Fallacies of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardacombs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
You are making an accusation here, so please back up your statement. By “pet” you mean “favorite”. So please show us where the Church has said this is our favorite sin.
Click to expand...
Of late that’s seems the most pressing problem of the church. “Pet” not as “favourite” but as “sulky”, “grudging”
 
avflf said:
Of late that’s seems the most pressing problem of the church. “Pet” not as “favourite” but as “sulky”, “grudging”
Click to expand...
A sulky sin? A grudging sin?

Could you please explain how pedophilia can be the Church’s sulky or grudging sin?
 
PRmerger said:
A sulky sin? A grudging sin?

Could you please explain how pedophilia can be the Church’s sulky or grudging sin?
Click to expand...
Meaning that it has grudgingly admitted. Maybe I should have used a different word or phrase. I wouldn’t presume to elevate one sin above the rest.
 
avflf said:
Meaning that it has grudgingly admitted. Maybe I should have used a different word or phrase.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so.
I wouldn’t presume to elevate one sin above the rest.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly all sin is offensive to God

However, common sense tells us that there are some sins more offensive than others, yes?
 
PRmerger said:
Yes, I think so.
Yes, clearly all sin is offensive to God

However, common sense tells us that there are some sins more offensive than others, yes?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, and I was referring to the other sins of the CC. But common sense also dictates that infant baptism or the Pope’s infallibility be questioned, not so?
 
avflf said:
Yes, of course, and I was referring to the other sins of the CC.
Click to expand...
Any sin you might be referencing in the CC could have its counterpart in your church as well, yes?
But common sense also dictates that infant baptism or the Pope’s infallibility be questioned, not so?
Click to expand...
Of course, avflf. Question all you like. That’s what Catholic apologetics is here for. But just don’t stop at proferring questions. Listen to the answers as well! 👍
 
40.png
JonNC:
One can be justified, and then lose his justification. You, as a Catholic, might say being in a state of mortal sin, or not in a state of Grace.
Click to expand...
OK, so here you are saying that one can be “justified” in the Lutheran understanding of the concept, and subsequently lose his justification which is equivalent to the Catholic concept of not being in a state of Grace which, of course, means that if you die in that state you dont go to Heaven. Seems pretty clear, but then in response to my summary here…
40.png
Philthy:
It sounds to me that the Lutheran understanding of Salvation involves an initial point of entry into fellowship with God known as being “justified” (aka born again, regenerated, saved, etc)… This entry into fellowship with God (ie justification), however, does not guarantee that we will actually go to Heaven.
Click to expand...
…you say this:
Yes, it does.
Click to expand...
which completely contradicts your initial statement that one can lose their justification, and that justification is a requirement for going to Heaven. Im confused again.
Is justification a requirement for going to Heaven? Y or N, please!
Can justification be lost? Y or N, please!
If both of those questions were answered in the affirmative, then this statement remains true: “This entry into fellowship with God (ie justification), however, does not guarantee that we will actually go to Heaven.” and your “Yes, it does.” needs to be changed to “No, it does not”. Correct?
40.png
JonNC:
I would reject the language of “no salvation without sanctification”, because it construes that our actions bring merit, when in fact it is Christ’s merit that brings salvation.
Click to expand...
But Jon, you have already stated that sanctification is a requirement of going to Heaven and that sanctification requires cooperation on our part. Its a logically consistent statement regarding salvation from the theology you have presented. How can you possibly “reject it”?! :confused:
And just for the record, it contains no mention of “merit”; you introduced that on your own! There is no salvation without justification, and there is no salvation devoid of sanctification.

Blessings!

Philthy
 
PRmerger said:
Well, that’s like saying, “I left school in the 3rd grade before I became totally brainwashed.” 🤷
Click to expand...
I suppose you could put it that way but then school made sense, the catechism didn’t. Now, of course, I know that much what I learned at school was also bunk 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
Any sin you might be referencing in the CC could have its counterpart in your church as well, yes?
Click to expand...
No
Of course, avflf. Question all you like. That’s what Catholic apologetics is here for. But just don’t stop at proferring questions. Listen to the answers as well! 👍
Click to expand...
I do, but it doesn’t make sense:)
 
avflf said:
I suppose you could put it that way but then school made sense, the catechism didn’t. Now, of course, I know that much what I learned at school was also bunk 🙂
Click to expand...
What bunk did your school teach you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top