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

[justinthemartyr]

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.

you say you know of NONE?

you yourself are one. You claim scripture as your authority, and that doctrine is extra Biblical, and never taught by anyone previous to Luther, therefore you rely on man made tradition, not sacred tradition. Sola(prima) scriptura was invented by Luther and you hold to it.

 

[Krocker]

justinthemartyr:

You wrote: “also your understanding of catholic teaching is incorrect, we do not look to the Pope in the same way as lutherans look at luther.”

Response: Exactly. You believe the Pope is infallible (at least sometimes). No Lutheran thinks Luther is infallible. You place MORE importance on the Pope than other denominations do on their namesakes. No man is infallible.

You wrote: “if the pope declares something infallible, as peter did in scripture.”

Response: What did Peter deem infallible and can you point to the book, chapter, and verse please? Also, what changed in the 1800 years since Christ’s death that all of a sudden made the immaculate conception infallible? Was it a change in interpretation? “Divine” revelation? Both? What is the difference? Honest questions (not a set up)?

You wrote: “again, it was Jesus who told his first bishops of His church to teach others to obey everything he had commanded them.”

Response: I have no problem with that. Now just verify what was commanded, with the same historical accuracy as the Bible. You can’t do this and that is my concern.

You wrote: " you say you know of NONE? you yourself are one. You claim scripture as your authority, and that doctrine is extra Biblical."

Response: Scripture is the primary authority because of its historical verifiability, which verifiability is unlike any other writing in the history of the world, including the extra-Bibilical teachings of the Catholic church or any other church.

Further, you misconstrued my words to imply that I made a sola scriptura argument based on the words of the Bible. I made no such argument. I said only that no other written work has the historical verifiability of the Bible, period. I already told you I am not a sola scriptura guy (you Mary Worshipper , see above if you’re confused), but when a logical argument presents itself, I at least consider giving it credence rather than ignore it.

The bottom line is: If you think extra-Biblical teachings are equal to the Bible, PROVE IT. And, I know your response will be something to the effect of “well then prove sola scriptura.” I’ll save you the trouble because: (1) I’ve already talked about it from a historical perspective, and it is undeniable that the Bible is unparalleled in its historical proof; (2) I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura, but prima scriptura; and (3) Most importantly, both Catholics and Protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God; Catholics are the ones “adding” to the Bible with traditions and ifallibility decrees, so the burden of proof is naturally on you.

**St. Lucy: **

You wrote: “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?”

Response: Irrelevant. This is not a contest about who has been studying the longest.

You wrote: “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.”

Response: When did Jesus say Mary was without original sin?

 

[Jesusisgod]

Marco Polo,

Cos if salvation is only reached when one fully comprehends the entire literal scripture, then the illiterate followers of christ would all be left outside. And that defeats the basic purpose of christianity. To believe in Christ and commit our lives to Him. To fear God and do good.

The bible says this. “For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.”

God does not expect us to know everything about heaven, only to believe in Him. Even Christ said ‘You do not know where I am going’…believe me.

The bible is sufficient for salvation. For those things which we are not knowledgeable of, the scripture says ‘Seek and ye shalt find’, Ask and God will give understanding.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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?

Now Krocker, you know better than to call me evasive. Who answered your questions ad nauseum when you first got here?
My question is actually a roundabout way to show Scripture isn’t sufficient because it doesn’t identify its own Canon. And the identification of the Canon came through men.

By the way, if you want to quote someone, hit the “QUOTE” button in the bottom-right of that post. That’s the tip of the day!

 

[MarcoPolo]

God does not expect us to know everything about heaven, only to believe in Him.

That’s right…but if you deny any or all of His revealed truth, then you deny Him and then your salvation turns into a shaky bridge, like that one in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

[Jesusisgod]

That’s right…but if you deny any or all of His revealed truth, then you deny Him and then your salvation turns into a shaky bridge, like that one in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

The basis of that statement needs to be qualified. Anybody who rejects the existence of angels, basically rejects the existence of even Lucifer because the Devil was an angel. So, how can such a man believe in the sin of Adam? If there’s no sin, there’s no salvation. Going by that basis, yes the man’s belief is flawed.

Its like saying, I believe the ticket I have in my hand allows me to board a train to Berlin from Frankfurt tomorrow, but I don’t believe a train can move. So, why would I even want that ticket???

I have personally never met a christian who does not believe in the existence of angels and I am answering your question based on the assumption that you have. And if you have, I would have to agree with you that the person does not even know what he/she has believed.

Faith comes with understanding. He who does not love his brother cannot claim to love God. Such a man is a liar. Similarly, he who does not believe in the spiritual realm of angels, cannot believe in the basis of Christ’s redemption plan. How then can that faith exist?

