Not Convinced.....

[Richard_Kastner]

In other words, Richard is asking if there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Well no that isn’t what I am asking. Here it is yet again. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?

 

[rikkk1958]

Well no that isn’t what I am asking. Here it is yet again. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?

The Church is the Pillar and the Foundation of the Truth. This truth comes from our Lord and the Church is used to teach how we can be saved when He is no longer with us, so that the Apostles can also pass them to all the disciples, and so on. When the Holy spirit descended upon the Apostles and disciples, their Mission was to teach and make sure we do and follow what Jesus told them. They were given the authority and made sure they are in unity on how to proceed from the beginning of the Church.

A protestant will always look up to a “passage” that says so. Read the whole story of what the Gospel is all about and you will understand, and make sure you take into consideration the early fathers who were there associating with the disciples. Which is more righteous than having to continue what had been laid down by those who started it. If you think you can be save because you do not want to follow the tradition, it is all up to you.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Church is the Pillar and the Foundation of the Truth. This truth comes from our Lord and the Church is used to teach how we can be saved when He is no longer with us, so that the Apostles can also pass them to all the disciples, and so on. When the Holy spirit descended upon the Apostles and disciples, their Mission was to teach and make sure we do and follow what Jesus told them. They were given the authority and made sure they are in unity on how to proceed from the beginning of the Church.

A protestant will always look up to a “passage” that says so. Read the whole story of what the Gospel is all about and you will understand, and make sure you take into consideration the early fathers who were there associating with the disciples. Which is more righteous than having to continue what had been laid down by those who started it. If you think you can be save because you do not want to follow the tradition, it is all up to you.

So would that be a yes or a no?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So that alone proves the Bible-Alone? A far cry from the truth Richard. Here let me ask you in another form: When during Jesus’ earthly ministry does He teach to the 12 or ANYONE everything we need to know about salvation would be binded to written words alone? If the Bible-Alone is such a crucial doctrine for our salvation and scriptures contains all we need to know,as you truly believe,then I wonder why not ONE ecumenical council ever mentions the Bible-Alone doctrine? Such a vital doctrine for our souls. Hmmmm?

So you are saying there is someting outside of scripture that we need to know for our salvation. What is it Nicea?

Richard…stop dancing around my question. Answer it and you will get an answer. When during Jesus’ earthly ministry does He teach to the 12 or ANYONE everything we need to know about salvation would be binded to written words alone?

Because Everything that Jesus said or did is not in the bible does not mean that everything that we need for our salvation is not in the bible. Why do you say that God is not a book? That seems rather obvious.

Again,where does Jesus or the 12 or the Bible teach everything we need for our salvation is binded in scripture-alone? Do you ever plan to answer me or continue to dance? Well Richard, many Protestants believe Catholics worship statues and at times Protestants seem to worship the Bible. I faith in God,not the Bible.

I have asked this question several times now and you have not answered. If the bible does not contain all the information we neeed for salvation, you must be saying that your tradition has that information. What is it? If you cannot answer this question Sola scriptura remains valid.

Funny how you ask a question after being asked one yourself,yet you provide none.Sorry,SS is bogus and care to show me ONE Apostle or ONE early church father advocating,supporting or stating SS is a crucial doctrine for our salvation? How about ONE ecumenical council-eh Richard?

Quote:
Not misrepresent,only presenting arguments showing your belief in a false doctrine.

Here’s the full quote

Quote:
I have never said that everything that God said or did was written in the bible. This is a point that you continually misrepresent. What I am saying is that all of the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. If you don’t agree with this then it should be an easy task to provide the information contained in your tradition that is not in the bible that is necessary for our salvation.

You keep saying that sola scriptura has been debunked. How can that be when you have not provided the information that we do need for our salvation?

Yes Richard SS has been debunked long before you were a twinkle in your father’s eyes. And how did you prove it when you have to show me where Jesus or the 12 or ONE ecumenical council even advocate it or even declare it a doctrine? Show me Richard so I too can believe the 16th century man-made doctrine was from God?

Well apparently you don’t see because the answer you give here has nothing to do with this statement

I know history is not your forte or doctrinal developments,but those are facts Richard. No amount of denial on your part will make it go away. Care to show me where scripture all on its own gaves us the complex doctrine and distinction between the three persons of the Trinity?

