It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[awantz]

St Paul expressly urges unity (Eph 4:3-6). He warns insistently against schism and heresy (1 Cor 1:10)

And so do I.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

And so do I.

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.”

 

[joe370]

I looked up all the scripture you quoted and I abide/ follow all of them. Yet, I am not Catholic.

Yes, but do you belong to the church built by Jesus, on Peter and the rest of the Apostles? It was Jesus’ established church that was given the authority to teach all that Jesus taught until the end of time, and we can trust his church thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit sent to his one church on Pentecost for the simple fact that he built it, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat! The deposit of faith will always be guarded/protected! Every other church was built on the foundation of the reformers, in the 16th century. If I am wrong please correct me.

Many protestant church leaders (including your church) - speak with authority and insist that they too are being guided by the holy spirit to teach all that Jesus taught, all the while claiming to adhere to sola scriptura via private interpretation, and all the while claiming that Jesus is their one and only authoritative mediator/teacher. What’s wrong with this picture? Is Jesus our only authoritative mediator, or was/is Jesus’ church charged with the mission to teach until the end of time? Can there be 2 truths regarding any one doctrine? If not then sola scriptura fails miserably; not that that matters anyway; all non-Catholic churches ignore Martin Luthers man-made doctrine, by claiming just as much authority/mediatorship as does the CC.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built? If it’s Jesus, then He is not doing a very good job at explicating truth regarding any one doctrine. If it’s His established established church, then He is doing an excellent job, considering the fact that He is working within the confines of fallible/sinful humans! Unity and oneness lives on in the church built by Jesus, just as he hoped and prayed to His Father by saying:

“Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.” John 17

If I accept your interpretation of scripture, why shouldn’t I accept ALL the other Protestant interpretations of scripture - each one as committed about the validity of their interpretation as you, all the while claiming that there is only one authoritative mediator to which we are to listen?

continued…

 

[joe370]

I thought the H.S. was sent to Jesus’ one church to guide His one church into all truth, until the end of time? Could it be possible that Jesus is teaching multiple things regarding any one doctrine? Seems doubtful! Finally, if Jesus is our only authoritative mediator, as opposed to His established church, then what gives the church to which you belong or any church, including the CC, the right to make such a authoritative decision/judgement call regarding all that Jesus taught? Just pick up your bible and decide for yourself --right?

Jesus said:

*“Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.” John 17
*

And the church built by Jesus and Jesus alone remains one for the simple fact that Christians belonging to Jesus’ established church continue to obey the leaders of Jesus’ church, just as they did in the 1st century, as opposed to the bible via private/individual interpretation:

*Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:7
*

Jesus prayed those powerful of words of John 17 in the upper room on the night of his betrayal, knowing that an unimaginable painful crucifixion awaited him. The preceding words are part of his final words, and final words have a history of being intense, focused and passionate. So it was with Jesus. Never before had the disciples heard him pray like this.

“That they may be one…” For this Jesus would sweat blood, endure mockery and freely lay down his life for humanity. To make this brief prayer efficacious, he would rise in glory and in the power of the Holy Spirit be permanently with his church, in the world, starting on Pentecost, gathering into “one” the whole people of God. One shepherd, as he had promised, and one flock would follow, at least until men attempted to usurp Jesus’ will. The apostolic messengers would proclaim one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, in whom all those made new in the Lord are “no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or gentile, but one in Christ Jesus.”

This passage from John is Jesus’ prayer for what the Father will do for the world through his risen Son through the church.

*His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…Ephesians3:10
*

It is not a declaration of what is, but intercession for what was, is and shall be, until Jesus returns. It is not a blueprint for how the oneness will take form, but a plea for the Father’s strong name to protect those (his church) - who are in the world, hated by the world, yet up to the task of doing Jesus’ mission in spite of the world.

It is wearisome to endure church battles that split not once but endlessly. The blight of each non-Catholic church (sola scriptura and individual interpretation) - always has and always will throw up huge, offensive roadblocks against Jesus’ prayer. Such usurpation is a great cause of the Jesus’ grief. All of this division tears apart the seamless robe of unifying love which was removed from Jesus’ dead body and placed around his glorified Body, the church, to which he is the head and savior. No doubt the powerful prayer: that they may be one is ever forward, toward the coming day when he will bring to fullness the unity we now know in part, outside the church built by God.

As always, with respect

Joe

 

[RedBert]

Against modern religious indifferentism Pius IX declared: **“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.” **

or
‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

 

[joe370]

Awantz, you said:

“I looked up all the scripture you quoted and I abide/ follow all of them. Yet, I am not Catholic.”