 

[whatistruth]

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.

Nice Job!

 

[st_lucy]

justinthemartyr:

**St. Lucy: **

You wrote: “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?”

Response: Irrelevant. This is not a contest about who has been studying the longest.

You wrote: “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.”

Response: When did Jesus say Mary was without original sin?/QUOTE]

My guess would be when He sent the angel Gabriel to her and called her Hail Mary FULL of grace. (Look in St Luke 1:28)

 

[flyersfan1088]

but folks…God’s word IS the final authority in everything…

Welcome to the forum! I too am a Bible believer. Which means I have to believe 1 Tim 3:15

From the King James:

1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The basis of that statement needs to be qualified. Anybody who rejects the existence of angels, basically rejects the existence of even Lucifer because the Devil was an angel. So, how can such a man believe in the sin of Adam? If there’s no sin, there’s no salvation. Going by that basis, yes the man’s belief is flawed.

Its like saying, I believe the ticket I have in my hand allows me to board a train to Berlin from Frankfurt tomorrow, but I don’t believe a train can move. So, why would I even want that ticket???

I have personally never met a christian who does not believe in the existence of angels and I am answering your question based on the assumption that you have. And if you have, I would have to agree with you that the person does not even know what he/she has believed.

Faith comes with understanding. He who does not love his brother cannot claim to love God. Such a man is a liar. Similarly, he who does not believe in the spiritual realm of angels, cannot believe in the basis of Christ’s redemption plan. How then can that faith exist?

Not a bad assessment. But my point was in taking all of God’s revealed Truth, one should believe the Bible and revelation handed down via Sacred Tradition. And in understanding this revelation, one must take the Magisterium whom God promised to guide.

 

[whatistruth]

Welcome to the forum! I too am a Bible believer. Which means I have to believe 1 Tim 3:15

From the King James:

1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It appears that you have just clarified the Truth and that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. It is scripture that tells you where to get the Truth. Also, the Word of God is a person and not a thing and his name is Jesus Christ and all Truth flows from the Holy Spirit: The Soul of the Church.

 

[Krocker]

Now Krocker, you know better than to call me evasive. Who answered your questions ad nauseum when you first got here?
My question is actually a roundabout way to show Scripture isn’t sufficient because it doesn’t identify its own Canon. And the identification of the Canon came through men.

By the way, if you want to quote someone, hit the “QUOTE” button in the bottom-right of that post. That’s the tip of the day!

Thanks for the tip, and nice Temple of Doom reference.

I understand your point, but I don’t dispute that man was used by God to create and identify the books of the Bible. My point is simply this: When you have an old and extremely verified writing (Biblical or not), it must be given more credence than (a) extremely old verbal renderings, or (b) a less verified writing. I didn’t get a response from you or anyone else on this point.

 

[Krocker]

justinthemartyr:

When did Jesus say Mary was without original sin?/QUOTE]

My guess would be when He sent the angel Gabriel to her and called her Hail Mary FULL of grace. (Look in St Luke 1:28)

That is a stretch. And, yes, I do know about the different tenses of the word “grace”. It is still a stretch. I’m not saying the interpretation is right or wrong, I’m just saying others could reasonably disagree that the tense of a Greek word provides sufficient Bibilical support for an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church 2000 years after the word was written. But, according to the Catholic Church, no one can disagree with it or you will be excommunicated, right? (Not the orthodox church, which has rejected the doctrine).

I think this is a good example because there was and is so much controversy about the doctrine, the doctrine was “revealed” nearly 2000 years after Jesus lived, (to my knowledge) no other major Christian religion believes it, there is extremely minimal Bibilical support for it, and the Catholic Church requires you to believe it to be a part of the Catholic Church. This is largely (entirely) a “tradition”-based doctrine.

Now, be truthful here, do you really believe that the immaculate conception is the ONLY, TRUE interpretation of the Bible with respect to the phrase “full of grace”? Keep in mind that there is no pre-canon discussion of the immaculate conception, so this is entirely an after-the-fact interpretational issue (with “divine” revelation presumably) based on “tradition.” Don’t you think it at least a tad bit reasonable that some could disagree with this interpretation (given, for ONE example, that Mary called Christ her savior – do you need a savior if you have no sin? the rest is another thread for another time, so don’t get off track)? Don’t you think the “tradition” of the church would have said something about this nearer to Jesus’ time, given that it basically expands those without original sin to 2 (or 4 if you count Adam and Eve, which the Bible takes great pains to explain and to show that they fell short of God’s commandments; with NO corresponding discussion about Mary’s lack of original sin or actual sin)?

