, are teachers among us accountable for the dogma which they teach as such?   It seems to me, Scripture suggests the answer is yes.  While we find nothing about any teacher being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of any error, and simply to be accepted with docility, we DO find repeated warnings about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray.  If teachers ARE accountable, then norming is embraced. And the first issue among us is the common embrace of WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in this process.   THAT is the sole issue of Sola Scriptura.  And that is the topic of this thread.

QuoteCan one believe in not eating certain things, or observing certain days while I don't and still be accepted or received by God? I also spent years in Catholicism and though I no longer believe all their dogma, I was just as much in Christ with them as I am now.

We're going way beyond the scope of the discussion here, but "fellowship" is a difficult issue.   On the one hand, I agree with you that there is a bond of fellowship that exists ON THE BASIS OF FAITH in Christ as our Savior, and that that bond is what makes us a part of the one, holy, catholic church, which is the communion of saints.  And so, while it is not mutual, I regard Catholics as my FULL, UNseparated and in every sense EQUAL brothers and sisters in Christ.  On the other hand, we are biblically commanded to put the false teacher away from us and to not embrace falsehood.   I don't pretend to know exactly how to crank that out in practice, lol.  But, two things come to play for ME:  Are talking about a custom or opinion where unity in our fellowship is desired?  OR are we talking about a matter of dogma/heresy where the salvation of souls is being questioned?   Some examples:  I prefer rather formal, liturgical worship (which to many would look a LOT like Catholicism) and so do those in my congregation.  My brother prefers worship that is very untraditional, LOUD, unstructured and contemporary.  While I don't attend his church typically (I've been there several times) and vise versa, neither of us is IN ANY SENSE questioning the correctness, faith or salvation OR our status as FULL, UNseparated, EQUAL brothers in Christ within the church catholic.   CUSTOMS can differ among us, even though a given group may embrace different ones.  Let me turn to a teaching.  My pastor embraces the Assumption of Mary; I have no position at all on it (I'm withholding any and all opinions since I don't regard the evidence sufficient for a declaration).  But it's not DOGMA among us (it is ONLY in The Catholic Church, and there only since 1950) so we disagree with each other, but such having no ramification for our community OR for the issue of our being full, equal, UNseparated brothers in Christ and a part of the one, holy and catholic church.   So, two things matter:  the nature of the issue and the implications of the diversity.  But again, we're rarely talking about easy, cut-and-dry issues.  

QuoteWe all have doctrines we favor according to our understanding

There are Dogmas.  

Yes, dogmas are taught among us.   The question of this thread is this:  is the teaching of such among us accountable?

Obviously, one can insist that the answer is "yes" to all BUT self; that self is exempt from such because self is INCAPABLE of being wrong about such.  I understand that rubric, and I don't question the ABILITY of any to so claim.   But it's another issue whether such can be substantiated as correct, and if such is the wisest and best way for the evaluation of teachings among us to be addressed or for unity in dogma to be pursued.  

In any case, the thread here is about Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture).  Catholics are apt (wrongly!) to insist that Lutherans "invented" this praxis, so as a Lutheran, I at times express what the praxis is, and the reason for it.   The reason is because truth matters (especially dogma) and because teachers of dogma are accountable for such.   And we tend to embrace that Scripture is the best rule/canon among us for this purpose: thus, the Rule of Scripture.   As you see in this thread, the point of disagreement is the accountability one.  Foundational to Catholicism is that it is the sole, infallible/unaccountable authority in matters of faith and morals, and that, since IT (as an institution) exclusively CANNOT err in such matters, it is exempt from any investigation into the correctness of its dogmas.  Of course, this is the basis of the 1520 split (and, IMHO, the 1054 split).  It's difficult to work out things when one insists it simply CANNOT be wrong and WHATEVER it says is just to be accepted with docility; such tends to cause a log jam.  

