I have true Peace

  • Thread starter Thread starter kaycee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just re-reading what I wrote don’t think this point is too clear:

If through history we can see that there is no unity of interpretation of Holy Scripture by just belief in Christ, why do you think that by holding that same belief there should be unity of acknowledgement of what constitutes Holy Scripture.

What I meant to say is that the expectation that the Spirit will lead all to proper individual interpretation of the Bible is flawed just by looking at how many protestant denominations there are. Hence one cannot state that by a similar principle one can derive that Scripture is Scripture. Hence something else is needed to know for certain that one holds the truth as to whether the books are inspired or not.

I guess one could say “well early Christians believed these books to be inspired hence so do we”. But some early Christians believed in gospels and epistles that are not in the canon so how does one discern what is Inspired and what is not?
One can look at the writings and check for accuracy of events, grammar etc…the best one can conclude through study is that they are 100% accurate but accuracy does not equate to divine origin. So how does one tell if God wrote something or not?

Cheers

Alex
 
40.png
kaycee:
Joshua 1:8 “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.”

Prov 30:5,6 “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.”

Isa 40:8 - “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”

Ps 119:105 -“Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.”

Ps 138:2- “I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; **For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” **

God thinks pretty highly of his word, Yes? 😃

It says nothing like that. It says Paul argued from the Scripture for 3 weeks. Sola Scriptura for 3 weeks and a few Jews were saved! Notice there is no mention of the “Moses’ seat” authority here or anywhere else. Then Paul preaches to the Bereans about Jesus from the OLD testament(3 weeks from Scripture in Thes), these recieved the word and tested it against Scripture(Old Testament) gaining a commendation from Paul.

God wrote the Canon and the Holy Spirit thru the believers recieved Gods word!

God’s Church would use Scripture alone to Judge what is heresy! What else is there that is God Breathed?

I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written
Click to expand...
  1. Notice that in your quotes it says that Scripture (at the time, the Old Testament, or one book of the OT) is good, useful, inspired, but it NEVER says that it is to be used alone. Never, ever, not once. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.
  2. I notice you admit Paul used the Old Testament. You still haven’t answered why you don’t go by the Old Testament alone, so you don’t go beyond what Paul used. Ooops, Paul doesn’t even mention which books of the Old Testament he used.
  3. Your criteria of what constitutes the canon of scripture is not in the Bible. You have to reject it as unbibilical. Try again.
  4. It seems you’re willing to admit that the Church had authority to excommunicate and judge authoritatively what is heresy! You thereby just admitted that Sola Scriptura is false. BTW, the early Church couldn’t use Sola Scriptura because the Bible wasn’t around yet. For example, doctrines about Christ in the Eucharist or the Resurrection of Christ are absent from the Old Testament. Also, if they believed in Sola Scriptura, they could not add anything to Scripture (like the New Testament) as it would violate Sola Scriptura.
 
Ok Kaycee, I am sorry you did not get my point maybe I didn’t explain it good enough.

Again our understanding of the Eucharist is an oral tradition, which is fully supported in scripture, but you have a whole different understanding of it from scripture than the Catholic Church does.
(the Baptist tradition of understanding of the Eucharist is symbolic which is a huge, huge difference)

If the sufficiency of scripture was the end all then we would come to the same conclusion of interpretation. But and this is a big but we don’t so how does that illustrate any sufficiency of scripture.

I do completely agree that nothing should be contrary to scripture and it is indeed inspired and profitable for teaching, reproof so that we may be perfect, which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Please illustrate how a sufficiency of scripture has led to a unity of belief and I will worship with you next Sunday. (You will just have to PM we with directions.) I am not saying this to be sarcastic, just to illustrate how incompatible I see this view with how Jesus Christ set up a Church in which he prayed for a unity of believers.
I do completely believe in the Bible and read it everyday, I even get in trouble for reading it at the table as we eat. I will try and look even harder just as you asked to see a unity in Sola Scriptura but all I see is disunity. But out of respect for you I will continue to keep my eyes open.
I do feel a sort of hesitancy because you do not illustrate a sort of unity of belief to go to, just an plea to leave the Catholic Church and rely on the Bible with no unity of belief, is this what you are praying for?

God Bless
Scylla
 
40.png
scylla:
Ok Kaycee, I am sorry you did not get my point maybe I didn’t explain it good enough.

Again our understanding of the Eucharist is an oral tradition, which is fully supported in scripture, but you have a whole different understanding of it from scripture than the Catholic Church does.
(the Baptist tradition of understanding of the Eucharist is symbolic which is a huge, huge difference)

If the sufficiency of scripture was the end all then we would come to the same conclusion of interpretation. But and this is a big but we don’t so how does that illustrate any sufficiency of scripture.

