Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia: Accountability and Norming

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Principles of Norming: Accountability in teaching



The purpose of an epistemological principle of norming is to provide a "check" if you will, some accountability, to avoid the "I'm just right cuz I say I am" problem.

There are two teachers (persons, congregations, denominations, etc.), teaching different things. What principle or process would best help Christians decide which (if either) is correct?

Is any principle going to be infallible, unable to be misused? No, but some will be more helpful than others.



There are two issues involved:


1. WHO/WHAT will do this evaluation? This is called "arbitration."

2. WHAT will serve as the "rule"? The evaluation will be made on the basis of what? This is called the Rule (in legal issues, the Rule is often the written law, so this is called the 'Rule of Law') or the 'Canon' (literally, the measuring stick, the ruler, the standard, the norm) This is called the "norma normans" (the norm which norms).




Let's look at the two common principles of norming commonly embraced in contemporary Christianity:


Sola Ecclesia: (Church Alone)

The teacher (WHO or WHATEVER is presenting the view - that could be a person, a congregation, a denomination, etc.) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself/itself.


Since the "teacher" here is often a denomination, the principle is often known by "Sola Ecclesia" but the principle is the same if the teacher is an individual person.

In this principle, the teacher self-claims to alone have the authority (often infallibly so) to evaluate himself.

The "rule" for his own self-arbitration includes everything he teaches (which, of course, may well include the very teaching being evaluated, "normed").

Often, the unavoidable result of this principle is self-claimed to be infallible, and thus unaccountable, so that norming is moot.



Sola Scriptura: (Scripture Alone)


The Rule, Canon, Standard for this evaluation is not the teaching itself but God's holy written Word, the Word that virtually all Christians (for 1600-1900 years) have embraced as Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, and true. And it is written - in exact words we all agree on, words no one can alter to suit himself, not the "phantom" of what the self-same teacher self-claims is something God forgot to include in Scriptures but delivered to them as a secret although they cannot provide any evidence of such.


The issue of arbitration isn't actually addressed in the principle of Sola Scripture. Many that embrace this tool view that the "arbiter" is the church, the Body of Christ, the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" the "communion of saints." It includes all Christians (including those now dead - equally, not lesser or greater - with those now living). Consensus is usually the goal. Self does not arbitrate self. But some that embrace believe that the arbiter is each individual (in that case, embracing the same arbitration factor as Sola Ecclesia).



An Illustration:

ANY illustration is limited and flawed, but an often used one in this discussion is the legal system.

Sola Scriptura example: The Rule of Law prevails, all must be in harmony and concord with the written law of the land. Everyone from the policeman to the judge to the jury are to norm what they decide and do with the law of the land (the 'Rule' is the law - thus this is known as the "Rule of Law"). Of course, that must be adjudicated (arbitrated) and that is done by consensus - perhaps by a jury. Such is not infallible and can be appealed, so the adjudication is not the norma normans but rather the arbitration.


Sola Ecclesia example: The accused (teacher) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself. He alone can determine his guilt or innocense, correctness or falsehood. The norma normans for this evaluation is his own viewpoints or teachings (Tradition) as he himself so defines, interprets and applies. He is accountable only to himself and to God as he himself so determines.





MY evaluation:

Can Sola Ecclesia supply the necessary accountablity and avoid the self-authentication needed to provide the required norming? IMHO, no, it cannot, no matter who or what is the arbiter. It is, by definition, self-authenticating and rejects accountability.

This is abundantly obvious to many because no one seems to condemn the principle more than those who insist on it. They rebuke and ridicule this approach - boldly and strongly - when any other uses it, BUT insist that they themselves (but only they themselves) MUST use it. It's perfect for they themselves to us but absurd any other uses it.

IMHO, if the principle is as bad as they insist it is, then it's bad even when they use it.


Sola Scriptura removes the "self norms self according to self" circle and thus can provide accountability. It CAN do what Sola Ecclesia CANNOT do.


Admittedly: it ain't easy. It takes humility, study, work, prayer, time. I confess, it is so much easier and quicker to just have a Dictator say "I say!" and everyone shuts up, a Dictator who self-claims to be infallible and unaccountable, above Gods Word and people, above the law; a Dictator of amazing ego. Some, however, just aren't sure that's a better system of accountability - and that's what we're talking about - accountability.