How do you deduce from this statement that I am saying that God cannot reveal other truths?

I thought scripture alone contains enough? Which one is it Richard? Does it contain everything or can God reveal more truths which may be necessary?

Quote:
So you are saying that tradition is an interpretive tool. A tool to help us interpret THE BIBLE and that it contains no doctrine at all. Which means it is merely a tool to interpret sola scriptura.

Quote:
Part of it. Richard did the Apostles write everything during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Why did the Church tells the Arians they were wrong? Because the church told the Arians,besides scripture, it has been APOSTOLIC TRADITION that Jesus IS God. The Apostles SPOKE and taught ORALLY before ever writing anything down.

Ya sure, of coarse they taught orally, but the things they taught were later written down and are now called the bible.

Which begs the question: When and where do the Apostles teach everything they did or said will be binded to the written words alone? Answer that question Richard,then you will get a response from me.

Quote:
Correct. Exactly Richard! They had it but not all only stuck to it. The Saducees did not believe in angels,the resurrection of the dead,etc. So Richard how could St.Paul even believe in Sola Scriptura or even hint of it when no FIXED Jewish canon existed? He could have held to more books than other Jews.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here, but let me take a stab. Paul did not teach sola scriptura.

So if Paul did not teach SS,then show me where Jesus or the 12 did? You believe SS is vaild,then evidently Jesus, the 12 or one of the NT authors did believe,since it is the ‘mother’ of all doctrines.

He taught Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

Yes Richard…redemption for all humanity/

What I am saying is that is enough, that is sufficient, and that is what the bible teaches and that is what I mean by sola scriptura.

Again Richard,why is it that not ONE ecumencial council ever once mentions SS as a vital doctrine? Centuries fighting heresies,heterodoxy and doctrinal developments of crucial doctrines: Trinity,canon,Incarnation,etc. But no SS doctrine?

---

In Christ Richard

 

[Reuben_J]

Well no that isn’t what I am asking. Here it is yet again. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?

I believe it’s a yes. The Sacraments for examples are essential to our salvation. They are supported by the Scripture. However, without the oral tradition you may not know how to interpret the part of the Scripture that teaches us on how to affect the Sacraments.

 

[rikkk1958]

So would that be a yes or a no?

Is there anything in the tradition of the Church about salvation that is not in the Scriptures?

Anything the Church does about salvation is according to Scriptures, and vice versa because the Scriptures were written while the Church is already active. Therefore, the tradition and Scriptures co exist and salvation was taught by the Apostle as part of the oral tradition of passing the information from the letter and instructions of St. Paul and other Apostles to the disciples, then to Bishops, and so on. And most importantly that we have to uphold the tradition of unity in interpreting the Scriptures because those who associated themselves with the Apostles and Gospel writers were members of the Church, thus making them a reliable source of information when they themselves would have asked the writers during that time.

 

[Genesius]

So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

If you go back and look at the post you here are responding to I think it will be clear that he IS answering your question. To take a stand defending helpless unborn is essential to our salvation is what he is obviously driving at.

However, I would like to chime in on a few other things. There seems to be a miscommunication between the two of you. You, Richard, are interpreting the term “salvation” one way as a Baptist, whereas your counterpart (I can’t keep which one straight because there are others responding as well) is interpreting the term “salvation” another way as a Catholic.

The other possible misconception, is that you are interpreting Sola Scriptura the wrong way. The teaching of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible ALONE is the SOLE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY. In other words, there is no other authority on salvation or ANYTHING else outside of a private interpretation of Scripture alone. In contrast, you have made statements that you do recognize other sources, but that you put Scripture at the top of the list.

Another point is that the Christian Bible itself comes from Sacred Tradition. It is not distinct from it, but part of it. Just as you as a Protestant have your roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition and therefore the Catholic Church. Your Baptist tradition, though somewhat removed, is not totally removed. In the broader sense, you are part of the Catholic Church. You are a brother in Christ. The Catholic Church itself teaches this. When she says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, she means the Christian tradition that comes from the Catholic Church. However, properly understood it is ordinarily through the Church itself with all her sacraments. Those Protestants, who, through no fault of their own, are born into a tradition that is not Catholic, but still Christian obviously still have a hope of salvation. But I think another poster hit the nail on the head when he or she said that we cannot put God in a box. God is perfectly able to save someone who has never even heard the gospel, but is sincerely seeking the face of God.

