M
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
DL, have you decided that you no longer wish to post on CAF? I can’t imagine why you would post such misinformation. In fact, true Christians are found in a great variety of places.
This is an interesting statement. Since the NT did not exist when the first Christians began to build up the Church, does that mean they were not “true”?
On the contrary, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, like that of Sola Fide, were invented by the Reformers 1500 years after Jesus built His Church upon the Apostles and Prophets.
DL, this is simply a false statement. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Of course not! This would be a departure from the Teachings of Jesus.
Actually, having a mature attitude about who decides on the state of our souls has no relation to basing ones actions on false doctrine such as ‘Sola Fide’. It is true, however, that persons who are mature in faith are more likely to avoid falling into such errors.
All of the very great and precious promises about eternal life written in the NT are written by, for, and about Catholics. Catholics have as much right to claim these promises as our separated brethren, who do not know their origin.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think that is outside the scope of this thread, don’t you?
Just what is written in the link supplied on the OP. He asserts that the Catholic Church is not “biblical” because she does not subscribe to the docrine of SS. This is an extrabiblical doctrine, so to make such assertion based upon it, as the OP has noted, is ironic.
No. I don’t believe I have a “personal” understanding of this heresy. None of the defintions or uses of it are in any way consistent with the Apostolic Teachings. However, that belongs on another thread. There are plenty of them here! We get this a lot.
G
guanophore
Guest
One other thing we agree on!
M
M0nkey
Guest
Church authority goes back to the early stages of the Church; for example, when Paul and Barnabas were faced with a dispute over doctrine their source of conflict was found in the scriptures. These men guided by the holy spirit then seeked guidance at the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem, it was there that Peter “rising up saying to them” proclaimed we are saved not by circumcision but by grace in Jesus Christ. Therefore it is important to note, that when dissensions arise it must be questioned and dealt with by some form of authority. This notion is fully supported by scripture. (Acts 15)
G
guanophore
Guest
The authority of Sacred Tradition does not subtract from the authoritive nature of the Scriptures. they are meant to work together.Sure read 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:15-16. Jesus chose the scriptures in Matt 4:4,7,10. Jesus also said in Matt 15:3-6 that tradition can add words to scripture teachings.
Jesus wsa speaking about the traditions of men, not Sacred Tradition. There is no conflict between sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. There cannot be, as they come from the same Source.
M
MrS
Guest
When one sets his mind against the Church, and thus against the authority given to her by Jesus Himself, well… there will be no convincing him. God will do that in His time. In the meantime, we can just continue to defend, share, and explain the faith we received from the Apostles… as per Jesus’ plan.
.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Yes, of course it is. The Bible supports use of the Bible for all matters of faith and doctrine. For Christians to deny this, is not Christian.
One interesting thing I note here too is that a few posts ago; I asked a Catholic forum member to please give a definition of sola scriptura; “How do you personally understand it?” was my question. Out of all the fancy explanations and characterizations hurled at me since, not a one addressed this point. Catholics like to say how the poor misguided Protestants “fail to understand” but it is a pretty sure bet that they do not correctly understand Sola Scriptura.
And yes; it is unfortunate, but a number of protestants also do not understand it either. So I am asking the Catholics here to please tell me what you think SS actually is? Do you even know what you are so vehemently opposing?
P
ppasa316
Guest
We are on the topic of sola scriptura. I do agree with you that we are not to follow the tradition of men. My concern is how a church can twist God’s Word.
P
ppasa316
Guest
We need to continue to pray for those that deny the authority of the Scriptures. The bible is pretty plain to understand what God wants us to do and believe. The scary part of denying Gods Word and interpreting it in another way is explained in Gal 1:6-9
M
M0nkey
Guest
Well, that’s kind of asking for it in a Catholic forum.
Let’s see, let’s see, think, think, think, what would it be. Sarcasm Like, I think it means exactly what is says, you know like Sola … Scriptura?
R
rtconstant
Guest
What’s Ironic with this post is that its usually us asking for a definition and either being giving a different answer based on the individual, or circumstance, or it is just skipped around. The fact is that the so called “doctrine” of Sola Scriptura is formed in private interpretation on the fly. We’ve had many Protestants come here and claim that we don’t understand SS but when we give them the definitions of SS from their own denominations they say that isn’t it. SS morphs into whatever the individual needs it to be at the moment. Often even the same person would shift in its application as necessity arose.
So really it would be more constructive for each SS Protestant that is attempting apologetic work to state from the get go what their personal interpretation of Sola Scriptura is, so that everyone else won’t waste time guessing at what it means to that individual. My guess is that won’t happen though, as SS is self defeating.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Ah, but since it is a Protestant/Evangelical assertion that Sola Scriptura is the foundational rule for authority in the Faith, then it is up to them to prove using nothing but the Scriptures that this is the case. Which has yet to be done. The best that can be asserted is that Sacred Scripture is a useful guide in the Faith, which no one argues.
B
buffgbob
Guest
Neither does anyone argue that Scripture is authoritative or infallible. In fact, this is Catholic doctrine to know the Bible is these things; Catholic doctrine is the only reasonable reason to believe it in the first place (regarding the New Testament).
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh, I agree entirely! As scripture testifies of itself, it is “profitable”. The Catholic Church most certainly supports the use of the Bible in all matters of faith and doctrine. What we do not do, is to go beyond what is written (“profitable”) to trying to force Scripture into a role it was never meant to play, which is that of a Sole Authority.
Primarily because it seems to be beyond the scope of the thread. However, for the sake of this discussion, let’s use the definition used in the reference contained in the OP. John Mac is saying the CC is not “biblical” because it does not subscribe to the doctrine of SS.
It is clear to us that none of the defninitions (and there are many) for SS are found in the Scripture. It is an extrabiblical doctrine.
It is true that it is a challenge to keep track of all the various ways this term is used.
However, it is safe to say that all of them fall short of the Apostolic Teaching.
I am on this thread opposing the statement of John Mac that the Catholic Church is not “biblical” because the CC denies the doctrine of SS.
You are right, though, the CC does deny John Mac’s definition of SS. It does not, however, make us “unbiblical”. Just not MacArthurites.
G
guanophore
Guest
Sorry. I thought we were on the topic of John MacArthur’s moronic comment of the day.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the traditions of men. They can be followed, as long as they do not negate the word of God. For example, there are some bible study groups that have a tradition of going through the whole bible in one year. There is nothing wrong with this tradition, and it does not negate any of God’s commandments.
The Catholic Church cannot twist God’s word, because her head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS. These Divine elements of the Church prevent such errors from happening, as God can only lead into “all Truth”. However, there are some individuals who are attached to the Church that do:
2 Peter 3:16
There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
It was because of these ignorant and unstable persons that Jesus appointed a teaching authority so that the scriptures could be rightly discerned.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I wonder if you are able to read. The post by Protestant101 to which you replied with the above does not cite any Biblical passage that supports Sola Scriptura. So how did you deduce this conclusion from his post?
For that matter, can you, yourself, cite the Bible passage that supports Sola Scriptura?
B
benedictus2
Guest
How so? Considering that you those who follow SS and SF have cut themselves off from Christ’s true Church?
SSers and SFers came 1500 years and later after Christ founded His Church and in revolt against Christ’s Church.
First off, you know zilch about Catholic Theology on salvation if you believe this to be true.
Secondly, you do not know how salvation works.
Thirdly, here is a scenario which I would like you to answer (although I doubt that you can) What happens to someone who "confessed Jesus as Lord and Saviour then commits adultery (just like Jimmy Swaggart) and dies in the act of commiting said evil deed (which has been known to happen). Would you still consider this person saved?
- Status