Yes, but do you belong to the church built by Jesus, on Peter? It was Jesus’ established church that was given the authority to teach all that Jesus taught until the end of time, and we can trust his church thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit sent to his one church on Pentecost for the simple fact that he built it, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat! The deposit of faith will always be guarded/protected! Every other church was built on the foundation of the reformers, in the 16th century. If I am wrong please correct me.

Many protestant church leaders (including your church) - speak with authority and insist that they too are being guided by the holy spirit to teach all that Jesus taught, all the while claiming to adhere to sola scriptura via private/individual interpretation, and all the while claiming that Jesus is their one and only authoritative mediator/teacher. What’s wrong with this picture? Is Jesus our only authoritative mediator, or, was/is Jesus’ church charged with the mission to teach until the end of time? Can there be 2 truths regarding any one doctrine? If not then sola scriptura fails miserably; not that that matters anyway; all non-Catholic churches ignore Martin Luthers man-made doctrine, by claiming just as much authority/mediator-ship as does the CC.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built? If it’s Jesus, then He is not doing a very good job at explicating truth regarding any one doctrine. If it’s His established church, then He is doing an perfect job, considering the fact that He is working within the confines of fallible/sinful humans! Unity and oneness lives on in the church built by Jesus, just as he hoped and prayed to His Father by saying:

“Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.” John 17

If I accept your interpretation of scripture, why shouldn’t I accept ALL the other Protestant interpretations of scripture - each one as committed about the validity of their interpretation, all the while claiming that there is only one authoritative mediator to which we are to listen?

I thought the H.S. was sent to Jesus’ one church to guide His one church into all truth, until the end of time? Could it be possible that Jesus is teaching multiple things regarding any one doctrine? Seems doubtful! Finally, if Jesus is our only authoritative mediator, as opposed to His established church, then what gives the church to which you belong or any church, including the CC, the right to make such a authoritative decisions regarding all that Jesus taught?

Jesus said:

“Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.” John 17

And the church built by Jesus and Jesus alone remains one for the simple fact that Christians belonging to Jesus’ established church continue to obey the leaders of Jesus’ church, just as they did in the 1st century, as opposed to the bible via private/individual interpretation:

*Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:7
Continued…

 

[joe370]

……Jesus prayed those powerful words of John 17 in the upper room on the night of his betrayal, knowing that an unimaginable painful crucifixion awaited him. The preceding words are part of his final words, and final words have a history of being intense, focused and passionate. So it was with Jesus. Never before had the disciples heard him pray like this.

“That they may be one…” For this Jesus would sweat blood, endure mockery and freely lay down his life for humanity. To make this brief prayer efficacious, he would rise in glory and in the power of the Holy Spirit be permanently with his church, in the world, starting on Pentecost, gathering into “one” the whole people of God. One shepherd, as he had promised, and one flock would follow, at least until men attempted to usurp Jesus’ will. The apostolic messengers would proclaim one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, in whom all those made new in the Lord are “no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or gentile, but one in Christ Jesus.”

This passage from John is Jesus’ prayer for what the Father will do for the world through his risen Son through the church.

*His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…Ephesians3:10
It is not a declaration of what is, but intercession for what was, is and shall be, until Jesus returns. It is not a blueprint for how the oneness will take form, but a plea for the Father’s strong name to protect those (his church) - who are in the world, hated by the world, yet up to the task of doing Jesus’ mission in spite of the world.

It is wearisome to endure church battles that split not once but repeatedly. The blight of each non-Catholic church via sola scriptura and individual interpretation, always has and always will throw up huge, offensive roadblocks against Jesus’ prayer. Such usurpation is a great cause of the Jesus’ grief. All of this division tears apart the seamless robe of unifying love which was removed from Jesus’ dead body and placed around his glorified Body, the church, to which he is the head and savior. No doubt the powerful prayer: that they may be one is ever forward, toward the coming day when he will bring to fullness the unity we now know in part, outside the church built by God.

As always, with respect

Joe370

 

[RedBert]

I trust everyone can see the double standard here:

Who decides who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the interpretation of the bible? Is it Jesus or the church He built? If it’s Jesus, then He is not doing a very good job at explicating truth regarding any one doctrine. If it’s His established established church, then He is doing an excellent job, considering the fact that He is working within the confines of fallible/sinful humans!
…

Looking at the exact same results:
If Jesus is in charge = bad job,
If it’s the Church , = doing the best they can with fallible humans.

Consider the results of the Church of Rome in the country of Rome…

“Some have blamed the widespread lack of biblical knowledge among Italians, on the Catholic Church due to its monopoly on the teaching of the Bible. The Italian newspaper, La Stampa, responded to a recent survey showing that only 14% of Italians questioned were able to answer questions about the Bible correctly, with the headline: ‘In the beginning was the Word - but the Italians don’t read it’.