The problem for Sola Scriptura, of course, is that humility and patience are RARE commodities among Christians and consensus is much easier said than done. We HAVE done it in nearly all things - I'd guess 90% of Christians agree on 90% of dogmas, but there are things that even now - 2,000 years into things - still lack consensus. These include: The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the Assumption of Mary, the "accident" explaination in the dogma of the Eucharist, the necessity of obedience to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, OSAS, and some other things. These issues remain, a consensus does not exist. Some allow the continuing discussion, prayer and study of these things - but those using Sola Ecclesia insist they themselves have SPOKEN dogmatically and are unaccountable and infallible.


That's MY perspective.
What's yours?


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Tonks]

I'm glad that this is re-opened, somewhat, due to the fact that people just decided to cry victory and lock the other thread.

I see that we have CJ Argument v.1.0.1 going on here which, at the very least, attempts to address some criticisms of the earlier version which I applaud.

I'll take a look-see and get back to you - as I assume the rest of the herd will in good time.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm glad that this is re-opened, I'll take a look-see and get back to you

Thanks.

I assume the rest of the herd will in good time.

I hope so, but I doubt it.


I've found that very often, just when discussions begin to make some progress, it gets closed. Frustrates me a lot. My "agenda" here is never to convert or convince but to further mutual understanding - and I realize that often requires a LOT of patience, humility and hard work.

I have no desire to debate anything or convince anyone of anything or to get anyone to change their epistemological principles. Only to help people better understand what Sola Scriptura is, from the perspective of those that affirm and embrace it.




Some additional points for our mutual discussion:


1. Epistemological principles of norming are not dogmas. They surely are extensions or applications of such (especially regarding Scripture and the Church) but neither common principle is dogma per se. Principles of norming are tools to determine if a dogma is true - it's not dogma itself.


2. Principles of norming are not principles of hermeneutics. The principles of how the norma normans is to be interpreted is important but separate to the discussion of the norma normans and the arbitration. A good subject for another day and thread.


3. The question of the exact identity of the canon of Scripture or the exact identity of the corpus of Tradition does not impact this discussion. IMHO, I'm more than willing to allow Catholics and Orthodox to embrace their various DC books (it seems completely moot to any theology discussions anyway). In Sola Eccelsia, it would be proper for all to embrace whatever each participant considers to be "Tradition" even though the CC, EO, OO, LDS, and nearly all that embrace Sola Ecclesia do have somewhat different concepts of "Tradition." Another approach, of course, would be for all participants to use only what is held in common by all. But either way, this is a separate issue.



MY perspective...


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[Asinner]

Question:

Where does the Holy Spirit play into these two aspects of "norming"?

God Bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Question:

Where does the Holy Spirit play into these two aspects of "norming"?

God Bless

MY perspective...

In two ways:

1. Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit infallibly inspired the words of Holy Scripture, making it an infallible, unalterable Standard. It is literally God's written Word.

2. Everyone seems to embrace the belief that God is in this process of norming. We all pray for guidance and wisdom - and we believe that God answers that prayer. I suppose the question is: only the prayer of myself individually OR the prayer of us collectively as the church catholic? If God is only answering my prayer, and that of no other Christian, then Sola Ecclesia would seem to be better supported by this viewpoint. But yes, when a lasting ecumenical normed consensus is reached, I think Christians are apt to credit God and not themselves. Soli Deo Gloria.


MY perspective.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Asinner]

MY perspective...

In two ways:

1. Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit infallibly inspired the words of Holy Scripture, making it an infallible, unalterable Standard. It is literally God's written Word.

Josiah,

You need to expound on this a bit, so I don't misunderstand you. You imply that God took pen to paper insteand of Holy men working through His Spirit. Also, the scriptures are a record of truth, not the Truth; therefore cannot be our only standard.

2. Everyone seems to embrace the belief that God is in this process of norming. We all pray for guidance and wisdom - and we believe that God answers that prayer. I suppose the question is: only the prayer of myself individually OR the prayer of us collectively as the church catholic? If God is only answering my prayer, and that of no other Christian, then Sola Ecclesia would seem to be better supported by this viewpoint. But yes, when a lasting ecumenical normed consensus is reached, I think Christians are apt to credit God and not themselves. Soli Deo Gloria.

