Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia: Accountability and Norming

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective...

You still haven't answered my question. Who, in your mind, holds the Church accountable?

See posts # 1 and 46
Thank you.



Now (just taking a wild stab in the dark - anything to try to advance this discussion), it could be that you and I would have similar respect for an ecumenical council at this time - the first in well over 1,000 years (perhaps the first since Acts 15). However, IMHO, the chances of that happening in my lifetime are significantly less than the chance of Jupiter hitting the Earth. And that's probably a good thing, because it would only highlight to all the world the amazing pride, self-claims and institutionalization that has engulfed Christianity. I've completely given up all hope (or desire) for such; we are not ready for that - and haven't been for well over 1,000 years (and probably much longer than that).

If such were to happen, it would be a complete waste of everyone's time, and not worth the price of the boxed lunches provided for the gathering. Nothing will happen when several major players at the meeting insist that they (but only they themselves) are infallible, unaccountable and exempt from all norming (but to they themselves) and that the the norma normans for the discussion is what they themselves teach and self-claim, infallibly, exempt from norming or accountability. Who can shout the biggest, most prideful self-claims the loudest and longest seems to be an inadequate way to advance unity and consensus (and prehaps the Great Commandment and Great Commission) - IMHO. Just IMHO.


Thanks.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Lotar]

Niether answer the question my friend. You say that Scripture is the rule and that the Church is the arbitrator. Who holds the Church accountable to the rule?

I'm looking for this accountablity you claim to have.

 

[a_ntv]

Now (just taking a wild stab in the dark - anything to try to advance this discussion), it could be that you and I would have similar respect for an ecumenical council at this time - the first in well over 1,000 years (perhaps the first since Acts 15). However, IMHO, the chances of that happening in my lifetime are significantly less than the chance of Jupiter hitting the Earth.

A new ecumenical council? It has been aready proposed, but probably you dont realize what it is.

The ingredients for a councils are the ONLY the Bishops. Bishops with a valid Apostolic Succession. That is the ONLY way to have a direct link with the Apostoles.

For the CC, all bishops of EOs, OOs, ACOE, Old Catholics and perhaps also Anglican Church are true bishops and so have the right to partecipate, but for sure LCMS's President is considered not to be a real bishop and so he have not the right to seat in a council.
And many EO do not think that catholic bishops are true bishops...so...yes, you are right, the chances of that happening in our lifetime are significantly less than the chance of Jupiter hitting the Earth.

To speak about a council there is the need of a common 'consunsus' at least on: Church, Apostolic Succession, Sacraments, Eucharistic. That is not.

I dont think that our Churches agree at the 95%. Perhaps at the 70%. No more. (well, 70% is not a few indeed)

 

[Lotar]

Protestants don't hold to the first 7, why would they hold to a new one?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective...

Josiah,

Allow me to first speak on you concerns about the constitution of the Church. In order for you to evaluate my beliefs, you must do so under my underlying set of principles concerning said belief, and vise versa. For me to properly understand and evaluate your belief in sola scriptura, I must do so taking into account of your understanding of the Church as an invisible mystical body of all believers. In order for you to understand my position and evaluate it properly, you must also do so taking into account of my understanding of the Church.

I agree...

IF Sola Scriptura will be understood by Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and others, they need to appreciate that we don't accept the institutionalization of Christ and His church or the infallible self-claims of teachers on the basis of the self-same. The doctrine of the church, the nature of man, Scripture - they all come into play here. And yet - such is not the issue. The issue is norming and accountability - it's an epistemological question, not a doctrinal question.

Yet again, my purpose here is not to convince or convert anyone - I have zero hope for that and no agenda concerning that. ONLY that Sola Scriptura - as Protestants embrace it - is understood. I've found that when that happens - when it's striped of all the mischaracterizations and strawmen, when it's understood, most of the disagreement fades or at least we are disagreeing on what is actually being embraced rather than alledged.

As far my understanding of the Church, I hope it can be stated in such a way that it does not bring offense. When we speak of you as Christians, we do so in the sense that we recognize that you in some sense follow certain Christian beliefs and practices. Still, it must be recognized that you are not united to the Church and so are still not Christian in the fullest meaning of the word.

