Bible Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael68
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Michael,
Why do you believe that this principle, "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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
frangiuliano115 said:
The passage says that we are to put our trust in HIM.

I’m catholic and have been here at CAF since July. I’m starting to wonder what we put our faith in. Jesus or doctrine?

You’re going to answer both. It can’t be both. I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.
Click to expand...
We put our faith in Jesus…through the Church, who He said where the gates of hell would not prevail…just as the early Christians did.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘
Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church…I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29

This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Sure.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Is teaching correct doctrine a good work? If so then I can be complete to use all scripture to teach correct doctrine.
Click to expand...
But you forgot the verse prior to this…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And taken together…how does this then prove your brand of SS?
Is teaching correct doctrine a good work? If so then I can be complete to use all scripture to teach correct doctrine
Click to expand...
But how would Scripture tell you that you are not teaching correct doctrine? Then what would not be a good kind of work?
 
SalusaSecondus said:
It says with all scripture I can be complete or fully equipped. If I can be full with scripture why do I need a pope or magisterium, how much more complete can I be than complete?
Click to expand...
When you say you do not need a pope or magisterium…then you have made yourself above Scripture…and you are then your own pope and magisterium rolled into one.
 
pablope said:
When you say you do not need a pope or magisterium…then you have made yourself above Scripture…and you are then your own pope and magisterium rolled into one.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Scripture says we don’t need a pope either, and no such office is mentioned therein.
 
pablope said:
But you forgot the verse prior to this…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And taken together…how does this then prove your brand of SS?
Click to expand...
Right the scriptures to make us wise to salvation, no mention of popes or magisteriums.
But how would Scripture tell you that you are not teaching correct doctrine? Then what would not be a good kind of work?
Click to expand...
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Not at all. Scripture says we don’t need a pope either, and no such office is mentioned therein.
Click to expand...
Yet…you are acting on your own authority when you say this…then you are your own pope and magisterium.

If your declaration the absolute truth, free of error?
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Right the scriptures to make us wise to salvation, no mention of popes or magisteriums.

Hmmm…worng…you ignored v14…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

Well…here is a question…how could Scripture train you and make you wise of your own?
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
pablope said:
Yet…you are acting on your own authority when you say this…then you are your own pope and magisterium.

If your declaration the absolute truth, free of error?
Click to expand...
No more than the Catholic apologists declaring their interpretation of history and scripture to be true.
 
SalusaSecondus said:
No more than the Catholic apologists declaring their interpretation of history and scripture to be true.
Click to expand...
You are evading. I am not asking about Catholic Apologists.

The question is with regard your declaration of what Scripture says. You did not answer the question…so I will repost:

Yet…you are acting on your own authority when you say this…then you are your own pope and magisterium.

If your declaration the absolute truth, free of error?
 
SalusaSecondus said:
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Click to expand...
By the way…you entirely missed the question…uote:
But how would Scripture tell you that you are not teaching correct doctrine? Then what would not be a good kind of work?

I did not ask for a passage from Scripture. How would Scripture communicate to you whether you are teaching correct doctrine?
 
Michael68 said:
It says can be complete. To be complete requires Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. How else would you know what you were reading? Private interpretation is dangerous and why there are so many churches. (Little C)
Click to expand...
Private interpretation is dangerous?
  1. When you read the bible, you’re supposed to hope for private interpretation. The bible speaks to us personally. It’s one way that God can speak to you. Did you know that two people could read the same verse and come up with two different ideas? This is intimidating to you? I guess that’s why you need the church to explain everything - you don’t trust yourself.
This does NOT mean that the church should not have an official exegesis of the verses and book in general.
  1. Have you ever heard of Augustine? Acquinas? Avila? John of the Cross?
    Would you say they had private interpretations and revelations? Where did they get their interpretations from? You know, the ones posters here quote ad infinitum. I have to keep my personal revelations and interpretations to myself - but they didn’t. If I were intelligent enough and had a PhD in scripture and theology maybe I could write a book too. Would it be right?
 
JohnGerard said:
You brought up small c church. Do you see trusting Jesus and trusting the Church (big C) as being the same?

I don’t think you can separate the Body of Christ (the Church) from Christ Himself, otherwise it is not His body anymore. He is the head, his Church is His body.

I am sorry. I must be misunderstanding you. I was responding to your statement:

“I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.”

I read that as a straight dichotomy…either trust Jesus or trust myself. That seemed to me what you were saying. If I am trusting myself, then I may or may not follow rules…but I am the one who gets to decide which rules I should or should not follow. Nobody else and no Church can decide those for me. And I could decide that their are no rules that I need to follow at all. It sounded to me like that dichotomy would eliminate the Church altogether. (many people live there today).

That’s just how I read that.

Only God could say for sure. Lot’s depends on that. Maybe someone could and someone couldn’t depending on the level of invincible ignorance they each have. (There’s so many ways to think about these hypotheticals that is can be hard to discuss.)
Assuming we know and are aware of the doctrines of the Church, I would say this would be a spiritually dangerous position to be in. Remember, He said, “whoever hears you, hears Me and whoever rejects you, rejects Me.” To reject a teaching of His Church would be to reject Him…and become a “cafeteria Christ follower”. Which would be to not really believe in Jesus, but to believe in a Jesus as we make Him out to be for ourselves.

It sounds like in this case you have people who would go through motions of religion without the substance…relationship with God. Precarious position.

Can the two be separated? Maybe that is the essence of your overall question (unless I am off). I would say no. We cannot separate the two. Not Jesus and The Church which would be His Church which is His body. (I apologize if I am still misunderstanding.)

Jesus saves us. By His life, death, and resurrection. That’s the final analysis, IMO.

