My rule of faith

[Nick_Jones]

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?

You will know **by the fruit **of the Holy Spirit. I was an atheist. And I was just as surprised at my changed attitudes and **my changed life **as my family and friends were.

 

[ncgolf]

You will know **by the fruit **of the Holy Spirit. I was an atheist. And I was just as surprised at my changed attitudes and **my changed life **as my family and friends were.

You should watch a show called Journey Home on EWTN. For many, if not most, of the guests the last place they wanted to be was the Catholic Church. Some of the people say, and I paraphrase, I believe in you Jesus but pleeeaasssee dont make me a Catholic. They laugh now but at the time it was gut wrenching for each of them. I am afraid your journey is not yet complete, in fact, as with each of us it is just beginning.

 

[KindredSoul]

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…”

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.

Perhaps prideful is too strong a word…I doubt highly that this was your intention; I am (sincerely) sorry if I sounded accusational or offensive.

You will know by the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I was an atheist. And I was just as surprised at my changed attitudes and my changed life as my family and friends were.

Consider, what does it mean if a Buddhist exemplifies love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control? These are the fruits of the Spirit…but does their presence in the life of people of other faiths mean that those people have correctly attained the Truth? It seems to me that they show that the Buddhist has indeed attained the truth insofar that (as Christ taught) these are the admirable qualities in a good person, and are the way that people should live…however, no Christian will say that the Buddhist has attained the full Truth, or even close. (Only using that as an example, not trying to single out Buddhists or anything).

By the way, congratulations on your conversion…while we may believe that the Fullness of the Truth is found only in the Catholic Church, we do indeed consider you a Brother in Christ, a Christian, for as long as you are indeed honestly seeking and not deliberately/knowingly separated from the Fullness of the Truth (a potentially fragile line, which is a big reason, among others, that having the Full Truth does still matter), as the Catechism says. So I’m sure that everyone here is happy to know that you have at least come this far on your journey…I hope you realize that.

 

[JaneFrances]

The whole project of the CC is self discrediting.

I wonder what you think “the whole project of the CC” is? I mean, as someone who has shown such bias, such misunderstanding, such lack of knowledge pertaining to “the CC” how is it possible that you have any sort of clear concept of “the whole project of the CC”? This is curious. . .

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:

I’d love to see your thesis on comparative theology.

**By the way their entire focus is on the legitimacy of their own particular religious sect. **

This is ignorant, Nick. The focus of the Church is not to legitimacize herself. The focus of the Church is Christ.

Keep in mind that this is a message board, not “the Church.” Obviously, your perspective of the Church is limited such that you would presume all we do is grasp at “legitimacy.” If you would like the TRUTH, seek it. . .maybe that’s why He brought you here!

By contrast, the church that is founded upon Jesus only exists to bring honor and glory to God.

Amen. And the Church has sought to bring honor and glory to God for 2000 years.

Our whole purpose is to obediently preach the Truth to the world for the sake of Christ…to the glory of God.

Then we agree.

 

[seremina]

Nick,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and uplifting time here.

The problem with having “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that unless somebody interprets it for you, you do not know what the Scripture actually says. Scripture is written in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, and it is a rare person who is fluent in all three languages plus his own. On top of that, the original Hebrew had no vowels and the original Greek had no gaps between the words, so even the exact words themselves are a matter of tradition.

So for the regular person, “scripture alone” turns into “scripture filtered through the tradition of what the original words are, filtered further through the translation into a language that I can understand, and filtered even more through the interpretations that I have heard and agree with.” It really doesn’t work.

I would suggest to you that you replace “scripture alone” with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are all in accordance with Scripture, when properly interpreted (so all your time spent in Bible study is not wasted), and has the incomparable advantage that if you don’t understand something the Church can clarify it for you. The Bible can’t do that.

• Liberian

Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek? Last I checked, the 3 languages that were used to author the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Where did you get the idea that it was written in Chaldee?

 

[mercygate]

(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.”

Let me “strengthen” your case. You left out Eph 2:19-20 where Paul refers to Christians as “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone . . .”

Catholics would say that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Therefore, we conclude that there is no conflict between understanding the Church as having Jesus as the cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets as the foundation. Peter is called “first” of the Apostles by St. Matthew when he lists theor names in chapter 10 of his Gospel. Since we know that Peter was not the first called, this statement, taken together with the other NT evidence of Peter’s special position, supports the conclusion that he was acknowledged by the other Apostles (Matthew was and Apostle) as the leader of the “foundation”.

