But what was your authority for the truth? How did you know you had the truth?
"If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture"
- Status
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
same bible says the spirit will lead the church into all truth and give the apostle power to bind and loose. The CC didn’t define infalliabity ‘no matter what he says goes’ but cannot teach error when teaching FAITH AND MORAL 'cos of the help of the Holy spirit, this is proven by scripture. And scripture say st Paul fathered other implying that he is their father in the Lord. The ‘all priesthood’ started in the old testament and God still made Aaron priest, it continue in the new and yet a priest still had to preside. It’s clear that we are all priest '(ordinary) and yet still need priest '(special) to serve the church and consecrate the eucharist. Pls read the passage u qoute and don’t misinterprete it, peter according to the passage above say u need baptism for the forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy spirit. Pls ask for scriptural reference if u need them.
Peace
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
He said I’m the way, he also say unless a man be born of WATER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Baptism is not only contained in TRADITION and held by the CHURCH it is also SCRIPTURAL.
Peace
R
raisedacatholic
Guest
U might not believe in the Trinity as the word itself is not there but when Jesus was baptized by John the trinity was present. Jesus came up out of the water and the HS came on Jesus and God spoke.Matthew 3:16-17.
John 1:32-34, John 14:26, John 15:26.
Also in Genesis God said let US make God in OUR image.
The Trinity is true based on scripture.
How many more would U like.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Totally not the point he was trying to make. Now are you going to answer our questions and respond to our arguments, or are you going to continue cowering?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The important point is that whereas the Holy Trinity is implicitly taught in scripture, your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is neither implicitly nor explicitly found in the Word of God and so violates its own doctrinal requirements, proving itself to be an unscriptural new wind of doctrine of modern men.
It appears to me that, just as I was, you too have been deceived by (perhaps) well intentioned people with Bibles. Care to reconsider, since it is now apparent that what you have believed is actually not the truth?
So what? I can pull a JW and say that Jesus is not God. I can go linguistic and simply say that the Hebrew was using the equivalent of a Royal We.
And ultimately, I can still ask why I should even believe you when you quote the Bible at all to prove your doctrinal points like the Trinity? Why should I take your word for it that is is the inspired word of God?
So again: how do you know you have the truth? I have just said that for the sake of argument, I need proof that the Bible is inspired. You’re making the assertion ("the bible is inspired/the bible is the truth), so the burden of proof falls on you, not on me.
R
raisedacatholic
Guest
Obviously U do not believe in using the Bible to settle any doctrinal issues. So it’s all a mute point. Tell me what book or pamphlet or publication we can use to check the validity of a Christian doctrine. I dare U.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Seriously - answer our questions and respond to our posts. I dare U. Circling around things like this is childish and cowardly.
To everyone else - I highly suggest you put your foot down and refuse to let him continue to divert the conversation. Any posts from now on in this topic, until raisedacatholic actually addresses what we say, should be a request for him to actually respond, or just don’t post at all. It’s feeding his diversion attempts otherwise.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Even the devil uses the Bible to settle doctrinal issues.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 4:1-11[/BIBLEDRB]
The issue is not whether or not the Bible can be used to settle doctrinal issues. The question is WHO is doing the settling and WHETHER that person is competent to do so.
A
Algo1
Guest
quote: "Now…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the sole and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, right?"
I can’t speak for all who claim Sola Scriptura, however I would not agree with your description unless you changed it to:
Now…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the sole infallible and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, right?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Then why didn’t Jesus just go along with the devil when (as indicated above) the devil was appealing to the “sole infallible and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice?”
A
Algo1
Guest
A
Algo1
Guest
If you are appealing to the term tradition (paradosis) to mean an unwritten oral teaching passed on to Christians that was not identical to that which was written and preserved in Scripture, then you seem to hold to a partim-partim theory. This was the predominate view at Trent and afterwards up to the time of Cardinal Newman. Since then the predominate view has been that of material sufficiency.
MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Keep reading. From the Akin article:
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim [of formal sufficiency, or] that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.
The outside information is in Sacred Tradition. So all you have asserted is that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture do not contradict themselves. Well, no duh.
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim [of formal sufficiency, or] that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.
The outside information is in Sacred Tradition. So all you have asserted is that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture do not contradict themselves. Well, no duh.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I don’t know about material sufficiency being a predominate view. Catholics still consist of over half of all Christians. Basically whatever they believe is the dominant view in the Christian world automatically.
A
Algo1
Guest
I think that I may have confused you with my post. My point was the contrast historically (in the Roman communion) between:
partim-partim
and
material sufficiency
not
material sufficiency
and
formal sufficiency
Just so you know, the claim is that Rome has never authoritatively pronounced to the effect that the Scripture is materially sufficient, that it contains, at minimum in nascent form, the foundation for all Roman dogma. The partim-partim view contends that the Scripture contains some of it and that some of it is found in Sacred Tradition, neither of the two having all of it.
“Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible”
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV [New York: Encyclopedia Press, Inc, 1913], p. 6, 2nd column).
Peter Stravinskas, S.J. -
“(a study of the debates at the Council of Trent) will demonstrate that no single theory of divine Revelation dominated the catholic landscape prior to Trent and indeed that none really did afterwards, either. Granted, all the Catholic apologists were united in asserting that both Church and Scripture carried weight, but they were far from unanimous in explaining the relationship between the two”
(Not By Scripture Alone, Robert Sungenis, editor).
Karl Keating -
“It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the NT. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing - the part that is outside of the NT and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition - that part of revelation Catholics also accept, and in this they follow the apostle Paul’s injunction…”
(Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 1988, p 151).
Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI -
“…no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine”
(Joseph Ratzinger, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation”, commenting on article 9 of Dei Verbum. Found in Vorgrimler, ed, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol 3, p 195).
Now contrast what Cardinal Congar claims in the Akin article:
French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians." . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione,
All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge” (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).Notice after the bold that Akin presents his own assessment of Trent:
. . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione,
The partim-partim view is just ignored.
A
Algo1
Guest
By predominate view I mean:
The view held by most Roman Catholics that even discuss this today (material sufficiency) compared to the partim-partim view held from the time of Trent to the time of Cardinal Newman.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Algo1 said:
Who cares?
Whether or not all Catholic dogma is at least implied in the Bible or not (it is) is a different question than whether the Bible is self-interpreting (formal sufficiency).
If it were really possible to obtain the true religion from the Bible alone then:
(1) Protestantism would be united. It isn’t. And no amount of quote-warring is going to do that.
(2) There would have been no Reformation anyway, because the whole premise of the Reformation was that the “biblical” religion had been lost. If I had a dollar for each time I’ve given the 1 Tim 2:3-4 explanation over and against this then I would be very rich.
A
Algo1
Guest
Originally Posted by Algo1
[much ado about material sufficiency versus partim-partim]
Well, you should. This is one of the many elephants in the room for the Roman Catholic Communion. The fact that there is no official position on ‘Tradition’. We have many folks on this forum that are trying to use the ambiguity of what tradition in 2 Thes. 2:15 means. This is obvious when they throw out 2 Thes 2:15 to somehow explain why a doctrine or even a Dogma is not even ‘implicitly’ described by the N.T.
The reason that Jimmy Akin wrote that piece was because in the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on Sola Scriptura, White caught Madrid appealing to the R.C view of 'Material Sufficiency one minute and then implementing ‘Partim-Partim’ the next. When White questioned Madrid about this Madrid accused White of confusing the Protestant view of Formal Sufficiency with the Protestant view of Material Sufficiency.
It’s obvious **from the transcrip**t that White was responding to Madrid’s use of 2 Thes. 2:15 and Madrid’s assertion of what certainly sounds like the two-source theory of revelation.
“We don’t have time to go into all of these, at the moment, we’ll save them for later. But just jot these down. I Corinthians 11:2, where Paul says, “I commend you for holding firm to the traditions, just as I gave them to you.” II Thessalonians 2:15, Paul commands the Church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they had been given, whether orally, spoken, or through an epistle of theirs.** So, in other words, Tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category: oral tradition, written tradition. ** That’s what the Word of God says. I’m sure we’re going to get heavily into II Thessalonians 2 later in the night.”
[much ado about material sufficiency versus partim-partim]
Who cares?
Well, you should. This is one of the many elephants in the room for the Roman Catholic Communion. The fact that there is no official position on ‘Tradition’. We have many folks on this forum that are trying to use the ambiguity of what tradition in 2 Thes. 2:15 means. This is obvious when they throw out 2 Thes 2:15 to somehow explain why a doctrine or even a Dogma is not even ‘implicitly’ described by the N.T.
The reason that Jimmy Akin wrote that piece was because in the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on Sola Scriptura, White caught Madrid appealing to the R.C view of 'Material Sufficiency one minute and then implementing ‘Partim-Partim’ the next. When White questioned Madrid about this Madrid accused White of confusing the Protestant view of Formal Sufficiency with the Protestant view of Material Sufficiency.
It’s obvious **from the transcrip**t that White was responding to Madrid’s use of 2 Thes. 2:15 and Madrid’s assertion of what certainly sounds like the two-source theory of revelation.
“We don’t have time to go into all of these, at the moment, we’ll save them for later. But just jot these down. I Corinthians 11:2, where Paul says, “I commend you for holding firm to the traditions, just as I gave them to you.” II Thessalonians 2:15, Paul commands the Church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they had been given, whether orally, spoken, or through an epistle of theirs.** So, in other words, Tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category: oral tradition, written tradition. ** That’s what the Word of God says. I’m sure we’re going to get heavily into II Thessalonians 2 later in the night.”
- Status