My rule of faith

[Nick_Jones]

We don’t trust in Rome, we trust God’s representative and his helpers. We don’t do it arbitrarily. We have listened to Jesus when he asked Peter to care for us. Peter and his successors are Jesus’ visible representatives.

Let me try to follow your reasoning (that you don’t trust in Rome)

1. I am not really capable of correctly interpreting the bible on my own.
2. Some infallible authority must exist somewhere, that is capable of correctly interpreting the bible.
3. Rome (among many others) claims to be the infallible interpreter of scripture, so I will arbitrarily decide to trust in Rome for correct interpretation of the bible.

 

[mercygate]

God hasn’t left it to “luck” either. Who’s oral tradition is the necessary oral tradition, and how should we know it? And, I’m not suggesting that anyone should worship a book.

I’ve looked at your diagram. I don’t know what to say about it, except that I don’t understand exactly what it is supposed to prove.

Blessings to you,

Nick

That diagram is kind of kinky.

One thing it shows is that John the Evangelist evangelized Ignatius of Antioch (a martyr for the faith and the person who first referred to the Church as “catholic”, meaning universal). Ignatius in turn taught Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna (another martyr). Irenaeus of Lyons was, in turn, a student of, or at least influenced by, Polycarp. Writing before the year 200 A.D. his Adversus Haeresis is one of the fundamental doctrinal statements of the ante-Nicene Church.

Similarly, the diagram shows the ties of Clement to Peter and Paul.

This is a family tree of the early, undivided, Church.

Read the third letter of John. Note the thrust: Who are you? Do I know you? Where did you get your authority?

There is no question that the Apostolic Church authenticated its missionaries by authorized sending of the preachers. As Paul says in Romans, “How can men preach unless they are sent.” Even Paul – y’know, the guy who received the direct lightning bolt from heaven and personal communication from the Boss? At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, even Paul received the laying on of hands from the church: namely, was ratified by the laying on of hands, before setting out from Antioch with Barnabas.

Connecting the dots here: the Holy Spirit prompted the Church to authorize its preachers by the laying on of hands. There is no question of “lone ranger” Christians running around on their own, preaching their own version of the Gospel. In fact, Paul gets VERY cranky about people who preach “another gospel” and soundly condemns them.

Who are you? Who sent you? Paul even assures his readers in several letters: See that I am writing in my own hand.

 

[mercygate]

The verse says, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”

Note that Jesus could have said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on YOU, PETER, I will build my church…”

Do you ever wonder why Jesus didn’t say that?

God love ya, Nick. That’s exactly what Jesus said in Aramaic. You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build . . .

 

[JaneFrances]

It seems like this has all been hashed out before. . .but there’s no time like the present to start from the beginning, again.

What is wrong with scripture alone as my rule of faith?

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that it, by your definition, isn’t a rule at all. It is variable. By your own admission of fallibilty, your “rule” is nothing more than your assent to your own conceptions and understandings.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that it is a rule that you chose. It is not a rule that God gave you.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that, apart from you being a linguisitic scholar, a theological historian, and an expert in the writings of the Early Church, you haven’t any idea of what “the Scriptures” are actually saying beyond what someone has translated for you or told you Scriptures say.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that you have no absolute standard. If you don’t like what one version of Scripture says, you have given yourself the option of choosing the version that “fits” with what you already believe.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that there are THOUSANDS. . .no, MILLIONS of others just like you who have the same “rule” but yet somehow don’t get the same answers.

If sola scriptura is not adequate as a rule of faith, what should I replace it with?

Since sola scriptura is not adequate. . .in fact, since sola scriptura is fundamentally flawed, you should replace it with something a little more Scriptural, the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

To say that Christ founded a Church where it’s members must admit that many their beliefs–even big ones–may be mistaken interpretations (as you have admitted of yourself; if most Protestants were as honest, they’d do likewise) is to say He left it to chance.

I’ve admitted that **my own **beliefs and my own interpretations are fallible. What I have never said, is that God founded the church on fallible teachings. I believe that the bible is inerrant. The church consists of fallible individuals who are united by one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

 

[Nick_Jones]

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that it, by your definition, isn’t a rule at all. It is variable. By your own admission of fallibilty, your “rule” is nothing more than your assent to your own conceptions and understandings.