Again, I’m not here to argue…just to try to help clarify misunderstandings. Having been a convert to Catholicism myself from Baptist in my formidable years, but jumping around to various denominations and studying all their theologies, etc., and then Catholicism, I have come to realize there are many semantical differences, but fewer real disagreements (not that the legitimate ones aren’t big ones, just fewer than most Protestants realize). I do think Sola Scriptura is a legitimate and rather significant dividing point, if properly interpreted. I don’t think Sola Fide is however.

Anyway, don’t mean to ramble on…but I hope that helps clarify some things. I do remember presenting the Catholic understanding of “salvation” in an earlier post. You might do well to consider this when debating on that particular issue. Not saying you should accept that understanding, just keep it in mind that when you are debating with a Catholic on salvation what they mean by “salvation”, so you can have a more informed debate session.

 

[panner]

The teaching of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible ALONE is the SOLE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY. In other words, there is no other authority on salvation or ANYTHING else outside of a private interpretation of Scripture alone.

That’s not quite correct, what you describe is Solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura states that there can be other sources but nothing is higher than Scripture.Most Reformed follw Sola Scriptura most Fundamentalist follow Solo Scriptura. To the Catholic mind it may not seem different but it is.

 

[Genesius]

That’s not quite correct, what you describe is Solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura states that there can be other sources but nothing is higher than Scripture.Most Reformed follw Sola Scriptura most Fundamentalist follow Solo Scriptura. To the Catholic mind it may not seem different but it is.

Thanks, Panner for correcting me on that. I thought I knew. I guess I didn’t…you learn something new every day.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

If you go back and look at the post you here are responding to I think it will be clear that he IS answering your question. To take a stand defending helpless unborn is essential to our salvation is what he is obviously driving at.

And do you agree with him. Do you believe that if you don’t “take a stand defending helpless unborn” you will be forever lost and if you do you will gain eternal life?

However, I would like to chime in on a few other things. There seems to be a miscommunication between the two of you. You, Richard, are interpreting the term “salvation” one way as a Baptist, whereas your counterpart (I can’t keep which one straight because there are others responding as well) is interpreting the term “salvation” another way as a Catholic.

I have been debating off and on on CAF for about 4 years now and I must say that this is the first I have heard of differing views of salvation. My definition of salvation is eternal life with my precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I would be intensly interested to know what your definition would be.

The other possible misconception, is that you are interpreting Sola Scriptura the wrong way.

Are you saying that this is your misconception?

The teaching of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible ALONE is the SOLE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY. In other words, there is no other authority on salvation or ANYTHING else outside of a private interpretation of Scripture alone.

Your definition of SS has two parts. First that the bible is the sole source of authority while I would prefer source of salvic information I do tentatively agree with this. But your second statement contradicts the first one and I certainly do not agree with it. You say “the Bible ALONE is the SOLE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY” and then you say “In other words, there is no other authority on salvation or ANYTHING else outside of a private interpretation of Scripture alone” Which is saying that the bible is not the sole source of authority, but the private interpretation is. I certainly would not subscribe to such a contradictory definition. My definition is quite simply that all the information that we need for our salvation can be found in the bible. 2Tim3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

In contrast, you have made statements that you do recognize other sources, but that you put Scripture at the top of the list.

Could you cite those posts? I don’t remember citing anythig but the bible.

Another point is that the Christian Bible itself comes from Sacred Tradition. It is not distinct from it, but part of it.

Are you saying there are things in your tradition that are not taught in the bible but are necessary for our salvation. Or are you saying the oral traditions teach the same things as the bible?

 

[Genesius]

I would like to add something. I think simeonhuff asked a very important question that does deserve an answer, and I would like to thank him for that.

