For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[justasking4]

You are still not getting it. Not everything Jesus said and did is in the Scriptures. We must rely on an authoritative Church to define these doctrines.

Shalome

Scripture does say Jesus did do other things but does not record them. The problem is that this does not support anything in the catholic church in terms of doctrines or practices for the mere fact we don’t know what these “other things” were. Not even an authoritative Church can help you here. All we have is what is recorded in Scripture of what Jesus taught and did. I wish we knew more but we don’t.

 

[justasking4]

MarcoPolo;3057395]The other poster is correct. It is a false premise to insist that these must be explicit in Scripture in order to be part of Divine Revelation. God never said He would limit Himself to the written word only, so why should we?

At any rate, allusions are available. For instance the Immaculate Conception is in Luke 1:28. The Assumption follows from this through Tradition and reinforced in Rev 11:19-12:5. I find it a little suspicious that you want something besides Matthew Scripture regarding the papacy, but even so, consider Luke 22:31–32 and the Greek in there.

When you go beyond what is written you leave yourself open to all kinds of false teachings and practices. Claiming that God is now speaking outside of Scripture would make those “sayings of God” scripture. Are you willing to believe this? If so, then what are these sayings outside of scripture?

At any rate, you will be better served to understand all this by getting beyond “Revelation is in Scripture alone.”

This actually the safest and truest way to live and believe. As i said above, when you ge beyond what is written you will open yourself up to error.

 

[AllSaints1631]

Whatever, Allsaints1631. Come back and tell me when you find Absolute Truth in Protestantism and unanimous agreement, ok? I don’t think it will be any time soon.

I didn’t say that absolute truth rests soley in Protestantism and to say that it rests in Protestantism would be very broad. Even you know that profoundly different theology exists in all Protestantism. Not that you probably care, but it does.

 

[whatistruth]

Scripture does say Jesus did do other things but does not record them. The problem is that this does not support anything in the catholic church in terms of doctrines or practices for the mere fact we don’t know what these “other things” were. Not even an authoritative Church can help you here. All we have is what is recorded in Scripture of what Jesus taught and did. I wish we knew more but we don’t.

I would suggest reading “The faith of the early Fathers” by Jurgens. It is written by the first, second, and third generation apostles or bishops of the Church. This was an important book of letters that lead me into my own personal reconciliation with Rome. Good luck.

Shalome

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
The other poster is correct. It is a false premise to insist that these must be explicit in Scripture in order to be part of Divine Revelation.

My point was that there are many doctrines that your church clings to that can’t be traced to either the apostles or scripture.

Please show us one.

When you do that, you will be shown that it IS traced back to Jesus via “Catholic logic”, which you won’t accept as valid logic, whereupon you will declare “victory” and the Catholic will declare “victory” and we’ll all be exactly where we started out.

God doesn’t allow any “tool” (such as the bible) to be utterly convincing PRECISELY BECAUSE the real object of conversion is not one’s REASON but one’s SPIRIT (SOUL).

Reason can be convinced in either direction. The soul can only be convinced in one direction, toward God, but it can be (rather too easily in my opinion) overidden by reason (intellection) whereby one perceives one’s reason AS one’s soul and relegates one’s actual soul into either non-existence or into being seen as “that pesky demon that torments me”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I didn’t say that absolute truth rests soley in Protestantism and to say that it rests in Protestantism would be very broad. Even you know that profoundly different theology exists in all Protestantism. Not that you probably care, but it does.

The fact of the multiverity (“many truths”) of theology in protestantism (and elsewhere in non-Catholicism) is why many Catholics ARE Catholics.

Because of the “just believe…” mentality of non-Catholics, non-Catholics are quite content with their form of “unity”.

 

[AllSaints1631]

The fact of the multiverity (“many truths”) of theology in protestantism (and elsewhere in non-Catholicism) is why many Catholics ARE Catholics.

Because of the “just believe…” mentality of non-Catholics, non-Catholics are quite content with their form of “unity”.

again, these are mere generalizations of all Protestants. Some Protestants reject once saved always saved and reject sola scriptura. The same Protestants believe in the Real Presence, The Communion of Saints and all 7 Sacrements, not just two. Are you going to lump them together with other Protestants who believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

again, these are mere generalizations of all Protestants. Some Protestants reject once saved always saved and reject sola scriptura. The same Protestants believe in the Real Presence, The Communion of Saints and all 7 Sacrements, not just two. Are you going to lump them together with other Protestants who believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ?

I don’t “lump together” anyone.

If they are ACTING as Catholics, they should BE Catholics.

Why would they choose not to BE Catholics when they fully agree with the Magisterium in all things?

If they don’t agree with the Magisterium fully in all things, then they don’t believe in all the sacraments, and are taking a mighty huge risk with their souls.

The question is why people are OK with the protestant form of “unity”? The answer is that they are either ignorant of or actively fighting the Catholic form of unity in Christ.

