- Status
C
cbsjrcol
Guest
Just curious…why aren’t you Catholic?
My short answer is I am - Evengelical Catholic - but not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The less evasive answer is there are certain doctrines of Rome that I cannot reconcile. More importantly, there are certain doctrines that Rome requires belief in that I consider not articles of faith. Transubstantiation comes to mind in another thread. IOW, I think it a reasonable expression of the real presence, but not explicit in scripture.
I am also unconvinced regarding papal universal jursidiction and infallibility. There are other things that I could mention, but those are sticking points for me, as a cradle Lutheran.
I think we owe a great deal of thanks to the Catholic Church in preserving the faith and scripture, and pray daily for reconciliation.
Jon
S
SSTeacher
Guest
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Is the lady with whom you’re conversing a SOLO Scriptura adherent?
Curiously,
Mick
That is exactly what it is, Mick. I frankly do not understand the willingness to disregard the thoughts of those so close to the time of Christ. It doesn’t make sense.But it’s commensurate with SOLO Scriptura, don’t you agree, Jon?
Cordially,
Mick
Jon
B
blazerdave
Guest
No it does not. It’s so weird that people want to do that!
S
SSTeacher
Guest
SSTeacher;6526621:
, don’t you agree, Jon?
Cordially,
Mick
Jon
But there is some sense to it, I think. When I converted to Evangelical Christianity my worldview hovered somewhere between agnosticism and deism and my knowledge of the Bible was very limited. I knew some of the Bible stories and parables of Jesus and I supposed that Moses looked like Charlton HestonJonNC;6527121:
No it does not. It’s so weird that people want to do that!
, but that was about it. So I was very keen to learn the Bible since I perceived that it was the center of everything. I quickly discovered that there was a lot of disagreement about sundry passages and verses and initially that suggested to me that something was amiss. But I stayed with it and in doing so gradually began to imbibe the notion that disagreement amongst Christians was acceptable and that disagreement was just part of the settled order. The historical record supported that view – so there it was. However, what was unacceptable was vehement disagreement. Therefore one aimed to disagree cordially and without malice. This was a sign of spiritual maturity. I was quite content with that for some years. Indeed, I’d probably still be there if the worship service hadn’t turned into a concert.I should say the SOLO Scriptura position is one of the hardest to combat, though. That’s because in the SOLO Scriptura world there are only two possibilities – biblical or unbiblical. I think it’s probably fair to say that for most SOLO Scriptura adherents, Catholicism falls into the latter category. And if Catholicism is unbiblical it naturally follows that any Catholic apologist will probably find his or her repeated arguments largely falling on stony ground (or, in the more extreme cases, will be thrown to the ground and repeatedly hit with a large stone).
Biblically,
Mick
B
blazerdave
Guest
Fair enough; we will allow there to be some sense to it haha. Actually, yes…good points! And never a day goes by without someone confronting me with a SOLO Scriptura argument. Often it’s about how [insert any doctrine that Dave holds dear] is not found in the Bible and is therefore “unbiblical.” 
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Right. And as time passes the SOLO Scriptura adherent continues to categorize more people, more ideas, more writings and more situations as either “biblical” or “unbiblical” until he or she evolves into a legalist and/or bigot.Fair enough; we will allow there to be some sense to it haha. Actually, yes…good points! And never a day goes by without someone confronting me with a SOLO Scriptura argument. Often it’s about how [insert any doctrine that Dave holds dear] is not found in the Bible and is therefore “unbiblical.”
Why don’t you start a new thread focusing on the problems with the SOLO Scriptura approach, Dave? Seems like it might deserve a thread all of its own. :bounce:
Expectantly,
Mick
C
cbsjrcol
Guest
Please show me in the Bible where the notion of Sola Scriptura is supported?
God’s Peace
B
blazerdave
Guest
Done and doneRight. And as time passes the SOLO Scriptura adherent continues to categorize more people, more ideas, more writings and more situations as either “biblical” or “unbiblical” until he or she evolves into a legalist and/or bigot.
