About those Bereans

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
DeFide:
Regardless of how it is employed, how do you know that any flavor of Sola Scriptura, is valid? If it was valid, we should at least expect a consistent outcome from its use, but the opposite is true. Many groups have “elders” plus Scripture as their final “authority”, but they dont’ agree.
Click to expand...
How do you know that any flavor of
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition is valid if they dont agree as well(Catholic and Orthodox)?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
The only way that Catholics can differentiate is by making a decision to accept the Church. This decision is a personal decision. A decision that involves interpretation of who is correct…how are we different again? You did use personal interpretation to accept the truth of Catholicism…didnt you?
Click to expand...
One step at at time. I’m showing how Sola Scriptura is invalid, not how Catholicism is all that it claims to be. A person evalutes the Catholic method and at least sees consistent results, like using a calculator to solve an arithmetic problem.

A person evaluates Sola Scriptura and can immediately dismiss it as invalid since it consistently arrives at contradictory results, like using dice to solve an arithmetic problem.

I’m not telling you to use the calculator yet, I’m just saying to stop using the dice.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
How do you know that any flavor of
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition is valid if they dont agree as well(Catholic and Orthodox)?
Click to expand...
See post #22.
 
40.png
DeFide:
One step at at time. I’m showing how Sola Scriptura is invalid, not how Catholicism is all that it claims to be. A person evalutes the Catholic method and at least sees consistent results, like using a calculator to solve an arithmetic problem.

A person evaluates Sola Scriptura and can immediately dismiss it as invalid since it consistently arrives at contradictory results, like using dice to solve an arithmetic problem.

I’m not telling you to use the calculator yet, I’m just saying to stop using the dice.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your analogy. Differences do not invalidate the Bible. Anymore than than groups that are not Catholic invalidate Catholicism. You are not being consistent.
 
Do you agree you used personal interpretation to come to the truth of Catholicism?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
I disagree with your analogy. Differences do not invalidate the Bible. Anymore than than groups that are not Catholic invalidate Catholicism. You are not being consistent.
Click to expand...
Huh? The Bible isn’t equivalent to the method of Sola Scriptura.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Huh? The Bible isn’t equivalent to the method of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Sola Scripture advocates believe that Bible is the final authority by which Christ and the teachings of the Apostles can be accessed. Do you have some words or information from the Apostles that are not in the Bible and can be proven to come from them?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Sola Scripture advocates believe that Bible is the final authority by which Christ and the teachings of the Apostles can be accessed. Do you have some words or information from the Apostles that are not in the Bible and can be proven to come from them?
Click to expand...
This is off topic, but you cannot prove the Bible contains the teachings of Christ or the Apostles by Sola Scriptura.

Do you want to try to defend how Sola Scriptura can possibly be valid despite all the evidience to the contrary?
 
40.png
DeFide:
This is off topic, but you cannot prove the Bible contains the teachings of Christ or the Apostles by Sola Scriptura.

Do you want to try to defend how Sola Scriptura can possibly be valid despite all the evidience to the contrary?
Click to expand...
why do you ignore my question about Personal interpretation, I answer all of yours.

You are giving another defintion of Sola Scripture again that is not accurate. Let me elaborate. You can and should access all historical means to realize that the Bible is the true word of
God. Once you realize that, the Bible is the final authority to solve matters.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
why do you ignore my question about Personal interpretation, I answer all of yours.

You are giving another defintion of Sola Scripture again that is not accurate. Let me elaborate. You can and should access all historical means to realize that the Bible is the true word of
God. Once you realize that, the Bible is the final authority to solve matters.
Click to expand...
  1. I’m staying on one topic at a time until it resolves.
  2. Your additional “fixes” to Sola Scriptura don’t help. Many sincere, God-loving people access historical evidence as best they can, and yet still come up with contradictory solutions with this flavor of Sola Sciptura.
You’re still using dice.
 
DeFide said:
1. I’m staying on one topic at a time until it resolves.
  1. Your additional “fixes” to Sola Scriptura don’t help. Many sincere, God-loving people access historical evidence as best they can, and yet still come up with contradictory solutions.
You’re still using dice.
Click to expand...

Isnt my question about personal interpretation kind of a yes/no type thing? I cannot imagine you did not make a personal decision to follow Catholicism. you certainly had to interpret history, the Bible, what you have heard, and so forth. Sure sounds like a Catholic using a personal interpretation to make the most important decision of his/her life.

By the way, they are not additional fixes. Why would you contend I am making things up? You are arguing a strawman that does not exist. I asked for someone to name one group that defines Sola Scripture like you do. You appear to be arguing againt De Fide’s definition of Sola Scripture. I give you credit though, you are absolutely killing your definition of it. Its kind of like when you get a Jack Chick fan arguing their definition of Catholicism. I really do not see the difference so far.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Isnt my question about personal interpretation kind of a yes/no type thing? I cannot imagine you did not make a personal decision to follow Catholicism. you certainly had to interpret history, the Bible, what you have heard, and so forth. Sure sounds like a Catholic using a personal interpretation to make the most important decision of his/her life.

