Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia: Accountability and Norming

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The question is just this: Which is more likely to provide for the desired accountablity and avoid the self-authentication that such a principle is to provide?

No, it is not to us to decide a single comma in religion.
Humiliy, deny ourself, take His cross: that is our job.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, as it seems to have nothing to do with the post you quoted from me.

1. Could it be that you agree with Pontius Pilate that Truth is unknowable?

2. Could it be that you are embracing relativism?

3. Could it be you are saying that it is not up to Christians together to norm teachings but only the Catholic Church, "it" not "us?"




The issue here is simple.
There is a teacher "A"
He has a teaching "B"
How do the world's two billion Christians determine if "B" is correct?
It's called norming.


We have two approaches currently found in Christianity, for dogmas.

Sola Ecclesia: "A" is the 'sole arbiter' for "B". "A" uses "B" as a norma normans for the evaluation of "B" The result of this is infallible and therefore unaccountable. Thus the whole issue of norming is moot.

Sola Scriptura: Christians together are the arbiter for "B." The norm (rule, standard) is God's written Word to His church (the community of believers), the Holy Scriptures that all Christians have almost always embraced as the infallible, apostolic, authoritative, DIVINELY-inspired written Word, written in words that are knowable to all, changeable by none, verbally inspired by God.

IMHO, neither approach is incapable of being abused, but no matter how it is used, Sola Ecclesia is incapable of functioning as a principle of norming. Those that embrace and passionately defend it quickly and boldly admit this - ridiculing and denouncing it as circular, self-authenticating and evasive - but they exempt themselves and argue that while the principle is wrong, it's right when they (but only they alone) use it. In fact, it's the only appropriate approach for them - but only if they use it and no one else.


Thanks.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Lotar]

Now my original post is back.

Josiah,

You are too stuck on the ideas of "principles" and other philosophical analyzing processes. The infallibility of the Church is not some principle for deriving doctrine. It does not apply universally because there is one Church and one Truth, and if someone or something "preaches another gospel" it is false.

When the Church Fathers borrowed from Greek and Latin philosophers, they Christianized them and used them only for the purpose of explanation, as far as it was useful. God, the Incarnation, and the Church are all mysteries; they are beyond human explanation and human understanding. Christianity cannot be scientifically proved, nor can Christian doctrine of the infinite be bound to or understood by finite laws of philosophy and science. Doctrine is set up by the Church as guides to help us on the path to Theosis; they are not an end in themselves.

You are searching for a system with accountability; but quite simply, this isn't possible in matters of faith. Your system of sola scriptura cannot provide this accountability, not even a so called "greater accountability". Having a law without an enforcer of said law is useless. It only creates a theoretical situation that will never relate to real world application. Application of the canon is limited to the discretion of the individual; with the theory that group of individuals on the whole are the final arbitrators of what is the correct application.

The side of the coin that you are not looking at is who or what are we accountable to? This indeed is the important question. Scripture cannot hold us accountable to itself. If this law is above everything else and the only thing we can be sure of, things are bleak indeed, for Scripture does not interpret and apply itself. This requires the human element, it requires us to be responsible to our own understanding of it, yet we all agree that we are flawed and sinful, and this hinders understanding. Everyone understands things differently, and Truth becomes murky.

So, true accountability is achieved when we submit to an authority that is an entity with the power to apply the law, namely the Church. It is only when one submits to the Church and humbly accepts her teachings that true understanding can begin, and that while one has yet to truly know God, one can be certain that the path they are on is correct. It is only through submitting our understanding to the Church that we can align ourselves with the ancient Faith that has been practiced since the Apostolic age.

For the first fifteen centuries of the Church, disputes were never about two opposing sides with different individual understandings of Scripture. Whenever heresy reared its head, it was something new, and it was always defeated by the great Saints who defended the ancient practice of the Church. Arius was not defeated by Scripture, indeed, he had quite a few Scriptural arguments for his cause, and that was where he originally derived his position that Christ was created. It is the same with all the great disputes of the early Church.

What the Church is and her purpose is found in the Scriptures, and some of it I have already shown you. These teachings are even more clarified by the students of the Apostles and other early 2nd century authors. Read the letters of Ss. Ignatius and Polycarp, St. Clements two epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas, ect. There is little doubt about what the Apostolic Church believed. Can one truly believe that they understand Scripture better than the successors of those who wrote them? Holy men who died for their Faith?

