Not the same God?

[kelman]

Along with yourself the Catholic Church does encourage the faithful to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures as this will certainly aid them in their pursuit of holiness.

And yet this avails the Roman Catholic of little for he must always agree with whatever his church declares – even when said declarations have no basis in Scripture.

The oral teaching of the Church we receive first from our parents and the Church, then, secondly, we verify the veracity of that teaching from the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

And what “oral teaching” are you referring to?..that you are able to verify in Scripture? Where is the official list of “oral teaching”. Where is the “official” list of the so-called Sacred Tradition? If the Bible is not your authority then you are free to make any argument you like, with or without any evidence or proof.

When we do this we discover that what we have be taught is consonant with both and so we eagerly embrace it as the truth. This was precisely what the Bereans did and it is precisely what we Catholics do also.

No, actually that is not at all what the Bereans did and I’m surprised you would think it is. Did the Bereans first check with their “church authority” to find out what they should believe? I believe you’ll find they did not.

Taken either way, indicative or imperative mood, S. Jhn. 5: 39, 40 shows us that men may be very dilligent in searching the Scriptures, reading them critically, carefully counting the verses, words, letters, as the Jews of old did, and yet miss the chief treasure contained in them, namely the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Catholic Church.

I agree that knowledge of Scripture doesn’t guarantee salvation for many simply have a noetic understanding because their minds are darkened. One must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and these Jews, like many today, were not.

John 5:42 ** But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.**

It is the new heart that enables the elect to see revealed truth for what it objectively is, for it is the new heart that illumines the mind to the spiritual beauty and “sweetness” of the truth that comes to it "through the door of the understanding”.

The very fact that even professional theologians and exegetes disagree as to the meaning of Scripture, evinces most clearly that the bible is anything but perspicuous and simplicity itself.

No one claims that the Bible is perspicuous in all things, however, God declares that His written Scripture alone is sufficient to bring men to salvation. Is this said of anything else?..a church, for instance?..no, isn’t. So, it is not the church which brings anyone to salvation - it is the Scriptures.

John 20:31 **But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. **

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

An elite group may claim “infallibility” declaring themselves to have sole ownership of Scripture’s intent, however, God says differently. No, we all need to pray for the illumination of the Holy Spirit as God so commands:

Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Ephesians 1:15-18 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints …

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

Psalm 146:8 ** The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:**

Moreover, the disagreement among the “experts” also demonstrates the need and necessity for an authoritative infallible oracle to unerringly teach with respect to faith and practice.

A fine exposition on RCC claims but where’s the evidence? Just because you think something should be doesn’t make it so…one needs evidence if he is going to make such outlandish claims. I’m more than happy to leave these matters in God’s providential hands. He gave us the government of the church with its elders and teachers and we see no evidence that He instituted an “infallible” authoritative group of individuals. Your private judgment or opinions is not a very reliable rule of faith.

 

[kelman]

A careful study of the bible actually points to the Church as being the final arbiter of truth in all spiritual matters (cf. I Tim. 3: 15

Of course that’s not what 1Tim 3:15 says, is it? No, it says the church is the pillar – not that the church is the truth – the truth is the written Scriptures. Besides, read in its context we see that the point of Paul’s argument is the government of the local church – elders, deacons and their qualifications. You say “a careful study”, however, instead of exegetical theology we get historical RCC theology. We just can’t take a verse out of it context and pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Whilst Sacred Scripture indisputably contains God-breathed revelation, it cannot act as a final authority since it is dependent on thinking personalities to observe what it says and, more crucially, interpret what it means.

Two things, Scripture not only can act as the final authority it is the final authority since it is the very words of God Himself and there can be no higher authority than that. God gives us the privilege of interpreting Scripture and when we weigh the evidence given us, we see He has given no individual or organization “infallible” interpretive authority. Simply claiming it for one’s self is not a defense.

The theory of sola scriptura has been the occasion of untold damage to Christendom since the Reformation. Kelman, my dear brother, I would freely admit that there are problems within the contemporary Catholic Church.

On the contrary, sola Scriptura has been responsible for returning to the apostolic truth. Without it the damage to the world would have been even more massive. A conglomeration of unbiblical doctrines – one after the other - once the Bible was set aside. The problems you see within the RCC are a far cry from what the real problems are. God never promised it infallibility and universal jurisdictional authority and for this reason no proof of these concepts are ever offered. Oh sure, you may offer some scriptures but they never ever say what is claimed. Most times said verses don’t come anywhere near to the doctrine for which it is offered.