I’m not sure that I’m qualified to answer it. I do know how to answer most of the common objections posed by non-Catholic Christians based upon misconceptions and semantical misunderstandings. But, as I’ve mentioned previously, a proper understanding of “salvation” is not as simple as Baptists like to think. It’s a bit more complex. Establishing a relationship with Jesus is not complicated, however. But that’s not all there is to salvation even considering it from a purely biblical context.

However, even if a Baptist does not understand salvation as a process, I know that they do at least recognize the significance of obeying God’s commandments, and the essential role that plays in the life of the believer. I know that a good Baptist is a follower of Jesus, and would also agree with the majority of essentials found in the Apostle’s Creed (if not all). Is that enough? Some would argue not. I say it is. Are they in full communion with the Church Christ founded? No, but that’s not to say they are not in communion at all. Nor is it enough to judge the salvation of their souls.

Now, having said all that, just off the tip of my head (remember, I’m not a doctor of the Church), I can’t think of anything necessary for our salvation that is not covered in Sacred Scripture. However, that’s not to say that a proper understanding of those things found in Scripture is not necessary, or that Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium does not play a significant role in a proper understanding of both Sacred Scripture and salvation.

Along with all that, I think that rikkk1958 pretty much summed it all up in a nutshell.

 

[Mark01]

To me God’s plan of salvation can be summed up in this BIBLE verse Jn.3: 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I am also partial to 2 Tim.3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Jn.3:16 tells us that we are saved by faith in Jesus. 2Tim.3:15 tells us that that plan is found in the bible. These are just two verses that to me pretty much show us Gods plan of salvation as manifest in Jesus and how that plan it shown to us in the bible. You however seem to think that this is so complicated and takes a great mind to understand. Puts salvation in a rather exclusive realm doesn’t it?

Salvation is in a rather exclusive realm Richard, it is in the realm of God.

Wow talk about a convoluted logic. First you direct me to your catechism which says “we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” but then you say that we shouldn’t believe that because it restricts God in some way. I don’t get your train of logic.

Not convoluted at all, if one will look and see that the CCC referance does not say that all knowledge of God’s plan of salvation is in Sacred Scripture, but only the portion of it God wished put down in written word.

What is there about these two verses

Jn.3: 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2 Tim.3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

that you need interpreted?

I don’t need those passages interpreted, but what does it mean to believe? Each individuals belief is based on the tradition in which they were taught, I choose to believe the Tradition of the Church, passed down from Pentacost to preset day. For me it is not as simplistic as “believe” for even satan believed. So when one trys to make it as simple as belief in Jesus, one must expound upon what that belief is and they will expound upon it using the tradition they were taught. Your belief in Sola Scriptura is a tradition which does not stand the test of time.

2 Tim Chapter 3. Did you read what came before and after that particular verse? Paul was telling Timothy to remember all that he had learned and from whom he had learned it. Paul was not telling Timothy to just use the holy scripture. Paul’s teaching is what Timothy was to stand fast in, using Scripture to fortify that teaching and even though you probably already know this Paul was speaking of the Old Testament, because the New had not be composed yet.

My faith is based on what I read in the bible. And I can atest to the fact that many others base thier faith on the bible so this statement is patently false.

Honestly, Richard your faith is entirely based on the Bible, you’ve never sat in on a Bible study program, listened to a Pastor give a sermon or read anything concerning theology other than the Bible? My statement is not false

What doctrine and theology are you talking about. My doctrine and theology was “plopped down in a book” It’s called the bible.

History has shown that those sacred writings we call scripture were preserved and compiled by the Church, the New Testament writings were written by members of that Church, it didn’t just plop down it developed over time, through Apostolic teaching. To deny this is to deny logic and reason.

I’m assuming that you are talking about the CC here and that “anyone else who is not a part of that Church stands outside of the economy of salvation.” Well, all that I can say about this is I disagree, so there we are.

We should not assume anything, My statement was concerning the Church which Jesus established of which He is the cornerstone and the Apostles are the foundation. I make no assumptions concerning your salvation.

But let me reword my question just for you. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?

No I do not, and I sincerely hope there is nothing in your oral tradition outside of Scripture that will prevent your salvation.