On a side note: One of the problems with your argument is your appeal to Scripture as a universally accepted basis for consensus, which it most certainly is not. We do not agree on what constitutes it, what its purpose is, how it is to be read and interpreted, ect, ect, ect. You follow your own traditions concerning Scripture that have no basis in the history of the Church. Furthermore, this is a system of appealing to the lowest common denominator, and if followed correctly, Scripture should be rejected as well, as a good portion of the Protestant world no longer sees it as infallible.

I'm sorry Josiah, but you have beaten your point into the ground. It is fallacious and self-defeating, and I'm sorry if you think I just don't understand it. I believe that you are bright, and that as your education continues you will see the errors in your arguments, but until then, there is nothing more I can say to help you. So, I will not converse anymore on this topic unless some new element is brought up.

 

[a_ntv]

No, it is not to us to decide a single comma in religion.
Humiliy, deny ourself, take His cross: that is our job.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, as it seems to have nothing to do with the post you quoted from me.

1. Could it be that you agree with Pontius Pilate that Truth is unknowable?

2. Could it be that you are embracing relativism?

3. Could it be you are saying that it is not up to Christians together to norm teachings but only the Catholic Church, "it" not "us?"

Probably I need to write more simply.

Here some ideas, that I ask you all not to accept, but simply to use them to put yourself in our shoes, in order to undestand that the contrary of sola scriptura is NOT sola ecclesia.

1) the Church is not 'Christians together'. The Church is the Body of Christ. It is by far more than a sum of single beings.
The border of the Church is into us. The Church is made by the holy new creatures into us.
If the Church is the Body of Chirst, the Church is: One, Saint (or holy), Universal (not to say catholic), Right in the Faith (not to say orthodox).
CC, EO, OO, ACOE are part of the Church. Also LCSM, Baptist Church and all other denomination are part, more or less perfectly, of the Church.

2) Holy Spirit: it is the Holy Spirit who unit the Church in the Body of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who helps the Church in the centuries. In a certain sense, it is the Holy Spirit the 'norm' of the Church. (note 1)

3) Each human being can be saved or not. that is typical of each single human being, not of the whole Church (the Body of Christ), that is 100% saint/holy.
The Gospel ask us to deny ourself, and to take our cross. That reffer to each of us, not to the Church.
- We can be selfish, not the Church that is holy.
- We shall be humile, not the Church that has the same brightness of Christ.
In all CJ posts there is the idea that sola ecclesia uses the self interpretation. Who refer this self? to each human soul? (that is the worse sin); to each denomination? (denomination do not have a soul); to the Church? that is ok, bc the Church is the Body of Christ, the Body of the Word of God.

4) Arbiter vs Teacher. CJ posts state that an arbiter is who has the right to change the truth.
Only God have it. The Church cannot change the Truth. The Church cannot say 'Christ is a martian arrived on the earth with a spaceship'. The Church can ONLY teach the same old Truths defined in the Tradition (note 2).

Sola Ecclesia is a misunderstanding of these four points: 1) Church=denomination=sum of people 2) no role for the Holy Spirit 3) reject the idea of deny ourself 4) arbiter and not teacher

No, it is not to us to decide a single comma in religion.

I explain me better:
- It is noone (nor any human being, nor any denomination, nor the Church) to change the religion.
- It is not any single human being to teach the religion, but it is the Church.

So there is not relativism, and the Truth is knowable (with some limit about the mystaries). It is enough to lissen, as students, at the teachings of Christ, transmited by the Church.
This attitude is full of humility and is a way to deny ourself.

Who embrace sola scriptura wants to be scolar and not student.
That is the reason why we DO NOT embrace any principle of norming (ss or se): bc we have NOT the right to judge the teacher (Christ, with his Body kept by the Holy Spirit).

(note 1): it is wonderfull to read about theChurch and the Holy Spirit in the early anaphoras, in the part after the institution narrative, in the part deleted by Luther.
(note 2): CC sometime uses new wordings (dogmas) for the same truth, while EO is more difficoult to move from the greek Fathers' definitions. but we are always speaking of new wording for the same truths, not of new Truth.

