Personal interpretation

[gtrenewed]

Please stop creating straw men, GT.

The straw man was created by you - using the arguement that because scripture does not say what is essential we cannot know what is essential. I disagree with this statement.

We cannot know complete doctrine but God breathed scripture certainly illuminates essentials without using the words “this is essential”. Because some do not see all the illumination does not mean the illumination is not there. As a Catholic, we are protected from this blindness by the Catechism.

Of course private interpretation by denominations trying to define complete doctrine misses the mark. And in the early church, the councils were needed to correct bad private interpretations. We need the complete doctrine of the Church but I can know an essential even if I don’t know the complete catechism.

So my arguement with a protestant who says they know the essentials would be: 1 - the early church fathers considered certain scriptures essential that you do not; 2 - the Catholic Church essentials match the early church fathers; 3 - and the number of differing opinions with protestantism. Asking them to list their essentials is a bit of a straw man because in this type of venue they may not list all they believe; thus, having two differing lists may not mean they are in disagreement. I am not saying don’t ask but when I have asked face to face they retreat to believing the basics of the Apostles Creed (except they equate catholic as universal body of Christ) and the rest is up to opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

The straw man was created by you - using the arguement that because scripture does not say what is essential we cannot know what is essential. I disagree with this statement.

GRRRR!

Please read my posts carefully, gt. I have repeated this *ad nauseum: * we *can *know what is essential–it’s what the Church tells us.

Non-Catholics, who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, when they talk about essentials are being contradictory: for Scripture does not tell us what is essential. When they declare something to be essential, it is through a man-made tradition. Or, it is through convergence with Catholic doctrine.

I don’t believe you are deliberately being un-discerning aout this. I simply think you are trying to argue with me and are creating some false idea of what I’m presenting, just so you can disagree.

Again, stop creating straw men.

We can know essentials. I have said that at least 10 times here. We can know essentials.

[SIGN1]Scripture just doesn’t state what they are.[/SIGN1]

So each and every time a non-Catholic SS advocate proclaims something about essentials he is using something OUTSIDE of Scripture to discern this.

 

[gtrenewed]

GRRRR!

Please read my posts carefully, gt. I have repeated this *ad nauseum: *we *can *know what is essential–it’s what the Church tells us.

I have read them carefully. I also have repeated ad nauseum. We are talking past each other. But please stop for a minute to let what I am saying sink in.

I agree with one word additional - completely - that is the Church tells us what is completely essential.

Non-Catholics, who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, when they talk about essentials are being contradictory: for Scripture does not tell us what is essential. When they declare something to be essential, it is through a man-made tradition. Or, it is through convergence with Catholic doctrine.

This is where we diverge. It is hard to conceive since alot has been handed down in both traditions but if a person got hold of new testament scripture who was never exposed to either tradition they would have the words of Jesus which according to Jesus are spirit and life. They could come to faith in Jesus from the essentials illuminated by the Holy Spirit. They would not have the complete doctrine but they would know about and by the grace of God have eternal life in Jesus Christ.

I disagree with your assessment that they are contradictory using the example above. It is not that they do not know essentials, they don’t know all the essentials and they don’t submit to the complete doctrine.

I don’t believe you are deliberately being un-discerning aout this. I simply think you are trying to argue with me and are creating some false idea of what I’m presenting, just so you can disagree.

I find your posts contain many unnecessary sarcastic comments and symbols so I don’t argue just to argue. I would rather have a fruitful discussion with others that do not do that. It appears to me that you cannot understand what I am saying because of prejudice.

Again, stop creating straw men.

We can know essentials. I have said that at least 10 times here. We can know essentials.

Except that you add - Scripture does not say what they are - and I say Scripture does by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the reason there is disagreement is that there are blind spots in protestantism.

[sign1]Scripture just doesn’t state what they are.[/sign1]

So each and every time a non-Catholic SS advocate proclaims something about essentials he is using something OUTSIDE of Scripture to discern this.

Perhaps but not necessarily.

 

[PRmerger]

I find your posts contain many unnecessary sarcastic comments and symbols so I don’t argue just to argue.

Whatever you say about my posts, you would be very off the mark to describe them as sarcastic.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak. I rarely use it.

You are arguing an ad hominem because you cannot argue against the truth of what I have been stating.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with one word additional - completely - that is the Church tells us what is completely essential.

What does the Church profess to be “completely essential” and what does the Church say is incompletely essential?

This is where we diverge. It is hard to conceive since alot has been handed down in both traditions

Exactly. Essentials from traditions. Not Scripture.

but if a person got hold of new testament scripture who was never exposed to either tradition they would have the words of Jesus which according to Jesus are spirit and life.