True, my own conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed. This doesn’t nullify the source of infallible truth (the bible); it only makes the bible more necessary.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that it is a rule that you chose. It is not a rule that God gave you.

How do you know that God didn’t give me SS as my rule of faith? Do you think it is prideful of me to trust in God’s word as my authority even though I’m a fallible interpreter of it? Do you have a better idea that is less prideful?

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that, apart from you being a linguisitic scholar, a theological historian, and an expert in the writings of the Early Church, you haven’t any idea of what “the Scriptures” are actually saying beyond what someone has translated for you or told you Scriptures say.

In that case, instead of arbitrarily placing myself under the authority of Rome, I ought to be willing to learn from those who are more learned than myself.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that you have no absolute standard. If you don’t like what one version of Scripture says, you have given yourself the option of choosing the version that “fits” with what you already believe.

What is your absolute standard for truth? Mine is the word of God. If my whole project is to choose the version that “fits” with what I already believe, then I’m not open to the truth.

What’s wrong with “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that there are THOUSANDS. . .no, MILLIONS of others just like you who have the same “rule” but yet somehow don’t get the same answers.

Yes, there are millions of others just like me who have the same “rule” but yet somehow don’t get the same answers. Only God’s grace can make me willing to believe what is true.

Since sola scriptura is not adequate. . .in fact, since sola scriptura is fundamentally flawed, you should replace it with something a little more Scriptural, the Church.

Which brings us back to the issue of who, or what, is your ultimate authority? Will you trust God to guide you to the truth, or will you decide by your own flawed reasoning that you “just know” that Rome is your standard of truth. No man can serve two masters.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I know you did not read all of my signature line. You made no commentary on that yet. Except that you dispute the date of the Reformation. Yet you dont provide me with evidence to the contrary Nick.

When did it occur?

Reformation is a continuous ongoing process. It began as soon as the church was established. The CC tries to pretend that all RC’s are in complete unity concerning their teachings. Do all RC’s believe that it is wrong to divorce? To use artificial birth control? Of course not. In the bible, we find that the apostles were sometimes in serious disagreement over important teachings. (see Gal. 2:11-21)

 

[Damascus]

Reformation is a continuous ongoing process. It began as soon as the church was established. The CC tries to pretend that all RC’s are in complete unity concerning their teachings. Do all RC’s believe that it is wrong to divorce?

The Church does believe it is wrong.

To use artificial birth control? Of course not. In the bible, we find that the apostles were sometimes in serious disagreement over important teachings. (see Gal. 2:11-21)

Again the Church did not change on that. ONLY the Catholic Church has kept that teaching!

Sorry about the “kinky” linky. Funny, I never thought a catholic link could be that way!

Anyway- the point of that link was only to show persons most close to Christ and that was the point.

Whatever Nick, let me know what Church I should be attending if you care about us and our salvation. We need to hear the truth Nick, even if it hurts. You owe that to us after seeing how we have all cared about your well being.
Care about us Nick! Like Jesus would ask you to!
ITs in the Bible Nick! Help us please!

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

What is wrong with scripture alone as my rule of faith? If sola scriptura is not adequate as a rule of faith, what should I replace it with?

Thanks,

Nick

Now this may come across as heretical but if you feel the good ol heresy alarm going off just please re-read my post and try to understand where Im coming from.

I personally don’t need scripture, neither will I provide it to my children in the future. I want to leave Scripture where it belongs, in the hands of God’s consecrated Priests and the Church.

It is my complete and utter trust that the Roman Catholic Church will not lead me astray that compells me to not even look in Scripture for justification of Catholic Doctrine.

My belief that through the Holy Spirit the Church interperts Scripture 100% correctly, nullifies any reason for myself reading the Bible aside from a seek of knowledge or historical reading.

I live the spiritual life of a meieval laymen (bible-less). I go to mass (Traditional Latin Mass), pray the Rosary, meditate on the mysteries, and obey the Church.