For a plethora of mutually exclusive theologies to be called a “unity” is to destroy the meaning of the word “unity”.

There is ONE theology. It is that of the Church (Catholic). All other pseudo-theologies are various grades of counterfeit of the original. Some of them quite close, some WAY out there.

If by “unity” one means “united by being non-Catholic”, then one has clarified this particular meaning of the letter string “U-N-I-T-Y”, but I think perhaps the word “alliance” is more apropos.

Christ didn’t ask that we be an alliance, but that we be one.

 

[AllSaints1631]

I don’t “lump together” anyone.

If they are ACTING as Catholics, they should BE Catholics.

Why would they choose not to BE Catholics when they fully agree with the Magisterium in all things?

If they don’t agree with the Magisterium fully in all things, then they don’t believe in all the sacraments, and are taking a mighty huge risk with their souls.

The question is why people are OK with the protestant form of “unity”? The answer is that they are either ignorant of or actively fighting the Catholic form of unity in Christ.

For a plethora of mutually exclusive theologies to be called a “unity” is to destroy the meaning of the word “unity”.

There is ONE theology. It is that of the Church (Catholic). All other pseudo-theologies are various grades of counterfeit of the original. Some of them quite close, some WAY out there.

If by “unity” one means “united by being non-Catholic”, then one has clarified this particular meaning of the letter string “U-N-I-T-Y”, but I think perhaps the word “alliance” is more apropos.

Christ didn’t ask that we be an alliance, but that we be one.

I don’t think anybody FULLY agrees with the Magesterium on everything, not even faithful Catholics.

 

[AllSaints1631]

If they are ACTING as Catholics, they should BE Catholics.

.

Says who? I think what is important here is the beliefs and practices of the early church. That doesn’t automatically make them Roman Catholic nor should it. Would you ever ask an Orthodox Christian why they aren’t Catholic?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I don’t think anybody FULLY agrees with the Magesterium on everything, not even faithful Catholics.

All Catholics must agree FULLY with the Magisterium, though it’s OK if you don’t understand why a certain decision is as it is.

If you actually DON’T BELIEVE and refuse to accept a decision of the Magisterium, then you are de facto a non-Catholic, though the Church (over-liberally) turns a blind eye to this sort of behavior unless it gets outrageously public.

There are A LOT of these de facto non-Catholics out there, and my personal opinion is that they should be actively sought out and expelled from the Church if they can’t be persuaded that they must accept Church teaching while not necessarily being obliged to totally understand Church teaching.

Viva the next big Inquisition!

…but then, I’m rather of the hard-nosed variety!

 

[SolaFide]

One of the opposing comments by Protestants against Catholics’ Sacred Tradition I hear is that the Bible is sufficient for salvation and no other revelation is needed. But what I don’t understand is why there is not a campaign on the part of such persons to eliminate those things in Scripture which are not necessary for salvation in the same sense.

For instance, the Bible attests to angels, but a Bible-believing Christian would have to acknowledge that whether or not a person believes in angels, as long as he believes that Christ died for our sins, he can be saved. No?

My point is: If the goal is to discard that which is considered unnecessary, then why not go all the way?

Your basic premise is wrong. Protestants don’t say the Bible is sufficient for salvation ONLY, but sufficient for all things pertaining to life (temporal and eternal) and godliness…

2Pe 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What else do you need? Let’s see I’ve got the Scripture to teach me, rebuke me when I err (either in daily living or in theology), correct my erros and train me in righteousness so that I can be THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK!

What part of THOROUGHLY equipped don’t the Catholics understand?

 

[peary]

Hi

I am an Ahmadi a peaceful Muslim. For one, excuse me, I don’t believe that only Bible is sufficient for salvation of a people.

Neither do Catholic Christians. Catholic Christians believe that salvation is offered through Christ’s Catholic Church.
It is true that all Revealed Religions were true in their origins and also their ProphetsMessengers were also truthful but due to the time factor their true teachings got obscured under the debris of time , in my opinion.

Religions search for the Truth. However, because of Original Sin, that Truth was clouded. It took Christ to reveal the Truth of God for the world.

With the coming of Quran whrerein all truthful teachings of all the principled true revelations have been protected and secured, it is absolutely essential and conveniet for everybody to believe in Quran , of course with true enquiry and out of free will without any compulsion.

**The Church of Jesus Christ existed over 600 years prior to the writing of the Koran. The Koran is an irrelevant book for us. **

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
If they are ACTING as Catholics, they should BE Catholics.

Says who? I think what is important here is the beliefs and practices of the early church. That doesn’t automatically make them Roman Catholic nor should it. Would you ever ask an Orthodox Christian why they aren’t Catholic?

Of course I’d ask an Orthodox why he’s not a Catholic. I’d already know the answer to that, of course, which is that they don’t submit to the Magisterium, which makes them non-Catholic.

If you believe FULLY as a Catholic and yet refuse to BE a Catholic, what possible sane reason would you have to do so?