What **we **have to do cannot be boiled down to one thing, I don’t think. Do we have to believe in Jesus? Yes. Do we have to obey Him? Yes. Do we have to forgive other people? Yes. Do we have to love God and neighbor? Yes. It is not just one thing.

Hey Fran. I know you know your stuff from your other posts. I am sorry if I am missing your point here.
Click to expand...
JohnGerard, I do think you’ve turned on the light switch.

You say:

I am sorry. I must be misunderstanding you. I was responding to your statement:

“I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.”

I read that as a straight dichotomy…either trust Jesus or trust myself. That seemed to me what you were saying. **If I am trusting myself, then I may or may not follow rules…but I am the one who gets to decide which rules I should or should not follow. **Nobody else and no Church can decide those for me. And I could decide that their are no rules that I need to follow at all. It sounded to me like that dichotomy would eliminate the Church altogether. (many people live there today).

ONE
 
TWO

You did misunderstand but it’s because of the way I say it and it must have something to do with how I understand our salvation theology, or salvation economy.

I said that I’m either trusting Jesus or I’m trusting myself. And you understood that to mean that I can make my own rules or pick and choose, and no one else can decide for me. It’s the opposite!

Here’s what I mean: I CAN’T trust in myself to get to heaven. I know all the rules and doctrine and dogma. Jesus said, You Have Heard it Said, But I Say To You (Mathew 5), He made it MORE difficult to be christian. So I know I’m going to sin, I know I’m fragile, I know I’m a sinner. Peter said, Don’ Look at Me, I’m a Sinner. That’s how I feel. God is pure light - we cannot approach Him. So I can’t depend on ME to be saved! I’ll never make it to heaven.

I have to depend on Jesus. I have to have faith that He died for me and loves me and is going to get me there. John 3:16. BELIEVETH. What does Believe m ean in Greek? It means that you trust the person to be telling you the truth, it means that you not only believe with your mind but with your heart, it means that you are willing to follow where you will be lead.

You’re understanding that I can save myself, but I’m saying only Jesus can save me.
Is this clear?

You also say:
I don’t think you can separate the Body of Christ (the Church) from Christ Himself, otherwise it is not His body anymore. He is the head, his Church is His body.

You correctly used a capital C. Of course I agree with this. Jesus and His body are one. How do you separate the head from the body? We are the Chruch, we are the Body, He is the head.

I separate Jesus from the church. small c. He’s IN the church. The church represents Him. We need the church. But when I met Jesus 30 years ago, HE was there, not the church. Do you see? I’m not against the church. I’ve taught in the church and still do to some extent, I know all the priests in my area and Deacons, they seem to agree maybe because they understand me. I always say how it’s Jesus that saves us, I never got any negative feedback or was ever corrected. If you read CCC no. 169 it does say this. That we are not to believe IN the church. small c.

Then you say:
Remember, He said, “whoever hears you, hears Me and whoever rejects you, rejects Me.”

So I AM hearing. Check out what hearing means in Greek. It means understanding and doing. And I certainly am not rejecting.

I most certainly agree with your last pp re believing, obeying, forgiving, loving. When you follow Jesus, you do all these things. I just place Him as my priority not the church, church NOT Church. He and the Church are the same.

So now I guess I have to figure out how to reword what I mean. It’s difficult because we don’t really know each other here, we don’t see each other, and everyone brings their own experiences and preconceived ideas with them. And I’m not sure how to reword on a public forum board. It does seem that many understand.

Well, I’m glad we had this little exchange. It’s really helped me to understand. I started feeling like, Gosh why is this so intimidating? So thanks for asking and thanks for listening.

Good night
Fran
 
frangiuliano115 said:
Private interpretation is dangerous?
  1. When you read the bible, you’re supposed to hope for private interpretation. The bible speaks to us personally. It’s one way that God can speak to you. Did you know that two people could read the same verse and come up with two different ideas? This is intimidating to you? I guess that’s why you need the church to explain everything - you don’t trust yourself.
This does NOT mean that the church should not have an official exegesis of the verses and book in general.
  1. Have you ever heard of Augustine? Acquinas? Avila? John of the Cross?
    Would you say they had private interpretations and revelations? Where did they get their interpretations from? You know, the ones posters here quote ad infinitum. I have to keep my personal revelations and interpretations to myself - but they didn’t. If I were intelligent enough and had a PhD in scripture and theology maybe I could write a book too. Would it be right?
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself in your first point. Which is it? Church interpretation or private interpretation?
 
Michael68 said:
You contradict yourself in your first point. Which is it? Church interpretation or private interpretation?
Click to expand...
I can’t go back and make sure. It’s late.

You said that private interpretation is dangerous.

I’m telling you it’s not and why.

You could read a passage and have your own private and personal interpretation of it. God uses scripture to speak to us. Sometimes you’re reading something a nd bells go off.

But this is for you. It’s not supposed to be shared. A priest cannot have private revelation and then use it to teach something different from what church doctrine is.

The church MUST have an official exegesis of scripture.

The point I was trying to make about Augustine and Acquinas and many others is that they also had private revelation but they put it down on paper and we quote them. I don’t like doing that and when other posters do I usually pay no attention. I use the CCC and the bible. If one of the church doctors says something that agrees with church doctrine, then I’m okay with it, but sometimes they don’t. Augustine had a lot to say on evil and where it comes from. At the end of his life he said we can’t know where it comes from. Aspires to confidence, doesn’t it??!

I don’t see where I’m contradicting myself…
 
Michael68 said:
Can any Protestant show one scripture that says we are to follow the bible alone as final authority?
Click to expand...
They cant. They can quote a verse or two that speaks of scripture but even a true blue Bible only person that knows what they are talking about knows that their belief cannot be proved from scripture. At best they can say “Hey, look, that verse says scripture is good…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top