 

[Contarini]

So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

He answered the question. You may disagree with the answer, but he gave you one–abortion. It is now up to you either to dispute the claim that a right view of abortion is essential to our salvation, or to find teaching about abortion in the Bible.

Bear in mind that Catholics would generally qualify all discussions about what is “essential to our salvation” by saying that invincible ignorance, etc., make a difference. So someone may be honestly mistaken about abortion. We aren’t saved by information, but by grace. However, a person who, after being rightly illuminated on the matter, persists in regarding as morally permissible the killing of unborn children, is not capable of enjoying eternal life with God. In that sense the teaching about abortion is essential to our salvation.

 

[benidict]

So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

hi Richard. yes this an answer to your question. several other posters, not all of them Catholic, i might add, see what i am getting at. but i understand, why you cannot accept this answer. your founder E.G. White, understood, the issue was not at all clear in the bible, and refused to take a side. because, if she did, she as well as her followers, would have to say, the believed in a tradition outside of the bible, that was correct. so now your turn Richard. i answered you, now you can answer me. does a person, who advocates or defends the murder of the unborn, or is for people practicing euthanasia, or defending it, have a place in the world. to come? its a simple yes or no answer Richard. no need to make it complicated… peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Salvation is in a rather exclusive realm Richard, it is in the realm of God.

Jesus did not come down to this sinful planet in order to save Himself, the Father, or the Holy Spirit. They live in heaven, “the realm of God” He did not come to save the angels. They also live in " the realm of God", heaven. He came down to save mankind, all of mankind and it doesn’t take an understanding of some complicated intellectual principles. What it takes is a recognition that Jesus died for us all , that He paid the price of death, for our sins, to repent of those sins and accept Him as Lord of our life. Salvation is the realm of man not God.

Not convoluted at all, if one will look and see that the CCC referance does not say that all knowledge of God’s plan of salvation is in Sacred Scripture, but only the portion of it God wished put down in written word.

So you are saying there is something in your tradition that is essential to our salvation that is not found in scripture?

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
What is there about these two verses

Jn.3: 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2 Tim.3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

that you need interpreted?

I don’t need those passages interpreted,

I asked you the above question in response to this post.

By following Scripture Alone one now places the matter of one’s salvation in his own ability to interpret only the written Word and removes it from God’s domain. We alone now become the source of our salvation and not God.

So have you somehow evolved to the point where you can interpret scripture for yourself and “become the source of our salvation and not God.”

but what does it mean to believe? Each individuals belief is based on the tradition in which they were taught, I choose to believe the Tradition of the Church, passed down from Pentacost to preset day. For me it is not as simplistic as “believe” for even satan believed. So when one trys to make it as simple as belief in Jesus, one must expound upon what that belief is and they will expound upon it using the tradition they were taught. Your belief in Sola Scriptura is a tradition which does not stand the test of time.

One does not need to “expound” on their faith in Jesus in order to have a valid conversion experience. Expounding comes later when we have the need to share with others the intensely intimate relationship that we have found in Christ. This relationship has absolutely nothing to do with tradition.

2Tim.3
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, **knowing of whom thou hast learned them; **
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim Chapter 3. Did you read what came before and after that particular verse? Paul was telling Timothy to remember all that he had learned and from whom he had learned it.

Not from whom, but of whom.

Paul was not telling Timothy to just use the holy scripture. Paul’s teaching is what Timothy was to stand fast in, using Scripture to fortify that teaching

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Paul is saying here that SCRIPTURES “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Says nothing about tradition.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

and even though you probably already know this Paul was speaking of the Old Testament, because the New had not be composed yet.

Verse 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: This says ALL scripture Mark. Are you saying that the NT is not scripture or that it is not inspired.

Honestly, Richard your faith is entirely based on the Bible, you’ve never sat in on a Bible study program, listened to a Pastor give a sermon or read anything concerning theology other than the Bible?

The operative word here is bible. I have done all those things, but I have done them in order to better understand the bible.

For the Catholic as well as those who are non Catholic, we all study our faith based on tradition. My statement is not false.

I was just looking at this statement of yours and thought that maybe I don’t understand. You say “we all study our faith based on tradition” I must ask what you mean by faith here. For me faith is a gift from God and only pertains to one thing. Faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins. Either you accept the gift of faith and the Savior of your soul that that faith impies or you don’t. I don’t think it takes a lot of study.