I completely understand that.
Nearly all Protestants do.
And I lived with that for some 5 years.
Was I offended? No.
Was I hurt? Yes.
Do I think it divisive? Definately.

So, to address your argument that we follow a system of individualism is rather baseless. In order to make this claim you must take your Protestant understanding of the Church and apply it to us. This cannot be done without first proving your definition to be correct.

I respectfully disagree.

Read what you posted in the paragraph above.

I do not know, but I strongly suspect that when the Orthodox Church gathers to consider the correctness of teachings (and I very much doubt that they do), the only votes are members of the Orthodox Church - men who embrace that the Tradition (teachings, interpretations, applications, etc) of the self same are the norma normans for the evaluation of the self same by the self-same. Sola Ecclesia.

Now, to extend upon the definitions I provided previously, let us look at these words.

Principle: A principle is something, usually a rule or norm, that is part of the basis for something else.
Belief: any cognitive content held as true
Doctrine:a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true
I'm sorry, but I cannot see your point that sola scriptura is not a doctrine. As far as I can see it fits the definition perfectly, but if you still think otherwise, please enlighten me.

IF you define a doctrine as a method then I suppose it is. I define a doctrine as a belief accepted as true and binding, a Dogma as necessary to embrace (really just a doctrine where debate is not permitted and affirmation of such is considered necessary for or in salvation).

Now, my previous question has yet to be answered. Who, in your mind, holds the Church accountable? You have confirmed that the Church is held accountable to Scripture, but you fail to explain who holds the Church accountable to it.

I believe that a teacher is to be normed by God's Holy Scriptures and that the arbitration is the church catholic.

So, the point of my example is not to say that you should accept their consensus as norming. My point is to give you an example of how your system is perplexing to me. On one hand you say that the Church is the arbitrator, yet on the other hand, this arbitration seems to have little to no effect in application. Furthermore, it shows an example of what I see as the individual ultimately holding the Church accountable to Scripture.

I think you are making the issue infinately more complex than it is.

We have two men. One insists that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened in December of 1941 the other says it happened in December of 1942. Perhaps one of the men was actually there, another says that he has supernatural insights into such things. Okay. We have two veiws - likely one or both is incorrect (or perhaps we have an unresolvable situation here).

Are each of these men infallible and unaccountable? Is he if he so self-claims but not if he doesn't so self-claim? Is if I happen to agree with him but not if I happen to not agree with him? Is if it's me, not if it's not? Are these men accountable for what they are saying? Or do we simply accept that both are correct because they say they are? Accountablity. The subject of this thread.

Then, on the basis of WHAT will it be determined who is right and who is not (assuming it can be determined). Should we assume that the teaching of each man (Tradition) is our norma normans (after all, each has a special reason to claim such)? We'll have the one who claims it was in 1941 use his teaching to norm his teaching and the one who claimed it was in 1942 use his teaching (Tradition) to norm his teaching? Or is there some more objective norm to which BOTH might be held accountable? Ah, we have lots of historical records that not only state the exact date but the every minute on which the aircraft first appeared on the north shore of Oahu! (My comparison here breaks down because such records are very fallible - we ALL agree, God's writtne Word - the Holy Scriptures - aren't).

And then the second issue arises - the arbitration. Who will decide which of these men is correct as determined by the clear witness of the historical records? Should it be the self same teacher? The one who claims it was 1942 appoints himself as his own "sole final arbiter" in this regard (infallibly and without any accountability) using the norm of his own teaching? Or do we serve in that capacity, according to the norm of those clear, objective historical records above and outside these two men?