I'm only 22, and don't claim much life wisdom.  But I have learned this:  when I think I have nothing more to learn, I stop learning: and become stuck in my ununderstanding.  And when my need to be accepted as correct outweighs my interest in what is true, then it becomes about me rather than truth.  I try HARD to avoid both of those errors.  And yes, when someone insists, "I'm right cuz I'm right so ergo I'm right - I don't need no norming, I don't need to substantiate anything - just accept whatever I say/do with docility" well, that CAN be a bit of a yellow flag.  IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, welcoming accountability.  It tends to be the false teacher who must hide in the dark, build walls of claims for self around him, and replace the issue of truth with the issue of personal power.   But again, I don't claim all this is easy.  Especially in matters where "proof" in any absolute sense is not possible....


By the way, I too am a former Catholic.   I don't regard any of Her teachings as heretical (well, official ones anyway), and I certainly regard it as a valid denomination (in fact, one I hold in very high esteem).  But I don't accept all 2,875 points of the Catechism with docility, and thus cannot (in good conscience) regard myself as Catholic.   I would, at best, be a "cafeteria Catholic" but as my Deacon pointed out, they are the worse Christians of all.  As he put it, "better to be an honest Protestant than a dishonest Catholic."  He might have a point there....

QuoteGod bless you all in Jesus.[/size]

... and also you.



Pax


- Josiah





.

Dear Brother Josiah, I'm sorry that you think I went off topic and have deleted my previous post to you and will withdraw from this thread.

Quote from: larry2 on Mon May 24, 2010 - 17:42:08

Dear Brother Josiah, I'm sorry that you think I went off topic and have deleted my previous post to you and will withdraw from this thread.

I PM'ed you TWICE about this, but it seems neither reached you (what AM I doing wrong, LOL??)

Could you PM me, and then perhaps I can respond?   I feel we have a bit of misunderstanding going on best addressed privately, unrelated to the content here.   Once we "connect" in that manner, it's fine with me if you "clean up" this thread by deleting this post.

Thanks!  

- Josiah

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 16:39:01
 Foundational to Catholicism is that it is the sole, infallible/unaccountable authority in matters of faith and morals, and that, since IT (as an institution) exclusively CANNOT err in such matters, it is exempt from any investigation into the correctness of its dogmas.  Of course, this is the basis of the 1520 split (and, IMHO, the 1054 split).  It's difficult to work out things when one insists it simply CANNOT be wrong and WHATEVER it says is just to be accepted with docility; such tends to cause a log jam.  

You exaggerate here. The charism of infallibility which Christ promised his Church has limitations.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 16:39:01
By the way, I too am a former Catholic.   I don't regard any of Her teachings as heretical (well, official ones anyway), and I certainly regard it as a valid denomination (in fact, one I hold in very high esteem).  But I don't accept all 2,875 points of the Catechism with docility, and thus cannot (in good conscience) regard myself as Catholic.   I would, at best, be a "cafeteria Catholic" but as my Deacon pointed out, they are the worse Christians of all.  As he put it, "better to be an honest Protestant than a dishonest Catholic."  He might have a point there....

I find that a strange point of view, that it's better to be in a heretical church than in one that teaches the truth, one where you can receive the body and blood of Christ.

Is it better to be an honest hindu than a dishonest christian? Who is totally pure?

Quote from: winsome on Tue May 25, 2010 - 02:58:11

Quote from: Josiah on Mon May 24, 2010 - 16:39:01
 Foundational to Catholicism is that it is the sole, infallible/unaccountable authority in matters of faith and morals, and that, since IT (as an institution) exclusively CANNOT err in such matters, it is exempt from any investigation into the correctness of its dogmas.  Of course, this is the basis of the 1520 split (and, IMHO, the 1054 split).  It's difficult to work out things when one insists it simply CANNOT be wrong and WHATEVER it says is just to be accepted with docility; such tends to cause a log jam.  

You exaggerate here. The charism of infallibility which Christ promised his Church has limitations.

1.  Could you please quote Jesus where He promises that The Catholic Church (exclusively) is and will for all time be "infallible/unaccountable" in matters of faith and morals? 


