L
Lampo
Guest
It is a bold statement that stands the *truth *test. The Traditions qui est ce speaks of are divinely revealed by God to His Church that pertain to faith and morals.
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Prove it.
R
RedBert
Guest
500 years ago did the RCC **disagree **with Luther in translating the Apostle Paul’s words as “justified by faith alone” or “sola fide” in the Latin
A yes or no question.
this i what I meant that SS does exist in a vacuum by itself: all of these points ARE related
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You see it in Protestanism today. Reformed, Arminianism, OSAS, Sola Fides, etc. Tortured and twisted into contradictory theologies. Essential vs. nonessential doctrine. Real Presence or symbolic. None of them even true to the original Reformer Martin Luther.
Amen brother!
What do you think Jesus was teaching the twelve when :
John21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
R
RedBert
Guest
i think it meant that not everything there is to know is in the Bible : just everything you NEED to know.
carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
No to both. And she still doesn’t today.
Does it or does it not exist in a vacuum?
R
RedBert
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
wow,
“**Disagreement **over this doctrine had been at **the heart of the Reformation **in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in Western Europe. Yet, said the Pope, it was indeed Biblical to say, as did Luther, that it was the faith of a Christian, not his works that saved him.”
breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=6341
tradition corrected by the the Bible
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Absolutely unreliable and false. The Church has never ever taught that one must pay for the remission of sins.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
The Church has always said our faith saves us. It’s just not faith ALONE!
Please get back on topic. Robert Bay will reprimand us again.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Read the second half of Paul’s letter to the Romans. The first part tells us what Christ did for us, the second one says what we must do for Christ, in Christ, in faith.
L
Lampo
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
I think that this is a reasonable point that Redbert brings up. Pope Benedict appears to be saying that the TRANSLATION of this section of Romans was accurately represented by Luther’s “sola fide”. That much seems clear. But that is not such a big deal, really. Translations are not dogmatic statements of the faith. The alteration of the translation does not alter the faith one bit. On this point I will respectfully disagree with Red that “Tradition is corrected by the Bible” Tradition has nothing to do with the translation. We are merely discussing the best translation of the sentence written, entirely devoid of context such as Paul’s other letter to the Corinthians(1cor6:9) and Galations(Gal5:21) where he warns them that certain behaviors are incompatible with going to Heaven. That is why Pope Benedict was careful to add the conditional understanding of what is meant by the word “faith” within the term “faith alone”. What Benedict is clearly articulating is that although that Luther’s translation is accurate, some of the common, non-Catholic understanding of what “faith alone” means, remains faulty. “Faith alone” in the sense that most Protestants understand it, is a fleeting moment in the life of any Christian. Faith - in very short order - is always accompanied by the opportunity - and duty - to live and act upon that faith. It is in the living, acting, loving faith that one must persevere to inherit the kingdom of God. That was Christ’s message, Paul’s message, Peters message and James message. Salvation by “faith alone” as Luther and most Protestants understand it does not acknowledge that duty. They prefer to equivocate by claiming that if the faith does not produce love then it was not “true faith” to begin with. “Salvation is by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone” is the mantra you will here. Such claims are simply an acknowledgement of the Catholic position without giving credit where credit is due. Faith “alone” that isnt “alone” simply is not “faith alone”! Is that really debatable? I think not.
Peace be with you!
C
clmowry
Guest
John21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
This verse doesn’t actually say either of the things you suggest.
This verse simply says that not everything Jesus did was written down in Johns book.
It does not give any indication as to the relative or absolute importance of either what was or was not written.
You will have to look elsewhere to show that John felt what He did not write about was unneeded or less important or that He felt that what he wrote was sufficiently complete.
The fact that he ends his book with this statement certainly doesn’t leave one with the impression that he had covered everything he would have liked too.
Even if you presume that he did intend this to mean the opposite of what it seems to say: i.e. “I wrote down everything you need to know”, then you would necessarily be left with “sola the Gospel of John” as your rule of faith.
Chuck
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
The Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded: fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God; hate and detestation of sin; and Baptism.The Church has always said our faith saves us. It’s just not faith ALONE!
