My rule of faith

[mercygate]

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?

You are designating the evaluation of evidence as “opinion.” Most of us who argue for the historical/rational view of the Church would probably define the word “opinion” as a view that is held without such witness.

You maintain that the witness of history, of doctrinal continuity/development, of scriptural consistency, taken all together still amount to nothing more than “personal opinion.”

I dunno. I guess you’ve got us there. My “personal opinion” is that all of the above constitute a far more reliable basis for trust, and a far more workable means for the Holy Spirit to guide the faithful in communion and in contnuity with the Apostolic charism than an isolated seeker’s confidence that, unaided, just reading the Book, he will be guided “into all the Truth.” That would be completely unscriptural. And it would definitely be an example of “My Holy Spirit can beat up your Holy Spirit!”

 

[Little_Mary]

Look, I know all you guys are deeeeep in this conversation and you’ve ignored my previous two posts - but that’s OK - I guess I’m interrupting in a way, but…

Please, Please get the CD’s I have recommended and listen to them. Then come back and let us know what you think.

www.biblechristiansociety.com

Order, specificallly, the Cd’s intitled: ** Sola Scriptura, Sola Fida, One Church, and Apostolic Authority. **I understand that you still might not agree with them, but at least YOU will understand why the Catholic Church is the one true religion, AND you will understand the bible as it pertains to that fact.

Thank you.

 

[JaneFrances]

There is only one church that is teaching what the prophets and the apostles taught.

Which one is that, Nick?

Did any of the prophets and apostles teach that mother Mary never sinned?

Great question. . .start a new thread on it! For starters, I’ll bet that you would be quite surprised that the Blessed Mother and her sinlessness is indeed present in the Hebraic prophesies.

That the church was founded upon St. Peter, or that indulgences are helpful to get loved ones out of purgatory sooner?

Again, great questions. …start new threads!

I understand your desparation to find something. . .anything. . .that would discredit the Catholic faith! Really, Nick, I do. I get it. If you really are interested in getting the answers to the questions you have asked, please do start new threads on them and I’m sure you will have all the resourced answers you could ever want.

BUT. . .don’t drop this ball. Your contention is that the “the bible alone” is your final authority. Again, beyond one inaccurate translation of a one verse of Sacred Scripture, your personal biases, and your own admittedly flawed “conceptions and understandings” you have yet to provide one minutia of evidence to prove that your “rule of faith” is viable.

Your rule of faith, “the bible alone,” is not Scriptural. It is not consistent with historical Christianity. And it has not served as a sign of unity among the children of God.

 

[JaneFrances]

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?

Let’s start even earlier than that, Nick. . .what about all the honestly seeking people who lived without a printed, leather-bound translated Bible? How was it that they were to find the truth? Hpw were they supposed to come to know what is and is not “necessary for salvation”?

In your assumption that “the bible alone” is enough, you have overlooked a good 300 years of Christian history. A large chunk of time during which honest seekers found truth without a Bible. How’d they do that?

Here’s the thing, Nick. . .even honest seekers fail. Not because the Bible is lacking. Not because God’s sovereign grace is insufficient. Not because we are aren’t “learned” enough to understand the written word. But simply because we are weak and human and too often we prefer our will over God’s. We like the idea that we can go it alone. . .we like the thought of independently coming to the truth without the meddling hand of an authority. . .we like self-sufficiency… . .and we don’t like self-denial. And although we would like to relish the thought of “me, the bible, and the Holy Spirit,” we know deep down that it is just a fancy. It is not truth. In 2000 years of Christianity, this was never the case. Christ gave us a Church to guide us. He gave us shepherds to call us. He gave us everything we would need to know him. He even sent his Holy Spirit to inspire the hand of willing servants, but he never said that Scripture is enough. That’s the pitfall of your rule of faith, Nick.

 

[KindredSoul]

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?

JaneFrances’ answer is excellent…and there’s no need to elaborate more on why people indeed can fail to find the Truth, even if they’re honestly seeking, without some central guidance.

That said, now perhaps you can address the rest of my post (Post #150) that you were responding to with that response. There was a lot to that post…and you only answered one tiny part of it, by changing the subject at that. Your answer is similar to if I asked you “Did you ever get a diploma” and you said “Are you saying I need a diploma?” Valid question…but prematurely asked: We should first establish whether or not you have a diploma before we worry about what it means if you don’t. The same thing is true of the way you’re answering some of our posts (by changing the subject to something relevant but that doesn’t answer the issue), so I for one would appreciate it if you’d reread my post and actually answer the issues. You have the answer to your ahead-of-yourself question; now let’s back up a step and find out your take on the things you didn’t answer.