I do completely agree that nothing should be contrary to scripture and it is indeed inspired and profitable for teaching, reproof so that we may be perfect, which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Please illustrate how a sufficiency of scripture has led to a unity of belief and I will worship with you next Sunday. (You will just have to PM we with directions.) I am not saying this to be sarcastic, just to illustrate how incompatible I see this view with how Jesus Christ set up a Church in which he prayed for a unity of believers.
I do completely believe in the Bible and read it everyday, I even get in trouble for reading it at the table as we eat. I will try and look even harder just as you asked to see a unity in Sola Scriptura but all I see is disunity. But out of respect for you I will continue to keep my eyes open.
I do feel a sort of hesitancy because you do not illustrate a sort of unity of belief to go to, just an plea to leave the Catholic Church and rely on the Bible with no unity of belief, is this what you are praying for?

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
Nice job, Scylla. I’m in a rush, but this should move to a distinction between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency of scripture. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church has not conclusively determined whether Scripture is formally sufficient or only materially sufficient.
 
40.png
kaycee:
I rely on the God Breathed Scripture’s and the Spirit who promises to teach believers. I have Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John to teach me!

1Jo 2:27 - As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and **you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, **
Click to expand...
and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

I have been looking at many sources and I hope you would also be opened to the Spirits leading about the Sufficiency of Scripture. This is like n-C “comfort food” that is pulled out of context to excuse the rebellion against the God-appointed authority that you have rejected and in so doing have removed yourself from under the spiritual “covering” that so many n-C preachers (like Bill Gothard for one notable example) preach about. I took one of his seminars about 31/2 years ago and wondered then how anyone can miss this.

Five hundred years ago, there were problems within the Body of Christ and some individuals disobeyed the Word of God and removed themselves from under the authority that God has set over His church, rather than remain obedient and work to fix the problems. (Gothard gets into this pastoral situation as well in his seminars). Those who have followed in their footseps simply perpetuate the rebellion and remain without the “Spiritual covering” that God intends for them.

I, for one, am very happy to be home where God intends for me to be.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
scylla:
Please illustrate how a sufficiency of scripture has led to a unity of belief and I will worship with you next Sunday. (You will just have to PM we with directions.) I am not saying this to be sarcastic, just to illustrate how incompatible I see this view with how Jesus Christ set up a Church in which he prayed for a unity of believers.
I do completely believe in the Bible and read it everyday, I even get in trouble for reading it at the table as we eat. I will try and look even harder just as you asked to see a unity in Sola Scriptura but all I see is disunity. But out of respect for you I will continue to keep my eyes open.
I do feel a sort of hesitancy because you do not illustrate a sort of unity of belief to go to, just an plea to leave the Catholic Church and rely on the Bible with no unity of belief, is this what you are praying for?
Click to expand...
Again the Major points of doctrine are fairly uniform among the protestant churches. The Lord said his church was the body of believers in Him by Faith! Paul clearly laid the hierarchy of the local church with Bishops or Pastors and deacons. Absolute dictatorial unity imposed on penalty of losing ones salvation is hardly what Jesus meant. I believe Trent is still in force which says you must believe everything the magisterium says or you lose your salvation. Or has this changed?

Peace <><
 
kaycee, You stated “the major points of doctrine are fairly uniform among the protestant churches.” This just is not my experience. (But furthermore . . .)

Sometimes it’s hard for Catholics much less non-Catholics or ex-Catholics to see Apostolic Tradition. I think there are many reasons for this. One seems to be that they are looking for a “list” of Traditions. But Apostolic Tradition is much more like a “voice of authority” than a written list. To illustrate an Apostolic Tradition that may be helpful to you let me take a portion of something I wrote on another post.

All so-called “Bible ONLY believing” Christians by the very fact they accept the Bible believe in SOME oral tradition.

I’ll name one. The Canon (the books that belong in Scripture).

Nobody is going to be able to show you a verse that says . . . “In the Bible there is a collection of books. These books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, . . . etc. . . . Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . . .etc. . . . Jude and Revelation.”

The Canon IS authoritative Oral Tradition (sorted out by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 A.D. and 397 A.D.).

Objectors will come up with their own “list of reasons” of HOW to decipher which books belong in Scripture and which books don’t (for example “the quality of the miracles” or “the concurrence with history”, etc. etc.).

Then ask them to show you where their “list of reasons” are in a verse of Scripture (they won’t be there - more oral tradition. Just that this one is wrong oral tradition).

This may seem obvious that the Canon is oral Tradition, but it escapes many people that I discuss this issue with. You NEED an authority. That’s REALLY the bottom line. That’s the issue. That’s the issue on almost all of the threads in apologetics if you really get down to brass tacks. A shortage of Priests maybe, but no shortage of “Popes”.

The Apostles and their successors had God-given authority. That’s why St. Luke can say: “He who HEARS you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16, all cap. emphasis mine). Jesus wouldn’t say this unless He was going to protect their teachings.

The way to continue to teach faith and morals with Divine protection would be to give ONE of these commissioned, a primacy in authority to settle any disputes that may arise.
That’s the way “they may be one as the Father and I are one” and not merely “major points of doctrine (being) fairly uniform”. That doesn’t disqualify interaction and discussion with the other Bishops, or negate the Bishops special charisms in general, but ultimately a decision must be reached to settle disputes if unity is to be maintained. That’s what the “Keys” in Matthew 16 symbolize (See Isaiah 22 and focus on the “Key of the house of David”) - Authority. Nobody else even claims to hold the keys in Matthew 16 (other than the Catholic Church and a few “anti-Popes”). Yes Jesus is the key holder behind the earthly key holder (the Pope). That’s our protection. Rejecting Apostolic authority is ironically enough . . . a tradition of men that nullifies the commandments of God!