Or let me use a legal example. I'm driving down the road at 60 MPH. A policeman stops me and says I was speeding. I say I wasn't. How do we norm this? One approach would be for me to appoint myself as the "sole final arbiter" for this evaluation and to use the norm of my own opinion. I say I'm not speeding, and this is completely in harmony with my own opinion that I am not speeding. Now, the result of my norming is infallible, unaccountable and beyond any norming, it's true. Therefore, I'm not speeding. Another approach would be for the policeman to direct my attention to the WRITTEN sign next to me that reads "Max. Speed Limit: 45 MPH. Ah, I say it's above 60 and the sign says 45. Perhaps I go to court on this, arguing that the policeman read the sign that says 45 but I say it's over 60. There is a jury and a clear consensus of that will hold both of us accountable to the Rule of Law (Rule = Canon, norma normans). There is a sign to which all are bound, and there is a written vehicle code book that proclaims the law regarding this very clear (again, human laws are fallible, the Divinely-inspired written Word - we ALL agree - is not).


But, I think you're correct. What is really very simple is made amazingly complex and impossible to untangle because the guy who says Pearl Harbor happened in 1942 self-claims he is infallible and unaccounted and is to use his own opinions as the norm for his own opinions - so he MUST be right, there's just no other way around it, any realizations to the contrary apply to everyone else but NOT to him, he's just right cuz he says he is and since he is, he is (listened in on any Catholic - Mormon discussions?).


Friend, the issue here is accountability and norming as we TRY to advance unity and consensus. Clearly, a teacher who just self-claims to be infallible and right cuz he just is, who claims his denomination just is the Church of Christ cuz he says it is and everything he says is right isn't going to be interested in either of these things, I suppose. Tells you much about where Christianity is "stuck" what all this pride and institutionalization has taken us. And whoever can shout this the longest and louded must be right. I disagree.


Thanks.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY perspective...



Again, we're discussing methods here. They can't be proven or disproven, but they can be evaluated.

We want a tool that can help settle the "he says, she says" situation. To provide the most accountability and the least self-authentication.

Can both principles here be misused? Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia? I can't think of a single method that can't be misused - a perfect method incapable of individual misuse is probably going to be a tough act.

But we can see which of the two principles of norming in common use is most promising to provide accountability and avoid self-authentication.
Sola Ecclesia: Self is the sole arbiter and the norm is the teachings of self - and this is infallible, unaccountable and renders all norming moot.
Sola Scriptura: The norm for all teachings (including of self) is what we all agree is God's infallible, authoritative, apostolic, divinely-inspired, Word - written in words unalterable and fully knowable; all parties will be held to God's Word so that their words must be normed by His Word, not the other way around. The arbiter may be the individual (conviction) - as some who embrace this hold, or the arbiter may be the church catholic (consensus) as some who embrace this hold. But regardless of the arbitration the Norm is Scripture alone.


It is MY conclusion that while Sola Scriptura certainly can be misused, it is captable to doing what a principle of norming is to do. It is my conclusion that Sola Ecclesia is completely incaptable of doing what it promises - no matter who uses it or how well intended or sincere those who try to use it are. This seems obvious to Protestants because those that use it insist that it is to be ridiculed and rejected and cannot be used - except when they themselves use it, then it's both proper and infallible.

I ask no one to agree with my conclusion. But I think it might help some to understand how Protestants approach this issue. Especially in the light of our views that the Holy Scriptures are God's inspired written Word, the depravity of man, and our sensitivity to the many Scriptures that warn us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that would lead many astry; the 50+ times Jesus referred us to Scriptures as normative and the 0 times He so referred to any human being or institution as normative in dogma.



MY perspective...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Lotar]

Josiah,

Look at it this way, in your belief of the Church as all Christians as arbitrator, do you take into account the opinions of Muslims and Jews? If no, you would fall into the same arena as you try to classify us. The fact that only Orthodox Christians take part in Church councils and other forms of Tradition does not make it individualistic. Indeed, the opposite is true, as the entirety of the Church is taking part. It does not matter what those outside the Church believe, whether they are Muslim, Buddhist or Christian.

Your example is an exercise in wasted effort. It is addressing the wrong issue.

Your repeated argument is that sola scriptura provides accountability, yet you fail to adequately explain how this is so. You say this is so because you place Scripture as the sole rule and norm, but this proves nothing. Giving an entity a law that it must abide to will not provide accountability, unless there is another separate entity holding it accountable to that law. It is simple logic.