 

[reggieM]

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?

Doctrinal unity for a “system” that states that all doctrine emerges from the subjective opinion of the believer is quite simple, isn’t it? Certainly, atheists have doctrinal unity, if that’s what you’re arguing.

The problem is that I cannot discern what a Protestant’s doctrine is. The Protestant is not required to submit to any Rule of Faith aside from what he gives to himself from whatever sources he uses.

The challenge goes back to you – what is your “religious system”? Where did it come from?

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

I did not create my rule of faith. That’s pretty simple. I chose to submit to a rule of faith that was given by others who had the authority to give it. In your case (as I assume), you created the rule of faith that you follow. The question is not about choosing a rule, but in creating it or not. I did not create the Catholic tradition – I merely submit to it. Why? Because I was not given the authority by God to create a rule of faith for people (myself) to follow. I was given, however, a rule from the teachers authoritzed by Christ to teach His Gospel.

Did someone make your decision for you

You’re confusing the essential point. You believe that the subjectivity involved is in “making a decision” on a rule of faith. But that’s not the issue. The problem of subjectivity is in “creating” the rule of faith for yourself. Protestantism is a do-it-yourself religion. You are not only the decision maker, but you are the “doctrine maker”.

That is Protestantism – permitting each person to create their own “rule of faith” based on whatever doctrine they want.

Protestantism is not even a “religious system”. It’s a non-system. It’s subjective not only in the choice (clearly you think I’m denying that Catholics have any subjective decision-making opportunities) – but in what they want to believe.

For the Protestant, the Sacred Word is subjected to their own personal tribunal – to accept or reject whatever they see fit. There is no external authority, given by God, to state definitively what the doctrine is. Each Protestant is a Pope of their own private “religious system”.

Can you refer me to someone who you believe has more religious authority than you do? By that I mean a person who you believe has the authority to command you to believe a Christian doctrine and you will believe it simply because that person told you to?

 

[StCsDavid]

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

A very wise priest I know gave a homily recently where he pointed out that the opposite of “faith” is “certainty.” It appears to me that most of the sola scriptura crowd operate in a world not of faith, but of certainty that the Bible is all that there is. They are so certain of this that they leave no room for doubt, which is a part of faith. Yet ask them to show you where in the Bible it says that sola scriptura is all that there is and they don’t know for certain where to find it and end up quoting the Bible out of context.

Truth is the best rule of faith if that is what you are looking for. The evidence is overwhelming that Christ entrusted His Church to carry out His plan; that Tradition plays an equally important part in our understanding; and that the Bible is indeed the living word of God.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Look, I know all you guys are deeeeep in this conversation and you’ve ignored my previous two posts - but that’s OK - I guess I’m interrupting in a way, but…

Please, Please get the CD’s I have recommended and listen to them. Then come back and let us know what you think.

www.biblechristiansociety.com

Order, specificallly, the Cd’s intitled: ** Sola Scriptura, Sola Fida, One Church, and Apostolic Authority. **I understand that you still might not agree with them, but at least YOU will understand why the Catholic Church is the one true religion, AND you will understand the bible as it pertains to that fact.

Thank you.

I’m sorry if I seemed to ignore your posts. I do plan to order the CD’s. I can’t respond to every posting because of time limitations, but I do value your (name removed by moderator)ut very much.

Thanks again,

Nick

 

[Nick_Jones]

So, yes. I really believe that people, who are honestly seeking biblical truth, can most assuredly fail to find it.

Matt. 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

Prov. 8:17 “I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.”

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.

How seldom is “so seldom as to be notable”? It seems to me that if it is up the the Holy Spirit (which I believe it is) then it is not really for us to say whether or not this gift is too seldomly given.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Nick: it is Jesus who teaches that his Church will be built upon Peter. (Mt. 16, Jn 21, Lk 18).

(1Corinthians 3:10-11)
“By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

I understand your desparation to find something. . .anything. . .that would discredit the Catholic faith! Really, Nick, I do. I get it. If you really are interested in getting the answers to the questions you have asked, please do start new threads on them and I’m sure you will have all the resourced answers you could ever want.