Verse-sniping, as an argumentative tactic, ignores the comprehensive witness of Scripture and thereby falsifies the case one attempts to maintain.

 

[JaneFrances]

bump-ity, bump, bump.

 

[Truthstalker]

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

Trust Christ for salvation, ask the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth, and begin following Him. Do what you know is right and He will increase the light you walk by. Practical advice, but hey.

Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith? You mean as an instrument by which to evaluate doctrine. We can get so caught up in our arguments about SS or S+T that we forget the centrality of Christ.
There are many fine instruments by which we can evaluate doctrine, there are even, I think, some that work.

 

[mercygate]

Trust Christ for salvation, ask the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth, and begin following Him. Do what you know is right and He will increase the light you walk by. Practical advice, but hey.

Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith? You mean as an instrument by which to evaluate doctrine. We can get so caught up in our arguments about SS or S+T that we forget the centrality of Christ.
There are many fine instruments by which we can evaluate doctrine, there are even, I think, some that work.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Truthstalker]

Speak for yourself.

I’m having difficulty finding an explanation for your post that does not involve a lack of charity. Please explain.

 

[mercygate]

I’m having difficulty finding an explanation for your post that does not involve a lack of charity. Please explain.

Lack of charity? You stated that in the intensity of discussion concerning the matter of Scripture alone as a rule of faith or Scripture plus tradition **we **“forget the centrality of Christ.”

I exempt myself and many of my colleagues, both Protestant and Catholic, from the accusation of forgetting Christ. Were it not for the centrality of Christ, none of this would matter at all.

 

[guanophore]

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

I went back to look at some of your posts, so that I could figure out how it is that you are so persistent in your misunderstanding of the Catholic faith.

In answer to this question, I would say that the authority appointed by Christ is a reliable rule. I would not say that the Bible should be “replaced” by it, though, only guided. Jesus built a Church, He did not write a book.

Then who should I seek for the correct interpretation of the bible? You would probably say I should trust the CC, but why?

I am sure you have been told that this is the Church that Jesus founded. Most likely you believe that the Church ‘strayed’ from God’s intention. I have not read all your posts, but if you base your authority on Sola Scriptura, then probably you believe that the Reformation restored God’s intention to the Church.

It seems that you might have skipped an important step here. How can I know that The CC is the one that teaches in accordance with Scripture (when properly interpreted) if I’m not really capable of knowing exactly what the scriptures say?

Clearly you are capable of interpreting the scripture. The problem is that the context for the NT is the Catholic Church, and you do not understand Catholicism, (apparently) so you are interpreting it out of context.

I haven’t said that I believe sola scriptura means that I believe everything God has revealed to man in regards to the Christian Faith is contained in scripture alone. To me SS is a recognition of the sufficiency of scripture, and thus I’m not bound by teachings that are not taught in the bible.

I realize that the table of contents (list of the books) isn’t scripture, but I don’t see why that proves “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, false.

Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

I know that I’m only human, and that I could be wrong in my interpretation of several parts of the bible. But if I am, at best, a fallible interpreter of the bible, then I’m also fallible when it comes to knowing which church I should trust to correctly interpret the bible. Is there a solution?

I think this is basically two issues. One is an authority issue. One must choose to submit oneself to the authority appointed by Christ. This is difficult for those of us who have authority issues. The other is a trust issue. One would have to choose to take Jesus at His Word, and this is difficult for persons who have trust issues.

I think that the name, “Protestant” is what’s new. The name “Lutheran” is new… but, conceptually speaking, this doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever Protestants generally believe concerning the gospel must be new.

Yes, it does.Jesus entrusted the teaching of the gospel to His Apostles. When one denies the Apostolic Succession, one departs from Jesus’ intention.

I believe that in the first three to four centuries the early church was both heavily persecuted and rapidly expanding. I do not believe that the local churches recognized one branch as authoritative. But I could be wrong.

No doubt you will be greatly enriched by the reading of the Fathers. That is what brought me home.

I don’t see any way for millions (or even thousands) of fallen human beings to be in total unity for two seconds much less 650 years!

I agree. Fortunately the unity is based on Christ, and His Truth, rather than the fallibility of man. God is at work in us to will and to do HIs good pleasure. It is He who upholds us in His truth, and not we ourselves. And with God, all things are possible!