This, IMO, is what gives credibility to Sola Ecclesia. Individuals do not receive the fullness of truth, it is the Church as a whole. Each person may receive parts of truth and revelation . . . To me, the problem lies therein, when these half-witted individuals establish doctrine based upon an incomplete revelation or knowledge. Many churches today have been founded upon these incomplete truths. We can find bits and pieces of truth scattered abroad making our growth in Christ difficult, if not impossible. One is able to attain a certain level of Virtue and have a certain amount of Grace, but can advance no further because the puzzle is missing many pieces.

The Saints in the Church, to me, verify It's Fullness, It's Antiquity, It's Genuinity, for they have progressed far beyond what one witnesses outside of the Church in Grace and Virtue. Does that make sense?

God Bless

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

This, IMO, is what gives credibility to Sola Ecclesia.

Hi ASinner.

Can you tell me if there are any Churches are the adherents of the Sola Ecclesia?

The Apostolic Churches aren't Sola anything; they are based on Scripture And Tradition, that is a far cry from sola ecclesia.

If there are no adherents, then it is a false straw man argument fabricated as an opposition to Sola Scripture and playing into it only discredits the adherents of Scripture And Tradition.

Grace and peace.

 

[a_ntv]

.
The issue of arbitration isn't actually addressed in the principle of Sola Scripture.

So, what is the use of a perfect book written in vietnamite, if you dont know the vietnamite?
What is the use of a perfect law, if there are not judges and police to enforce it?

We christians shall start from the very FACTS, we shall NOT start from PHILOSOPHIES.

.Many that embrace this tool view that the "arbiter" is the church, the Body of Christ, the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" the "communion of saints." It includes all Christians (including those now dead - equally, not lesser or greater - with those now living). Consensus is usually the goal. Self does not arbitrate self. But some that embrace believe that the arbiter is each individual (in that case, embracing the same arbitration factor as Sola Ecclesia)

To state a consensus there is the need of some authority that define it.
To define a consusus there is the need of a authority that define the borders of the people involved in the consensus.
To look for a consensus between varius Lutheran denomination is easy.
To look for a consensus between Lutherans and Calvinists is by far more difficoult.
To look for a consensus between Lutherans and Calvinists anc Catholic and Orthodox is by very difficoult.
To look for a consensus between Lutherans and Calvinists anc Catholic and Orthodox and SDAs is incredibly difficoult?
Who decide the border?
Who decide that the consensus is reached?
What happen if the consensus change?

Is true only what is stated with the help of consensus? so there is not a change in the bread only bc there is no consensus in that with Calvinists? I respectfully dont agree.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, You need to expound on this a bit, so I don't misunderstand you. You imply that God took pen to paper insteand of Holy men working through His Spirit. Also, the scriptures are a record of truth, not the Truth; therefore cannot be our only standard.

Here's the explaination from A handbook of the Catholic Faith (the Triptych of the Kingdom) by Dr. N.G.M. Van Doornick, Rev. S. Jelsma and Rev. V. Van De Lisonk. Image Books. "The books which together make up the Bible are, both as a whole and each separately, divinely inspired. This means that God is the Author of these books. He inspired each one to write what He wished and guided each to do this without error." As I learned it in the Catholic Church, the doctrine of Scripture there is exactly as I and most Protestants (at least we conservatives) embrace it. Of course, those that see Holy Scripture as a purely human library of flawed and erroneous ideas are not likely to embrace Sola Scriptura, but this is not an issue between Catholics and I - we hold to the exact same position regarding inspiration and inerrancy.

This, IMO, is what gives credibility to Sola Ecclesia. Individuals do not receive the fullness of truth, it is the Church as a whole. Each person may receive parts of truth and revelation . . . To me, the problem lies therein, when these half-witted individuals establish doctrine based upon an incomplete revelation or knowledge. Many churches today have been founded upon these incomplete truths. We can find bits and pieces of truth scattered abroad making our growth in Christ difficult, if not impossible. One is able to attain a certain level of Virtue and have a certain amount of Grace, but can advance no further because the puzzle is missing many pieces.

