"Bible alone," Christians

[pismopal]

Its of course taken out of context, Jesus warned and put down the Jews for the Tanakh, man made rules that distorted the word of God. He couldn’t make that much clearer either.

If you are addressing my post…you are out of context. If you quote me I will know for sure what you are referring to. The above is just another one of your totally out in left field statements that you cannot and will not back up. I also notice that you again make the claim that you are Catholic. Why you persist in making this statement I do not know but it doesn’t fool those who have read a few of your posts. OK…I repeat the challenge…how is 1 Tim 3:15 taken out of context and what does it have to do with Jews or the Tanakh?

 

[Luvtosew]

What Scriptures specifically?

From your posts, you seem to quote mostly from NIV.

Is it 1984 or 2011 NIV?

Do you know who are the men that made the translation of the NIV?

When you trust Scriptures, you are trusting that the translation is free from any agenda suited for their purposes and/or beliefs. You are putting your entire life on a translation done by a group of men, very few men, very small group of men.

Even if you were fluent in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, you would be trusting a small group of men.

Even then, you are trusting a group of men to put the canon of scripture together for you. A group of men to determine which scriptures are sacred and which are not.

No matter which way you cut it, you are trusting a group of men.

In Him,

Jose

Edit for grammar

I have the NAB 1970, NIV and the KJ bible. I read all three.

 

[Luvtosew]

As has been mentioned before–and incredibly eloquently by some in this thread–there is no “alone” way to do any of this. Yes, we need to have an understanding of the Scriptures, and yes we do need a Church. You say you’re a Catholic, so there is a particular piece of Scripture that I would like to draw your attention to:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” John 6:53-54

True, our salvation does not necessarily lie in a Church, per se. Our true salvation lies in God alone. But as Catholics, we believe that God’s tools for obtaining that salvation–i.e. the sacraments–were entrusted to the Catholic Church, and therin lies our sole route to salvation. Among those sacraments Eucharist is paramount. And Jesus says, in incredibly clear language, that it is through the Eucharist alone that we are saved. And to whom did Jesus entrust the Eucharist? The Catholic Church.*

Protestant “churches” do not have these tools to salvation. For political reasons, these groups decided to simply be in protest (hence the word “protestant”). When these groups split from the Catholic Church, it was–to be blunt with it–a theo-political middle finger to Rome. As much as Protestant men and women may truly be good people doing what *they understand *to be their best to be holy, the Protestant understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church is limited and does not offer the saving grace that God entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Long story short, though, what the Church offers us–the Sacraments–is not just “help.” It’s pretty much the whole ball game.

Blessings,
~Michael

*As I am not educated well enough about the Orthodox Churches in regards to the Sacraments, I am not going to address that facet of this discussion

And Jesus says, in incredibly clear language, that it is through the Eucharist alone that we are saved.

It is our belief in what Jesus did at Calvary as our Lord and Saviour that we are saved and our commiting ourselfs to him. Taking the Eucharist in not our salvation, but something Jesus said to do in rememberance of him.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

And Jesus says, in incredibly clear language, that it is through the Eucharist alone that we are saved.

It is our belief in what Jesus did at Calvary as our Lord and Saviour that we are saved and our commiting ourselfs to him. Taking the Eucharist in not our salvation, but something Jesus said to do in rememberance of him.

Yes, we were directed to do so in remembrance of him. With no exceptions. To those of us who identify ourselves as Catholic, we can understand that passage from the Gospel of John in this way:

Jesus told us to do this, and if we choose not to, then we aren’t going to Heaven.

Similarly, simple belief in the historical truth of the events of Christ’s Passion don’t cut it, and as Catholics, we know that to be true. In fact, the Eucharist is the “sum and summary of our faith” (CCC 1327). The Eucharist is, in fact, salvation. We say God is our salvation. Then what is the Eucharist? It is God! Right there in our hand! A lamb, standing as though slain! To suggest otherwise is heretical.

The Eucharistic Celebration–the Mass–is in one neat little package everything that we have been talking about: it is Scripture and Church, putting together the written Word of God, and the Church’s Sacred Traditions. What happens on Sundays at Mass? We hear Old Testament readings, Psalms, New Testament readings, and Gospel readings; we get a pretty good chunk of Scripture in the course of Sundays and Holy Days. Plus, if we go to Mass every day, we get the whole Bible in three years. After that, we celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist–as Jesus commanded, celebrating the memorial of his death and ressurection in the way he said to. And, by the way, the Mass uses a ton of Scriptural language in the prayers we say (“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…” Where have we seen *that *before?).

