My rule of faith

[Nick_Jones]

Actually, your original assertion is that the “bible alone” ought to be our guide. As Catholics, we would wholly agree that Scripture is authoritative and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in holiness. But we do not limit God’s Holy Word to a book.

Neither do the Mormons.

As I understand your position, you have concluded that the “bible alone” is your personal rule of faith, however, our contention is that your personal rule is inconsistent with Scripture and historical Christianity. Apart from one verse, in one insufficient translation (which isn’t consistent with other standard versions), you have provided no real proof to support your “rule of faith.”

And you have provided no better alternative to Scripture alone. Can you explain how it is possible for **you to know **that SS is inconsistent with Scripture? If you’re going to tell me that you know SS is inconsistent with Scripture because Rome says it is, then can you explain how you came to know that Rome is your infallible teaching authority? If you tell me that you know that Rome is your infallible teaching authority from your study of history, can you explain why your interpretation of history is infallible even though your interpretation of scripture is not trustworthy (without the help of an infallible teaching authority)?

 

[Nick_Jones]

The shepard is real and on earth today … the Church and Christ are one in the same. No … I still think you trust yourself more.

How did you come to know (infallibly) that your church and Christ are one in the same? No … I still think you trust yourself more.

 

[mercygate]

The issue of unity is a very important one. So I will challenge **all of you **to demonstrate that those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture plus an infallible teaching authority” as their rule of faith are in greater doctrinal unity than those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture alone” as their rule of faith.

For starters, there actually is an identifiable body of doctrine. The crux of the matter is not about how many individual people agree on what points of doctrine.

Often, people who rely on Scripture alone use the old cant: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” But there is wide disagreement about what is “essential.” Infant vs. believer’s baptism? Ecclesiology? Hypostatic Union? (OK: everyone agrees on that one), Apostolic succession? Two Sacraments? Seven Sacraments? No Sacraments? OSAS? Free will? Original Sin?

The Unity of the Church resides in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Unity of her teaching goes back to Apostolic succession and to the charism and authority to teach mentioned in earlier posts. Unity of belief resides in the Apostolic teaching. Catholics who personally dissent from Magisterial teaching are usually not sitting in the Bishop’s chair (sometimes they are but seldom) Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit that the Apostles “all might be one” in Him and in the Father.

We often use the image of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride. The Bride and the Bridegroom are one flesh.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Tolle, lege!

If you won’t bother looking at the links, I don’t see any reason to continue discussion with you. You are not interested in dialogue; you are interested in converting us to your heresy.

 

[Damascus]

Nick, I do want to know what your proffession is since you say you wouldnt want to know…

I am curious how old you may be. I am going to guess here…

Why does it matter? It doesnt. I dont even want you to answer it.

I just think your philosophy interest stated in your profile is telling here.

Your philosophy, your rule of faith,

You like to have control over things dont you Nick?

Its impossible to be in control as a Christian Nick.

Stop trying to get anyone interested in your religion Nick.

No One is going to take a bite of that poison.

Jesus Christ has is in control. He is the only one.

You are taking risky chances by telling him to step back and let you take the wheel Nick.

He does not like getting pushed around Nick.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Tolle, lege!

If you won’t bother looking at the links, I don’t see any reason to continue discussion with you. You are not interested in dialogue; you are interested in converting us to your heresy.

Hi Augustinian,

I have just read your link above. I am aware of the problems of individual interpretation of the bible. I have not been slow to admit my own fallibility when it comes to interpreting the bible.

Has the CC solved this problem? Is it even reasonable to claim that God wouldn’t found His church in such a way that men differ in many of their doctrines? Well, why not? If God allows much of the world’s population to live in total ignorance of biblical truth (Hindu, Islam, etc.) then why is it strange that Catholics are divided against Catholics, Protestants are divided against Protestants, and Muslims are divided against Muslims even over significant teachings?

 

[ncgolf]

How did you come to know (infallibly) that your church and Christ are one in the same? No … I still think you trust yourself more.

I dont know it infallibly, I know it by faith and by reason. Christ left something real, tangible and of himself … that is what you must find and it does exist!

We often use the image of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride. The Bride and the Bridegroom are one flesh.

Nick, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[mercygate]

How did you come to know (infallibly) that your church and Christ are one in the same? No … I still think you trust yourself more.

