Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[jcrichton]

No, actually the bible will not be understood even by those who study it day and night as many JW’s do, unless the Holy Spirit guides them. Even with the help of the HS, not every teaching in the bible will be made clear to very many people.

***Hi, Nick Jones!

…my point is that just on this forum another non-Catholic has an exact opposite understanding from yours (I hope he is not from your church); on his posts he makes the statement that Scriptures are easily understood by those who believe! (Though he does make a quick distinction between Paul’s superior intellectual abilities and Peter’s mediocrity.)

It seems that you support my reasoning: if we are lead by the Holy Spirit our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot bring us to such diverse and opposite understandings; it cannot be that the Holy Spirit seeks to profit by creating a multitude of schisms that constantly pulls apart the Body of Christ!

---

I was once an atheist. But God changed me from a lost dead sinner to one who is alive through the Spirit. This happened even though I never was seeking God and I didn’t want the truth if truth means God exists. I was in rebellion against God, and a slave to my own evil and selfish desires. The only way that the Truth can set a sinner free is if God makes that sinner receptive to the Truth.

---

I commend you on your trek and I welcome you to the Body of Christ! I agree with you that it is God’s calling that separates us from sin (Jesus tells us that we must learn from God in order to come to Him–St. John 6:45), and Yahweh made it clear to the people of Israel that He does not want a single one of us to perish (Ezekiel 18); but, ultimately, we have to humble ourselves to God in order to allow Him to work that change in us (Ephisians 4:30; 1 St. Peter 5:5-6). ***

The emphasis of so many (not all) in the RCC, is on the certainty they claim to have through their visible religious system. They are seeking certain infallible knowledge. But the bible repeatedly tells us that the man of God walks by FAITH. But what need is there for faith if we have certain infallible knowledge? In the end, the whole RC system is really not much different from other religions that emphasize some supposedly infallible human authority. When I read the bible I see that the only infallible authority is God, and the men who were credited as righteous by their faith, were men who’s faith was in God.

***I agree with you to a point… too many of us Catholic and non-Catholic alike place our trust in others; it is the human way: “the path of least resistance.”

But when we read the Holy Scriptures we find that these holy men (righteous) did not appear in a vacuum nor did they operate as islands; they were part of the Church and their function was to build up the Church not break it down into myriads of doctrines.***

I’m not assuming that the 30,000 denominations are all saved Christians. We simply have no way of knowing which people in any group are truly saved. That is for God to determine. But I have been led to a church that truly seems to want to honor God, and not men.

On this too I agree with you; it is God who is the Judge; only He has the final Word. Still, just as you find yourself being called to serve in your church, so have I been called to serve in mine.

I’m not sure what you mean here, but I don’t think it is necessarily the goal to be prolific in doctrine and membership.

***I am referring to the number of doctrines (and subdoctrines) that exists amongst non-Catholic Christians:

i.e.: baptism (manner, age, discipline all varies according to the group’s interpretations); number of Sacraments; emphasis on various Gifts (speaking in tongues, healing, prophesying, discernment of evil spirits, etc.); once saved…; Eucharist (breaking of bread); being above the Law (at least one group is convinced that we can choose to die in sin and God has a contractural obligation to resurrect us into Life); some preach a “come as you are” Christianity which approves of any “life-style,” etc.

These various understandings do not promote unity but pluralism; the Church of Christ is reformed according to the personal views of the various members who create the schism–each schism is lead (at least from their perspective) by the Holy Spirit (of course, they do not call it a schism).

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[WayneTalbot]

---

The problem I find is that they are selective in their obedience to the Holy Scriptures and they formulate their own “church’s” interpretation of the Word to support their views on what constitutes Yahweh’s true Doctrine–this, again, from my personal encounters with the various non-Catholic “Christians.”

---

I guess that before I would believe you on this point, I would have to know the nature of this disobedience.
Are you sure that it is disobedience of Scripture, or disobedience of Catholic law?
As I have mentioned before, unsubstantiated generalisations are opinions, no matter who delivers them.
If you would care to provide an example, and Scriptural support, I would be only too pleased to agree / disagree depending on the substance, but you cannot ask us to place much store in your word when you generalise in this manner.
From my own studies, within mainstream Christian groups, there are far fewer Scriptural disputes on key issues of the Gospel than your prose would have us believe.