The problem is that you worry about the wrong thing. We should not worry about who holds the Church accountable, rather we should worry about who will hold us accountable, lest we only have ourselves to blame on the Day of Judgment.

Furthermore, yes it is true that when you make something infallible, you make it beyond the realm of our questioning. This holds just as true for Scripture as for the Church, and those of your fellow Protestants who reject the infallibility of Scripture can make the same argument. It is a matter of faith, and rationalism is the death of faith.

The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the Church, "norming" is indeed "moot". The Church is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" and "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her". The Truth is and was and ever shall be, and as Christ said "I shall be with you always", and so shall never need to be rediscovered or questioned or subjected to a list of human tests and criteria. Indeed, tradition is "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church" and its purpose is to help guide us to union with Christ and the Church. Scriptures are letters from God and are about God, but they are not God. They are a tool, not an end. Let us be as the Ethiopian who, when asked if he understood what he read answered, "How can I, unless some man show me?", and not as Pilot asking, "What is Truth?" and resorting to the "philosophies of men".

 

[a_ntv]

The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the Church, "norming" is indeed "moot". The Church is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" and "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her". The Truth is and was and ever shall be, and as Christ said "I shall be with you always", and so shall never need to be rediscovered or questioned or subjected to a list of human tests and criteria. Indeed, tradition is "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church" and its purpose is to help guide us to union with Christ and the Church. Scriptures are letters from God and are about God, but they are not God. They are a tool, not an end. Let us be as the Ethiopian who, when asked if he understood what he read answered, "How can I, unless some man show me?", and not as Pilot asking, "What is Truth?" and resorting to the "philosophies of men".

In other words: Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

We shall believe without accountability (without Thomas' touching)

If we are not learned about 7 sacraments, Eucharistic (that is NOT only Real Presence), Church, Mary, Apostolic Succession, Liturgy, Councils, theology of the Holy Spirit,...: ok, we are excused.
But if we know, we shall believe, not bc we have scientifical proofs, but for humility.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, Your example is an exercise in wasted effort.

See the Opening post.


I understand that IS the position of every denomination that embraces Sola Ecclesia.


Your post above, #67, should be kept clearly in mind as we have these discussions as to which epistemological principle of norming affords the better possibility for accountabity, the better tool for norming. I think this poster answered it as clearly as possible.



The whole issue of accountability and norming doesn't apply to them - it's moot (it applies to everyone else who self-claims exactly as they do, but not to them, they have exempted themselves from this rejection of the principle).


I guess if a teacher self-claims to be infallible - he just is. I get it. The only thing that troubles me is if this principle is infallible, why is it sooooo flawed when any other denomination uses the exact same principle based on exactly the same self-claims?



As best as I can follow you, you seem to be suggesting the following two points:

1. Since neither method is infallible always no matter what the arbitation, therefore both are completely useless, any and all accoutability are to be rejected, and anyone can self-claim anything he wants - there's no way to know who is or isn't right, unless it's my denomination, it's infallible.

2. When a denomination self-claims to be infallible and unaccountable, they therefore are. But this only applies to your denomination and no other.

While I understand the logic in both of these statements, I reject both conclusions.

Furthermore, yes it is true that when you make something infallible, you make it beyond the realm of our questioning. This holds just as true for Scripture as for the Church

I disagree for two reasons:

1. While all Christians have for at least 1600-1900 years affirmed the NT Scriptures as normative for theology, the world's Christians do not now and never have all submitted to the same corpus of teachings of a single teacher as the normative for theology. Even those who self-claim to have the "infallible preaching" can't seem to agree on what it is, much less what it means. The EO and CC don't normally even allow each other to the Holy Eucharist and the LDS claims you both are apostate.


2. It seems more fitting to subject the fallible words to men to the infallible written Word of God rather than the other way around. It seems less fitting to give human teachings equal authority with God's teaching.