2.  If the correctness of the RCC in matters of dogma is "limited," then what is the justification for CCC #87 and the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone that the RCC alone cannot err in these matters?



You are addressing the key point:  accountability.  This is where the disagreement lies.  Those that embrace norming (and thus a norma normans) do so because they embrace accountability; the RCC that rejects the Rule of Scripture does so because it rejects accountability (in the singular, sole and exclusive case of itself) in matters of faith and morals; replacing such with the demand of self that whatever self says rather be just accepted "with docility." (CCC 87, etc., etc.).  If accountability is embraced, then obviously so is norming - and thus the first question becomes WHAT among us is the best rule/canon/norma normans for this process of evaluation?  The best norma normans in disciplines is generally regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond all the parties involved, with the most historic and broad embrace as reliable for this purpose.  Scripture exist in black and white words all with eyes can see but none can alter, it is above all of us, we embrace it not just as reliable for this purpose but inerrant and divine, and it has perhaps the strongest historic embrace of anything among us.  The RCC has no alternative since it insists that it is incapable of being wrong in these matters and thus the issue is moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of it itself alone. 



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.


[/quote]

Josiah,

When the Church makes formal definitions of dcotrine it bases them on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, taking into account also the accumulated wisdom of centuries as found in the writings of the early fathers, the teaching of Ecumenical Councils, the Popes and the opinions of learned theologians.

It was to the Church that Christ entrusted the deposit of faith, and the promise that it would not go astray when it taught.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. (Jn 14:26)

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (Jn 16:13)

Jesus promised the Church that he would be with it to the end of time

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you (Jn 14:18)

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

And the Holy Spirit would be with the Church always
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always(Jn 14:17)

And he asked the Father to consecrate them in the truth
Consecrate them in the truth (Jn 17:17)

These are promises I can trust in.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the authority to teach authentic doctrine, the deposit of faith, handed on carefully by the apostles and their successors, to enable it to do so and the promise of Christ that it would do so.

Quote from: winsome on Wed May 26, 2010 - 07:48:15

Josiah,

When the Church makes formal definitions of dcotrine it bases them on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, taking into account also the accumulated wisdom of centuries as found in the writings of the early fathers, the teaching of Ecumenical Councils, the Popes and the opinions of learned theologians.

It was to the Church that Christ entrusted the deposit of faith, and the promise that it would not go astray when it taught.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. (Jn 14:26)

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (Jn 16:13)

1.  Thus the RCC exemption of self alone by self alone from all accountability for matters of faith and doctrine.   And the reason why the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture:  it's moot in the singular, exclusive case of the RCC alone because the RCC alone declares the RCC alone INCAPABLE of error and thus accountability is unnecessary and norming a waste of time; just accept whatever it and it alone says "with docility" because it and it alone so insists.

2.  We all note that none of the Scriptures you quoted so much as even mentions the RCC.   For anything.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  In any context.   About any matter.  Obviously, undeniably.  The claim of the RCC for the RCC is simply the claim of the RCC for the RCC.  

3.  We all note that none of the Scriptures say anything whatsoever about any teacher among us being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of err, exempt from norming (regardless of what the norma normans might be).  

4.  What God DID say, over and over and over, is to warn us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - all implying that teachers CAN err and that teachers ARE accountable.  A teacher simply exempting self alone from such is no indication that such is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and thus his/her/its exemption of self by self is correct.  IMHO, it seems likely that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, embracing accountability and regarding truth as more important than the power of self; and that the false teacher is the one who desires to hide in the dark, build walls of self claims of unaccountability, shift the discussion from truth to the power of self, and to exempt self from norming insisting instead that rather all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility.   Interestingly,  God never said that there's one denomination that is exempt from His warning, one denomination that is exclusively, absolutely and eternally exempt from accountability, much less name it as The RCC.