That is all you need to do for salvation. Scripture doesnt need to be in your life at all for you to attain spiritual completeness.

It wasnt until after I became interested in evangelizing that I began to read Scripture on a daily basis.

I dont see any increase or decrease in my faith after I began to read the Bible…just a sense of higher knowledge.

The 15 mysteries of the Rosary contain the saving message of the Gospel in a far easier, greater detailed, and thought provoking way than the actual Gospel itself.

Since we have to remember the word Gospel simply means good news…and was later used as a way to describe the books of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke.

So even though the Church teaches Scripture and Tradition…I am a staunch defender of Sola Ecclesia. My self coined term of
“The Church Alone”

 

[KindredSoul]

I’ve admitted that **my own **beliefs and my own interpretations are fallible. What I have never said, is that God founded the church on fallible teachings. I believe that the bible is inerrant. The church consists of fallible individuals who are united by one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

To say this is to say that Christ never really founded a useful Church (one that can actually guide the flock with which Christ trusted It). Instead, that’s to say He founded a Bible (the New Testament of which was never put together until over 300 years after He died–all references to Scripture in the NT are OT quotes) and then told a bunch of people who believed in Him “Hope you come to the right conclusions based on this book that I in my infinite knowledge know you’ll find 30,000 different ways to interpret…and remember, for the first 300 years or so, you won’t even have that in it’s entirety! Good luck!” Such a “hope you get it right” view of how Christ founded the Church seems more like He wanted the gates of Hell to prevail against His apparently poorly armed Church. That’s not a healthy view of Christ’s intentions at all.

Perhaps there would be a little more credibility to the “Holy Spirit leads us even though we’re not unified under any Visible Church” argument if all Sola Scripturists happened to agree on everything of any doctrinal significance, throughout the ages, unbroken and continuously…but that is not the reality. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t contradict Himself. If one Church is perfectly Unified, and in unbroken, continous history, and another church is disunified or hasn’t that continuously united history, which Church do you suppose is most likely heeding the Holy Spirit?

 

[KindredSoul]

As for this:

Reformation is a continuous ongoing process. It began as soon as the church was established. The CC tries to pretend that all RC’s are in complete unity concerning their teachings. Do all RC’s believe that it is wrong to divorce? To use artificial birth control? Of course not. In the bible, we find that the apostles were sometimes in serious disagreement over important teachings. (see Gal. 2:11-21)

Yes, every Catholic who agrees with the Church agrees on every aspect of Faith and Morals that the Church deems the least bit important. Those who disagree with the Church’s teachings don’t deny that those are the Church’s teachings. That’s the difference. When Sola Scripturists disagree, they claim that the Scripture (and thus their concept of the Church) says what they want it to say. Thirty Sola Scripturists who disagree will tell you thirty different versions of what the Scripture/Church teaches. Any Catholic that uses birth control or advocates divorce will admit he or she is going against Church teachings…so the Church still stands as an infallible beacon to which others can look to find the right path. Sola Scriptura isn’t nearly so reliable, or else those who hold to it would similarly all perfectly agree that “Even if we don’t live by it or agree with it, this is what the Bible says” There is no such agreement, no such unity, for Sola Scripturists.

 

[mercygate]

True, my own conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed. This doesn’t nullify the source of infallible truth (the bible); it only makes the bible more necessary.

Interesting. My Protestant Bible says that “the church of the living God, [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (I Tim 3:15)

 

[mercygate]

Now this may come across as heretical but if you feel the good ol heresy alarm going off just please re-read my post and try to understand where Im coming from.

I personally don’t need scripture, neither will I provide it to my children in the future. I want to leave Scripture where it belongs, in the hands of God’s consecrated Priests and the Church.

It is my complete and utter trust that the Roman Catholic Church will not lead me astray that compells me to not even look in Scripture for justification of Catholic Doctrine.

My belief that through the Holy Spirit the Church interperts Scripture 100% correctly, nullifies any reason for myself reading the Bible aside from a seek of knowledge or historical reading.

I live the spiritual life of a meieval laymen (bible-less). I go to mass (Traditional Latin Mass), pray the Rosary, meditate on the mysteries, and obey the Church.