3. While we all agree that the Scriptues are God's written Word, we don't all agree that the Catholic denomination is essentially the Church of Christ, God's denomination. the universal, whole, complete, all-inclusive number of Christians. We would agree that God's people can be found in congregations of the Catholic denominatiion, but we've never agreed that they can only be found there or that all can be found there. You seem to be using YOUR position in an issue of dispute as an infallible norm to support YOUR position in an area of dispute, placing yourself as the arbiter and declaring yourself unaccountable. It is your principle for how to handle disputes, I do understand that.

The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the Church, "norming" is indeed "moot".

As I understand it, this is the position of the RCC and LDS, and perhaps the EO and OO.
It is exactly as I was taught by my priest.
It's why many Christians reject it as a valid and useful principle of norming.


This is where all these self-claims, denial of accountability and the institutionalization of Christianity has brought us. No wonder unity and consensus alludes...


I hope the thread is becoming clear to all who are reading it.

The Church is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" and "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her". The Truth is and was and ever shall be, and as Christ said "I shall be with you always", and so shall never need to be rediscovered or questioned or subjected to a list of human tests and criteria. Indeed, tradition is "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church" and its purpose is to help guide us to union with Christ and the Church.

I agree with very word...

But I don't see any of those Scriptures saying that the norm for the evaluation of teachings is the teachers of the teacher teaching it. Nope. Not there.

And I see nothing in those Scriptures that says that Christianity is an institutional denomination and it happens to be the CC (or EO or LDS or any other that so self-claims). Nope. Not there.

Jesus did NOT say, "I am with the Roman Catholic Denomination always." He did not say, "I am with the Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter Day Saints always." He did not say, "I am with the Reformed Church in America always." He didn't say I'm with it always." He said, "I'm with you always."


I do not doubt that Tradition can help us. I just deny that it norms itself and God' Word. Our words are not above God's Word - even if they happen to be from our denomination, even if the denomination making the self-claims also makes a self-claim to infallibility (but only the self-claim of my denomination applies).

Scriptures are letters from God and are about God, but they are not God.

They are words, and the written Word of God.
I place the written Word of God above the written words of self - but that's where we disagree.


That seems a better norm than the various teachings of errant men - even of those who self-claim to have insider information and are infallible, insisting that it would be absurd to hold them accountable for anything, that they (but only they) are above any and all norming. I don't agree that we should regard their words above God's Word. But we disagree on that. I understand that.

Ethiopian who, when asked if he understood what he read answered, "How can I, unless some man show me?", and not as Pilot asking, "What is Truth?" and resorting to the "philosophies of men".

Let us be like Philip who opened the Scriptures, who "with that very passage of Scripture" shared the good news of Jesus. Nope, he didn't say, "Well, what I was told by someone who was told by someone was this, and I'm infallible and unaccountable and above all norming."

Let us not be like Pilate who believed there was no norm for Truth and that anyone can teach whatever they like - they are their own self norm, accountable only to themself.




But, I think you've summerized the Sola Ecclesia position perfectly.

The several denominations that embrace it reject accountability and just self-claim to be infallible and above all norming, end of discussion, put your hand down, that's it.

But only they themselves can so self-claim; it's absurd if anyone else uses the principle they insist is the only one to use.


So, we come to the question before us:
Which of the principles of norming before us offers greater accountability and less self-authentication? Which is a more promising principle of norming? Sola Ecclesia or Sola Scriptura?


I suppose each will reach their own conclusion.


MY perspective....


Pax.


- Josiah


.


PS I plan to quote you in the future as well presenting the position of your denomination and of those that embrace Sola Eccelsia.

 

[Trento]

See the Opening post.


I




But, I think you've summerized the Sola Ecclesia position perfectly.

The several denominations that embrace it reject accountability and just self-claim to be infallible and above all norming, end of discussion, put your hand down, that's it.



Pax.


- Josiah


.

This is what the Apostolic Churches Position is and you can call it whatever you want.

The teaching of the Scriptures. The Apostolic Tradition encompasses what the Apostles lived, saw, witnessed and later recorded in the books of the new Testament.