1. Could it be that you agree with Pontius Pilate that Truth is unknowable?

It is sola scriptura that leads to agree with Pontius Pilate that Truth is unknowable.
Why? because the sola scriptura rule only the accountabilty, but do not solve doctrinal matters (see the 1000 different protestant doctrines)
It is after using sola scriptura, with two opposite doctrine both accounted, that you arrive at a situation like Pontius Pilatus' one.
And Pontius Pilatus to take a decision used the 'consesus': he asked the people to decide!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, it is not to us to decide a single comma in religion.
Humiliy, deny ourself, take His cross: that is our job.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, as it seems to have nothing to do with the post you quoted from me.

1. Could it be that you agree with Pontius Pilate that Truth is unknowable?

2. Could it be that you are embracing relativism?

3. Could it be you are saying that it is not up to Christians together to norm teachings but only the Catholic Church, "it" not "us?"

Here some ideas, that I ask you all not to accept, but simply to use them to put yourself in our shoes, in order to undestand that the contrary of sola scriptura is NOT sola ecclesia.

1) the Church is not 'Christians together'. The Church is the Body of Christ. It is by far more than a sum of single beings.

While the church may be MORE than that, I disagree that it is LESS than that. I disagree that it is any institution headed by any infallible man.

IF you agree that the church is all Christians, than it's not an institution or denomination. This should be obvious since there is no denomination that has on its official registers ALL Christians - the whole community of the faith - and only Christians.

The border of the Church is into us. The Church is made by the holy new creatures into us.
If the Church is the Body of Chirst, the Church is: One, Saint (or holy), Universal (not to say catholic), Right in the Faith (not to say orthodox).
CC, EO, OO, ACOE are part of the Church. Also LCSM, Baptist Church and all other denomination are part, more or less perfectly, of the Church.

I respectfully disagree.
I think that Christians are people.
NO denomination is able to have faith thus no denomination is able to be Christian or the be the church. I do not believe that the LCMS is THE church of Christ or even a part of it (SEPARATED is the word Catholics use, NOT equal or full). However, I believe that Christians, collectively, are the church. But we disagree on such.

Back to the topic?

2) Holy Spirit: it is the Holy Spirit who unit the Church in the Body of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who helps the Church in the centuries. In a certain sense, it is the Holy Spirit the 'norm' of the Church. (note 1)

As determined by who/what?
Could it be the Catholic Church (infallibly, singularly) with no need for accountability?

In all CJ posts there is the idea that sola ecclesia uses the self interpretation. Who refer this self? to each human soul? (that is the worse sin); to each denomination? (denomination do not have a soul); to the Church? that is ok, bc the Church is the Body of Christ, the Body of the Word of God.

AGAIN, according to the Catholic Church (and LDS and perhaps the EO and several "prophet" churches), who/what is the "sole arbiter" for doctrine? Is it the self-same denomination?

AGAIN, there are dogmas in the CC. Agreed?
Some are disputed, even unique to that denomination. Agreed?
Some of these were taught via "Apostolic Tradition" and the "infallible preaching" for the CC is not limited to the Holy Scriptures for such. Agreed?
Let us call this corpus "A"
Is "A" true?
According to the CC, who or what is the "sole arbiter" for "A?" IF your answer is, the Catholic Church - the self same teacher that teaches "A" then you've just embraced Sola Ecclesia (Church Alone is the final arbiter).
IF you say it's the first 7 ecumenical councils alone - you've stepped outside Catholicism.
IF you answer anything other than the Magisterium of the CC (Sola Ecclesia) I think you're outside the mainstream of your denomination.
When I asked this question, the answer I got was "The living teaching authority, consisting of the Pope and the bishops of the day." I can assure you, my priest did not mean any Lutheran bishops, he meant Catholic bishops.

The question before us is NOT if a denomination cannot embrace such a norming principle - certainly they can.
The question before us is NOT if such a norming principle has lead to error or not.
The question before us is if such a norming principle is the best norming principle (or maybe, if it can norm at all).