Amen!

They could come to faith in Jesus from the essentials illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

And what would these “essentials illuminated by the Holy Spirit” be? That which the Apostles Creed proclaims? What if this person also states that Malachi 1:11 is also essential? Will you proffer that he has not been illuminated by the Holy Spirit then?

I disagree with your assessment that they are contradictory using the example above. It is not that they do not know essentials, they don’t know all the essentials and they don’t submit to the complete doctrine.

ARRRGH! Of course they know essentials!

They just can’t use Scripture to determine what these essentials are!

They are using a man-made tradition, or they are in concert with the CC.

But they certainly did not know it from Scripture.

Otherwise, there would be agreement, not only on what these essentials verses are, but also how to interpret them.

Instead, we have tens of thousands of proclamations as to what the essentials are and what they mean.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture does not say what they are - and I say Scripture does by the illumination of the Holy Spirit

Ok. You tell us how a person who is reading the Bible without the lens of any tradition would discern whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not.

Now, since you say that **Scripture **tells us if it’s essential or not, (through the illumination of the Holy Spirit), please give us a Bible verse which says whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not. Book, chapter and verse, please.

 

[gtrenewed]

You are arguing an ad hominem because you cannot argue against the truth of what I have been stating.

You are missing the truth, that is why I keep posting.

 

[gtrenewed]

What does the Church profess to be “completely essential” and what does the Church say is incompletely essential?

You see this is what I consider sarcastic. There is no incomplete essential. In order for there to be non catholic christians they have discerned the essential from scripture but not complete doctrine. The catechism is complete doctrine.

Exactly. Essentials from traditions. Not Scripture.

Traditions learned from scripture. Human weakness creates certain blindness resulting in differences among denominations except in the very basic essentials as expressed in the Apostles Creed. Yes essentials learned in scripture.

And what would these “essentials illuminated by the Holy Spirit” be? That which the Apostles Creed proclaims? What if this person also states that Malachi 1:11 is also essential? Will you proffer that he has not been illuminated by the Holy Spirit then?

Again with the sarcasm. Why would I proffer such a thing?

But they certainly did not know it from Scripture.

Otherwise, there would be agreement, not only on what these essentials verses are, but also how to interpret them.

Instead, we have tens of thousands of proclamations as to what the essentials are and what they mean.

Human weakness creates blindness leading to disagreements but not on the very basic essentials. Because there is no single authority there can be no resolution. However, to say there are tens of thousands proclamations is hyberbole which does not foster good dialogue.

 

[gtrenewed]

Ok. You tell us how a person who is reading the Bible without the lens of any tradition would discern whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not.

The Holy Spirit. They may or may not see it (blindness) but the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.

Now, since you say that **Scripture **tells us if it’s essential or not, (through the illumination of the Holy Spirit), please give us a Bible verse which says whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not. Book, chapter and verse, please.

To be mature we have learned how to rightly divide the word of truth. We learn and savour the essential found in every word of scripture. This is our journey of fellowship with Jesus in scripture. One lifetime is not enough for it is infinite. There are many essentials in Isaiah 43:2 if one overcomes his blindness. We have the church to keep us true and in unity. The non catholic christian suffers from blindness but by the grace and mercy of God can know christian essentials.

 

[davidv]

You see this is what I consider sarcastic. There is no incomplete essential. In order for there to be non catholic christians they have discerned the essential from scripture but not complete doctrine. The catechism is complete doctrine.

Traditions learned from scripture. Human weakness creates certain blindness resulting in differences among denominations except in the very basic essentials as expressed in the Apostles Creed. Yes essentials learned in scripture.

Traditions were not learned from scripture. They were learned from Jesus and the Apostles.

Again with the sarcasm. Why would I proffer such a thing?

Human weakness creates blindness leading to disagreements but not on the very basic essentials. Because there is no single authority there can be no resolution. However, to say there are tens of thousands proclamations is hyberbole which does not foster good dialogue.

Human weakness even blinds many to even the most basic essentials.

 

[Cinette]

You see this is what I consider sarcastic. There is no incomplete essential. In order for there to be non catholic christians they have discerned the essential from scripture but not complete doctrine. The catechism is complete doctrine.

Traditions learned from scripture. Human weakness creates certain blindness resulting in differences among denominations except in the very basic essentials as expressed in the Apostles Creed. Yes essentials learned in scripture.

…

*Tradition with a capital T is the Oral Tradition which the Apostles used to spread the Good News. Scripture emanated from Tradition. What do you mean by “Traditions learned from scripture”?