Ah, the issue of the church catholic.
To ME, the problem is that denominations have essentially equated themselves with the Christian church, thus their individual consensus or declaration IS Christ's and that of all Christians. IMHO, we can witness that in the very name the world's largest denomination uses for itself. I think it should be obvious to all that no denomination speaks for all of Christianity or all Christians. IMHO, private interpretation and individual arbitration (Sola Ecclesia) is just as flawed when used by an individual denomination as by an individual person.

I do have a growing awareness that the EO has a somewhat different understanding of the church than does the CC or LDS. In all the areas where I've learned the EO and CC disagree, I find myself leaning more toward the EO understanding. But I don't see Christianity or Christians limited to any singular denomination or congregation. I reject the institutionalization of Christ and Christianity. And my discomfort with any teacher excluding himself from accountability and the norming process remains.


IMHO, your reasoning here is yet another reason why Sola Ecclesia should be rejected. No single person or denomination is THE mystical union of all believers. Or as my father (a Protestant minister) is fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE." I'm not so willing to equate Jesus with me or Christianity with my particular denomination.



MY perspective...


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[Asinner]

Hi ASinner.

Can you tell me if there are any Churches are the adherents of the Sola Ecclesia?

The Apostolic Churches aren't Sola anything; they are based on Scripture And Tradition, that is a far cry from sola ecclesia.

If there are no adherents, then it is a false straw man argument fabricated as an opposition to Sola Scripture and playing into it only discredits the adherents of Scripture And Tradition.

Grace and peace.

Hi

I agree with you. Josiah's beliefs are different from yours and mine in regards to "church" and is why I chose to use it.

God Bless

 

[a_ntv]

I do have a growing awareness that the EO has a somewhat different understanding of the church than does the CC or LDS. In all the areas where I've learned the EO and CC disagree, I find myself leaning more toward the EO understanding.

The Ecclesiology (theology of the Church) of CC and EO and OO is the same, and very different from Protestants one.

If you know such a Ecclesiology, it is easy to realize that for a catholic eye, doctrines like papal infallibily are like forniture in a house, they are not the house, that is the very same one of EO and OO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Can you tell me if there are any Churches are the adherents of the Sola Ecclesia?

MY perspective (from the opening post)...

Sola Ecclesia: (Church Alone)

The teacher (WHO or WHATEVER is presenting the view - that could be a person, a congregation, a denomination, etc.) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself/itself.


Since the "teacher" here is often a denomination, the principle is often known by "Sola Ecclesia" but the principle is the same if the teacher is an individual person.

In this principle, the teacher self-claims to alone have the authority (often infallibly so) to evaluate himself.

The "rule" for his own self-arbitration includes everything he teaches (which, of course, may well include the very teaching being evaluated, "normed").

Often, the unavoidable result of this principle is self-claimed to be infallible, and thus unaccountable, so that norming is moot.

I hope that clarifies the point.

The Apostolic Churches aren't Sola anything; they are based on Scripture And Tradition, that is a far cry from sola ecclesia.

From a priest in the largest of those "Apostolic Churches" (...es???????), I was taught that the "sole arbiter" of the faith and practice of the Church is the self-same Church.

Here's how that this answered in my textbook for my Information Class I took for membership there, "When someone asks where the ___________ (those members of this particular denomination which claims to be the church Christ founded) finds the support for his beleif, the answer is: from the living teaching authority of the Church. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops of the Church." A bit further down, we read these words, "The __________ is freed from the necessity of investigation into this and can live in a quiet certainty because the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of Christ Himself for He Himself said, 'Whoever hears you hears Me'." And a bit further down the page, "As we have seen, the Church cannot err. The Catholic Church has collected in the course of centuries the inspired Scripture and also the divine and apostolic preaching. The Catholic Church explains them, gives them understanding and thus, under the guidance of God, unfolds the meaning of revelation."


Of course, that denomination teaches many dogmas. Few are disputed among Christians, but some are. I was taught that the "sole arbiter" (a technical epistemological term) is the self-same denomination which proclaims these disputed dogmas, for only THAT denomination has the Authority to so arbitrate. The arbitration belongs ONLY to them and to them ALONE. Self arbitrating self. It's typically called "Sola Ecclesia" when like here we're addressing denominations.