 

[jcrichton]

I guess that before I would believe you on this point, I would have to know the nature of this disobedience.
Are you sure that it is disobedience of Scripture, or disobedience of Catholic law?
As I have mentioned before, unsubstantiated generalisations are opinions, no matter who delivers them.
If you would care to provide an example, and Scriptural support, I would be only too pleased to agree / disagree depending on the substance, but you cannot ask us to place much store in your word when you generalise in this manner.
From my own studies, within mainstream Christian groups, there are far fewer Scriptural disputes on key issues of the Gospel than your prose would have us believe.

***Hi, WayneTablbot!

One group:
You are saved no matter what–apparently a person can willfully die in sin and God has no other choice but to save him/her; “once saved” seems to be a get-out-of-hell-free system.

A “pastor” at a Christian Bible site:
Committing suicide is not a sin–I am a pastor, I know…

Various members of same church and other members of other churches:
…no, baptism must be (fill in the blank–at least 4 different tenets)

solo Christian:
…no need for organizational church; each person is his/her own church.

local church’s invitation:
…you must receive the Holy Spirit, He will heal you–if you do not receive healing it is due to your lack of faith…

other local church’s invitation:
…and this is where we speak in tongues… go ahead, you must…

member of local church:
…the pastor said that we cannot discuss the Bible with you 'cause you’re Catholic–I mean cause you are not from our church…

online senior member of Christian Bible site:
…I have over x amount of posts, so just read them and prove to me that (you fill in doctrine’s title);

online defender of Christ:
…baptism is not necessary for salvation…

online moderator:
…you cannot promote your religious beliefs here, this is not a Catholic forum… (my reply: show me where I have posted anything about the Catholic Church other than stating that I am Catholic–I am still waiting for his proof that I was proselytizing in a Christian site)
second member (could be the one that requested the reprimand):
…Catholics are not Christians–the Holy Spirit lead me on my beliefs… that’s how I know…

There are more samples that I can offer but dealing with non-Catholics is a dicy situation: they require exact proof, yet they reject the Holy Scriptures when their views are challanged.

You continue to dump on the Catholic Church and you proudly announce that you use Scriptures to substantiate your statements; all the while rejecting anything that contradicts you or you present your interpretation of Scripture as the inerrant and true rendering. It’s like betting against the house while they load everything and zoom in on your cards: only the house wins!

Jesus Commands you to be one in His Church; yet you seek your own way and say that does not mean that we are supposed to be one Church… that is so simplistic; we can be as many churches as opinions on the planet cause the Roman Catholic Church is not the authority; every single believer is (but not if he/she is Roman Catholic)–this of course is my view of you from your posts and your selective arguments (the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, the Catholic Church… the Catholic Church…) It seems that all you need to do is say something like:

Are you sure that it is disobedience of Scripture, or disobedience of Catholic law?***

…and your theology or statement is inerrant!

You keep insinuating that non-Catholic Christians are almost in agreement when it comes to Scriptures… that sounds very good; it seems that I am, surreptitiously, disseminating tall tales about non-Catholic Christians… to put an end to my fallacies:

Show, Scripturally, that Jesus meant for the Holy Spirit to inspire thousands of Christians denominations, each having a variation of doctrine and each basing their beliefs as inspired (lead) by the Holy Spirit.

Conversely, show, Scripturally, that Jesus did not mean to establish one Church and that His call of unity was only meant for the Eleven.

…or show how the Holy Spirit created differnt doctrines as the various Apostles and disciples brought the Gospel to the various nations that they visited.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Romulus]

Romulus,
I have yet to consider your post introducing the Barbara and Dastisi syllogisms, I’ll get back to them if I can (if I can keep up),

No hurry Wayne, I appreciate your feedback.

but in the meantime, I admit to having difficulty with your syllogisms and related references, chiefly because it is over 40 years since I did math, and it is taking me some time to come up to speed (if ever).

Sure it takes time. It always good to go back to re-familiarize ourselves with some useful tools.

However, during reading as you recommended, on universal and existential quantifiers, I still sensed a lack of logic, and it came to me that maybe it is the definition of “sufficient” that is the stumbling block, as the term “sufficient” is more qualitative that quantitative. The rules of “Negation of Quantifiers” seems not to apply adequately to qualitative statements: the negation of a qualifier is simply “not”. But I am not sure I am on the right track there.

