D
Drawmack
Guest
I already told you that I do not wish to converse with you because anyone who views disingenuously citing a number as some sort of theological trump card isn’t worth talking to.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
In that case unfortunately, you bring nothing to the discussion because this thread is not about what I have bolded. I suggest that you create your own thread on that topic and do as you please, but I’ll be ignoring any further posts from you that do not address this topic.
There is no such fallacy. The only problem is that because you do not hold the errant belief and so cannot offer any enlightenment about it, while you seem determined to try to divert the thread off topic. I suggest that you let someone who actually does hold this belief step up and make their case while you pursue your own position elsewhere.
I will not derail the thread by addressing your position until it is offered in your own topical thread.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Offer what you will as taught by your particular n-C sect if you wish.
If you hold to that belief then it shouldn’t be all that hard, if, as we have been told, this doctrine is found in the Word of God.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is off topic and I will not address it further.
Here’s a thread already open that deals with this if you really want to discuss/debate it.
PREMISE : Protestants gravely misread Paul’s Epistles ----- when Reformists deny Church ‘Apostolic Tradition’ & ‘Deposit of Faith’
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Why don’t you start with my opening post and provide the proof that this belief is found in the Bible as most of its adherents claim. That’s what this thread is all about.
I need definitive scriptural proof that this is in the Bible, because I cannot find it.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Then I suggest that you put him on your ignore list and stop responding to him because all you are doing is baiting him to answer you, which I think is actually pretty disingenuous of you.
That’s what that forum feature is for.
S
SteveGC
Guest
I don’t think you really meant to state it like this (underlined above), did you DM? I thought you did believe that the Church teaches things contrary to Scripture. I know you don’t condemn the Church, but I’m pretty sure you believe She teaches things contrary to Scripture, no?
And for the record, do you support the notion that the Bible teaches that everything Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages (which was the OP topic)? If so, could you specifically identify where this biblical teaching is? I think CM would like you to offer your opinion about this specific thing, unless you already have…in which case, I apologize for not thoroughly backtracking your posts.
S
SteveGC
Guest
One critical thing is always left out of the Sola Scriptura definition…regardless of which definition is used…and that is this:
WHICH INTERPRETATION of the written word of God is to be used to correct all other authorities?
Because the “written word of God” without clarification of the specific interpretation of it, is an ambiguous ultimate authority. The Bible can’t be used as an authority unless it is interpreted, and if it is the ULTIMATE authority, then we must have an ULTIMATE interpretation. So, let’s not leave the definition of Sola Scriptura incomplete like this, as it historically always is…
What say you, RedBert? Which interpretation is the ultimate authority?
D
Drawmack
Guest
No, I believe that the Catholic Church contains extra-Biblical teachings which are unnecessary. I also do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but I don’t see anything wrong with others accepting it until, and unless, an ex catharda (sp?) statement is made that is contrary to the Bible.
No. I think that everything essential for salvation is in the Bible.
S
SteveGC
Guest
OK, so you believe that everything the Church teaches is in accord with Scripture? See my point? You stated that you don’t think any of Her teachings are contrary to Scripture, but is this not the same as saying that everything the Church teaches is in accord with it? Just trying to make sure I know your position thoroughly.
Ok, I see. And am I correct in assuming you use 1 Tim 3:16 as your biblical evidence for this belief?
If no, are you saying that you do not believe the Bible itself actually teaches this belief of yours?
If yes, can you illustrate for me how All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness equates to “everything essential for salvation”?
Thanks.
D
Drawmack
Guest
If a teaching were contrary to Scripture that would mean that A is stated in the Bible and the Catholic Church teaches not A. Being in accord with Scripture means that for all A, such that A is a teaching of the Catholic Church, A can be found in the Bible. See the difference?
Well, first let’s consider the reason for having a Canon. The reason, the only reason, to have a Canon is so that this can be distributed, correct? Why would you want to distribute this Canon? The only reason, I can see, is so that people without access to the people of the Church (the Magisterium in Catholic teachings) can still learn the faith. So, you have this book that you defined in order to teach people the faith when they cannot be taught personally. That being the case it would be self defeating to leave something necessary for salvation out of it and I don’t think that God would allow this to happen.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I did not mean to overlook the OT, of course.
However, since most discussions of this nature focus on whether or not Apostolic Succession really occurred and the development of the NT Church in the earliest centuries, I emphasized the development of our understanding of the teaching of the Apostles.
My apologies to any OT prophets reading this who may have been offended.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In that case, I think you will have to provide some additional support for your conclusion that the Catholic Church has done something wrong by “changing” any doctrines that it teaches.
If all we’ve done is butter our toast, then I would say that’s an improvement over what we began with. If we add jelly on top of that, all the better.
But look, the original revelation is still there.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Let’s talk to someone who had angioplasti last night and ask them if buttered toast is better than plain toast.In that case, I think you will have to provide some additional support for your conclusion that the Catholic Church has done something wrong by “changing” any doctrines that it teaches.
If all we’ve done is butter our toast, then I would say that’s an improvement over what we began with. If we add jelly on top of that, all the better.
But look, the original revelation is still there.
I never claimed the doctrines changed. I said that the way Sacraments are performed has changed, significantly enough that I do not think a 4th century Catholic would recognize them. If Tradition is a Truth then this change can’t happen because changing the transmission changes the Tradition. When it comes to doctrines I claim they have been added to, not changed.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
:tanning:I’m still waiting for someone to show me precisely where the belief is that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible.
Where is it? That’s the topic of this thread.
Where is it? That’s the topic of this thread.
L
Lampo
Guest
For a Sacrament to be valid, there must be proper form and matter. Are you saying the form has changed?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
L
Lampo
Guest
LOL!..Very well. Could you quickly point me to something regarding changes in the form of the Sacraments? Do these changes negate the sacrament? Thanks.
D
Drawmack
Guest
For some of them yes it has.
L
Lampo
Guest
Found this.
- Status