Furthermore and inseparable from this, I was also taught that the "norma normans" for this self-arbitration includes "Tradition" - that corpus of understanding regarding the infallible preaching not recorded in Scripture, which only it has received, preserved and can interpret correctly. Since all dogmas of that denomination are taught in that corpus, it is thus using the self same teaching as a Rule for the self-same teaching. Self arbitrating self according to the norm of the teaching of self, or perhaps self arbitrating the teaching in question of oneself using as the Rule the self-same teaching of self. Some conclude this is not an adequate process for norming. Others strongly disagree, as all the lengthly threads on this topic here at CF make so very evident.


MY perspective.
What's yours?


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[Lotar]

The witness of the entire holy Christian church (even if we had nothing else) should be enough for us to maintain this doctrine and neither to listen to nor tolerate any sectarian objections. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything contrary to the common witness, faith, and doctrine which the entire holy Christian church has maintained from the beginning until now – for more than 1500 years throughout all the world.
-Martin Luther

Josiah,

According to your definition, correct practice of sola scriptura requires the Church to be the arbitrator (A person chosen by both sides in a dispute that hears details of the dispute and gives a decision on settling the dispute). In this you will find no dispute from Orthodoxy (and I assume Catholicism).

If this is what you believe, our dispute is not in the role of the Church as arbitrator, since the Church is an entity, not a rule. Our dispute would then seem to be in three aspects, what the norms are, the infallibility of the Church, and what constitutes the Church. On the first, we believe (as St. Paul states in his epistle) that we are to keep fidelity to the whole of Tradition, not just Scripture alone. On the second, we believe that the Church is infallible in her arbitration. The third I will leave alone for the moment.

We must look at this issue of the arbitration of the Church versus arbitration of the individual. Now, in light of your view of sola scriptura, it is to be believed that the Church, which is fallible, is the arbitrator of the norm, which is infallible. On the other hand, the historic pre-Reformation view of the Church was that the Church, which is infallible, is the arbitrator of the norm, which is infallible.

This here can help bring us to an expanded view of sola scriptura, through your example of accountability. Sola scriptura does not mean that the Church is held accountable by the rule (as it is impossible, being that it is not an entity), rather, it means that the Church is held accountable to the rule by the individual. Herein lays the hidden fourth aspect of dispute, as we believe the individual is held accountable to the rule by the Church. This is why, in your view, Martin Luther (an individual) was able to dispute the established position of the Church, and establish views like sola scriptura and sola fide.

The next major problem we come across here is that it appears to me that these Protestant positions, including sola scriptura, were apparently rejected by the Church, and only through the support of the rising burger class was he able to establish his doctrine among the northern Germanic states, and to this day remains a minority Christian faith.

The problem here is that the Church, which is the arbitrator in both of our views, had an established position; so how did it change? We understand that in the eyes of sola scriptura that it is possible for the Church to change positions, but how does this take place? In addition, how does the Church establish a position and how is its arbitration enforced?

 

[Tonks]

Ah, the issue of the church catholic.
To ME, the problem is that denominations have essentially equated themselves with the Christian church, thus their individual consensus or declaration IS Christ's and that of all Christians. IMHO, we can witness that in the very name the world's largest denomination uses for itself.

While sola ecclesia is certainly Protestant taxonomy I have no problem with it for the purposes of this discussion - since I think that we all know that we mean different things when we say it.

I'll be brief since I'm at work (boo)...I think that we can all agree that the Church came into being when Christ died on the cross. Further, it was formally inagurated at Pentecost. Before we get into the nitty gritty of the OP, I'm curious as to your ideas about the "Church" as a whole - what comprises the Church? This was sort of alluded to elsewhere above.

I'm attempting to avoid a denominational discussion with this question. Just a broad answer.

Good thread.

 

[stray bullet]

To ME, the problem is that denominations have essentially equated themselves with the Christian church, thus their individual consensus or declaration IS Christ's and that of all Christians. IMHO, we can witness that in the very name the world's largest denomination uses for itself. I think it should be obvious to all that no denomination speaks for all of Christianity or all Christians. IMHO, private interpretation and individual arbitration (Sola Ecclesia) is just as flawed when used by an individual denomination as by an individual person.