The real question is not about infallible personal knowledge or about whether the Church of Rome and Christ are one and the same as if Rome were one of a number of more or less equivalent choices. The first question is whether you know there is any church at all. This is something you seem to affirm.

Once you come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as the church, the discernment becomes a matter of eliminating the various claimants based on the available evidence.

No Protestant body even tries to claim to be “THE Church.” So that reduces the pool considerably.

The Orthodox, collectively, in their scattered way, claim to be “the true Church,” – on the same grounds the Catholic Church makes the claim. In fact, their claim is so accurate that the Catholic Church recognizes them as True Particular Churches by virtue of their theology and their authentic Apostolic Succession. But they do not share a formal unity that allows them to come together to deliberate definitively on critical questions.

The unique claim made by Rome is that the Bishop of Rome holds a unique place in the college of all Bishops in the Apostolic Churches and that the full unity of THE Church resides in communion with the Apostolic See. This claim is based on Scripture, as we have pointed out several times.

History, Scripture, and reason all support the conclusion that the if one accepts the idea that there is a thing called “the Church” – then there is really only one candidate for the title. Basically: If you claim to be a Church, and if you claim that on Scriptural grounds, and if Peter is not in your house of bishops, then your claim lacks the key (pun intended) to the whole proposition.

 

[ncgolf]

I was looking at the title of your thread and something hit me. It is the word MY. That is a tough word to get out of the vocabulary. It isn’t my will be done or my rule, it needs to be your will be done or your rule. You are looking at it from the wrong point of view. When one starts saying Your will be done one sees things in a different light. The hard part of seeking the truth is finding it and subjecting yourself to it. You will never see this the way a Catholic does until the My becomes a Your.

 

[KindredSoul]

The issue of unity is a very important one. So I will challenge **all of you **to demonstrate that those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture plus an infallible teaching authority” as their rule of faith are in greater doctrinal unity than those religious systems that adhere to “Scripture alone” as their rule of faith.

Alright, Nick…show me the source that you look to for firm, explicit (not just a feeling) guidance on controversial issues in those cases when the Bible can be made to say contradictory things, even by people honestly seeking the truth…show me a reliable source to look to that has existed since the beginning of Christianity (unlike even the Canonized New Testament, which didn’t exist until some 300 years later). Scripture obviously doesn’t count…even the most strict of Sola Scripturists will admit exactly what we’ve all been saying; that the canonized New Testament has not existed from the very beginning. Only someone who refuses to believe the undeniable truth would argue otherwise. So what is that source, for you, Nick? Better still, what would’ve been your source before the New Testament was put together and existed only as scattered books, before the Catholic Church was shown which were sacred? Catholics look to the Church, now and forever; Catholics had the Church to look to for truth before the New Testament was even put together. If Sola Scripturists were correct, there was nothing to look to before that time. Whether Catholics obey the Church or not is not a wound to Catholic doctrinal unity; in other words, no matter how many Catholics rebel (such as many do with divorce and birth control), the Church’s teachings are clear. This is significant…because even though many Catholics may excommunicate themselves from that perfect unity, any sincere Catholic knows what beliefs and morals are necessary to belong to that Unity.

However, Protestants have no such thing. If 30,000 Protestants disagree on what the Bible says, even if they are honestly seeking it but just unable to decipher it, the Bible cannot tell them “No, you’re reading me all wrong, this is what I really mean.” However, if 30,000 Catholics disagree on what the Church says, the Church can indeed say “Allow me to clear this up, here is precisely what I meant to say…” and all 30,000 Catholics can clearly know the right way, if they’re honestly trying to find it.

 

[reggieM]

I was looking at the title of your thread and something hit me. It is the word MY. That is a tough word to get out of the vocabulary. It isn’t my will be done or my rule, it needs to be your will be done or your rule. You are looking at it from the wrong point of view. When one starts saying Your will be done one sees things in a different light. The hard part of seeking the truth is finding it and subjecting yourself to it. You will never see this the way a Catholic does until the My becomes a Your.

That’s the essential point. The person claiming that the Bible is his personal rule of faith, is merely following his own opinion. He is not accountable to anything outside of himself. He becomes the authority to decide what the rule of faith is or isn’t. He takes the Bible to himself and there is no greater authority in religion that he submits to.

That’s why Protestantism is really a form of “rationalism”. It subjects everything to the individual and the Bible is judged and interpreted based on whatever personal standard the person wants to use. There’s really no reason for pastors or teachers because they don’t carry any authority except as head of a congregation. But they can teach one thing or another – it’s up to the individual believer to decide what to accept.