Well, let us make sure we are both on the “right track here” before we go on further.

In my syllogism that you restated…The word “sufficient” is being used as the Predicate (the part of a sentence or clause containing a verb and stating something about the subject). So yes, negation of “sufficient” is “insufficient” and vice versa. And the subject part is “Scripture”.

let us separately negate the qualifiers “some/all” and “in/ not in” (I use the word qualifier deliberately to avoid confusion with Negation of Quantifiers):

Careful Wayne… “some/all” are not qualifiers. In syllogisms, by definition, they are quantifiers. Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. Therefore, “Negation of Quantifiers” applies.

Everyone, let me know if it makes sense and we are all on the same page before we continue. And again, thanks for the feedback.

On a side note, I’ve posted these syllogisms at carm.org…and really nobody has stuck with me over there to discuss these kinds of “deductive reasoning” in regards to Sola Scriptura and Scripture sufficiency.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Show, Scripturally, that Jesus meant for the Holy Spirit to inspire thousands of Christians denominations, each having a variation of doctrine and each basing their beliefs as inspired (lead) by the Holy Spirit.

Conversely, show, Scripturally, that Jesus did not mean to establish one Church and that His call of unity was only meant for the Eleven.

…or show how the Holy Spirit created differnt doctrines as the various Apostles and disciples brought the Gospel to the various nations that they visited.

I’m guessing that here, you are suggesting that the RCC is united while all these Protestant denominations are not united. Are you saying that the existence of 30,000 Protestant denominations in itself, proves that Protestants lack unity?

 

[WayneTalbot]

Careful Wayne… “some/all” are not qualifiers. In syllogisms, by definition, they are quantifiers. Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism. Therefore, “Negation of Quantifiers” applies.

Everyone, let me know if it makes sense and we are all on the same page before we continue. And again, thanks for the feedback.
(

Agreed so far.
As I meant to convey, I only used the word “qualifier” to acknowledge my lack of competence in the use of syllogisms.
Incidentally, it is refreshing to discuss a subject intelligently, step by logical step, without resorting to the loquacious diatribes used by some posters.

 

[WayneTalbot]

---

You continue to dump on the Catholic Church and you proudly announce that you use Scriptures to substantiate your statements; all the while rejecting anything that contradicts you or you present your interpretation of Scripture as the inerrant and true rendering. It’s like betting against the house while they load everything and zoom in on your cards: only the house wins!

---

I do not dump on the Catholic Church, nor do I proudly announce anything, I am ever aware of my own fallibility.
Yes, I do use Scriptures to substantiate my statements - what other substantiation should one use?
I do not present my interpretation of Scripture as the inerrant and true rendering - I offer it for examination and refutation.
My interpretations are not just personal, they are the result of studying multiple conflicting viewpoints, and selecting the ones that best fit the basic rules of Bible exegesis, the rules of language comprehension, and the rules of logic.
I do not reject anything that contradicts me, but I do reject contradicting opinions that are offered without substantiation.

As for “It’s like betting against the house while they load everything and zoom in on your cards: only the house wins!”, you seem to miss the irony that the simile you use better fits those in the Catholic Church who claim that ONLY the Church has the completeness of truth.

Let us be clear on one thing at least.
The Catholic Church does not claim infallibility - except in well defined circumstances.
If the Church is not infallible in some circumstances, it is thus capable of error.
Contrary views should be examined on their merits, tracing the path used to develop the view, either showing where error crept in, or accepting the likely truth of the view.
I have tried to follow that process, and admit that I am not always successful.
I am open to suggestions of better processes, but they should be grounded in discipline.

Lastly, a personal attack is not what I would expect on this site, to say nothing of the weakness in logic of *ad hominem *arguments.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Everyone, let me know if it makes sense and we are all on the same page before we continue. And again, thanks for the feedback.
(

Another question for you, as I realise that I am unclear as to the meaning of the Major Premise:
"All God breathed things are insufficient
Does this mean that:
a. Not any are sufficient.
b. Not all are sufficient, i.e. you have to have all to achieve sufficiency; or
c. All are not sufficient, i.e. even if you have all, it is still not sufficient.