Only one in four Italians had read a passage from the Bible in the past year, the survey revealed, compared to three out of four in the USA. Few even knew whether or not the Gospels were part of the Bible. Philosophy graduates confused Paul with Moses and thought that Jesus wrote Genesis, according to the survey.”

au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

Survey after survey show Protestants are more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of God than do Catholics.

One of many polls here at
harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

Catholic unity is in name only: a wide array of beleifs under the same roof.

**Why?

Because of the de-emphasis of the Bible.**

Matthew 7:
16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

 

[Lampo]

has the RCC ever changed / revised clarified a doctrine or tradition based on a better or more complete understanding of scripture?

Ever?

Clarified, yes. Doctrines develop, but they don’t change.

 

[Church_Militant]

Do you people just NOT know how to stay on topic???!!

This is NOT about salvation or anything other than the challenge that no one has yet met in providing scripture that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Bible.

Look…you n-Cs either offer the proof in the Bible that conclusively states what you say it does, or don’t post.

You Catholics…don’t offer papal statements, quotes from the Catechism, or traditionalist material about what the church says.

Stay on topic or you’ll get the thread closed. It’s that simple.

 

[RedBert]

Here is a perfect example of Scripture vs. Church teaching.

St Ignatius of Antioch(c. 107)
“Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

JESUS said in Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

So two weeks ago we had a men’s retreat, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, several men’s lives were committed to Christ.

As two or three came together in Jesus’ name and He tells us He was there:
so because Jesus was there ; is that protestant men’s group the Catholic Church?

 

[RedBert]

Do you people just NOT know how to stay on topic???!!

Look…you n-Cs either offer the proof in the Bible that conclusively states what you say it does, or don’t post.

Stay on topic or you’ll get the thread closed. It’s that simple.

Everyone can google the verses: but by Church teaching , interpretation and tradition you don’t accept them.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Do you people just NOT know how to stay on topic???!!

This is NOT about salvation or anything other than the challenge that no one has yet met in providing scripture that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Bible.

Look…you n-Cs either offer the proof in the Bible that conclusively states what you say it does, or don’t post.

You Catholics…don’t offer papal statements, quotes from the Catechism, or traditionalist material about what the church says.

Stay on topic or you’ll get the thread closed. It’s that simple.

***Take it to heart people because this is what you are headed for if this thread departs from topic one more time.

I just removed about 8 more posts that should have been in another thread or sent by PM.

You know the Forum Rules*** and I expect you all to comply with them.

This has been one of the better threads so far, but if it departs topic again…

 

[Kirk_O]

I see Randy already answered this point by point. The most important being that your first statement which you seem to build the rest of your post on, is quite simply, wrong.

If you grant that the Church in 300AD had the authority to judge that which is scripture, then, in another thread of course you should explore WHEN the Church lost its authority or why you accept its evaluation of scriture if they had no authority. But that topic would diverge too much from the topic of this thread.

I posted other posts but they too diverge from the topic of this thread so deleted them.

The point is (with what is on topic for this thread) that when I (and most others) use scripture, I usually am doing so to show the Christian that I am talking to, who believes scripture is the ultimate authority, that scripture in fact contradicts their opinion that scripture is the final or ultimate or sole authority. Nowhere does scripture say that, but there is much scripture that talks of the authority of the Church and those in the Church.

It seems to me that if one cannot show from scripture that it is above, final, sole or whatever definition one claims scripture alone means, and one is in fact provided with scripture that talks of the Church having that authority, one would need to seriously look at the claims of the Reformers who come along 1500 years after the fact and claim that scripture says different and take a very hard look at the claims the Catholic Church whom the Reformers broke from says.

God Bless,
Maria

I see most Protestants feel they (each individual believer, except any Catholic) are the Church and have been given the authority to interpret it. I find this to be the biggest obstacle. They have changed what Church means and made it about themselves.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I guess we can now interpret the interpreter.

and by what authority to you interpret what the Pope said?

btw: the source atricle is here at
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

“Disagreement over **this doctrine had been at the heart of the Reformation **in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in western Europe.”

Yes, that is the true reason for the split, NOT Sola Scriptura but Sola Fide.

"Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed,"

read that again to make sure you get.

no spin: no word play on what the Pope said.

Luther correctly used the Bible in contrast to tradition to show that we are ‘justified by faith alone’,

The church rightly changed a doctrine or practice to agree with the Bible , BECAUSE the scripture is the** paramount authorty and to which we yield assent in all matters.**

No spin , no word play , the scripture is the paramount , supreme , top , uppermost , chief , in a class by itself, AUTHOURITY to which we yeild in ALL matters!