But you are illustrating my point:  The Catholic objection to the Rule of Scripture is not Scripture and not because it has some alternative norma normans.  The objection is to accountability - in the singular, exclusive, sole case of it and it itself alone.

QuoteJesus promised the Church that he would be with it to the end of time

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you (Jn 14:18)

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

1.  We all notice that Jesus here is not promising The RCC anything.  All these promises are to Christians, not any specific denomination; and they are not exemptions of any one teacher from accountability nor the command that whatever one denomination says is just to be accepted "with docility."  

2.  God is with ALL of us.   Does that mean that I'm therefore infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error in matters of faith and morals, the one who is to just be accepted with docility?  


But you are again illustrating my point:  The objection of the RCC to the Rule of Scripture is not Scripture or that it has some alternative norma normans.  The objection of the RCC is that the RCC alone insists that the RCC alone is exempt from accountability (in matters of official faith and life), since it claims that it is infallible and incapable of error in these matters and thus norming is a waste of time in the singular case of the RCC; it simply changes the topic from truth to power, from "is this true?" to "I have the power to lord it over you and be unaccountable in  such."  

QuoteAnd the Holy Spirit would be with the Church always
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always(Jn 14:17)

And he asked the Father to consecrate them in the truth
Consecrate them in the truth (Jn 17:17)

These are promises I can trust in.

Of course, but as we all can see, it's not a promise to The Catholic Church.   Obviously, undeniably.

And you seem to be confusing the Leader with a specific follower, a Teacher with a singular student.   God is with ALL beleivers, that does not mean that there is ONE among us who is unaccountable.  God ALWAYS leads infallibly and teaches perfectly, does that mean there is ONE who is an infallible and unaccountable student and follower?   You are implying something that not only is entirely illogical and completely unbiblical.   God made Adam and Eve without sin and placed them in a sinless world, and He certainly taught and lead them inerrantly.  Under you "logic," they would be INCAPABLE of err, unaccountable in such a case, and wrong to norm anything they did - and yet, they DID err and the WERE held as accountable.  Over and over in Scripture, people were correctly taught and lead but DID NOT infallibly learn or follow - and they WERE held as fully accountable for such.   Your assumption that if a teacher teaches right, ergo there will be one student who is infallible and unaccountable in learning is just absurd (from life and from Scripture).  You are trying to connect nonexistent dots in a way that is illogical and unbiblical.   You are entirely confusing the teacher with the students, the leader with the followers.



But again, the Catholics here are confirming one of the points I made.  The RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because of Scripture or because it has a better alternative; it rejects it because it rejects accountability (buy only in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone - all OTHER teachers are fully accountable, right here and now).  It's ACCOUNTABILITY it rejects, for itself (in official matters of dogma anyway).   Read its Catechism # 87.   What it itself alone insists for it itself alone is that whatever it itself alone says just be accepted as correct "with docility."  It itself exempts it itself from accountability, by changing the topic from truth to power.


To understand Sola Scriptura, we must understand that the issue is accountability and the embrace of God's warnings of false teachers and Jesus' praise of testing teachers.  If a teacher welcomes accountability and the light, then norming is embraced and the question becomes WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans in this norming?   Again, the RCC rejects all this NOT because it rejects Scripture or because it has a better alternative but because it rejects accountability, period - in the sole, singular case of itself alone (insisting on it in every other case - right here, right now).  Every OTHER teacher is fully, completely accountable and subject to immediate norming, however self alone insists that self alone isn't and that whatever self alone says is just to be accepted with docility.   CCC 87, etc.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Time to stop observing.

Josiah

First off. I don't think you understand the history of the faith as enough to hold this debate.

Tell which Christian Church is older than the One Catholic Church?

Christ formed the disciples as the first fruits and foundation on the Church on Earth. The disciples then organized the Church. "Catholic" is just a word that was applied to the Church because of its Greek meaning as "universal". The title didn't change anything. I used to think that Constantine applied at this title the Council of Nicaea but its evident through Ignatius of Antioch and early IMMEDIATE successors of the disciples that this is simply not fact.