If the latter, (c), the syllogism is invalid because of the circular logic: you are using as a premise that which you are trying to conclude (I think, but it is early morning and I haven’t had my coffee yet).

Many thanks.

 

[believer112]

I’m guessing that here, you are suggesting that the RCC is united while all these Protestant denominations are not united. Are you saying that the existence of 30,000 Protestant denominations in itself, proves that Protestants lack unity?

There is only TRUTH , How can the truth be divided into 30,000 parts ?

Catholics share One Thruth, One Dogma , and One interpretation of the Bible and Scripture, my protestant friends cannot even
agree with each other if divorce is supported by Scripture, how can they come up with one united front if every one thinks his or her interpretation of the Bible is correct .

As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the
Pope and the Magisterium when they
interpret and promulgate Scripture. The Holy Spirit has for 2,000
plus years guided the one true Church of Christ.

Sola scriptura after everything has been said and done boils down to this. Whose authority do you recognize?
If you are protestant , you recognize and believe in the authority
of your pastor, priest or minister to guide you and interpret Scripture for you.

If you are Catholic , you look to the Pope,bishops and the heirarchy of the Church to interpret Scripture and guide you…

In making the decision on which path to choose, remember that God did not promise us a perfect Church, because His people are not perfect. He promised that He would be with us until the end of time.

Jesus Christ only established One Church, and only One.
The Catholic Church sprung up from the Rock , St. Peter.
to whom the keys to Heaven were given . the Apostles were
given the authority to bind and free anything on the earth.
This was never given to anyone else …

May God bless you and yours
Merry Christmas

 

[WayneTalbot]

Catholics share One Thruth, One Dogma , and One interpretation of the Bible and Scripture,

Oh how wrong you are.
The organization of the Catholic Church speaks with one voice, all power vested in Rome.
But to claim that all Catholics agree with Rome, or even accept Rome’s teachings, is about as accurate as claiming that all people of a nation should be judged by the actions of their leaders.
The legalistic nature of the Catholic Church prevents clergy and laiety speaking out as much as they would like, excommunication being the fate of those who would step too far out of line.
Either you are not aware of the continuing dispute between Rome and the Hispanic speaking countries of America, or you are choosing to ignore it. The African Catholics are bitterly in dispute with Rome over contraception, there are multiple communities that do not accept all Marian theology, and there are clergy that quietly acquiesce to the primacy of Rome even though they do not agree with it.
Silence is not necessarily approval.
There is some truth in your claim, but one could also assert that the only reason that it is true is because Rome brooks no dissent.
Catholics agree because if you disagree, you are not Catholic.
Protestants, on the other hand, can give the appearance of disarray because they allow dissent, they accept Jesus’ statement that the law in written on our hearts, and that what is truly important is devotion to Him and no-one else. Protestants, in the main, eschew legalism, preferring instead that each work out their own salvation through a personal relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ. If that manifests differences, so be it.
Fortunately, the Catholic church does not claim the same degree of completeness of truth as some of its adherents would claim on its behalf.
The line is fine, and just where the Church draws it is difficult to discern, but as long as the Church claims that its infallibility is limited, it therefore admits it is capable of error.

 

[believer112]

You are confusing dissent and obedience . There will always be dissent , there will always be people who will not agree, but the
proof of their belief in the Catholic Church is obedience to its
teachings.
You quote dissent from the Americas and Africa , yes, there is
dissent. and there always will be .Even in the times of the apostles, they always did not get along with each other ,but they obeyed .
the parable of the two sons whom their father sent to work in the fields illustrates this . One son dissented , but in the end obeyed. The other son told his father that he would go,but in the end disobeyed. It is not our words of obedience or dissent that
define us , but it is our actions.

The Catholic Church has been accused of being legalistic ,and to a point it is. It stands against abortion , divorce and assisted
suicide . These are some issues where the Protestant churches
have waffled . Some pastors I know will marry divorced couples that were previously married in their churches. And somehow,
abortion and assisted suicides have become more acceptable to some protestant congregations. Someone has to say , No,
No to divorce , No to abortion , No to suicides. and if that is
legalism , so be it.