By the way, they are not additional fixes. Why would you contend I am making things up? You are arguing a strawman that does not exist. I asked for someone to name one group that defines Sola Scripture like you do. You appear to be arguing againt De Fide’s definition of Sola Scripture. I give you credit though, you are absolutely killing your definition of it. Its kind of like when you get a Jack Chick fan arguing their definition of Catholicism. I really do not see the difference so far.
Click to expand...
Decisions about what method to use (dice/calculator) is not the same as the method itself. Decisions can be valid and invalid. Methods can be valid and invalid.

Do you really want to evaluate the validity of all decisions in this thread or would you rather resolve whether or not the method of Sola Scriptura is invalid? There are other threads on why one should be Catholic.

I will continue to respond to whatever version of Sola Scriptura that you can come up with that you think has a chance at being internally consistent.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Decisions about what method to use (dice/calculator) is not the same as the method itself. Decisions can be valid and invalid. Methods can be valid and invalid.

Do you really want to evaluate the validity of all decisions in this thread or would you rather resolve whether or not the method of Sola Scriptura is invalid? There are other threads on why one should be Catholic.

I will continue to respond to whatever version of Sola Scriptura that you can come up with that you think has a chance at being internally consistent.
Click to expand...
Why do you think I am coming up with stuff? Just curious.
Is this a good time to say i think you punched the wrong numbers in brother and came up with the wrong answer?
 
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
  1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
  2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
  3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
  4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
  1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
    fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html
 
All the dots are black, there is no one left to debate with. I am forced to go read.
Drat.
 
*Luke states that the Bereans were praiseworthy in that they eagerly checked the oral teachings of Paul and Silas to see whether or not they spoke truth. Notice that if Scriptures did not contain concepts communicated by Paul and Silas, the Bereans would have concluded that the concepts themselves were dispensable (although not necessarily untrue). Now if Catholics claim that tradition differs in substance from the Holy Writ, and Paul and Silas were communicating these traditions, then the Bereans would have been lauded by Luke for dispensing with these traditions. Or, if Luke had believed that there are oral traditions which are on par with, but not necessarily equivalent in substance to Scripture, Luke would have withheld his praise from the Bereans for their actions. * **Or, if Paul and Silas believed the Catholic concept of authority, then they should have chastened the Bereans for not recognizing that outside of the written text, there is an oral tradition which is equal in authority and different in substance. In this case, Paul might have responded to their efforts by saying, “you may or may not find what we are talking about in the text. But that’s irrelevant because Scripture is not the only authority.” But we find no such things. ** "
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/SurprisedbyWhat.html
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t you say that Scripture was the final authority for the Bereans? They “examin[ed] the scriptures daily to see if these things were so”. And yet, not all of them believed. “Many” is not “all”. So even though they heard the true gospel preached by the apostles, when they examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so, some of them got it wrong. And they got it wrong on the most important issue they would ever submit to Scripture.

That is my point. They had the Scriptures and they had the preaching of the apostles, and still some of them came to the fundamentally wrong conclusion. How can any Protestant expect to do better, especially when they don’t have the apostles there to question and discuss with?
 
Pardon me for jumping in here, but I have some questions.

BTW Sola Scriptura is a terrible title. A better title is Prima Scriptura (no I did not invent it, I read it reading on Wesley and Methodism).

Now back up…

We agree (hopefully) that the Bible is the Word of God? Why…well the Bible claims to be the Word of God and we take that on faith. So the question then becomes “Are there any other sources that have absolutely equal authority to the Word of God”? The burden of proof rests on those who there are to demonstrate what they are and to demonstrate that they are of exactly of equal authority.

Just because Christians do not agree totally on everything the Bible teaches does not mean that additional co-equal sources exist. Just because 30000 or whatever number of Protestant denominations exist does not mean there are additional co-equal sources exist. Just because Christians do not agree what is canonical does not mean that additional co-equal sources exist.

Now to bed.
 
Originally Posted by Fredricks
Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the debate.

For the protestant, the bible is the final authority. To be in authority means it must make decisions. Therefore in the protestant context the bible is capable of making decisions. However the bible cannot make decisions.

For the catholic, God (Father/Son/ Holy Spirit) is the final authority. God is capable of making decisions and making those decisions known to the church via the Holy Spirit who will guide it into all truth.

The first, acknowledges a book as the final authority.

The second acknowledges God as the final authority.

The other protestant arguement you put forth is that protestants have Elders, deacons and so forth. Yet that is not true of all protestant denominations. Some don’t believe in a heirarchy at all but just themselves and the bible. Those that do follow a structure vary widely in execution. Sinse the bible is the “final authority” how did so many different organizations, independant individualists, and beliefs come into existance? Which one is correct? There must be a correct one because the Holy Spirit does not lead into confusion.

The choice becomes one of which to follow as the final authority. The bible, or the living God.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
So I asked the questions of you Fredericks and now you defined that the final authority is the 66 books of the Bible.
So then you say the Bible is composed of only 66 books.

Lets assume you are correct…
Anyone using more than that must be damned then since they are using a different canon of the Bible and are therefore not in accordance with God’s plan for truth.
Is this correct?
Or is this Canon optional?

God Bless
Scylla

(the reason I mentioned honesty is most Protestants change the subject or dodge questions, and end up putting themselves as the definers of belief. Catholics always give an answer and will follow truth, just start a new thread if you would like an answer)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top