Perhaps non-Catholics consider their interpretations of some scripture to be “traditions” with a small t ie Sola Scripture, Sola Fide.
*

 

[PRmerger]

You see this is what I consider sarcastic.

It is an honest question.

Not to mention, sarcasm means I indicate the opposite of what I’ve been saying. As in, “Nice job”. Said sarcastically it would indicate that I really think you’ve done a poor job.

To say that my question is sarcastic does not even make sense.

There is no incomplete essential. In order for there to be non catholic christians they have discerned the essential from scripture but not complete doctrine.

If they discerned any essentials it was through use of non-Scriptural tradition–either in convergence with the CC, or of their own authority, but it was not simply by reading Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Traditions learned from scripture. Human weakness creates certain blindness resulting in differences among denominations except in the very basic essentials as expressed in the Apostles Creed. Yes essentials learned in scripture.

That there are essentials, no one here denies.

That one knows these essentials form Scripture, nope.:nope:

One needs an OUTSIDE authority–the Catholic Church–to discern them.

If you ask a Baptist, an Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Lutheran if baptism is an essential, you’re not going to get any agreement.

Is baptism an essential doctrine for non-Catholic Christians or not, gt?

 

[PRmerger]

Again with the sarcasm. Why would I proffer such a thing?

Because Malachi 1:11 is not in the Apostle’s Creed.

How does one know it’s essential or not? Please use only Scripture to tell us.

 

[Cinette]

That there are essentials, no one here denies.

That one knows these essentials form Scripture, nope.:nope:

One needs an OUTSIDE authority–the Catholic Church–to discern them.

If you ask a Baptist, an Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Lutheran if baptism is an essential, you’re not going to get any agreement.

Is baptism an essential doctrine for non-Catholic Christians or not, gt?

*You make a good point PRmerger - a lot of non Catholics would say that Baptism is a non essential.

I get the impression that gt is trying to defend his non-Catholic friend because he knows and understands their sincerity. Sure they have truth - but not the full truth. They were born in this tradition and defend it. I think we should understand that.

I am not sure for how long gt has been back in the CC but, like me, he will grow in understanding. Already he demonstrates this but feels for our separated brothers and sisters.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[PRmerger]

*You make a good point PRmerger - a lot of non Catholics would say that Baptism is a non essential.

I get the impression that gt is trying to defend his non-Catholic friend because he knows and understands their sincerity. Sure they have truth - but not the full truth. They were born in this tradition and defend it. I think we should understand that.

I am not sure for how long gt has been back in the CC but, like me, he will grow in understanding. Already he demonstrates this but feels for our separated brothers and sisters.

God bless
Cinette*

Yes, Cinette. I see gt’s defense of our separated brethren. He need not feel they are being attacked.

I am simply pointing out the paradox in Sola Scriptura advocates who proclaim essential doctrines. It is an untenable position for them to hold both–either they are SS advocates and then they cannot know essentials, or if they hold essentials, then they must renounce their SS paradigm. There is no logical way to attain to both.

 

[PRmerger]

However, to say there are tens of thousands proclamations is hyberbole which does not foster good dialogue.

Actually, I agree with Catholic apologist John Martignoni who states that there are more likely millions of Christian denominations. To say “tens of thousands”, then, is being gracious, IMHO.

 

[PRmerger]

Because there is no single authority there can be no resolution

On this, gt, we are agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post

Now, since you say that Scripture tells us if it’s essential or not, (through the illumination of the Holy Spirit), please give us a Bible verse which says whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not. Book, chapter and verse, please.

To be mature we have learned how to rightly divide the word of truth. We learn and savour the essential found in every word of scripture. This is our journey of fellowship with Jesus in scripture. One lifetime is not enough for it is infinite. There are many essentials in Isaiah 43:2 if one overcomes his blindness. We have the church to keep us true and in unity. The non catholic christian suffers from blindness but by the grace and mercy of God can know christian essentials.

I think you proved my point rather nicely, gt. I asked you to give us a Bible verse which indicates whether Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not.

You could not do this.

This is a perfect illustration of why Scripture alone cannot tell us what is an essential and what isn’t.

If Scripture alone were all that was needed, all you had to do was say “Bible Verse A tells us that Bible Verse B is essential. Bible Verse C tells us that Bible Verse D is not essential.”

Instead, what non-Catholics must resort to is extra-biblical sources, such as the authority of the Catholic Church, to discern whether, say, Isaiah 43:2 is essential or not.

(The Catholic Church’s answer: it is not am essemtial doctrine).

 

[gtrenewed]

Traditions were not learned from scripture. They were learned from Jesus and the Apostles.

Human weakness even blinds many to even the most basic essentials.

Of course.

You need to go back and see all of my posts to understand this part of the thread.