The whole project of the CC is self discrediting. I don’t have to make any effort to “find” things that discredit the CC, it reveals itself to be a false religious system in the same way that the JW’s, Mormons, the Moonies, and a hundred others who claim to be the true church:

**By the way their entire focus is on the legitimacy of their own particular religious sect. ** By contrast, the church that is founded upon Jesus only exists to bring honor and glory to God. Our whole purpose is to obediently preach the Truth to the world for the sake of Christ…to the glory of God.

 

[KindredSoul]

Matt. 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

Prov. 8:17 “I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.”

John 16: 2-- “They will expel you freom the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.”

Obviously, if the people thought they were offering worship to God, they believed that they were making an honest effort to seek the truth…yet they were obviously capable of getting it wrong.

Mark 13: 5-6–Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name saying, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.” (emphasis mine)

Clearly, the people being deceived think they are following Christ…that’s the reason they’re said to be deceived instead of intentionally following a false Christ. It’s clearly possible, then, that an honest seeker can be deceived…I’m not in any way trying to offend Sola Scripturists with this comparisont…but if it’s possible for honest seekers to follow the chief enemies of God, it’s possible for them to miss the Truth.

As for your scripture quotes, they can’t be dismissed…indeed, those who honestly seek the answer will have it before them. But that doesn’t mean they will accept it, and they may even reject it though they are honestly seeking, as proven by the above verses. They could just fail to be convinced. Most Sola Scripturists have some knowledge of the Catholic Faith. The answer is there before them. However, most simply don’t want to believe in the Catholic Faith. It goes against some of their deepest teachings (Sola Scriptura, Rejection of Heirarchy, Etc.) and interpretations of the Bible, so they go into the search with blinders on. They “know” that the Catholic Church simply can’t be right before they even get into the search, and they may be consciously unaware of this handicap.

I believe that if anyone seeks into the Church with no counter-Catholic preconceptions (admittedly a hard thing to do) that such a person will find the Truth in it.

 

[ncgolf]

The whole project of the CC is self discrediting. I don’t have to make any effort to “find” things that discredit the CC, it reveals itself to be a false religious system in the same way that the JW’s, Mormons, the Moonies, and a hundred others who claim to be the true church:

**By the way their entire focus is on the legitimacy of their own particular religious sect. ** By contrast, the church that is founded upon Jesus only exists to bring honor and glory to God. Our whole purpose is to obediently preach the Truth to the world for the sake of Christ…to the glory of God.

People give you sound, logical, thougtful responses and this is your only response, which is a little above, “Oh yea your mom wears combat boots.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

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…

I reject this whole premise–that there are “cases when the Bible can be made to say contradictory things, even by people honestly seeking the truth…”

 

[KindredSoul]

The whole project of the CC is self discrediting. I don’t have to make any effort to “find” things that discredit the CC, it reveals itself to be a false religious system in the same way that the JW’s, Mormons, the Moonies, and a hundred others who claim to be the true church:

First of all, if you know things that discredit the Church, you must be willing to state these things so that people here have a chance to refute it…you can’t just say “It’s out there and obvious” because we don’t know what you think discredits us.

**By the way their entire focus is on the legitimacy of their own particular religious sect. ** By contrast, the church that is founded upon Jesus only exists to bring honor and glory to God. Our whole purpose is to obediently preach the Truth to the world for the sake of Christ…to the glory of God.

Galatians 1: 8 - But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

Considering that the Church considers all the Catholic Doctrine to be parts, both big and small, of the Full Gospel, shouldn’t we have some focus on the legitimacy of our beliefs? Paul seemed very anxious to legitimize his “particular religious” teachings (Keep in mind, those beliefs he was attacking were indeed claiming to be Christ centered…but they were different than what Paul and the Apostles were teaching. I imagine that the enemies of Paul would’ve said he was nitpicking and focusing on his “particular religious sect” instead of preaching “for the glory of God.” So when people accuse the Catholic Church of the same, I think we’re in good company.

Also, to say that such a focus is our only concern is horribly untrue. The Catholic Church has missionaries as well…we evangelize others; we feed the poor; we do all this and more. And considering that we believe God instituted the Catholic Church, to focus on the Truth thereof is to bring God glory. To accuse us of caring more about the Church’s Truth than God’s Truth is the same as accusing all of Christianity of caring more about the Bible’s Truth than God’s Truth. The point of this comparison? There is no separation. We believe the Church’s Truth is God’s Truth.

 

[Nick_Jones]

People give you sound, logical, thougtful responses and this is your only response, which is a little above, “Oh yea your mom wears combat boots.”