When asked why they believe whatever … the answer is “because I concluded …” – never because they were taught by an authority given by God to teach the truth.

It is total subjectivity. It can’t even be proven by reading the Bible that the Bible should be read literally. Why not interpret it in the most symbolic and figurative way possible? There’s nothing to stop a person from just choosing whatever they want and ignoring the rest. Of course, that’s exactly what happens in thousands of Protestant Churches anyway – one more liberal than the other, until you basically have no belief – all from private interpretation of the Bible!

 

[JaneFrances]

And you have provided no better alternative to Scripture alone.

Actually, I haven’t provided the alternative. The Church, the pillar and bullwark of truth, is God’s “alternative” to the chaos of millions of popes choosing on their own, according to their own fallible ideas, what His Word means. The Church has without fail protected and preserved Sacred Scripture for 2000 years.

Can you explain how it is possible for **you to know **that SS is inconsistent with Scripture?

I could. . .but since this thread particularly pertains to the pitfalls of “bible alone” as YOUR rule of faith, perhaps we should start there. You still haven’t explained your position beyond one inaccurate translation of Scripture, your distaste for the Catholic Church, and your own inclinations.

But, since you asked . . .I’ll bite. SS is inconsistent with Scripture because it denies the very rule of faith provided by Scripture. SS is inconsistent with Scripture because it is extra-Scriptural and, in fact, wholly un-Scriptural.

If you’re going to tell me that you know SS is inconsistent with Scripture because Rome says it is, then can you explain how you came to know that Rome is your infallible teaching authority?

No, actually, I wasn’t going to tell you any of that at all. You must have me mistaken for someone else.

SS has to stand or fall on its own premise. The premise being, according to your definition, that the bible alone is the final authority for teaching. Nowhere in Scripture does it claim to be the “final authority for teaching,” so how can one have a “final authority” that doesn’t claim to be a “final authority”?

If you tell me that you know that Rome is your infallible teaching authority from your study of history, can you explain why your interpretation of history is infallible even though your interpretation of scripture is not trustworthy (without the help of an infallible teaching authority)?

First, “Rome” isn’t infallible. Rome is a city in Italy. You need to do some research on what is or is not infallible, what infalliblity means, and how it applies to Scriptural interpretation. Otherwise, your assertions are not pertinent.

Second, it is irresponsible to equate historical interpretation to interpretation of the Word of God.

Third, I’d be glad to have a discussion on historical facts, using sources and direct quotations, if you want, but it seems rather tangental at this point as you have yet to substantiate your own position.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, I haven’t provided the alternative. The Church, the pillar and bullwark of truth, is God’s “alternative” to the chaos of millions of popes choosing on their own, according to their own fallible ideas, what His Word means. The Church has without fail protected and preserved Sacred Scripture for 2000 years.

I could. . .but since this thread particularly pertains to the pitfalls of “bible alone” as YOUR rule of faith, perhaps we should start there. You still haven’t explained your position beyond one inaccurate translation of Scripture, your distaste for the Catholic Church, and your own inclinations.

But, since you asked . . .I’ll bite. SS is inconsistent with Scripture because it denies the very rule of faith provided by Scripture. SS is inconsistent with Scripture because it is extra-Scriptural and, in fact, wholly un-Scriptural.

No, actually, I wasn’t going to tell you any of that at all. You must have me mistaken for someone else.

SS has to stand or fall on its own premise. The premise being, according to your definition, that the bible alone is the final authority for teaching. Nowhere in Scripture does it claim to be the “final authority for teaching,” so how can one have a “final authority” that doesn’t claim to be a “final authority”?

First, “Rome” isn’t infallible. Rome is a city in Italy. You need to do some research on what is or is not infallible, what infalliblity means, and how it applies to Scriptural interpretation. Otherwise, your assertions are not pertinent.

Second, it is irresponsible to equate historical interpretation to interpretation of the Word of God.

Third, I’d be glad to have a discussion on historical facts, using sources and direct quotations, if you want, but it seems rather tangental at this point as you have yet to substantiate your own position.

I’m impressed by your response.

 

[Nick_Jones]

No Protestant body even tries to claim to be “THE Church.” So that reduces the pool considerably.