Your understanding of Catholicism and Orthodoxy is still flawed. We do not go by private interpretation and individual arbitration.

We do not believe in sola 'ecclesia'. So long as you keep setting up this false basis for us, I don't see these discussions going anywhere.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches go by one thing and one thing alone- completely and entirely. That is, what the apostles taught. The Churches do not interpret or add doctrine. They preserve what the apostles taught by God's inspiration through three things- Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Doctrine only sets in stone and clarifies what was always believed. It does not establish new beliefs. I do not listen to what the Church teaches. I don't care what the Pope thinks. I care only about what the apostles taught, which the Church is entrusted with preserving. The Church is not a source for beliefs- it is a source of preservation.

Again, 'sola ecclesia' and other such false notions imply that we believe according to what the Church teaches us. As though it were the LDS church or the watchtower. As though the Pope writes up what we believe. This is part of this silly notion many protestants tout of "Catholics don't think and just believe whatever the Church tells them".

No, we don't believe what the Church tells us. We believe what the apostles taught.

 

[Asinner]

"The books which together make up the Bible are, both as a whole and each separately, divinely inspired. This means that God is the Author of these books. He inspired each one to write what He wished and guided each to do this without error." As I learned it in the Catholic Church, the doctrine of Scripture there is exactly as I and most Protestants (at least we conservatives) embrace it.

This definition is still vague, IMO. It still makes it sound as though these men who wrote the books of the bible were mere puppets who were orchestrated by God, instead of them being Holy men attesting to the Truth. Am I making any sense? So often, I hear on this forum how we are not to follow men; yet it is through men, that His will is made manifest. Take the Ecumenical Councils, the Liturgy, the writings of the fathers of the Church: All are witnesses to the Truth, the fullness of which is found in the Church. I responded to you in another thread where you defined "church" as the body of believers. His Church is more than His Body! His Church is Him, Christ, on whom It was founded and the Church takes on the attributes of It's Head, which is Christ. The attributes of Christ are Holiness, Virtue, Unity (the Holy Trinity), Universal (He is everywhere and fillest all) . . . His Church therefore, must exhibit the same attributes as It's Head. There must be Saints! There must be Grace and Virtue! It must be Holy, One, and Universal!

I do have a growing awareness that the EO has a somewhat different understanding of the church than does the CC or LDS. In all the areas where I've learned the EO and CC disagree, I find myself leaning more toward the EO understanding. But I don't see Christianity or Christians limited to any singular denomination or congregation. I reject the institutionalization of Christ and Christianity. And my discomfort with any teacher excluding himself from accountability and the norming process remains.

When you experience Orthodoxy, Josiah, then and only then, will you understand that His Church is not an institution.

IMHO, your reasoning here is yet another reason why Sola Ecclesia should be rejected. No single person or denomination is THE mystical union of all believers. Or as my father (a Protestant minister) is fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE." I'm not so willing to equate Jesus with me or Christianity with my particular denomination.

Orthodoxy is Jesus and WE! That was my point.

God Bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective....

The witness of the entire holy Christian church (even if we had nothing else) should be enough for us to maintain this doctrine and neither to listen to nor tolerate any sectarian objections. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything contrary to the common witness, faith, and doctrine which the entire holy Christian church has maintained from the beginning until now – for more than 1500 years throughout all the world.
-Martin Luther

Thank you.
Some good stuff there.
But remember, Lutherans don't consider Luther to be the Pope or sole final arbiter or the norma normans for dogma. We just consider him a Christian. Like me. Like you. I have found it fasinating in my discussions at websites like this that non-Protestants tend to be the ones quoting Protestant men. Different epistemologies, I think.

Josiah,

According to your definition, correct practice of sola scriptura requires the Church to be the arbitrator (A person chosen by both sides in a dispute that hears details of the dispute and gives a decision on settling the dispute). In this you will find no dispute from Orthodoxy (and I assume Catholicism).

No. You misunderstood me.

I don't think that there must be a SINGLE individual arbiter, much less that that single individual arbiter must be the teacher of the teaching being evaluated.