While RCC may deny the right to interpret Scripture, God clearly emphasizes it, in fact, He commands it. The biblical verses demonstrating this are overwhelming and have been previously posted. This is another link in the RCC chain of “damage”.

One must distinguish between what is done in the name of Catholicism from what is officially taught by the magisterium. Rebellious and worldly members should not really surprise us.

I see. So, RCC church historians and theologians who write the truth found in the historical record are “rebellious and worldly” because such historical truths contradict what is disseminated by the magisterium? Call them what you will, I say God bless them for their honesty.

Sacred Scripture warns that many wthin the Church will sin and become contaminated by the godless culture within their midst, although maintaining the appearance of spirituality. !
As our Lord Himself said, the wheat will grow up with the tares until the Second Advent.

Which can equally apply to the RCC as to any other church.

Thus if the longevity and universality of the Catholic Church is not indicative of its divine origin and authority, then, quite honestly, I do not know what is.

It’s pretty simply “what” it is. The church of Rome gradually achieved its historical dominance for purely political reasons, due, on the one hand, to the fall of Jerusalem, and, on the other to its strategic location in the capital of the western Roman Empire.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

And yet this avails the Roman Catholic of little for he must always agree with whatever his church declares – even when said declarations have no basis in Scripture.

Can you name a declaration that has no Scriptural basis?

No one claims that the Bible is perspicuous in all things, however, God declares that His written Scripture alone is sufficient to bring men to salvation. Is this said of anything else?..a church, for instance?..no, isn’t. So, it is not the church which brings anyone to salvation - it is the Scriptures.

It is a strange thing to say the church does not bring anyone to salvation, it’s only scripture. As far as Church vs Scripture, Jesus never wrote anything down and handed it to the Apostles and said here read this your salvation depends upon it. How did Jesus save the Apostles without any scripture?

 

[Portrait]

And yet this avails the Roman Catholic of little for he must always agree with whatever his church declares – even when said declarations have no basis in Scripture.

And what “oral teaching” are you referring to?..that you are able to verify in Scripture? Where is the official list of “oral teaching”. Where is the “official” list of the so-called Sacred Tradition? If the Bible is not your authority then you are free to make any argument you like, with or without any evidence or proof.

No, actually that is not at all what the Bereans did and I’m surprised you would think it is. Did the Bereans first check with their “church authority” to find out what they should believe? I believe you’ll find they did not.

I agree that knowledge of Scripture doesn’t guarantee salvation for many simply have a noetic understanding because their minds are darkened. One must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and these Jews, like many today, were not.

John 5:42 ** But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.**

It is the new heart that enables the elect to see revealed truth for what it objectively is, for it is the new heart that illumines the mind to the spiritual beauty and “sweetness” of the truth that comes to it "through the door of the understanding”.

No one claims that the Bible is perspicuous in all things, however, God declares that His written Scripture alone is sufficient to bring men to salvation. Is this said of anything else?..a church, for instance?..no, isn’t. So, it is not the church which brings anyone to salvation - it is the Scriptures.

A fine exposition on RCC claims but where’s the evidence? Just because you think something should be doesn’t make it so…one needs evidence if he is going to make such outlandish claims. I’m more than happy to leave these matters in God’s providential hands. He gave us the government of the church with its elders and teachers and we see no evidence that He instituted an “infallible” authoritative group of individuals. Your private judgment or opinions is not a very reliable rule of faith.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

The devotional reading of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic avails much, for it helps him advance in that “…holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). The “Blessed Man” of Psalm 1 whose “delight is in the law of the lord” and who “meditates” upon it frequently will greatly prosper as regards true godliness. Thus, reading Sacred Scripture is highly profitable and this is recognised by the Church.

In the first instance we receive oral instruction from our mother’s knee and then the Church through catechesis and homilies. We then confirm this teaching for ourselves from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion and find it to be true, just as the Bereans did in the Acts. They heard the oral preaching of the Gospel first and then verified what was said with SS - “they received the word (orally) with all eagerness” and then examined the Scriptures to confirm the oral teaching. Clearly they could not confirm the teaching from the Scriptures until they had first heard it preached orally. In point of fact, the example of those Bereans actually supports the Catholic, not the Protestant way of proceeding.

