K
kalt
Guest
I guess those words aren’t explicit enough, because so many Christians take the Eucharist to be symbolic. They don’t believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.
- Status
K
kalt
Guest
J
jbelokur
Guest
Really? Because I have studied Wesleyan theology, and even though they view all doctrine through the “Wesleyan quadrilateral” ie. Scripture, tradition, reason and experience, Scripture is most certainly seen as the foundation from which the other three must rest, and they all take a subservient role to Scripture. Which when seen juxtaposed to the Catholic model which would see Scripture as being birthed from Tradition I think your position would still at least be very close to Sola Scriptura. Though I may be wrong.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
The bible was compiled in the year 397 AD. at the Council of Carthage…stop your nonsense about trying to discredit me b/c it will never happen.Actually the Vulgate did not come together until 417a.d. The Pope Innocent I had St. Jerome put it together. In was not publicaly printed until 1455 which was the Gutenburg(forgive spelling) Bible.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
where do you see yelling? :dmy word, the paranoia. I was agreeing with your post.
And quit yelling.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Really? what website.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
The “Quadrilateral” was actually coined by Albert Outler… and it’s really just a cover of the Anglican 3-legged stool. Methodists are more aligned to the Anglican way, which developed separately from the Lutheran sola scriptura.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Using all bold letters or all caps letters throughout a sentence or paragraph is internet shorthand for yelling, OTCA.
R
racing59
Guest
Please stop being paroniod. The Vulgate was voted on in 397 a.d., but it was put together as the Vulgate in 417 a.d. I was actually backing you up! You need to melow out! You get to excitable for an Apologist.You catch more flies with honey than you do viniger!
Peace be with you
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I think if we define “sola scriptura” as a belief in scripture as the only form of revelation, then it is certainly problematic, to say the least. However, if “sola scriptura” is understood as a belief that every doctrine necessary for salvation is contained in scripture, then I don’t know that I see so much of a problem. Are there doctrines necessary to salvation which the Roman Catholic Church holds that are not contained in scripture?
I think, though, that this argument is not about sola scriptura at all, irregardles of how it’s defined–it’s a question of authority. I’m an Anglo-Catholic. My church does not require me to believe in the Assumption of Our Lady, and does not define belief in it as necessary to salvation. I do not believe belief in the Assumption is necessary to salvation either. I do believe in the Assumption, however. The Assumption as an article of faith in itself may not be necessary to salvation to a Roman Catholic, either, but because a Roman Catholic is bound by their communion to believe the Assumption as it is defined by the Magesterium, not believing in it can be seen as a rejection of church teaching and therefore a de facto act of heresy calling their salvation into question. But what’s at issue here is not if the Assumption is attested to in either scripture or tradition, but whether or not the Magesterium says that a Roman Catholic must believe it.
So what’s really at stake here is neither the value of tradition nor that of scripture, nor the ability of either of them to reveal necessary doctrine, but the nature of the authority which validates that doctrine. And insofar as the reformed traditions do not subscribe to the authority of the Pope nor the Magesterium of the Roman communion, there will be differences of opinion between Roman Catholics and their reformed brethren.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy. Deo gratias!
I think if we define “sola scriptura” as a belief in scripture as the only form of revelation, then it is certainly problematic, to say the least. However, if “sola scriptura” is understood as a belief that every doctrine necessary for salvation is contained in scripture, then I don’t know that I see so much of a problem. Are there doctrines necessary to salvation which the Roman Catholic Church holds that are not contained in scripture?
I think, though, that this argument is not about sola scriptura at all, irregardles of how it’s defined–it’s a question of authority. I’m an Anglo-Catholic. My church does not require me to believe in the Assumption of Our Lady, and does not define belief in it as necessary to salvation. I do not believe belief in the Assumption is necessary to salvation either. I do believe in the Assumption, however. The Assumption as an article of faith in itself may not be necessary to salvation to a Roman Catholic, either, but because a Roman Catholic is bound by their communion to believe the Assumption as it is defined by the Magesterium, not believing in it can be seen as a rejection of church teaching and therefore a de facto act of heresy calling their salvation into question. But what’s at issue here is not if the Assumption is attested to in either scripture or tradition, but whether or not the Magesterium says that a Roman Catholic must believe it.
So what’s really at stake here is neither the value of tradition nor that of scripture, nor the ability of either of them to reveal necessary doctrine, but the nature of the authority which validates that doctrine. And insofar as the reformed traditions do not subscribe to the authority of the Pope nor the Magesterium of the Roman communion, there will be differences of opinion between Roman Catholics and their reformed brethren.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy. Deo gratias!
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Boy glad you found that. I was absolutely certain it was not her thoughts. The style of writing was totally different from her usual. Perhaps CAF should state the rules on plagerism here for everyone’s edification.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Excuse me?
G
GKC
Guest
The words are Dave Armstrong’s, found in his A BIBLICAL DEFENSE OF CATHOLICISM. with a minor change or two.
GKC
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
OTCA… you have been caught red-handed doing the “Joe ‘Xerox’ Biden” routine. Plagarism is an apologetic and academic no-no. And I suspect Dave Armstrong does not tolerate his intellectual property being used this way.
I think you better 'fess up this time.
O+
I think you better 'fess up this time.
O+
B
BrianH
Guest
Why do you “really”?
You did copy it from someone on the net or from a book…yes?
I read this forum about every three days for long enough to know when someone starts to write substantially different than they usually do.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Evidently, OTCA, it’s not the first time: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4442264&postcount=29
Hmmm. :tsktsk:
Hmmm. :tsktsk:
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHERE I GET MY INFORMATION FROM?? To say none of you haven’t gotten yours from somewhere is a bold out and out lie. But what is even better that you so tirelessly looked it up on the internet to try and make a fool of me didn’t work because Dave Armstrong WHO WAS ONCE A LOST SOUL IN PROTESTANISM, converted after his Scriptural evidence of the true church of Christ. So I am actually glad you brought it up to show you at least a brilliant non-Catholic realizes the truth.
I suggest ALL OF read his book. I did not plagerize because Scripture is in the Holy Bible. B]
I suggest ALL OF read his book. I did not plagerize because Scripture is in the Holy Bible. B]
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
O.S. Luke, you need to try and rethink some of the things you say and how you treat people on this site. You are a Protestant who is obviously lost somewhere and is so frustrated on how to get out it’s pathetic.
- Status