I meant no disrespect. I’m only trying to demonstrate what appears to be the common theme that separates the church (of Jesus Christ) from all of the rest who are calling themselves the true church. Did the early church in the book of Acts have a name? Were they called “Catholic”?

It is my opinion that the name is of little importance. The purpose (mission) of the church is very important. I would avoid any “church” that spends lots of time, money, and effort to convince people that it must be the true church. Instead, I would think that people who desire to worship Jesus in Spirit and Truth will know that particular religious institutions (or sects) will be recognized as legitimate or false by their fruit.

 

[KindredSoul]

I reject this whole premise–that there are “cases when the Bible can be made to say contradictory things, even by people honestly seeking the truth…”

In that case, all Sola Scripturists would believe exactly the same things, and there would be absolutely no contradictions among all Sola Scripturists…unless, of course, you’re accusing the grand majority of Sola Scripturists of not being honest…if that’s what you’re saying, looks like somebody can read minds. That’s far more prideful than the Catholic viewpoint. The Catholic viewpoint may say that Non-Catholics are honestly mistaken. That’s not a slap to their personal Character. It just says they’re human, and like all of us can get it wrong without the right guidance.

But what you have just said goes a step further–anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible in such a way as to* contradict *it isn’t even honestly mistaken; they’re mistaken deliberately…either they are or you are. Either way, one of you is deliberately trying to be wrong, if one rejects the premise that honest seekers can come to contradictory conclusions.

 

[Nick_Jones]

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.

The reliable source that has existed since the beginning of Christianity is the Holy Spirit.

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.”

According to the bible, it isn’t possible that 30,000 Protestants can disagree on what the Bible says, if they are honestly seeking the Truth.

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.

The problem here is that you (and the CC) are placing the burden of salvation on the lost, prideful, and sinful individual. If I’m a lost sinner who is not really capable of interpreting the bible reliably, how will I know that the CC teaches correctly?

The bible tells us that we were “dead in sin” and the solution to our dead condition is not more of our own futile and perverse reasoning, it is the grace of God, which makes individuals aware of their sinful and lost condition, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they are enabled to hunger for the Truth… and only then, will they find it.

 

[KindredSoul]

The reliable source that has existed since the beginning of Christianity is the Holy Spirit.

Indeed…no Catholic will argue with that…but now, tell me, how did people know what the Holy Spirit, as opposed to their own human flawed minds, was saying to them, not only regarding the scripture, but regarding the Truth before the Scripture was put together? To Catholics, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, now as it did even before the New Testament was complete. In what way do Sola Scripturists believe the Holy Spirit’s teachings are to be recognized, including in those times before the Scripture was complete?

According to the bible, it isn’t possible that 30,000 Protestants can disagree on what the Bible says, if they are honestly seeking the Truth.

I have posted another post recently that deals with what the Bible says on the possibility of honest seekers being deceived…you’ll know which post I mean when you read it, even if you don’t particularly agree.

The problem here is that you (and the CC) are placing the burden of salvation on the lost and sinful individual. The bible tells us that we were “dead in sin” and the solution to our dead condition is not more of our own futile and perverse reasoning, it is the grace of God, which makes individuals aware of their sinful and lost condition, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they are enabled to seek the Truth and they find it.

You’re right that the burden of salvation doesn’t rest on the lost and sinful individual; therefore, contrary to what you’ve said about Catholics, we do *not *rely on our own futile and perverse reasoning to tell us what the Holy Spirit is trying to say to us. We listen to the Church that Christ instituted as the infallible vessel of the Holy Spirit’s teachings in doctrinal and ethical matters. Ironically, with this last point you almost made an argument for Catholicism instead of against it.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I said, "I reject this whole premise–that there are “cases when the Bible can be made to say contradictory things, even by people honestly seeking the truth…”

In that case, all Sola Scripturists would believe exactly the same things, and there would be absolutely no contradictions among all Sola Scripturists…unless, of course, you’re accusing the grand majority of Sola Scripturists of not being honest…if that’s what you’re saying, looks like somebody can read minds. That’s far more prideful than the Catholic viewpoint. The Catholic viewpoint may say that Non-Catholics are honestly mistaken. That’s not a slap to their personal Character. It just says they’re human, and like all of us can get it wrong without the right guidance.

It is possible for God to reveal some truth to me without making me to know all the truth contained in the bible.

It is also possible that the “some truth” that God has imparted to me is enough for my salvation. If this seems prideful of me, I’d like to hear why it is prideful.