Please get back on topic. Robert Bay will reprimand us again.
Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.
In addition to faith, Scripture demands other acts: the fear of God (Ecclus 1:27; Prov 14:27), hope (Ecclus2:9), love of God (Luke 7:27; John3:14), sorrow and penitence (Ez 18:30; 33:11; Mt 4:17; Acts 2:38, 3:19)
St Paul says we are saved by faith without works of the Law (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)
St Augustine says “Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail” (Cf. Jm 2:17)
Faith must be alive, and active.
J
joe370
Guest
**
Red, you are willing to discuss other things off topic, so please answer those 10 questions. Yes, many books of the bible were considered inspired before the CC finally codified it, but other books (such as the book of Revelation) were not unanimously accepted until the 4th century, and some books were considered inspired that were later rejected by the CC. Jesus’ church made the final decision. Who gave Jesus’ church the authority to make such an authoritative decision? Who or What gives anyone the authority (outside Jesus’ established church) - to interpret the bible? If this were the case, then surely the holy spirit would have guided each Christian into the oneness and unity that the CC possesses. No one had bibles prior to its codification in 393 AD, as my sister seems to believe. Christians simply went to Jesus’ established church to receive edification and they were one and united, sharing the same truths vis-a-vis any one doctrine, unlike the myriad non-Catholic churches today.
With the Catholic church as the sole authority, Jesus’ church has remained one; with the bible as the sole authority, non-Catholic churches have become more and more insular and isolated from both Jesus’ church and other man-made churches. The bible as our only authority does not work, and furthermore, not one church adheres to this man-made doctrine. One must believe what one’s non-Catholic church teaches, otherwise one is not welcomed, as is the case with the church to which you belong and I once belonged.
I do agree with you; the CC did not write the bible, however, the bible as the only authority for the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been impossible for it was not readily available as it is today, thanks to the printing press. Without the CC. many people would not have had access to the word of God; that is why Jesus gave His one church the power (via the holy spirit) - to be Jesus’ witnesses, starting in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and eventually, to the ends of the earth. Jesus provided the world with a teaching church, (hence the magisterial office) - not a teaching book. Jesus knew that people would distort, dis-inform and misinterpret his teachings, most of the time unwittingly; that was why he empowered his church to teach, and His church derives all her power from the holy spirit, promised to be with Jesus’ bride until the end of time:
“you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Jesus will be with His established church to the very end of the age, regardless of the weeds attempting to choke the life out of her. Only the church built by God received this power when the holy spirit came on her, on pentecost, and the holy spirit will remain with Jesus’ bride until the end of time, and that is why the imposition of hands, starting with the Apostles’ successors, is so important. It protects the deposit of faith! If someone wants to interpret the bible in a way that differs from the church built by God and guided by the holy spirit, he/she must take it to Jesus’ church leaders, as per the bible, to arbitrate through the mystical power of the holy spirit. Jesus’ church would possess absolutely zero power without the holy spirit. The holy spirit works through Jesus’ ministerial church leaders. The key is to find that one church built by God (never to impugn the work of churches built by men) - and once I did, I realized that I was finally home (house of the living God) - where the pillar and foundation of truth can be found, thanks to the spirit of truth. The holy spirit didn’t descend upon me or you or any one person, or any church built on the foundation of the protestant reformation, and that is what makes the clear distinction between Jesus’ church built on Peter and the rest of the apostles and prophets, and all the non-Catholic churches stemming from the reformation. The holy spirit didn’t leave Jesus’ one bride just to guide man-made churches into utter division, which is the work of the church’s enemy. Divide and conquer is this fallen angels only purpose, and, as an eternal fallen angel, he knows that he has very little time to fracture Jesus’ body, the church, and this fallen angel knows, in the end, Jesus’ church will prevail because He is the head and Savior of His Mystical body, the church, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat.