Why don’t you start a new thread focusing on the problems with the SOLO Scriptura approach, Dave? Seems like it might deserve a thread all of its own. :bounce:
Expectantly,
Mick
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
It is the logical result of holding that the Scriptures are God’s self-revelation of His will to mankind. If the Scriptures are the word of God, then they carry God’s authority. Thus, it is not a doctrine, but a practice. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable because God is true, authoritative, and reliable.
J
JRKH
Guest
You know - Of all the attempted explanations I have read regarding the sola scriptura view, I think this is the most sensible and concise I have seen. Thank you for this.
So the issue really comes down to where one places their faith. One must start from the presuposition that the Bible is the “God breathed” Word, and then from this stems the notion that, being God breathed, it is sufficient - more or less - in and of itself.
Of course the problem then comes in as to what doctrines are, “extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical”? And who gets to decide this.
We’ve all seen discussions here on various doctrines (purgatory, OSAS, etc) where the non-catholic says “where is this in the bible” and the catholic says it is here and here and here. The non-catholic responds that the catholic is misinterpreting the verse, or taking it out of context giving counterarguments and the catholic responds in kind.
Each person is firmly convinced of their position and each one references the Bible to support thier position. Then some arguments (such as praying for the dead and purgatory) can even become embroiled in discussions over which books should or should not be in “The Bible”. (66 book canon or 73 book canon)
So how do well intentioned and devout Christians resolve these highly critical issues so as to preserve the Unity and health of the Body of Christ?
How do Christians, for example, resolve once and for all, just what books DO consitute the complete canon of “God Breathed” scripture so that we may know that we have, “All scripture (that) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16) included in our bibles?
I believe Christ established this in Mt 18: 15-18 where he intructs us to "“Tell it To The Church” and then to accept the decision of The Church as binding. That what The Church binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.
Now - We may disagree here on governmental structure in the Church, for instance the authority, or primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but it seems there can be little doubt but that there reaslly does need to be a solid and respected temporal authority to resolve doctrinal issues.
Peace
James
James,
I agree with you, and I think the early Church provides the model: truly ecumenical councils. At least among Churches that might be classified as sacramental, there is substantial agreement regarding the first 6 (maybe 7) councils. A good place to start, don’t you think?
Jon
J
JRKH
Guest
Sure - Why not…
Of course the highly democratic peoples of today need to realize that determining what is and is not doctrinally correct is not a matter of “popular vote” but one of prayerful reflection and a willingness to submit ones personal will to The Will of God as expresed through the councils of His Church.
Would you agree with that?
Peace
James
Yes, I would. It would also be necessary for all of our leaders, including the Bishop of Rome to so. Yes?
Jon
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes - and so the leaders of all of the groups would need to enter into dialog that will result in clear prayerful relflection on the theological topics, a respect for Historical development of Christian Doctrine and a recognition that ther can be but one Truth. However that Truth can be expressed in different manners.
This is the big thrust in the dialogs between East and West, as well as in dialogs between Rome and the Anglican communities. I have even found in discussions here between myself and my Lutheran brothers, that differences often resolve down to “semantics” and slightly different emphasis on issues.
The Catholic Church has historically recognized this. Doctrine has never been promulgated quickly or “off the cuff”, but only after many years of “pious belief”, debate, and prayerful reflection.
AND - this is a big one -
Historically, When The Church has promulgated some teaching or another, the vast majority of The Church faithful have accepted it. Those who, like the Judiazers in Acts, who find their position to be not upheld, have submitted their own personal wills to that of The Church in council.
The thing I alwaus find fastinating is the number of different spritualities that can co-exist within the Catholic Church.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
AAWWWW - How can we debate then
It will be many years/decades until unity can be substantially achieved, even amongst the groups that are asready close together.
Some groups will never come home, as groups, but only as individuals. In the end most of those too far out to reconsile will, I believe, die off. Once the East and the West Reconsile, and once the Anglicans are fully on board, and perhaps even the Lutherans reenter communion with Rome, The Church will be able to present a united front of Holiness unlike anything seen before.
Oh what a glorious day that will be.
Peace
James
- Status