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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarcoPolo,

You wrote: “The logical answer is “yes” if and only if you believe the faith was intended to be handed down via writing only and not through a Church. Otherwise when Christ promised to reveal all truth through the end of the age, He could have just said, I will reveal everything by the end of the 4th century once the Bible Canon is settled.”

Reply: That is absolutely what I believe, so I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I choose to believe the words of the Bible, written by some accounts within 20 years of Jesus life, and unchanging since then, rather than the proclamation of a Catholic Pope 2000 years after Jesus’ life. That is not such a difficult leap.
 
montanaman said:
So you’re reading an anti-Catholic book to learn about Catholicism. Nice. Nothing like learning about someone through their enemies…
Click to expand...
[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

I’ve never understood that! It’s like going into the Ford dealership and asking them about your Dodge. You would have to be awfully naive to expect an honest answer, and expect them not to try to move you into a Ford.
 
MarcoPolo said:
😃
What other book would you recommend our friend read if he wants to learn about Catholicism? Besides the Bible of course. 🙂

Maybe he should listen to Scott Hahn’s conversion story? Available for FREE! 1 hour of your time. Step right up!
Click to expand...
I would recommend a whole library of books if I thought they would read them. But that won’t happen until they start to wonder why their foundational principle, sola scriptura, is found nowhere in scripture.
 
Lukelion said:
[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

I’ve never understood that! It’s like going into the Ford dealership and asking them about your Dodge. You would have to be awfully naive to expect an honest answer, and expect them not to try to move you into a Ford.
Click to expand...
When my father-in-law told me he was reading James White’s “The Roman Catholic Controversy” to learn about Catholicism, I knew that was going to be our last conversation. (To date, it was). I didn’t think to catch him in his hypocrisy at the time, (it was a very tense conversation as it was), but if he ever wants to talk about it again, I’ll make sure to bring it up.
 
Bible_Believer said:
I totally agree with the comment referring to churches who do the snake handling…yikes! Its true that there are those who do not know how to rightly divide the word of truth. I STILL stand on God’s word alone. Church tradition and the magesterium…still man’s interpretation…
Click to expand...
Bible believer, how can you state that the entire magesterium of the church Christ established have “mans interpretation”
yet claim that you, a single man, have something other than what you just accused them of?

So are you saying that every ordained pastor, ordained by the apostles themselves, who were ordained by Christ Himself, were wrong in their interpretation of scripture?

Then you, a man who comes along 2000 years later, not understanding the exact language and slang of the time of Jesus, knows better than those who lived it, heard it, and knew the ones proclaiming it?

wow, the Bible didn’t even begin to be written until the mid to late 40s ad. what did they use between the day Christ ascended and the time the bible was finally put together as an inspired book of scipture(canon)? this was 382ad that the canonization of scripture occurred. The catholic church wrote the NT, studied it, protected it and then canonized it, deciding which books were inspired and which were not from Ot and NT.

The book you hold is Catholic at it’s root. That’s a Catholic book.
You seem to claim you know more than the entire church combined, yet I see no fruits of that yet. Have you read the fathers of the church and their deep writings concerning the scriptures? If not, then you are contempt prior to investigation.
That would be like saying that you know everything about the 1992 honda accord, without ever reading the manufacturers writings concerning it, or the engineers remarks concerning the mechanical aspects of it.

This would be contempt prior to investigation. No different than what you are claiming.

by the way, where is the list of inspired books in scripture? who chose which were inspired and which were not inspired?
 
Enough about sola scriptura, or I’ll start calling you all “Mary Worshippers.” 🙂 I’ve stated this on other threads, but I think sola scriptura gets a bad wrap. I think someone else said it best when they called it prima scriptura. There is no document in the history of the world that is more verifiable and verified than the Bible. Period. No discussion. What is so wrong with making the Bible the starting point? And if it’s not in the the Bible, it is not as verifiable and, logically, should be subject to greater scrutiny. My concern is that the Catholic church treats the extra-Bibilical on the same level with the Biblical without the same historical basis, and rejects everyone who doesn’t do the same.

Are there non-Bibilical writings that can help you interpret the Bible? Absolutely. But, those writings are just that … less verifiable helpers … not the Bible.
 
Krocker said:
eply: That is absolutely what I believe, so I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I choose to believe the words of the Bible
Click to expand...
Oh, good! Do you have the Deuterocanonical books then? Like Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, etc… ?
 
if they are less verifiable helpers, then why do the vast majority of protestant denominations look to the interpretation of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and other persons who came up with these new ways of interpreting scripture that were never heard of before their time, including sola or prima scriptura?

these are all men, outside of the Bible who interpreted scripture entirely different from the entire body of believers in the first 1500 years of Christianity.