What do you think you would have done if you lived in one of these centuries and you couldn’t afford a bible, couldn’t read, or didn’t have access to one? Finally which church in the world today would you have belong to for the first 1500 years of Christianity?**
Red, you are willing to discuss other things off topic, so please answer those 10 questions. Yes, many books of the bible were considered inspired before the CC finally codified it, but other books (such as the book of Revelation) were not unanimously accepted until the 4th century, and some books were considered inspired that were later rejected by the CC. Jesus’ church made the final decision. Who gave Jesus’ church the authority to make such an authoritative decision? Who or What gives anyone the authority (outside Jesus’ established church) - to interpret the bible? If this were the case, then surely the holy spirit would have guided each Christian into the oneness and unity that the CC possesses. No one had bibles prior to its codification in 393 AD, as my sister seems to believe. Christians simply went to Jesus’ established church to receive edification and they were one and united, sharing the same truths vis-a-vis any one doctrine, unlike the myriad non-Catholic churches today.
With the Catholic church as the sole authority, Jesus’ church has remained one; with the bible as the sole authority, non-Catholic churches have become more and more insular and isolated from both Jesus’ church and other man-made churches. The bible as our only authority does not work, and furthermore, not one church adheres to this man-made doctrine. One must believe what one’s non-Catholic church teaches, otherwise one is not welcomed, as is the case with the church to which you belong and I once belonged.
I do agree with you; the CC did not write the bible, however, the bible as the only authority for the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been impossible for it was not readily available as it is today, thanks to the printing press. Without the CC. many people would not have had access to the word of God; that is why Jesus gave His one church the power (via the holy spirit) - to be Jesus’ witnesses, starting in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and eventually, to the ends of the earth. Jesus provided the world with a teaching church, (hence the magisterial office) - not a teaching book. Jesus knew that people would distort, dis-inform and misinterpret his teachings, most of the time unwittingly; that was why he empowered his church to teach, and His church derives all her power from the holy spirit, promised to be with Jesus’ bride until the end of time:
“you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Jesus will be with His established church to the very end of the age, regardless of the weeds attempting to choke the life out of her. Only the church built by God received this power when the holy spirit came on her, on pentecost, and the holy spirit will remain with Jesus’ bride until the end of time, and that is why the imposition of hands, starting with the Apostles’ successors, is so important. It protects the deposit of faith! If someone wants to interpret the bible in a way that differs from the church built by God and guided by the holy spirit, he/she must take it to Jesus’ church leaders, as per the bible, to arbitrate through the mystical power of the holy spirit. Jesus’ church would possess absolutely zero power without the holy spirit. The holy spirit works through Jesus’ ministerial church leaders. The key is to find that one church built by God (never to impugn the work of churches built by men) - and once I did, I realized that I was finally home (house of the living God) - where the pillar and foundation of truth can be found, thanks to the spirit of truth. The holy spirit didn’t descend upon me or you or any one person, or any church built on the foundation of the protestant reformation, and that is what makes the clear distinction between Jesus’ church built on Peter and the rest of the apostles and prophets, and all the non-Catholic churches stemming from the reformation. The holy spirit didn’t leave Jesus’ one bride just to guide man-made churches into utter division, which is the work of the church’s enemy. Divide and conquer is this fallen angels only purpose, and, as an eternal fallen angel, he knows that he has very little time to fracture Jesus’ body, the church, and this fallen angel knows, in the end, Jesus’ church will prevail because He is the head and Savior of His Mystical body, the church, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat.
What do you think you would have done if you lived in one of these centuries and you couldn’t afford a bible, couldn’t read, or didn’t have access to one? Finally which church in the world today would you have belong to for the first 1500 years of Christianity?**
R
RedBert
Guest
nope
R
RedBert
Guest
so other than me copying n pasting:
If interested, please review the point made here:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
If interested, please review the point made here:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
L
Lampo
Guest
Those verses say nothing about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.
There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is “profitable”, it does not say scripture is “all sufficient”; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word “alone” in this passage, as in “scripture alone”.
What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and correction and so forth. Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But…this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. You are trying to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.
There are more problems with your interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack that holds his ammunition and such. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.
The other problem with this interpretation, is Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4 it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” So, we see here in James that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what do we see here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way you interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia - patience alone.
- Status