That is all you need to do for salvation. Scripture doesnt need to be in your life at all for you to attain spiritual completeness.

It wasnt until after I became interested in evangelizing that I began to read Scripture on a daily basis.

I dont see any increase or decrease in my faith after I began to read the Bible…just a sense of higher knowledge.

The 15 mysteries of the Rosary contain the saving message of the Gospel in a far easier, greater detailed, and thought provoking way than the actual Gospel itself.

Since we have to remember the word Gospel simply means good news…and was later used as a way to describe the books of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke.

So even though the Church teaches Scripture and Tradition…I am a staunch defender of Sola Ecclesia. My self coined term of
“The Church Alone”

Not to derail this thread, but are you in Communion with the Bishop of Rome? Y’know, the Church that quotes St. Jerome: Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ? (Don’t answer that; it’s a personal question & not allowed by the rules of the Forums).

 

[JaneFrances]

True, my own conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed. This doesn’t nullify the source of infallible truth (the bible); it only makes the bible more necessary.

I think you may be missing my point. You can not have “sola scriptura” as a rule of faith without personal “conceptions and understandings.” You do not live in a vaccum. Thus, if your “conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed,” then that would neccessitate your rule of faith is “changing and flawed.”

How do you know that God didn’t give me SS as my rule of faith?

Fair enough. I don’t know it. I presumed that your initial adherence to SS, as your rule of faith, was part of your faith tradition and not a funciton of personal Divine revelation. But, I do know that if your rule of faith contradicts 2000 years of Christian tradition and Scripture, itself, it is suspect.

Do you think it is prideful of me to trust in God’s word as my authority even though I’m a fallible interpreter of it?

No, Nick, I do not think it prideful to trust in God’s Word. However, I think you have an incomplete understanding of what comprises the Word of God.

Do you have a better idea that is less prideful?

The Church of the Living God. The authoritative one. The one that can bind and lose. The one that was built on Peter. The one that has effectively preserved the Word of God for all of Christendom. Who are the contenders?

In that case, instead of arbitrarily placing myself under the authority of Rome, I ought to be willing to learn from those who are more learned than myself.

You have a grave misconception regarding our submission to Christ through His Church. It is hardly arbitrary. For many of us, it has been a journey of acts of faith, prayer, study, dialogue, suffering, persecution, and sacrifice. Your insinuation. . .no, assertion that submission to the Church is somehow “arbitrary” is insensitive and ignorant. I wholly understand your distaste for everything “Romish”–TRUST ME, I do, but you do nothing to further this discussion by assuming that our choice is arbitrary.

What is your absolute standard for truth?

The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)

Mine is the word of God.

No, actually, by your own admission, it is only the written word.

If my whole project is to choose the version that “fits” with what I already believe, then I’m not open to the truth.

Okay. . .then, why did you choose the version that says Scripture is “sufficient”? It SEEMS as if you chose that version because it fit with your assertion that the written word is the only final authority for teaching. I could be wrong.

Yes, there are millions of others just like me who have the same “rule” but yet somehow don’t get the same answers. Only God’s grace can make me willing to believe what is true.

Amen.

Which brings us back to the issue of who, or what, is your ultimate authority?

That has already been answered. The Church.

Will you trust God to guide you to the truth

YES!!!

or will you decide by your own flawed reasoning that you “just know” that Rome is your standard of truth.

How do you know that my reasons are flawed? I haven’t given you any of my reasons.

No man can serve two masters.

Which is precisely why I am a member of the Body of Christ–he is my Head. I am His.

 

[FCEGM]

True, my own conceptions and understandings are changing and flawed. This doesn’t nullify the source of infallible truth (the bible); it only makes the bible more necessary.