The bishops and presbyters, whom the Apostles appointed as their successors, followed their teaching to the letter. Those who deviated from this apostolic teaching were cut off from the Church. They were considered heretics and schismatics, for they believed differently from the Apostles and their successors, thus separating themselves from the Church. This brings into focus the Church as the center of unity of all Christians. This is the ecclesiastical or ecclesiological characteristic of Tradition. The Church is the image and reflection of the Holy Trinity since the three persons of the Holy Trinity live, indwell, and act in the Church. The Father offers His love, the Son offers His obedience, the Holy Spirit His comfort. Only in the historical Church can we see, feel, and live the presence of the Holy Trinity in the World. In describing this reality St. Paul writes:

"So he came and proclaimed the good news: peace to you who were far off, and peace to those who were near by; for through him we both alike have access to the Father in the one Spirit. Thus you are no longer aliens in a foreign land, but fellow-citizens with God's people, members of God's household. You are built upon the foundation laid by the Apostles and prophets, and Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone. In him the whole building is bonded together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you too are being built with all the rest into a spiritual dwelling of God" (Ephes. 2:17-22).


Only in this Church, where the Holy Trinity lives and acts constantly could the teaching of Christ, the very revelation of truth, as received and transmitted by the Apostles, abide and be sustained. Thus truth in its fullness does not exist outside the Church, for there is neither Scripture, nor Tradition. This is why St. Paul admonishes the Galatians that even if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel to them, he must be condemned:

"If any man preach any other gospel to you than that you have received (parelavete) let him be condemned" (1:8-9).

​

And he writes to his disciple Timothy to follow strictly the "precepts of our faith" and the "sound instructions" he received from him and avoid "godless myths" (1 Tim. 4: 4-7). He also admonishes the Colossians to avoid "merely human injunctions and teachings" (2: 22), and to follow Christ:

"Therefore, since Jesus was delivered to you as Christ and Lord, live your lives in union with Him. Be rooted in Him; be built in Him; be consolidated in the faith you were taught; let your hearts overflow with thankfulness. Be on your guard; do not let your minds be captured by hollow and delusive speculations, based on traditions of man-made teaching and centered on the elemental spirits of the universe and not on Christ. For it is in Christ that the complete being of the Godhead dwells embodied, and in Him you have been brought to completion" (Col. 2: 6-8).


This teaching or Apostolic Tradition was transmitted from the Apostles themselves to their successors, the bishops and the presbyters. St. Clement, Bishop of Rome (second century A.D.), and a disciple of the Apostles himself, described this historical truth:

"The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God's Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God, and the Apostles with a message from Christ. Both these orderly arrangements, therefore, originate from the will of God. And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth, equipped with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to preach the good news that the Kingdom of God was close at hand. From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city they preached; and from among their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers" (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42).

​

One can clearly see how the message of salvation originating from God the Father was taught by Jesus Christ, witnessed to by the Holy Spirit, preached by the Apostles and was transmitted by them to the Church through the clergy they themselves appointed. This became the "unerring tradition of the Apostolic preaching" as it was expressed by Eusebius of Caesarea, bishop of the fourth century, who is considered the "father" of Church History (Church History, IV, 8).

 

[Lotar]

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.

 

[jamesMarion]

Thank you all for your time and effort. I understand the difference between genuine and enforced humility. (If I don't bend it ; He will)
I will submit to the only One who has the power to destroy my soul.
I believe I can understand Scripture as well as any other human being.
I understand what is at risk.

 

[Lotar]

Thank you all for your time and effort. I understand the difference between genuine and enforced humility. (If I don't bend it ; He will)
I will submit to the only One who has the power to destroy my soul.
I believe I can understand Scripture as well as any other human being.
I understand what is at risk.

Is that humility? True humility is knowing that your own understanding is flawed and requires the help of others.

 

[HisKid1973]

Quote CJ:I hope the thread is becoming clear to all who are reading it.Quote

Crystal, BUT, some will see only what thier "filter" allows them to see..shalom..Kim

 

[a_ntv]

Crystal, BUT, some will see only what thier "filter" allows them to see..shalom..Kim

That is very true

Using sola scriptura, the Lutherans use the glasses of Lutheranim and in the Scripture they read only Lutheran doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the Calvinists use the glasses of Calvinism and in the Scripture they read only Calvinist doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the JWs use the glasses of Watch Tower and in the Scripture they read only JW doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the Non Trinitatians use the glasses of Non Trinitatian and in the Scripture they read only Non Trinitatians doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the SDAs use the glasses of SDA and in the Scripture they read only SDA doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, Bill uses his own made glasses and in the Scripture he reads only the doctrine he likes more.