True, most Protestants will say that their denomination is only a part of the church. But I don’t see how this helps your argument.

 

[JaneFrances]

True, most Protestants will say that their denomination is only a part of the church. But I don’t see how this helps your argument.

It helps, because there is only one Church.

Denominationalism is a wound to the Body. Denominations are not “part” of the Church. People are.

There are vast and serious differences among the numerous denominations which indicate a systemic flaw in denomiationalism. According to Sacred Scripture, this is not indicative of the message of Christ.

The Church is a real and visible Body. She is meant to be authoritative. She is meant to be unified in faith and thought.

Again, who are the contenders?

 

[Nick_Jones]

However, Protestants have no such thing. If 30,000 Protestants disagree on what the Bible says, even if they are honestly seeking it but just unable to decipher it, the Bible cannot tell them “No, you’re reading me all wrong, this is what I really mean.”

Do you really believe that people who are honestly seeking it (the truth found in the bible) and it is necessary for salvation, they might fail to find it?

 

[Nick_Jones]

That’s the essential point. The person claiming that the Bible is his personal rule of faith, is merely following his own opinion. He is not accountable to anything outside of himself. He becomes the authority to decide what the rule of faith is or isn’t. He takes the Bible to himself and there is no greater authority in religion that he submits to.

That’s why Protestantism is really a form of “rationalism”. It subjects everything to the individual and the Bible is judged and interpreted based on whatever personal standard the person wants to use. There’s really no reason for pastors or teachers because they don’t carry any authority except as head of a congregation. But they can teach one thing or another – it’s up to the individual believer to decide what to accept.

When asked why they believe whatever … the answer is “because I concluded …” – never because they were taught by an authority given by God to teach the truth.

It is total subjectivity. It can’t even be proven by reading the Bible that the Bible should be read literally. Why not interpret it in the most symbolic and figurative way possible? There’s nothing to stop a person from just choosing whatever they want and ignoring the rest. Of course, that’s exactly what happens in thousands of Protestant Churches anyway – one more liberal than the other, until you basically have no belief – all from private interpretation of the Bible!

This, of course is all just your own personal and subjective opinion, which in your post above you seem to be so critical of!

You have been given a challenge. Can you demonstrate that those religious systems that adhere to “scripture plus an infallible teaching authority” as their rule of faith are more doctrinally unified than those religious systems that adhere to “scripture alone” as their rule of faith?

What is it about your choice for a rule of faith that avoids the problem of merely following your own opinion? Did someone make your decision for you?

 

[mercygate]

Do you really believe that people who are honestly seeking it (the truth found in the bible) and it is necessary for salvation, they might fail to find it?

Well, I was just looking through the flyer the JWs are giving out in a massive campaign called, *The End of False Religion is Near! *JWs are convinced that they have the truth, and hold the Bible to be inerrant. The flyer tells us that Jesus taught that we would be resurrected, which would be unnecessary if human beings have an immortal soul.

So, yes. I really believe that people, who are honestly seeking biblical truth, can most assuredly fail to find it. The Bible is a complex, multifaceted collection of books written over a period of more than 1000 years. It is full of apparently impossible events and seemingly contradictory statements. Much of it is extremely sketchy, leaving room for a wide spectrum of interpretation. The idea that a single person, outside of communion with the Body of Christ, could possibly figure it out – short of a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, which happens so seldom as to be notable – is both vain and naive.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It helps, because there is only one Church.

Denominationalism is a wound to the Body. Denominations are not “part” of the Church. People are.

There are vast and serious differences among the numerous denominations which indicate a systemic flaw in denomiationalism. According to Sacred Scripture, this is not indicative of the message of Christ.

The Church is a real and visible Body. She is meant to be authoritative. She is meant to be unified in faith and thought.

Again, who are the contenders?

There is only one church that is teaching what the prophets and the apostles taught. Did any of the prophets and apostles teach that mother Mary never sinned? That the church was founded upon St. Peter, or that indulgences are helpful to get loved ones out of purgatory sooner?

 

[mercygate]

There is only one church that is teaching what the prophets and the apostles taught. Did any of the prophets and apostles teach that mother Mary never sinned? That the church was founded upon St. Peter, or that indulgences are helpful to get loved ones out of purgatory sooner?

Nick: it is Jesus who teaches that his Church will be built upon Peter. (Mt. 16, Jn 21, Lk 18). The other points you mention are not contradictory to Scripture in any way.