Protestants over think the word "catholic". The term doesn't signify ANY change to the Church that the disciples headed. 


You claim the authority of catholicism isn't valid because it is not mentioned in scripture directly. This is an amateur position at best. The ONLY thing Christ established when He gave Peter and the others their authority was a FOUNDATION. It was the charge of those early shepherds to organize the flock. The term "Christian" didn't even surface until after Christ's death. To say that the absence of the mere word "catholic" from scripture nullifies their authority is to say EVERY Protestant denomination is so too.

Where does that leave the authority of the faith?

This website is littered with tons of Christians who look at the exact same piece of scripture and get two COMPLETELY different meanings.

There MUST be an authority to settle these disputes officially.

That authority MUST had to have existed at the exact moment Christ disappeared into heaven at His ascension because Christ promised NEVER to leave His Church orphans.

Help me to understand.

There is NO protestant denomination that even comes close because the birth of Protestantism began with Martin Luther in 1517.

Where does the authority of the faith lay if not with the One Catholic Church?

Quote from: Josiah on Wed May 26, 2010 - 09:56:06

Quote from: winsome on Wed May 26, 2010 - 07:48:15

Josiah,

When the Church makes formal definitions of dcotrine it bases them on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, taking into account also the accumulated wisdom of centuries as found in the writings of the early fathers, the teaching of Ecumenical Councils, the Popes and the opinions of learned theologians.

It was to the Church that Christ entrusted the deposit of faith, and the promise that it would not go astray when it taught.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. (Jn 14:26)

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (Jn 16:13)

1.  Thus the RCC exemption of self alone by self alone from all accountability for matters of faith and doctrine.   And the reason why the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture:  it's moot in the singular, exclusive case of the RCC alone because the RCC alone declares the RCC alone INCAPABLE of error and thus accountability is unnecessary and norming a waste of time; just accept whatever it and it alone says "with docility" because it and it alone so insists.

I do not understand why you should expect the Catholic Church, after 1500 years, to adopt a rule of faith invented by a bunch of heretics.  Not only was it a novel invention by heretics but it is an incomplete one since it is based on only part of the deposit of faith.  It is a rule of faith that leads to proof texting by snipping bits of scripture out of context and to a myriad of contradictory doctrines.

Quote from: Josiah on Wed May 26, 2010 - 09:56:06
2.  We all note that none of the Scriptures you quoted so much as even mentions the RCC.   For anything.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  In any context.   About any matter.  Obviously, undeniably.  The claim of the RCC for the RCC is simply the claim of the RCC for the RCC. 

The scriptures I quoted were all said to the apostles on whom the Church is founded (Eph 2:20), the twelve men chosen by Christ to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). They were promises to the Church.

Quote from: Josiah on Wed May 26, 2010 - 09:56:06
3.  We all note that none of the Scriptures say anything whatsoever about any teacher among us being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of err, exempt from norming (regardless of what the norma normans might be). 

I did not say that any teacher among us is infallible. The charism of infallibility is given to the Church, as all the scriptures I quoted showed.

Quote from: Josiah on Wed May 26, 2010 - 09:56:06
4.   What God DID say, over and over and over, is to warn us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - all implying that teachers CAN err and that teachers ARE accountable.  A teacher simply exempting self alone from such is no indication that such is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and thus his/her/its exemption of self by self is correct.  IMHO, it seems likely that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, embracing accountability and regarding truth as more important than the power of self; and that the false teacher is the one who desires to hide in the dark, build walls of self claims of unaccountability, shift the discussion from truth to the power of self, and to exempt self from norming insisting instead that rather all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility.   Interestingly,  God never said that there's one denomination that is exempt from His warning, one denomination that is exclusively, absolutely and eternally exempt from accountability, much less name it as The RCC.

Your point about false teachers should be noted. All through history false teachers have arisen and tried to send the Church off course but none have succeeded, not the Montanists, not the Arians and not the "reformers