The term “infallible” (unable to err) cannot be applied to Scripture itself.*Rather, “infallible” applies to the interpretation of Scripture.*The Scriptures themselves (as a matter of content) are “inerrant”, meaning that they do not contain any errors. But, infallibility is a matter of properly interpreting Scripture, and any honest Protestant must admit that most of his fellow Protestants (from his pov) misinterpret Scripture, and so are not infallible. Therefore, Protestants believe that Scripture is inerrant. They do not believe that Scripture is infallible. In this, both Catholics and Protestants agree. So, a Catholic believes that Scripture is inerrant, and that the ultimate interpreter of Scripture is the infallible Catholic Church, which is his objective standard of authority; and a Protestant believes that Scripture is inerrant, but that the ultimate interpreter of Scripture is his own subjective understanding.

How do you know that God didn’t give me SS as my rule of faith? Do you think it is prideful of me to trust in God’s word as my authority even though I’m a fallible interpreter of it? Do you have a better idea that is less prideful?

Yes, obedience to the Church that Christ established.

The difference between a living hierarchy with God’s authority to teach and a non-living text left for each fallible individual to come up with his best and figure it out for himself is that there is no obedience of faith in the latter, but each individual controls what he will accept, i.e., no surrender to another, only satisfaction of his own judgment. This not only fostering pride of mind, but it is unhistorical and inhuman. We learn about God’s Revelation from being taught by the Church, even that there IS a bible or what books are in it. An inert text can not speak to new circumstances and problems by itself. Someone needs to apply it to the subsequent times and places. If the fallible individual does that on his own (unheard of in the early Church - except by heretics!) error follows. When the Church authoritatively proclaims what is Revelation there is infallible teaching.

 

[Damascus]

Good News Nick!

I just found out you were right about the Reformation!
There really is no date to it!

Because no one has succeded in Reforming the Church!

No one. ITs still the way it always was!

Whew. What a relief. I thought someone was actually able to Reform the Church.

Thank Jesus Christ he never allowed it.

Thanks Nick. You opened my eyes to it finally.

The “reformers” are merely ones who willfully and pridefully think they can put the name Church on a building and it makes it the Church.
It makes it ANOTHER church. Not the Church.

Big difference. Wow.

 

[jonfan]

Hi Nick,
If you go on Scirpture Alone then you must take a look at the following verse:

2 These 2
2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

*Traditions… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles. *

newadvent.org/bible/2th002.htm

God bless,
Jon

 

[Nick_Jones]

Interesting. My Protestant Bible says that “the church of the living God, [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (I Tim 3:15)

And I say, Amen!

 

[Nick_Jones]

To say this is to say that Christ never really founded a useful Church (one that can actually guide the flock with which Christ trusted It).

What is the church without the bible? Could the church know the truth? What is it that keeps the church in the truth if not the written word?

Instead, that’s to say He founded a Bible (the New Testament of which was never put together until over 300 years after He died–all references to Scripture in the NT are OT quotes) and then told a bunch of people who believed in Him “Hope you come to the right conclusions based on this book that I in my infinite knowledge know you’ll find 30,000 different ways to interpret…and remember, for the first 300 years or so, you won’t even have that in it’s entirety! Good luck!” Such a “hope you get it right” view of how Christ founded the Church seems more like He wanted the gates of Hell to prevail against His apparently poorly armed Church. That’s not a healthy view of Christ’s intentions at all.

God didn’t leave things to chance. If the early church was “apparently poorly armed” why did it grow at such a rapid rate during those first three centuries?

Perhaps there would be a little more credibility to the “Holy Spirit leads us even though we’re not unified under any Visible Church” argument if all Sola Scripturists happened to agree on everything of any doctrinal significance, throughout the ages, unbroken and continuously…but that is not the reality. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t contradict Himself. If one Church is perfectly Unified, and in unbroken, continous history, and another church is disunified or hasn’t that continuously united history, which Church do you suppose is most likely heeding the Holy Spirit?

How does it discredit the Holy Spirit (and the church) that so many different religions and denominations keep popping up all over the world? Was this not forseen and predicted in the bible?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi Nick,
If you go on Scirpture Alone then you must take a look at the following verse:

2 These 2
2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

*Traditions… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles. *

newadvent.org/bible/2th002.htm

God bless,
Jon

Could you define the word, “traditions” as you understand it in the verse above? I just want a clear idea as to what is and isn’t part of these “traditions.”