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,** which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.** -St Augustine

Great!

The Reformation is now officially over, and we’ll see you at mass on Sunday, right?

After all, Luther didn’t originally intend to create a divided Christianity, so, I’m sure you’re eager to mend that, aren’t you?

See you soon?

(Gee, this is exciting…first the Anglicans and now Redbert…it’s a great time to be a Catholic!)

 

[ncgolf]

Everyone can google the verses: but by Church teaching , interpretation and tradition you don’t accept them.

Well I googled a few things and found this tidbit.

from christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html
“Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).”

I gather this says Scripture reveals Scripture … which is part of the point in the OP.

Now the sentence beginning with “It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light” is getting somewhere for in it is closer to the truth but I do not think in the way the writer intended. The Holy Spirit does need to be present for Scripture to be revealed correctly so what is taught and learned in 2009 is the same as 1509 the same as the year 99. The Holy Spirit both protects and teaches the same truths in all centuries. One must find something, some body where this principle is upheld.

Scripture revealing Scripture does not seem to make sense practically. I do not think I have ever met anyone either Catholic or Protestant who learned strictly from reading the Bible. All have learned from others teaching … so how does teaching get protected and how does one trust the teachings of the teacher?

The Holy Spirit protecting the authentic teachings revealed in Scripture is a biggee as nowhere in Scripture do I find individuals listed as being protected from teaching errors.

Where in Scripture does personal protection against teaching errors occur?

 

[clmowry]

I still see it as a strawman, because what you state as their position here, and what you said are two different statements:

“Scripture is ‘above’ the Church and Tradition”

cannot be equated with

“everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.”

Good grief, you are the strawman police.

Yes, you are absolutely correct; the two statements are not equivalent.

In fact, he/she didn’t even say the “above” thing at all. (I mixed that up with a post someone had just made relative to St. Augustine, my bad.)

So yes you caught me, cuff me an take me away. They did not say what I said in my response to you at all.

Of course, the verses provided do not actually support either statement (but what does that have to do with anything.)

That said, did you even read the post I responded to before you decide I had built a strawman?

I will offer* Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 as a scriptural foundation for Sola Scriptura.*

I believe the burden of proof lies with those espousing the position that doctrine, tradition, etc, not found in the Bible is ok.* Amos 3:7 indicates that God does nothing without revealing it to a prophet. If God reveals His will only to prophets, and there are none; and the scriptures warn against adding to or diminishing from the given Word; it would seem that a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.*

They just professed the “strawman” position that is exactly what this thread is about.

"a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe."

Which, if true, would bring us back to the logical need of the person taking this position [and yes I understand that YOU do not take this position] to have “a biblical foundation” for “Sola Scriptura.”

So maybe I didn’t build a strawman after all, on second thought, take the cuffs off.

I want my lawyer.

Chuck

 

[Grace_Seeker]

“everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.” is not an accurate representation of Sola Scriptura.

“a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe” is.

Scriptures have been given in support of that, some have been critiqued, some of have been ignored. It is incorrect to say that no Biblical support has been offered with regard to SS. It is more appropriate to say that those who don’t accept the tennents of SS simply read those same verses and conclude something different from them than those who do accept SS. The same thing happens when the CC cites scriptures to support its view of having the authority it claims for itself. Both views are based on interpreting passages based on a preconceived point of view. In other words, it is all about interpretation. Scripture doesn’t say anything conclusively, rather people conclude what scripture says (or doesn’t say).

 

[clmowry]

“everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.” is not an accurate representation of Sola Scriptura.

“a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe” is.

And what exactly is the practical difference between the two.

Scriptures have been given in support of that, some have been critiqued, some of have been ignored. It is incorrect to say that no Biblical support has been offered with regard to SS. It is more appropriate to say that those who don’t accept the tennents of SS simply read those same verses and conclude something different from them than those who do accept SS. The same thing happens when the CC cites scriptures to support its view of having the authority it claims for itself. Both views are based on interpreting passages based on a preconceived point of view.

Ok I thought you were the one who punted on demonstrating “Sola Scriptura” from scritpure and declared it rather an “apriori assumption.”

So can you explain to me how submiting *Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 ***fits the bill for demonstrating that “**a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.”

In other words, it is all about interpretation. Scripture doesn’t say anything conclusively, rather people conclude what scripture says (or doesn’t say).

Exactly right!

Yeah! Something we can agree on.

This is of course why I do not accept that “scripture alone,” however you define it, or justify belief in the concept, can ever exist as a practical rule of universal Christian faith.

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

“a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe” is… an accurate representation of Sola Scriptura.