I would say that protestants use the traditions of mere men as forestated, more than Catholics use Sacred Tradition of the one Church Christ established, the same church that God had canonize the entirety of scripture.(historically and factually speaking)
 
Is Paul a man? Is James a man? Is Jude a man? For that matter is Moses a man. David? Would you say “I follow God, not the word of these ‘men’” What a specious question!!
 
MarcoPolo,

You wrote: “Oh, good! Do you have the Deuterocanonical books then? Like Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, etc… ?”

Response: Tsk, tsk. Now, that’s another discussion for another thread. You are simply being evasive. No problem, I’m used to it. For the sake of argument, assume I am including those books. Now, what is your response?
 
if they are less verifiable helpers, then why do the vast majority of protestant denominations look to the interpretation of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and other persons who came up with these new ways of interpreting scripture that were never heard of before their time, including sola or prima scriptura?
 
You wrote: “if they are less verifiable helpers, then why do the vast majority of protestant denominations look to the interpretation of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and other persons who came up with these new ways of interpreting scripture that were never heard of before their time, including sola or prima scriptura?”

Response: First, you’re generalizing. Second, if Luther or Calvin said, you have to believe my extra-Bibilical writings in every way to be Lutheran or Calvin, then we’d be talking the same language. They didn’t. The Catholic Church does, effectively stating that, despite being fallible humans, saying “it’s my way or the highway.”
 
I am not generalizing.

protestant denominations use the teachings of the reformers as their basis for interpreting scripture, and as a lens to the scriptures in most cases.

the thought of The Bible ALONE as the authority for us on this earth was never heard of before the reformers.

Bible Alone, or Prima Scriptura theology is man made doctrine, never seen previous to Luther.
 
Hardly specious. I choose to follow God, through the most verifiable evidence of his physical presence on earth, not by what Joe Ratzinger says. (Sorry if that is offensive, I’m not trying to be, but I’m trying to make the point that the Pope is a man just as those you referenced … albeit one born 2000 years later.) Your faith depends on what this man says, yet you chastize for Protestants who prefer to rely on the writings of those who actually knew Jesus. It doesn’t make sense to me.
 
by the way, it was Jesus who told his first bishops of His church to teach others to obey everything he had commanded them.

and that is what we do, we obey everything that Christ has commanded His church to do and teach. obedience is necessary.
 
justinthemartyr:

you wrote: “protestant denominations use the teachings of the reformers as their basis for interpreting scripture, and as a lens to the scriptures in most cases.”

response: So? This is exactly what I was trying to say. We should be able to use extra-Biblical sources to help “interpret,” but we should not treat them as equal to scripture. For those protestants who do, and I know of none, they are wrong. Catholics do the same thing, you just don’t call them interpretations, you call them official doctrine to which no one can disagree.
 
also your understanding of catholic teaching is incorrect, we do not look to the Pope in the same way as lutherans look at luther.

if the pope declares something infallible, as peter did in scripture, it must first go through many many years of study, prayer, debate, discussion, and the like through the bishops in union with Rome. It is not like a protestant pastor who reads something in scripture, thinks he knows what it means and starts a new church preaching an entirely different thing no oe has ever heard of previously, such as luther and the other reformers did.

they were their own magesterium and pope.
 
Krocker said:
Hardly specious. I choose to follow God, through the most verifiable evidence of his physical presence on earth, not by what Joe Ratzinger says. (Sorry if that is offensive, I’m not trying to be, but I’m trying to make the point that the Pope is a man just as those you referenced … albeit one born 2000 years later.) Your faith depends on what this man says, yet you chastize for Protestants who prefer to rely on the writings of those who actually knew Jesus. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I guess what gets most of us Catholics is what makes your interpretation more viable than Pope BXVI who happens to have years and years of study vs you have may have maybe ten or fifteen years?

As a bible believing Christian I tend to believe my Lord when He said that the Holy Spirit would be with Peter. You state that my faith depends on what Peter says, but I say my faith is in what Christ said to Peter, and since He has yet to lie to me I will go with His word and not with what Joe Krocker. I think that as a Catholic I can say with confidence I believe what Jesus said and that my faith doesn’t rely on ones own self to distinguish.
 
again, it was Jesus who told his first bishops of His church to teach others to obey everything he had commanded them.

and that is what we do, we obey everything that Christ has commanded His church to do and teach. obedience is necessary.

does your church have bishops?
 
Krocker said:
justinthemartyr:

you wrote: “protestant denominations use the teachings of the reformers as their basis for interpreting scripture, and as a lens to the scriptures in most cases.”

response: So? This is exactly what I was trying to say. We should be able to use extra-Biblical sources to help “interpret,” but we should not treat them as equal to scripture. For those protestants who do, and I know of none, they are wrong. Catholics do the same thing, you just don’t call them interpretations, you call them official doctrine to which no one can disagree.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top