The bible does not state or even imply anywhere that Sacred Scripture alone is sufficient, that is an unsupportable Protestant deduction. Sola Scriptura is actually a ‘tradition’ of man as well as an erroneous teaching. The verses you cite do not say that the bible is our sole authority, rather they speak of the veracity, innerrancy and holiness of Scripture, with which I heartlily concur.

The bible is not a simple story for simple people. A considerably long period has elapsed since it was written and our language and customs are very different today. What book written at one age is easy for another age? The study of Antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few men are capable, and for which still fewer have the time or inclination. In any event God never intended Sacred Scripture to be the sole guide or authority; our Lord taught orally and with authority and He sent His Church to teach all nations in the same manner and with same authority “to the close of the age” (S. Matt. 28: 20). The only visible Church in the world today that is teaching with any authority in faith and morals is the Catholic Church. The adoption of the bible as the sole rule of faith has only resulted in as many divergent interpretations as there are men amongst non-Catholics, that surely evinces most clearly that something is seriously amiss with Protestantism and is its erroneous theory of sola scriptura.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Of course that’s not what 1Tim 3:15 says, is it? No, it says the church is the pillar – not that the church is the truth – the truth is the written Scriptures. Besides, read in its context we see that the point of Paul’s argument is the government of the local church – elders, deacons and their qualifications. You say “a careful study”, however, instead of exegetical theology we get historical RCC theology. We just can’t take a verse out of it context and pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Dear kelaman,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above response.

St. Paul quite unequivocally states that it is the Church which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tim. 3: 15). Therefore as the legitimate recipient of God’s truth it is her task alone to teach it authoritatively and defend it against the attacks of false doctrine in faith and morals. The text reads: “…the household of God, which is the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (emphasis mine). St. Paul does not say that the bible is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, but that the Church is. That surely is transparently clear and only those with a particular theory to uphold for polemical reasons would ever wish to deny this.

How can Protestantism a collection of denominations fraught with division and doctrinal disagreements, truly be designated “the household of God”? Moreover, can all of these numerous groups really lay claim to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”? Just how can it be that the thousands of competing and conflicting Protestant groupings are somehow a corporately stable “pillar and bulwark” for the truth? After all, none them is totally in agreement with any of the others, for if this were not so then they would not be divided from one another. Which of them possesses the truth? Christ founded one Church and that Church is portrayed in I Tim. 3: 15 as a unified, stable, and visible Church. The Protestant model of the Church is an invisible, fragmented enitity composed of individualistic members who are bound together by a common cord, namely that the teaching authority is derived through the individual Christian’s search of the bible, aided directly by the Holy Spirit.

The Christian bodies which, since the time of the Reformation, have put themselves outside of the Roman obedience and the succession because of its alleged “superstitions and accretions to the pure primitive faith” have, alas, extensively declined from the “faith once delivered” and that decline continues unrelentingly, just witness what is happening to my own former ecclesial communion, the church of England. Liberalism in faith and morals is rampant and the conservatives within the Protestant denominations are for the most part marginalised and ignored and usually uncharitably dismissed as theological fossils and obscurantists. So much for the Reformation principle, sola sciptura, returning us to apostolic truth! The same cannot be said for the Catholic Church, which has remained steadfast and unpopular for its adherence to the apostolic deposit. This was what really impressed me as an Anglican and I respected the Catholic Church for not giving an uncertain sound on the trumpet when speaking officially on contentious moral issues.

Roman Catholic historians/theologians who write their own biased or radical interpretation of truth and history, are indeed rebellious members. You may recall that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met in 1979 to examine two leading liberal theologians, namely Edward Schillebeecks and Hans Kung. Both men were found guilty and Kung had his license to teach as a Catholic theologian revoked. The other chap was allowed to continue but they now had him on enquiry. Kung’s denial of the Virgin Birth and the bodlily Resurrection is so typical of his radical rethinking of Sacred Scripture. However, at least the Catholic Church has a check in place to stop the dissemination of false doctrine by its theologians, which is more than can be said for the mainline Protestant denominations, which are mostly hotbeds of liberalism and new morality.