When it comes right down to it, just reading Scripture, just having faith that the events recorded in the Bible actually happened, does not cut it. Protestants do not understand that; they don’t know any better, as it were. But, as Catholics, we do know better.

 

[pgepps]

[re my assertion that *The problem with “sola Scriptura,” ultimately, is not that it puts Scripture in such a high place. JUST THE OPPOSITE. The problem with “sola Scriptura” is that, in the end, it lapses into “only what I think.”]

While what you state here may be what is practiced by some, it is not the intent of sola scriptura. The intent of sola scriptura is most importantly a practice of the Church, used for hermuenetics.
The Lutheran confessions declare:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

OK, I see what you’re saying. I think you’re pointing out that “sola Scriptura” does not necessarily have to mean what it often comes to mean; and in addition, you’re pointing out that Lutheran tradition is much nearer to Catholic tradition on this point than to, say, the Baptist tradition I grew up in. For what it’s worth, most of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Independent Evangelicals, and similar conservative evangelicals I grew up around would probably agree (then say the Lutherans were wrong. heh). So there’s not a lot for us to disagree about.

The only thing I think you may be missing is how strong the fracturing tendency of “sola Scriptura” as a Reformation slogan has been. Luther, of course, is not directly responsible for the articulation of “sola Scriptura” as we know it. I’ve usually seen it traced through a line from Melancthon (with his argument that Biblical authority was the “formal cause” of Reformation) through Calvin (with the WCF as the most-copied articulation of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture).

Again, I like to emphasize over against the Catholic tendency of lay neglect of Scripture the teachings of Augustine and others regarding the centrality of Biblical authority in the Tradition, as ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.x_1.html .

The question I think you have to ask yourself about “sola Scriptura” is whether you can consistently articulate “the Bible read within the Church” in a way that justifies schism from the unity of the Catholic faith, but doesn’t justify “every man hath a song, every man a doctrine.” Historically, it has not happened that way; Protestantism remains divided between “mainline” or “confessing” traditions which emphasize their redefinition of “church” but claim “sola Scriptura” over against the Catholic Church, and the endlessly fragmenting “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” or “neo-Reformed” traditions which emphasize “sola Scriptura” in a way which arrives at the “private judgment” problem I was addressing. I came to the conclusion that I could not have it both ways, which is one reason I came Home.

Check out Louis Bouyer, Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, if you haven’t already.

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes, we were directed to do so in remembrance of him. With no exceptions. To those of us who identify ourselves as Catholic, we can understand that passage from the Gospel of John in this way:

Jesus told us to do this, and if we choose not to, then we aren’t going to Heaven.

Similarly, simple belief in the historical truth of the events of Christ’s Passion don’t cut it, and as Catholics, we know that to be true. In fact, the Eucharist is the “sum and summary of our faith” (CCC 1327). The Eucharist is, in fact, salvation. We say God is our salvation. Then what is the Eucharist? It is God! Right there in our hand! A lamb, standing as though slain! To suggest otherwise is heretical.

The Eucharistic Celebration–the Mass–is in one neat little package everything that we have been talking about: it is Scripture and Church, putting together the written Word of God, and the Church’s Sacred Traditions. What happens on Sundays at Mass? We hear Old Testament readings, Psalms, New Testament readings, and Gospel readings; we get a pretty good chunk of Scripture in the course of Sundays and Holy Days. Plus, if we go to Mass every day, we get the whole Bible in three years. After that, we celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist–as Jesus commanded, celebrating the memorial of his death and ressurection in the way he said to. And, by the way, the Mass uses a ton of Scriptural language in the prayers we say (“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…” Where have we seen *that *before?).

When it comes right down to it, just reading Scripture, just having faith that the events recorded in the Bible actually happened, does not cut it. Protestants do not understand that; they don’t know any better, as it were. But, as Catholics, we do know better.

Whatever you say. Please I know the Mass, the Mass is a Sacrifice.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have the NAB 1970, NIV and the KJ bible. I read all three.

So,

Do you follow the translators of the NAB, NIV and KJ?

Or do you follow a specific Church?

If you say, I follow Jesus.

Then I have to ask which Jesus?
And from what translation?
And from what church?

 

[Luvtosew]

So,

Do you follow the translators of the NAB, NIV and KJ?