You can SAY you’re a chipmunk who is fully human, but if I see a human who considers himself a human chipmunk, what am I seeing?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Your basic premise is wrong. Protestants don’t say the Bible is sufficient for salvation ONLY

Perhaps you don’t but I cited a Protestant argument that says just that.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What part of THOROUGHLY equipped don’t the Catholics understand?

None. We believe Scripture is useful for making us thoroughly equipped just like Paul said.

 

[AllSaints1631]

Of course I’d ask an Orthodox why he’s not a Catholic. I’d already know the answer to that, of course, which is that they don’t submit to the Magisterium, which makes them non-Catholic.

If you believe FULLY as a Catholic and yet refuse to BE a Catholic, what possible sane reason would you have to do so?

You can SAY you’re a chipmunk who is fully human, but if I see a human who considers himself a human chipmunk, what am I seeing?

The problem here is that you have the early church and its practices, beliefs and traditions. Then you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism; all of which contain parts of the early church. Your argument is obviously that Catholicism IS the early church which Othodoxy and Protestantism would disagree. Because a particular denomination believes in the traditions and practices of the early church doesn’t necessarily make them any of the three.

 

[Metaron]

The problem here is that you have the early church and its practices, beliefs and traditions. Then you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism; all of which contain parts of the early church. Your argument is obviously that Catholicism IS the early church which Othodoxy and Protestantism would disagree. Because a particular denomination believes in the traditions and practices of the early church doesn’t necessarily make them any of the three.

No, Catholicism is the early Church nowadays, and Orthodoxy contains almost all of the truths taught by that church, albeit in a lesss-developed form (they believe in an intermediate state too, by the way) and Anglicanism is in a similar state to Orthodoxy. And as for Protestantism… they kept a bare minimum, and added some strange things.

Don’t leave out Anglicanism again!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Your basic premise is wrong. Protestants don’t say the Bible is sufficient for salvation ONLY, but sufficient for all things pertaining to life (temporal and eternal) and godliness…

…

Salvation is achieved by living rightly, and IS eternal life with God.

If the bible alone were perfectly clear, with only each person interpreting solely for themselves as to how to “gain salvation” then when only one person, even one mentally deranged, who living according to their interpretation behaved in such a way as to lose their salvation, the bible would be proved conclusively to be bogus.

An idiot on a deserted island with a bible, which he could read but not understand, would not be saved by the bible.

The bible IS sufficient for salvation only if it is understood. To be understood we need the best interpretation available to us to most thoroughly understand it. The most expert interpreter is the Magisterium, as well as being the most “intimate” with the Holy Spirit, and to not use the best source and content ourselves with very pale and “unofficial” wanna-be’s of the best source is simply to choose unwisely.

Why NOT choose the best source? Because they claim to be the best source, of course, and that’s ARROGANT, and just to show them a thing or two we’ll specifically NOT use them as a resource!

How can we be most charitable toward those who choose inferior sources to better ones simply because they mistake (wrongly) perceived arrogance for actual expertise?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Of course I’d ask an Orthodox why he’s not a Catholic. I’d already know the answer to that, of course, which is that they don’t submit to the Magisterium, which makes them non-Catholic.

If you believe FULLY as a Catholic and yet refuse to BE a Catholic, what possible sane reason would you have to do so?

You can SAY you’re a chipmunk who is fully human, but if I see a human who considers himself a human chipmunk, what am I seeing?

The problem here is that you have the early church and its practices, beliefs and traditions. Then you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism; all of which contain parts of the early church. Your argument is obviously that Catholicism IS the early church which Othodoxy and Protestantism would disagree. Because a particular denomination believes in the traditions and practices of the early church doesn’t necessarily make them any of the three.

You propose that “Christianity” is a bunch of “solar systems” that condensed out of a “galactic medium” of dust.

I propose that the Church (Catholic) is the tree, and that so-called “denominations” are it’s branches. Some branches call themselves “Catholic” in intimate “communion” with the tree, and are positioned very well to flourish AS branches. Some branches call themselves whatever they like in distinction FROM the tree, and are positioned in less to much less advantageous positions wherewith to flourish as branches of “the Tree which calls itself Catholic”.

The “Early Church” was and IS the present Catholic Church, “grown up” as best it could.

The Church contains ALL of the deposit of faith. The “shoots” contain as much as they “took with them”. If they took quite a bit, they have quite a bit, if they took little, they have little.

You can choose to see the Body of Christ as it is, or as you would rather it be to please you.

We’re not going to solve this problem here. The problem will only be solved when Catholics become truly humble and all live as actual Catholics should according to the Magisterium, and when non-Catholics value truth over their pridefulness.

 

[Metaron]

I didn’t say that absolute truth rests soley in Protestantism and to say that it rests in Protestantism would be very broad. Even you know that profoundly different theology exists in all Protestantism. Not that you probably care, but it does.

I never said it didn’t. I abandoned Protestantism because there is no way to find difinitive Truth on some issues.