There are Apostolic Traditions that have full authority, there are other good traditions, and there are bad traditions (traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God).
HOW to decide these good, bad etc. traditions is a topic for a different thread.

These are just some of the reasons I have true peace as a Catholic.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Nice job, Scylla. I’m in a rush, but this should move to a distinction between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency of scripture. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church has not conclusively determined whether Scripture is formally sufficient or only materially sufficient.
Click to expand...
Hi Mercygate,

I wonder if you could explain in simple terms what ‘formally sufficient’
and ‘materially sufficient’ mean in regards to Scripture? It is not to challenge anything that has been said in this thread, but rather to educate my own ignorance.

Thank you
Barb
 
Cathoholic has hit the nail right on the head in regards to authority.

When Paul preaches to the Bereans they search the Scripture to test his words. Their concern was whether or not Jesus was who Paul claimed He was. Before many would believe the Good News, they had to first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and had the authority to say and do what He did. Once they were confident in that belief, Paul then had that authority by extension. The testing of the fulfillment of the OT prophecies and promises were done because as far as most knew, this Jesus had been crucified and was dead. For them to believe Paul, or any Apostle for that matter, Jesus as the Messiah had to be proved.

The NT is for testing of the Apostles’ authority and the faith as given them by Jesus. Much of what Jesus taught was directly and solely for the Apostles. We know that to them He spoke plainly but to the crowds He spoke in parables, explaining His meaning plainly for the Apostles who could then impart it to His followers when Jesus was gone. Jesus promises them the Holy Spirit in John16:12 telling them there is much more for them to know. These words are not meant for everyone, only the twelve who were to lead the church.

Now I am not saying that Jesus does not promise the Holy Spirit to all of us. We are all given gifts from the Holy Spirit, but these gifts differ. But, there are things in the NT that are not for individual interpretation. The intent of much of it is to give us a way to test the Pauls and Peters of our time. It is by the NT that we know what they teach is true. The Magisterium is a part of the church, the teaching office. It is its purpose to lead us to the truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is why Catholics do not rely on individual interpretations of Scripture but in a kind of religious checks and balances all doctrine is tested against Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

Cathoholic also got it right pointing out that Oral Tradition predates the Canon of Scripture by several hundred years. It is true that the writings in the NT were already being sent from church to church but they were used to reiterate doctrine, correct errors and encourage the faithful. This is the same purpose for the NT now.

So the OT affirms Jesus, the NT affirms the Church. We are called to conform ourselves to Him, not to conform Him us. Without a central abiding authority and teacher there is what is so profoundly sad in protestantism…individuals floundering, not knowing the truth, grabbing on to any doctrine that sounds good. And if you think that all major doctrine is basically agreed upon and the same think of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness etc… there is a danger of loss of souls.
 
40.png
BarbaraTherese:
Hi Mercygate,

I wonder if you could explain in simple terms what ‘formally sufficient’
and ‘materially sufficient’ mean in regards to Scripture? It is not to challenge anything that has been said in this thread, but rather to educate my own ignorance.

Thank you
Barb
Click to expand...
Shucks, Barb. Ask me something I *know, ***will ya? 😉 See if this helps: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Formal sufficiency would be such perfect clarity that you would need NOTHING BUT Scripture in order to understand everything essential to Christian faith. Material sufficiency is a looser definition: Everything we need is IN scripture but we need tradition or some other way of discerning what the blank spaces or the confusing parts mean.
 
Hello, mercygate,

quote:** mercygate**
…discerning what the blank spaces or the confusing parts mean.
Click to expand...
Would you please give me some examples of the above?

Many thanks,
reen12
 
kaycee said:
Absolutely, all good things come from GOD! However to stay in a state of grace requires you to stay clear from mortal sin. That is work is it not?
Click to expand...
Kaycee-

A blast from the past. 🙂
  1. Is there such a thing as grave/moral/serious sin?
  2. What is the state of the relationship between God and the Protestant who knowingly and with fully developed conscience commits a grave/mortal/serious sin? Right at that moment…before he realizes his error and repents?
IOW, what would happen if he died in that state?

Anything at all? Or is he “good to go” because OSAS?
 
kaycee said:
Absolutely, all good things come from GOD! However to stay in a state of grace requires you to stay clear from mortal sin. That is work is it not?
Click to expand...
Kaycee-
  1. Is there such a thing as grave/moral/serious sin?
  2. What is the state of the relationship between God and the Protestant who knowingly and with fully developed conscience commits a grave/mortal/serious sin? Right at that moment…before he realizes his error and repents?
IOW, what would happen if he died in that state?

Anything at all? Or is he “good to go” because OSAS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top