Or do you follow a specific Church?

If you say, I follow Jesus.

Then I have to ask which Jesus?
And from what translation?
And from what church?

I must say, for Christians some of you are very demeaning. As a Catholic for over 50 years, I am sorry to see how some Catholics treat other people. I do hope this isn’t the new teaching of the CC. I know Jesus and his words, do you. Same Jesus unless the CC is teaching a different one. Nab is a Catholic Bible by the way. I feel very sorry for some of you, and I’ll remember you in my prayers.

 

[Farsight001]

I must say, for Christians some of you are very demeaning. As a Catholic for over 50 years, I am sorry to see how some Catholics treat other people. I do hope this isn’t the new teaching of the CC. I know Jesus and his words, do you. Same Jesus unless the CC is teaching a different one. Nab is a Catholic Bible by the way. I feel very sorry for some of you, and I’ll remember you in my prayers.

The other user asked questions, which were entirely innocent. Nothing whatsoever was demeaning about what they said.

 

[Luvtosew]

The other user asked questions, which were entirely innocent. Nothing whatsoever was demeaning about what they said.

Really Which Jesus?

I am so glad I didn’t have too much cathechism or I would of spent the last 40 years thinking I’m so much better than anyone, and that only Catholics have salvation and, I’m
proud to be a Cafeteria Catholic, and I love my Protestant friends who are also going to heaven.

 

[Anniejoe]

And my verse, mentions scripture

1 Timothy 4:13

New International Version (NIV)

13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

When St. Paul refers to Scripture in this verse, he is referring to the OT. What we call the NT was not available to St. Paul.

 

[Farsight001]

Really Which Jesus?

I am so glad I didn’t have too much cathechism or I would of spent the last 40 years thinking I’m so much better than anyone, and that only Catholics have salvation and, I’m
proud to be a Cafeteria Catholic, and I love my Protestant friends who are also going to heaven.

“Which Jesus” is a question asked of us by anti-Catholics daily. Usually they answer the question for themselves, stating clearly that we follow a false Jesus. That’s what’s rude and offensive.

He asked a question, which by itself is innocent, and waited to actually let you answer it. There is NOTHING offensive about that. So how about you answer the question?

 

[batman1973]

“Cafeteria Catholic”? What’s this?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I must say, for Christians some of you are very demeaning. As a Catholic for over 50 years, I am sorry to see how some Catholics treat other people. I do hope this isn’t the new teaching of the CC. I know Jesus and his words, do you. Same Jesus unless the CC is teaching a different one. Nab is a Catholic Bible by the way. I feel very sorry for some of you, and I’ll remember you in my prayers.

I am very sorry you found my post demeaning. I assure you that was not my intention.

It would have been nicer if you would have asked for clarification before reacting and casting judgment on me.

I am curious as to why do you think my post was demeaning?

Including the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, there are over 30,000 denominations, plus another number of secular people that say to follow Jesus.

However, when looked up closely, at times it seems it is not the same Jesus we are following.

Who I understand Jesus to be, might not be the same Jesus for you.

We can agree that He is the only Son of God, He came and died for our sins, died and rose on the 3rd day, and ascended to heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

However, there are a number of things that He required us to do. It is safe for me to assume that we disagree on some of those things.

Before we can continue to interact on our ideas and positions, we must understand where we stand in the most basic terms of our Christianity. Thus, my question.

If I understand what it is you believe, it will help me engage (with you) in a constructive conversation.

The question is simple and direct. However, it offended you. This might be indicative of a struggle you have with the question. But I won’t know unless you answer it. That is entirely up to you.

Also,
Do you really believe that it is possible for the Church to be teaching its members how to be demeaning to others?

I think anger got the best of you and I am sorry it did.

In Him.

 

[Luvtosew]

When St. Paul refers to Scripture in this verse, he is referring to the OT. What we call the NT was not available to St. Paul.

Paul and Timothy spent many years together traveling and teaching, Timothy was Pauls “son in God” Paul also spent time with the original apostles. These are letters that Paul wrote to the different Churches, they got his letters and taught from them. I mean we have to assume when Paul was staying with the apostles they told him first hand experiences of Jesus , and also God spoke through Paul.

Paul and Timothy knew the OT as did the Jews, but Paul was teaching the NT and wanted to make sure the NT was followed. The letters to 1Tim,2Tim and Titus are called the Pastoral Letters. So no Paul was not talking about the OT and teaching that, he was talking about Jesus and teaching the NT writings, of course they weren’t in the bible at that time, but thank goodness they were found which made the NT.