History has shown that those sacred writings we call scripture were preserved and compiled by the Church, the New Testament writings were written by members of that Church, it didn’t just plop down it developed over time, through Apostolic teaching. To deny this is to deny logic and reason.

Ya call me a denyer of logic and reason then.

We should not assume anything, My statement was concerning the Church which Jesus established of which He is the cornerstone and the Apostles are the foundation. I make no assumptions concerning your salvation.

Here’s your statement

To argue is pointless because it has been done so in the past and we have the results in a Christianity that is fractured and disunified, which directly contradicts our Lord’s direct command of a unity of faith.

Chirst founded only one Church, there has only been one Church since that time, anyone else who is not a part of that Church stands outside of the economy of salvation. If one firmly believes that they are a part of that Church, then we can only pray that through the Divine Will of God that person will be granted salvation.

The way is narrow and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Are you saying the referance above in bold is not the CC? If not then what church?

But let me reword my question just for you. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?

No I do not, and I sincerely hope there is nothing in your oral tradition outside of Scripture that will prevent your salvation.

May I remind you of this.

Not convoluted at all, if one will look and see that the CCC referance does not say that all knowledge of God’s plan of salvation is in Sacred Scripture, but only the portion of it God wished put down in written word.

What is it do you think it’s in there or not?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

He answered the question. You may disagree with the answer, but he gave you one–abortion. It is now up to you either to dispute the claim that a right view of abortion is essential to our salvation, or to find teaching about abortion in the Bible.

Bear in mind that Catholics would generally qualify all discussions about what is “essential to our salvation” by saying that invincible ignorance, etc., make a difference. So someone may be honestly mistaken about abortion. We aren’t saved by information, but by grace. However, a person who, after being rightly illuminated on the matter, persists in regarding as morally permissible the killing of unborn children, is not capable of enjoying eternal life with God. In that sense the teaching about abortion is essential to our salvation.

Ex.20
13Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
and even though you probably already know this Paul was speaking of the Old Testament, because the New had not be composed yet.

Richard Kastner:

Verse 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: This says ALL scripture Mark. Are you saying that the NT is not scripture or that it is not inspired.

Richard,again you are injecting your own conjecture to things which were not simply there.The NT was NOT complete Richard and if you insist the above verse includes the NT;then provide historical evidence showing Paul referred to the 27 NT books.Likewise, the NT was complete by the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

Second,if you believe SS is valid and ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God; I guess it is fair to say one may believe and practice Sola Matthew or Sola John or Sola Timothy,etc,etc,since according to you, scripture-alone is sufficient for salvation?

 

[Genesius]

Ex.20
13Thou shalt not kill.

Nice attempt. However, what is in question with abortion by advocates is at what point it becomes an actual person, and that, my friend is not addressed in Scripture.

Again, conjecture on your part. You are making the assumption that abortion is the abortion of a human being. Perhaps rightly so, and I am with you 100%. I believe that abortion at any stage is murder. But neither my personal opinion, nor yours, answers the question of whether it’s addressed in Scripture, and that’s where the interpretation rests on either the teaching authority of the magisterium or the myriad of other non-Catholic Christian denominations.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,again you are injecting your own conjecture to things which were not simply there.The NT was NOT complete Richard and if you insist the above verse includes the NT;then provide historical evidence showing Paul referred to the 27 NT books.Likewise, the NT was complete by the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

:
Verse 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: This says ALL scripture Mark. Are you saying that the NT is not scripture or that it is not inspired.

If you read this post really carefully Nicea, which you obviously did not do, you will see that I have not injected my own conjecture at all. I merely point out the obvious and ask some questions.

Second,if you believe SS is valid and ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God;

The bible says all scripture is inspired. Don’t you believe the bible, Nicea?

I guess it is fair to say one may believe and practice Sola Matthew or Sola John or Sola Timothy,etc,etc,since according to you, scripture-alone is sufficient for salvation?

Yes, I believe that all those writings tell us of salvation in Jesus. I’m not sure what you mean by “practice”