Rome achieved the prestigious position that it did because the Church there was founded by SS. Peter and Paul, but I have already dealt with this in my posting above on the Primacy of St. Peter. Moreover, since it was the seat of the one true Church established by Christ it was necessarily a stronghold of orthodoxy and it was the special prerogatives of its Bishop which made the Church at Rome one to which Christians at large appealed. Another factor which contributed to the Church of Rome’s greatness was the stand of many of its Bishops for orthodoxy (nothing’s changed here). The most notable axample of this was Pope Leo, whose letter to the patriarch of Constantinople in 449 AD (i.e. the Tome of Leo) was the basis of the orthodox formulation of the doctrine of the Person of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon.

Well, I must conclude for this week, my dear brother, but I shall, God willing, deal with the whole issue of the wider canon of Sacred Scripture next week.

Thankyou again for contributions and may I wish you and all other posters on the current thread a jolly splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do.

God bless you all.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

And yet this avails the Roman Catholic of little for he must always agree with whatever his church declares – even when said declarations have no basis in Scripture.

The Catholic Church has never claimed that her doctrines are based on the Scriptures, kelman.

That is YOUR paradigm, but, ironically, it is a paradigm that cannot be supported by a single verse in Scripture. “All declarations about our faith must be found in the Bible” is a man-made tradition. One man believed it, because he heard another man proclaim it, who heard another man proclaim it, but it was never based on a single verse from the Sacred Scriptures.

The Catholic Church was whole and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever put to writ.

The Scriptures, rather, reflect the faith of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source…

We are not a people of the Book. We are a people of the Word, the Word made Flesh–Jesus Christ.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

And what “oral teaching” are you referring to?..that you are able to verify in Scripture? Where is the official list of “oral teaching”. Where is the “official” list of the so-called Sacred Tradition? If the Bible is not your authority then you are free to make any argument you like, with or without any evidence or proof.

When you examine the Gospels you should notice Jesus did not write anything down on a scroll, if Jesus Christ is the highest authority Who lived on Earth why did He defer the writings to those before and after Him? Why didn’t Jesus just write things down Himself? The Bible has it’s importance in the RCC no doubt, it is inerrant on matters of Faith and Morals, it used both private reflection and public worship at mass. No doubt the Bible has it’s important but it has it’s place in the Church and there are certain things it can not do. Faith has to be passed on organically from person to person, someone who is not Baptized can not read the Bible and declare oneself a Christian. He must have a Trinitarian Baptism - Faith is a gift from God. I think what is missing with scripute alone is how the Holy Spirit works. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Church through the Seven and they are administered by priesthood (Priest Bishops etc) The very first instances of each of those Sacrament are found in the Bible as too the formation of the priesthood.

I not saying you do but I find most people who argue for Sola Scriptura really have a passive aggressive attitude against or a secret desire to marginalize the Priesthood and the Seven Sacraments.

 

[kelman]

Existing evidence supports that the earlier translations did not contain the Apocrypha. Did the “Christian” copies of the 4th century include the Apocrypha…yes. However, there’s little reason to suppose that the copies from some six hundred years earlier contained the Apocrypha.
Athanasius (296-373), bishop of Alexandria where the Septuagint was produced, did not include the Apocryha in his list of OT books. Additionally, Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the fourth century, catalogued the OT books which were canonical and which, he said, were translated by the Septuagint translators, and he also did not include the writings of the Apocrypha.

I guess it was too inconvenient for you to refer to the actual evidence I offered in the above? I’ll bold and enlarge it for you so you won’t overlook it again.

There’s no evidence that the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis said he went to Palestine to determine the extent of the Hebrew

That, of course, is not the point under discussion. It’s a non sequitur. We are talking about the LXX, not the Hebrew.

”Not the point”?..”non sequitur”?..absurd. The point is that Melito went to determine precisely what books were included in the Hebrew Bible. And he determined that they did not contain the apocryphal books. The only “non sequitur” here is your reply.

The Lord never quoted from it and He Himself officially gave us the extent of the Hebrew canon when He cited ”the law, the prophets and the psalms”.

So you reject all the Writings except for the Psalms? You reject the wisdom literature, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, even Daniel?
OK, I’ll give you Daniel because the NT considers Daniel a prophet. . . . .
I see false assumptions and rather blatant RCC “manifestly obvious” motives at work.