 

[Luvtosew]

I am very sorry you found my post demeaning. I assure you that was not my intention.

It would have been nicer if you would have asked for clarification before reacting and casting judgment on me.

I am curious as to why do you think my post was demeaning?

Including the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, there are over 30,000 denominations, plus another number of secular people that say to follow Jesus.

However, when looked up closely, at times it seems it is not the same Jesus we are following.

Who I understand Jesus to be, might not be the same Jesus for you.

We can agree that He is the only Son of God, He came and died for our sins, died and rose on the 3rd day, and ascended to heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

However, there are a number of things that He required us to do. It is safe for me to assume that we disagree on some of those things.

Before we can continue to interact on our ideas and positions, we must understand where we stand in the most basic terms of our Christianity. Thus, my question.

If I understand what it is you believe, it will help me engage (with you) in a constructive conversation.

The question is simple and direct. However, it offended you. This might be indicative of a struggle you have with the question. But I won’t know unless you answer it. That is entirely up to you.

Also,
Do you really believe that it is possible for the Church to be teaching its members how to be demeaning to others?

I think anger got the best of you and I am sorry it did.

In Him.

However, there are a number of things that He required us to do. It is safe for me to assume that we disagree on some of those things.

It might be.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really Which Jesus?

I am so glad I didn’t have too much cathechism or I would of spent the last 40 years thinking I’m so much better than anyone, and that only Catholics have salvation and, I’m
proud to be a Cafeteria Catholic, and I love my Protestant friends who are also going to heaven.

So, you believe that a person who takes catechism thinks they are much better than anyone?

You also believe that if a person takes catechism, they understand that only they have salvation?

What catechism is this?

I have to echo the other use and ask what is a Cafeteria Catholic?

We are called to love everyone! Not just our Protestant friends.

 

[Luvtosew]

So, you believe that a person who takes catechism thinks they are much better than anyone?

You also believe that if a person takes catechism, they understand that only they have salvation?

What catechism is this?

I have to echo the other use and ask what is a Cafeteria Catholic?

We are called to love everyone! Not just our Protestant friends.

I’m sure your aware of the baltimoore Cathechism of 1887 developed to train Catholics in the US. I was a teaching tool used by the Nuns. Fairly basic. If one didn’t go to Catholic School one took Cathechism for a couple weeks before receiving First Holy Communion.
The Baltimoore Cathechism of course was revised in the 70’s I believe. And then the more lenghty Cathechism came out in the 90’s. So I had basic Cathechism.
Lets face it, the church teaches salvation is in the sacraments and only the CC has these sacraments , they say it and then say something else, but… also anyone who knowingly leaves the CC commits a mortal sin, well without confession one goes to hell with a mortal sin but… no one can say for sure. Do you see where I’m coming from, say it but then not say it, very contradictory, but after reading many posts here, many people believe there is no salvation out of the CC, but were not sure.

Well to be sure some Protestants are very anti Catholic which personally I never met a Protestant like that, but I do know they are out there, but until a couple years ago I never knew Catholics (many) felt the same way about Protestants, till I came to this message board.

A cafeteria catholic is a pick and choose Catholic, different extremes exist. there are some who feel fine with abortions and or adultry I guess, and some like me that don’t believe a few of the teachings, so we are called cafeteria catholics.

 

[Anniejoe]

Paul and Timothy knew the OT as did the Jews, but Paul was teaching the NT and wanted to make sure the NT was followed. The letters to 1Tim,2Tim and Titus are called the Pastoral Letters. So no Paul was not talking about the OT and teaching that, he was talking about Jesus and teaching the NT writings, of course they weren’t in the bible at that time, but thank goodness they were found which made the NT.

Luvtosew, you are claiming that St. Paul referred to his own pastoral letters as “Scripture”???

 

[Luvtosew]

Anniejoe:
Luvtosew, you are claiming that St. Paul referred to his own pastoral letters as “Scripture”???

why would he be teaching OT ? yes he had Mark and Luke writing for him,
where do you think our NT came from. I’m sure one day Luke , Mark , John and Matthew just didn’t sit down and write their book, they had notes, in Acts they must of dictated stuff, they didn’t just have real good memories and go to teach and not have references, maybe Timothy did as he traveled with St. Paul a lot.