There is something of very wrong in sola scriptura.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is very true

Using sola scriptura, the Lutherans use the glasses of Lutheranim and in the Scripture they read only Lutheran doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the Calvinists use the glasses of Calvinism and in the Scripture they read only Calvinist doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the JWs use the glasses of Watch Tower and in the Scripture they read only JW doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the Non Trinitatians use the glasses of Non Trinitatian and in the Scripture they read only Non Trinitatians doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, the SDAs use the glasses of SDA and in the Scripture they read only SDA doctrine.
Using sola scriptura, Bill uses his own made glasses and in the Scripture he reads only the doctrine he likes more.

There is something of very wrong in sola scriptura.

Yet another reason why Sola Ecclesia CANNOT provide accountability and an adequate basis for norming...


1. If each one of those denominations embraces the principle that THEIR interpretations, applicaitons, claims, teachings (Tradition) is norma normans (the Norm, Rule, Canon) for the evaluation of the self-same, then it's very apt to be normed as correct. Follow?

2. If each of those denominations self-claims that they themselves are the "sole arbiter" (Sola Ecclesia) - they themselves are the only ones permitted to evaluate their own teachings, then they are apt to find themselves (especially their self-claims) to be correct. Follow?

3. The issue you've raised again here is exactly why Sola Ecclesia CANNOT provide accountability or norming - and yet they insist upon it. Of course, if Lutherans self-claimed all these things and use this principle - the Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons would be screaming how absurd this principle is - how it's NOT a principle of accountability and norming, how it's circular and self-authenticating, how it must be rejected and repudiated! But it's the only and best principle to use, but only if the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the LDS Church uses it - only if self uses it - the principle is to be repudiated and rejected otherwise. Follow?


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is that humility? True humility is knowing that your own understanding is flawed and requires the help of others.

I completely agree.


So why do some denominaitons exempt themselves from this biblical, wise and humble counsel, as you've insisted one (your own) should?


It seems to ME that if self exempts self from accountability (as you've insisted your denomination must), insists that self is infallible and thus exempt from any norming (as you've insisted your denomination must) - but insists that everyone else must be held accountable and normed - then it has exempted self from the wise advise you here share.



If self must exempt self from humility, if self must exempt self from the possibility that they might be flawed in their understanding, if self must exempt self from the need for others to norm them, then how does your wise counsel apply? Or does it apply to everyone EXCEPT ......... ?


My perspective.


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[CaDan]

The way of act of my Church is the one I have highlight in Blue.

After lots of post, I more and more realize that we cannot speakthe same language bc we have completly different theologies of Church. For you the Church is a denomination or a institution, for us is the Body of Chirst.
We are speaking a different language (well, my english is very poor indeed).

CaDan's Third Law!

Everybody in this thread owes me 5¢

 

[stumpjumper]

It all comes down to ecclesiology eh?

 

[Asinner]

Why must it be so complicated? Approaching Christ scientifically is leaning on the understanding of one's mind. It is with our heart that we understand. When we see the Kingdom of God as a little child, with humility, that we begin to have knowledge, first in our heart, and later, in our soul and mind.

Josiah, the Orthodox Church is accountable to Christ. Period! The fruits are evident. Within Orthodoxy, there is Grace, Virtue, Unity, Holiness, Universality, Apostolicity . . . Outside of Orthodoxy, within protestantism, this does not exist. The fruits are evident. There are a myriad of teachings and doctrines. This is not the fruit of ONE Spirit. The teachings are NEW. Apostolic teachings have their root in the first century. There are few if no saints. The fruit of HOLINESS is perfection of it's saints.

Forget about NORMING. Let's talk about LOVE and HUMILITY.

God Bless