Well, I “see” a case of tunnel vision with your reply. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha in Luke 11:51 ”from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”

The books you mentioned are included under the Prophets and Writings as was the custom of the Jews with their Bible. Jesus does quote from all three of the main divisions - the Law, the Prophets, the Writings(Psalms)(Luke 24:44) demonstrating that He accepted the entire OT as canonical, although, again He never quoted from the Apocrypha.

Actually the Reformers were kicked out – were they not?

I fail to see what’s at stake in one phrase or the other. The aversion between the Reformers and the Papacy was mutual.

You can’t distinquish between two concepts – being driven out or choosing to leave of your own accord?

No, that’s too strong. Jerome, for instance, was certainly not dogmatic on the subject–in fact, I believe he later claimed that he had simply been describing the Jewish canon and not prescribing that the Christian canon should be the same.

No, actually it’s not strong enough…and Jerome didn’t “recant” as some like assert.

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, in which he says,*“Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.” *

He then specifies the books of the OT, twenty-two in number; and the books of the NT. He designates the epistle to the Hebrews as an epistle of Paul. “These,” he adds, “are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be filled with their oracles.** In these alone is the doctrine of piety preached; let no one add to them, or take anything from them**.”
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

*“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else”(NPNF2, Vol. 6, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

Both Jerome and Athanasius sound quite “dogmatic”.

We’re told in the Bible that God committed His very oracles to the Jews – how do we dare to say otherwise?

It does not follow that the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus have the right to determine which Jewish books contain God’s oracles. That all the OT books are Jewish is not under dispute.
What should not follow is the arrogance it takes to change the command of God because we want to add more books to the OT. He says the OT was given to the Jews – not to Christians. That’s why Jerome, Athanasius, Origen and a host of others made it their business to determine the books contained in the Hebrew Bible because at least they didn’t feel the need to disregard God’s own words - that He committed His oracles to the Jews. It was not just the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day who believed that the Apocrypha was not inspired. Besides, it was Jesus who rejected those books insofar as He did not quote from them while quoting abundantly from inspired OT books.*

 

[kelman]

Athanasius does include Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah, and he excludes Esther. This is something you have consistently failed to note, because it complicates the clear-cut picture you want to point.

It complicates nothing. A book or even two out of place has no bearing on the fact that he rejected the apocryphal books. Besides, Athanasius’ list was there for all to see in the link I provided.

So obviously, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t consider those books OT Scripture.

Both you and your RC opponents are too fond of words such as “obviously.” There’s little obvious about this.

Well, at least we’re passionate about what we believe whereas you consistently paint a self-portrait of being neither fish nor fowl.

We both know why the RCC embraced the Apocrypha – because it’s possible to interpret certain apocryphal texts as support for some of its doctrines…purgatory for one.

Given the RC affirmation of oral tradition (and given that prayer for the dead that they may be loosed from sin is a particularly plausible example of oral tradition, since it occurs in 2 Maccabees–canonical or not–and in the martyrdom of Perpetua, and maybe even in 2 Timothy), that’s a rather unconvincing charge. It’s certainly not something we “know”–it’s something you surmise because it suits your polemical purpose.

You’ve proved my point “prayer for the dead” found in the apocryphal 2Maccabees….although, obviously it is not found in 2Tim - where’s the proof that Onesiphorus was even dead?

 

[kelman]

Of course you are right that we should never go against God’s will, but you have still not given scripture to prove one way or another as to whether or not contraception is sinful.

We should not attempt to thwart God’s will - attempt to frustrate His plan. God is the giver of life; it is He who determines the number of children a couple will have. Therefore, many see that contraception is attempting to thwart His plans. Just as there is no “one” passage proving the Trinity neither is there “one” proving contraception is not God’s will.

And how do we determine at what stage a fetus is considered a human being, so that we can determine whether or not, say a two week old embryo, would be capable of being murdered?

Are you looking for a secular legal response as to “when life begins”?..can’t help you there. However, I don’t think it takes an Einstein (or an interpretive authority) to recognize that if a woman is pregnant she has a life within her, therefore, we do not murder it.

Also, I ask you again, what of those christians who know scripture as well as you, yet come to different conclusions about what constitutes murder, and therfore are pro-choice?