A consensus of one isn't.
Especially when the consensus of one just happens to be the teacher of the teaching being evaluated. And just because he self-claims himself to be infallible doesn't, IMHO, make the consensus of one any more compelling.

If this is what you believe, our dispute is not in the role of the Church as arbitrator, since the Church is an entity, not a rule. Our dispute would then seem to be in three aspects, what the norms are, the infallibility of the Church, and what constitutes the Church.

All are related to this question.

OBVIOUSLY, if a teacher has self-claimed himself to be infallible and unaccountable - above God's Word and people, above norming - then this whole issue is moot and my priest was correct. When I asked him to what is the Catholic Church accountable, he essentially commented "We consider that an irrelevant question."

If a denomination has self-claimed themselves to essentially BE the whole church catholic, then every time I have used the words "church catholic" they will just turn the terms around, do that characteristic capitol letter thing and assume it's a proper noun of a denomination and yell, "that's ME!" In fact, many do that - automatically - without even being aware that they are doing it. Some have so indicated in the very name of their denomination.

On the first, we believe (as St. Paul states in his epistle) that we are to keep fidelity to the whole of Tradition, not just Scripture alone. On the second, we believe that the Church is infallible in her arbitration.

Ahha.

It's the basis of Sola Ecclesia.
Self arbitrates the teachings of self according to the teachings of self.
And this is infallible.
Therefore unaccountable.
But ONLY if self does it (the principle is absurd is any other does it).
MY denomination is right cuz it is.
Put your hand down.
Norming is a moot issue in MY case.


I NEVER stated that the several denominations that embrace Sola Ecclesia can't justify it with there own self-claims, they all do it exactly the same way (which, applying the principle of Sola Ecclesia are infallible, unaccountable and above norming). I've only pointed out that many find this to be an inadequate system of accountability, and that's the subject here - accountability.

Ironically, Catholics usually strongly agree with this apprasal of the principle of Sola Ecclesia - just as boldly as any Protestant, but they excuse themselves from this rebuke for using the principle. It's good for them, it's just wrong for everyone else.

We must look at this issue of the arbitration of the Church versus arbitration of the individual.

Unless you are defining "church" here as the whole company of Christians, then there is no "verses." It's the exact same thing.

Sola scriptura does not mean that the Church is held accountable by the rule (as it is impossible, being that it is not an entity), rather, it means that the Church is held accountable to the rule by the individual.

The emphasis on the individual is YOURS, not mine. It is the keystone to Sola Ecclesia. That principle rests on private interpretation and self serving as the sole arbiter for self.

But yes, IMHO, the teacher (a person, congregation or denomination - that could be the CC or the LDS or the Reformed Church in America or Josiah or you) is held accountable to Scripture. Their teaching is accountable. Their words are subject to God's Word, not the other way around. That's Sola Scriptura. The arbitration issue isn't addressed by the principle of Sola Scriptura (unlike Sola Eccelsia) and as I've pointed out, there are two different veiws among those that embrace the principle s to the arbitration issue, some agree with Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons that it's to be performed by the self-same teacher. But MY view is that Christians are the arbiter, the "one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints" which includes the whole company of believers - now living and now departed. What I reject is that the arbiter for the teaching is the very teacher teaching that teaching (Sola Ecclesia). Again, the issue of arbitration is one not addressed by Sola Scriptura and in our various threads on this, you have seen Protestants holding both views considering that issue.

The next major problem we come across here is that it appears to me that these Protestant positions, including sola scriptura, were apparently rejected by the Church, and only through the support of the rising burger class was he able to establish his doctrine among the northern Germanic states, and to this day remains a minority Christian faith.

Epistemological principles of norming are not dogmas.


No, Christians have not rejected Scripture as the norma normans. Some specific denominations (especially the RCC and LDS) have, replacing thus with their own teachings as arbitrated by their own selves, but Christians have not spoken definitively ruled against Scripture as such.

The problem here is that the Church, which is the arbitrator in both of our views, had an established position; so how did it change?

I don't know.

Jesus quoted authoritatively from the Scriptures over 50 times. Peter and Paul nearly as often. Never once did they direct us to the Catholic Church or the Roman Pontiff or to any institution as the final, unaccountable arbiter for dogmas, and never once said that a teacher's own teachings are the norma normans for a teachers's own teachings if a teacher so self-claims.