4) Arbiter vs Teacher. CJ posts state that an arbiter is who has the right to change the truth.
Only God have it. The Church cannot change the Truth. The Church cannot say 'Christ is a martian arrived on the earth with a spaceship'. The Church can ONLY teach the same old Truths defined in the Tradition .

No.
I never remotely suggested such a thing.

What I asked is who or what defines this corpus of extra-biblical truth, these dogmas God left out of His Holy Scriptures for the church but gave to your particular denomination? And who or what interprets and applies this corpus of extra-biblical stuff? And does it do so infallibly? Without the need for any accountability whatsoever? Who/what says so? Can two teachers do this, or just you? Is the principle a sound one all Christians can use or a terrible one to be ridiculed and rejected except when your denomination uses it? Those are the questions I raised.

Sola Ecclesia is a misunderstanding of these four points: 1) Church=denomination=sum of people 2) no role for the Holy Spirit 3) reject the idea of deny ourself 4) arbiter and not teacher

1. If you are limiting the arbitration to a single denomination (your own, of course) and declaring that denomination to essentially be the Church, infallible, unaccountable, above all norming - then I think you've done just that.

2. I addressed this issue several times before. The Holy Spirit has a role in two ways: He inspired, preserved, collected and gives to us the Holy Scriptures, the Holy written Word and the Holy Spirit guides US (not just you, not just the Roman Catholic Church, not just the Pope) into truth. We believe God works through His Word and guides His people, but I don't know how God can guide an institution that has no soul, no heart, no mind, no faith.

3. I think that a teacher who insists that he alone is infallible, insists that he alone is the 'sole arbiter' for himself, insists that his own teachings are the infallible norm for his own teachings is the one not denying himself.

4. Each Christian is a teacher - we all have the teaching authority. But I don't believe that each teacher is the infallible, unaccountable arbiter for his own self - a person is unaccountable and above norming if he so claims (but only if that teacher is oneself).

I explain me better:
- It is noone (nor any human being, nor any denomination, nor the Church) to change the religion.
- It is not any single human being to teach the religion, but it is the Church.[/quote

Amen.

Private interpretation is just as wrong for a single denomination as it is for a single person. If the teacher is declaring himself to be divinely inspired, infallible, unaccountable and above all norming - right cuz he is - does it matter if the teacher is the RCC or LDS or Brother Bob (an Apostle and Prophet of Jesus with a congregation in my hometown)? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander; if the principle is sound it should be sound in the hands of all Christians.

So there is not relativism, and the Truth is knowable

So, one denomination professes "A"
Another professes "B"
Can we know who is right?
How?

Do we just ask your denomination?
What if your denomination is the one teaching "A" or "B"?

It is enough to lissen, as students, at the teachings of Christ, transmited by the Church.
This attitude is full of humility and is a way to deny ourself.

Unless one essentially equates the Church with themselves...

Unless one says "I'm infallible, unaccountable, above all norming cuz I say I am." That doesn't seem too humble to ME. That doesn't seem like a student to ME.

The issue here is simple.
There is a teacher "A"
He has a teaching "B"
How do the world's two billion Christians determine if "B" is correct?
It's called norming.
It's the subject of this thread.


We have two approaches currently found in Christianity, for dogmas.

Sola Ecclesia: "A" is the 'sole arbiter' for "B". "A" uses "B" as a norma normans for the evaluation of "B" The result of this is infallible and therefore unaccountable. Thus the whole issue of norming is moot.

Sola Scriptura: Christians together are the arbiter for "B." The norm (rule, standard) is God's written Word to His church (the community of believers), the Holy Scriptures that all Christians have almost always embraced as the infallible, apostolic, authoritative, DIVINELY-inspired written Word, written in words that are knowable to all, changeable by none, verbally inspired by God.

IMHO, neither approach is incapable of being abused, but no matter how it is used, Sola Ecclesia is incapable of functioning as a principle of norming. Those that embrace and passionately defend it quickly and boldly admit this - ridiculing and denouncing it as circular, self-authenticating and evasive - but they exempt themselves and argue that while the principle is wrong, it's right when they (but only they alone) use it. In fact, it's the only appropriate approach for them - but only if they use it and no one else.


Thanks.

That's the rest of my post that you didn't respond to, I think it clarifies the point you seem to have misunderstood.




Thanks.


Pax.


- Josiah


.