There are plenty of people who take the name of the Lord and yet believe just about anything – the Bible isn’t inspired for one, there is no heaven or hell, gay marriage, etc. - and, sadly, that it is permissable to murder an unborn child….uh… “terminate the fetus”. However, these people are not Christians. They remind me of the women in Isa 4:1 "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

One last thing, my brother is extremly well versed in scripture (He’s baptist by the way) and doesn’t feel that that particular verse condems contraception. He is also a believer in sola scriptura. What makes your interpretation any more valid than his?

I didn’t say that verse condemns contraception – only that many people do in fact read it, and other related passages that way. God has not condemned contraception in so many words. Therefore, some people take this as license to use it. It is my opinion, however, that these same people probably do not place their trust in God in all things and we are commanded to do so. Proverb 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

The thing is, as you obviously are well aware, to point to science or any other source to determine the morality of todays issues is ok for a catholic, but to supporters of sola scriptura this concept undermines the very term in and of itself because to go to science is to use a source outside of scripture. How this gets past some people makes no sense to me. Oh well, I guess that’s why I’m catholic, that and if not for the Eucharist I’d be completely lost in every possible way.

It is unfortunate that so many Roman Catholics haven’t the slightest idea what sola Scriptura is, nevertheless, feel competent enough to comment. And sadly those who do know keep a stony silence rather than educate their brothers and sisters.

Very simply put it means “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.”

If you are interested, you can refer to this LINK for a fuller explanation and also find what sola Scripture is not.

 

[kelman]

Can you name a declaration that has no Scriptural basis?

To keep it simple - the assumption of Mary; although, there are many others.

it is a strange thing to say the church does not bring anyone to salvation, it’s only scripture.

Then you believe the Bible is a “strange thing”? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17).

As far as Church vs Scripture, Jesus never wrote anything down and handed it to the Apostles and said here read this your salvation depends upon it. How did Jesus save the Apostles without any scripture?

Jesus always taught the infallibility and obvious importance of Scripture. His style of teaching often began with "It is written" repeated near one hundred times. So, evidently the Lord put the utmost trust in God’s own words. And why not?..is there someone as or more authoritative than God Himself? And, of course, the Apostles always had the written Scriptures.

We find that Timothy was saved through means of the written Scriptures “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:14-15).

 

[PRmerger]

Can you name a declaration that has no Scriptural basis?

To keep it simple - the assumption of Mary; although, there are many others.

The verses in Scripture that support the dogma of the Assumption of Mary have already been provided to you, kelman.

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
source

Now, you may disagree with what these verses mean, but to say that there is no Scriptural evidence for this dogma is incorrect.

A parallel would be for a JW to proclaim that there are no verses supporting the divinity of Christ. We may show him all the verses which proclaim the Incarnation, but if he’s not buying it, he’s not going to be convinced.

Which segues rather nicely into the reason why we Christians need an authentic interpreter and guide for the Scriptures–for one can take all the Scripture verses and come to some whacky conclusions, no? It’s a grace that we have someone to say, “No, child, that’s NOT what God means.”

 

[entree_gratuite]

The same God!
The same God!

And I think those who follow the Jewish religion, the Buddhist religion…etc…that is the same God, too.
Not sure what others here think on that? Or what the, um, “official” position is on that?

After all, if we are taught there is only one God, then there is only one God. Period.
Even if someone else has a different way of trying to get to that God…it’s still, just one God, is it not?

God is God. No matter how differently someone wants to dress Him up or give a different name to call Him…

Of course,there is only one God,Creator .It is that we are all at different stages in our knowledge of ,and relation ship with Him : I would however, not compare a buddhists ‘god’
to the true God,as it seems to be ‘optional’,and there is no revelation ,directly from God
to buddhists. It is more a ‘path’ ,a way of existing, than a relationship with our Creator.

 

[entree_gratuite]

I’ve not only been to them, I’ve participated in them. My wife writes a lot more (and better) poetry than I do, though.

And I want to see Into Great Silence. I saw Of Gods and Men a few weeks ago and loved it. One of the few movies that makes you want to become holy!

My experience with Taliesin is similar to GKC’s, though. Took me several attempts to see something in it, assisted by my wife’s enthusiasm for CW and an excellent reading/explication of “Bors and Elaine” that I heard at our local “C. S. Lewis and Friends” society.

For that matter, it took me several efforts to get into CW’s prose fiction, let alone his poetry. Fortunately, by the time I met the woman who is now my wife, I was a huge CW fan (she loves CW, although the writer who first brought us together was none other than the original GKC!)