How all that changed to become the dogma of the Bishop of Rome as the infallible arbiter for faith and practice, and the teachings of a teacher as the norma normas for himself (but only if that teacher is the CC and the teachings are of the CC), I don't know. I only know it took 1,877 years to do it (I think this became dogma in that year).



See post # 12 where I address this more fully.


MY perspective.
What's yours?


Thank you!


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[stray bullet]

How all that changed to become the dogma of the Bishop of Rome as the infallible arbiter for faith and practice, and the teachings of a teacher as the norma normas for himself (but only if that teacher is the CC and the teachings are of the CC), I don't know. I only know it took 1,877 years to do it (I think this became dogma in that year).

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." - St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople 387A.D.

Ahha.

It's the basis of Sola Ecclesia.
Self arbitrates the teachings of self according to the teachings of self.
And this is infallible.
Therefore unaccountable.
But ONLY if self does it (the principle is absurd is any other does it).
MY denomination is right cuz it is.
Put your hand down.
Norming is a moot issue in MY case.

Ah, just like sola scriptura.

Of course, the source of the Gospel is going to be the best and only place to look for truth- and it will have to confirm itself, by itself one way or another.

 

[a_ntv]

Here's the explaination from A handbook of the Catholic Faith (the Triptych of the Kingdom) by Dr. N.G.M. Van Doornick, Rev. S. Jelsma and Rev. V. Van De Lisonk. Image Books. "The books which together make up the Bible are, ...

That is not an OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church, I suggest you to quote the very documents of the Church (that anyway many times need of explanation).

I dont take a book witten by a Lutheran and I say: this is the Lutheran doctrine. Well I dont say it at all, bc I know to few of Lutheran doctrine, as well as manypeople have only a light knowledge of Catholicism and only about the US Catholic Church.

From Catholic Church Cathechism (that is anyway not free from mistakes):


106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

But the follwing statment is VERY important to undestand our Faith: the starting point is Christ, not the Bible:108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

THAT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH EPISTOMOLOGY, NOT SOLA ECCELSIA

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good thread.

Thank you.

AGAIN, it is not here (or in ANY thread in which I may express my perspective) my purpose to debate, convert, convince, rebuke or change anyone's position or viewpoint on anything. I'm just sharing my perspective on issues that I deem are dividing us and/or hindering the progress of consensus among us.

It is my viewpoint that much of the stuff that divides Christians is loaded with misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, etc. During my tenue in BOTH Protestant and Catholic congregations, I saw it constantly - more among the laity than clergy.

While I often know the Catholic "response" to nearly everything I post (I've been having these discussions since I was 10), I try to let the Catholics present their responses - especially here where we have such a great many very, very well-informed and articulate members of that faith-community. Therefore, I limit myself to presenting the Protestant position, especially as I embrace it (the observant reader will note I'm of a more conservative, traditional, historic bent). Among my Protestant brothers and sisters, I often found myself trying to address issues of the veneration of saints, the "worship" of Mary as divine, and much, much more, and among my Catholic brothers and sisters, well - there are the "sola" discussions (I think I have these discussions in my dreams, LOL), "you left the church," "you kicked out Tradition" "you don't think works matter" and more. Ah, sounds like GT, doesn't it?!

Many quickly leave forums like this. It can get pretty heated! I happen to think mutual understanding is worth it. IF the Catholic can understand the solas as Protestants embrace them, I've found most of the disagreement vanishes - not completely, of course, but at least we're disagreeing with what we disagree with, not with a misunderstanding.

Again, I let my Catholic brothers and sisters here - a very, very smart group - do the Catholic work (although occasionally I just can't help myself, LOL). God bless you. I will serve with my Protestant brothers and sisters to do the Protestant work. They are an amazing group, I have learned so MUCH from them. I wish, I honestly do, that at the end of each day we could join hands, worship our one Lord, celebrate our one faith, and share the Holy Eucharist together but such will not happen on earth in my lifetime (it does in heaven).


Sorry for the diversion.
Such needs to be said now and then.


Back to the topic?


- Josiah