I think these are reasonable questions, to which no answer is really given … other than general references to God’s “revelation” as recent as the time of Abraham Lincoln. My point is pretty obvious, agree with it or don’t – this is at least a questionable doctrine. Yet the Catholic Church forbids you to question it and will excommunicate you if do. I prefer to get my knowledge of Jesus from the Bible, rather than from a Pope who declares divine revelation in 1854. And you condemn me for it.

When it’s all said and done, does it really matter whether Mary had original sin? It has nothing to do with Jesus, or with how one obtains salvation. So why the fervor? Why the prohibitions? Why the heretic accusations? Why can’t we agree to disagree on this “fringe” issue?

I know, I know, Krocker you’re (greek tense) “full” of s***.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks for the tip, and nice Temple of Doom reference.

I understand your point, but I don’t dispute that man was used by God to create and identify the books of the Bible. My point is simply this: When you have an old and extremely verified writing (Biblical or not), it must be given more credence than (a) extremely old verbal renderings, or (b) a less verified writing. I didn’t get a response from you or anyone else on this point.

Oh. The response is that both Scripture and Tradition are equally reliable because both are from God. The Spirit can be trusted to reveal with certainly through the Church.

 

[Krocker]

Oh. The response is that both Scripture and Tradition are equally reliable because both are from God. The Spirit can be trusted to reveal with certainly through the Church.

Come on. That’s a cop out. I could say the same thing with all of our collective Christian niceties and catch-phrases. The fact is there is no physical evidence of Christ more verified and verifiable than the Bible. Nobody has contended otherwise yet.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Come on. That’s a cop out. I could say the same thing with all of our collective Christian niceties and catch-phrases. The fact is there is no physical evidence of Christ more verified and verifiable than the Bible. Nobody has contended otherwise yet.

Tthe assembly of the Canon of Scripture alone is enough to tell you that there is infallible Tradition. There were many books competing for entry into the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture are we told which belong and which do not. If you accept the 27 books of the NT as what God intended, then you accept Tradition that was passed through the Church so that we may know those should be included.

 

[Krocker]

Tthe assembly of the Canon of Scripture alone is enough to tell you that there is infallible Tradition. There were many books competing for entry into the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture are we told which belong and which do not. If you accept the 27 books of the NT as what God intended, then you accept Tradition that was passed through the Church so that we may know those should be included.

Well, now you are being evasive. Here is the distinction, you are referring to “tradition” as an all-encompassing, neverending notion – e.g., if we relied on tradition once, we must rely on tradition for all times. My point is that “tradition” created in 1854 is not as historically verifiable as “tradition” in the form of writings within 20 years of Christ’s death.

Moreover, the “tradition” of the 27 books of the NT is verifiable outside of the church’s “official” declaration (for example, Origen described these books, and only these books, as scriptural in the 200s; Peter referred to Paul’s letters as scripture; etc). There is no similar support for the Immaculate Conception.

So, back to my original point, the Bible is verified like no other book in the history of the world – therefore, logically, it’s historical accuracy must trump similarly-dated and subsequently-dated tradition, both oral and written. Given that, why shouldn’t we start with the Bible?

 

[flyersfan1088]

st lucy;3069899:

That is a stretch. And, yes, I do know about the different tenses of the word “grace”. It is still a stretch. I’m not saying the interpretation is right or wrong, I’m just saying others could reasonably disagree that the tense of a Greek word provides sufficient Bibilical support for an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church 2000 years after the word was written.

I think this is a good example because there was and is so much controversy about the doctrine, the doctrine was “revealed” nearly 2000 years after Jesus lived, (to my knowledge) no other major Christian religion believes it, there is extremely minimal Bibilical support for it, and the Catholic Church requires you to believe it to be a part of the Catholic Church. This is largely (entirely) a “tradition”-based doctrine.

The reason it took so long to formally declare the doctrine was because it was never necessary before. EVERYONE believed it. It was only in the modern age, when the belief was attacked, that the Church found it necessary to proclaim it as Doctrine. The fact that you say it was invented 2000 years after Christ shows the utter lack of knowledge you have on the subject. Did you know that dear old Martin Luther was a firm believer in the Immaculate Conception? I hate to rock your boat, but here’s what the man himself had to say:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works

 

[justinthemartyr]

and so the inventor of the doctrine of sola scriptura believed that Mary was not only ever virgin, but that she was also immaculately conceived.
amen.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Moreover, the “tradition” of the 27 books of the NT is verifiable outside of the church’s “official” declaration (for example, Origen described these books, and only these books, as scriptural in the 200s; Peter referred to Paul’s letters as scripture; etc). There is no similar support for the Immaculate Conception.

If you’re familiar with Origen does that mean you’re also familiar with the rest of the Early Church Fathers? The earliest reference to Mary being Immaculate in the writings of the ECF dates from the year 348.