Edwin

A French man,a Catholic remarked to me about the use of 'dieux ',plural .Yes they could not accept to say God,since some of the people involved were not believers,so they paganised the title.

 

[illusion_buster]

“O You, the Great God, whose name is unknown.” RA was a named/known god. The god spoken of here by the pharaoh was not RA. The knowledge that bespoke THIS inscription was INSPIRED by the TRUE and only ONE God of all.

 

[illusion_buster]

Alas, individual Catholics can abandon the truth and fall into error and even into sin.

If you are implying that a belief not conforming to the RCC is error and therefore sin…I disagree.

Previously I gave an analogy using artists representing different churches painting the same grand canyon. I present this again as a way of seeing the BIG picture instead of our narrow HUMAN view points. Your arguements are like a watercolour artist accusing an oil artist of the falsity of the brilliance of oil paint because he only understands and has faith in the soft watercolours. As I said before, ALL viewpoints are a reflection of what the artist sees from his position along the canyon. God sees ALL as valid worship when painted with the intent to capture the TRUTH. The oil artist has the most mobile yet durable foundation (pope)to which he applies the most brilliant colours. But…he can learn of the translucent softness of God throught the interpretation by the watercolour artist…he can learn of Gods exact clarity from the scetch artist and God’s immersion into all who seek from the pastel artist. AND lo and behold on the other bank…out of sight… the sculptor can show a 3D view of God the 2D artist could never attain. This is how we should view one another…Not picking irrelevent (though facinating) points like “pope is fallible vs pope = antichrist”. This is like saying that a stretch canvas (although versitile, solid and longest in lasting) is more valid (worship) than the water artist’s paper (not so accommodating & longlasting). The oil and the watercolour are BOTH acceptable interpretations of the subject, and therefore acceptable in their variety, to God. Whether there is agreement between the artists is irrelevant to TRUTH.

ALSO…I would not use Jesus’ references “it is written” as a reinforcment to the infallibility of scripture. His use of the above was to CORRECT wrong interpretation of scripture. Thus…scripture (the written word) and it’s interpretation, can be in error of truth.

 

[illusion_buster]

I personally know of a devote buddist who has come to the inspired knowledge that Jesus is the son of God…all by himself through (or in spite of) practicing fully his buddist beliefs honestly and with an open mind. It seems to him (so he said) that is was just a short step across a thin precipice. He still believes in reincarnation but not in the context he did before. He believes that Jesus by his death & ressurection, conquered the never ending hopelessness previously experienced in the ënlightenment spiral of the sinful, and that any further reincarnation is due to his OWN choice to return to earth only in human form (he never believed in human/animal reincarnation) to help others or further purify his own spirituality instead of serving his time in a ‘purgatory’ type place. Through acceptance of Jesus he has come to believe in both the Father & the Holy Spirit as a Trinity and one true Creator God. All this with NO interference from any christian source. I found this vary "enlightening.

 

[illusion_buster]

and there is no revelation ,directly from God
to buddhists.

What about the WAY to enlightenment (knowledge that will undoubtedly lead to God) through devote meditation, self sacrifice, humility, povety, chastity, love of one another, love of creation, demonstrating peace etc etc etc. This may not be revelation as WE understand it but this way of life is the same a benedictine monks and othe cloistered orders. They have all this TRUE knowledge of process but misinterpret the source. We have knowledge of the Source but have no stomach to live the process… Interesting!

 

[PRmerger]

Through acceptance of Jesus he has come to believe in both the Father & the Holy Spirit as a Trinity and one true Creator God. All this with NO interference from any christian source. I found this vary "enlightening.

Could you explain this a bit more, illusion? How was his “acceptance of Jesus” a catalyst to belief in the Trinity, without any interference from any Christian source?

How does one come to understand the Trinity–which defies logic, and reason and can only come to be known through Divine Revelation–without the influence of Christianity?

 

[illusion_buster]

The Scriptures, rather, reflect the faith of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source…

We are not a people of the Book. We are a people of the Word, the Word made Flesh–Jesus Christ.

THIS IS TRUTH!! For EVERY living soul. And with the understanding the Jesus and the Father are ONE along with the Holy Spirit…Those who worship the ONE God…the CREATOR God… are by default, worshiping Jesus as God. I supposed this is why the RCC says we are saved by FAITH and the good works that faith expresses.