May God bless us All

 

[Nick_Jones]

You are confusing dissent and obedience . There will always be dissent , there will always be people who will not agree, but the
proof of their belief in the Catholic Church is obedience to its
teachings.
You quote dissent from the Americas and Africa , yes, there is
dissent. and there always will be .Even in the times of the apostles, they always did not get along with each other ,but they obeyed .
the parable of the two sons whom their father sent to work in the fields illustrates this . One son dissented , but in the end obeyed. The other son told his father that he would go,but in the end disobeyed. It is not our words of obedience or dissent that
define us , but it is our actions.

The Catholic Church has been accused of being legalistic ,and to a point it is. It stands against abortion , divorce and assisted
suicide . These are some issues where the Protestant churches
have waffled . Some pastors I know will marry divorced couples that were previously married in their churches. And somehow,
abortion and assisted suicides have become more acceptable to some protestant congregations. Someone has to say , No,
No to divorce , No to abortion , No to suicides. and if that is
legalism , so be it.

May God bless us All

Are you saying that none of those who have gotten an abortion, a divorce, or have advocated assisted suicide are RC?

 

[rtconstant]

Are you saying that none of those who have gotten an abortion, a divorce, or have advocated assisted suicide are RC?

Again you’re speaking of individual cafeteria members of a Church. We’re talking about the origins of the respective denominations. You also have the cafeteria members but they only compound the issue. The Reformation and its resulting denominational offspring are all products of rebellion against existing doctrine. Which because of its rebellious nature opens the gateway to further rebellion. Afterall if the original teachers were wrong then their students may be as well and so on and so forth.

So each man can start his own church so long as he can gather a large enough following to get away with it. Now ON TOP of the theological chaos that is at the nativity of each denominational group there also exists the internal rebellion of the individual members who take and leave the teachings of their respective denominations in cafeteria style.

In Catholicism we do indeed have the latter but luckily we dodge the former.

 

[WayneTalbot]

The Reformation and its resulting denominational offspring are all products of rebellion against existing doctrine. Which because of its rebellious nature opens the gateway to further rebellion.
So each man can start his own church so long as he can gather a large enough following to get away with it.
In Catholicism we do indeed have the latter but luckily we dodge the former.

Ever mindful of Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:16, “Do not be wise in your own opinion”, and I am reminding myself here, I would ask you to look upon many of these churches not as denominations in the conventional sense, but simply as churches in the sense of Romans 16:5. Certainly, there are “denominations”, and I am as horrified as any with some of their teachings, their acceptance of homosexual practices, abortion, euthanasia, etc, but there are many other churches that are rigorous and conservative in their observance of Scripture.
While the Reformation could be considered a “rebellion” against the Church of Rome, it was not rebellion against just doctrine, but against practice as well (and I don’t think you would argue with that). That said, many modern churches are not rebelling against anything, they are simply congregations of people devoted to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and an acceptance of His Gospel, preferring the simple model of early Christian churches to that now given by the Catholic Church.
They are not rebellious in nature, belief, or behaviour, rather they submit to the Lord in true faith and humility of heart. They see their calling as nothing more than serving God by loving Him, loving their neighbour, preaching the Gospel of Christ, and helping the poor and needy.
They see no need for the theologies and doctrines that the Catholic Church has added over the years, nor the some 1500 canons of Church Law.
Submitting to Him, they believe that Jesus lives in them, they are guided by Him, and He will judge what is in their hearts. They know they will sin, even though they try not to, but are guided by Paul’s words in Romans 7:20 “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”.
They see no need of a Marian theology, of departed saints, or of any intercessors with God other than what is promised in Scripture. They see the love of God in the intercessors that The Father has provided, Jesus Himself at the right hand (Romans 8:34), and the Holy Spirit, who intercedes for us because we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Romans 8:26). How can any human intercessor add to that powerful duo?

So I would ask that you not take generalisations too far when referring to the non-Catholic Christian communities. Certainly there are groups for whom we should especially pray, they are lost, but there are others with whom it would be hard to find fault – they are simply following the Gospel of Christ as originally taught and practiced by early Christians. To some ways of thinking, that is closer to the original intent of Jesus Christ.

Your theology and faith in a particular Church is your choice, and only God can know what is in your heart, but be neither rash nor harsh in your judgement of the choice of others.

 

[WayneTalbot]

It is unfortunate that it gets under your skin Wayne…The Church has final authority…it is what Jesus taught.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church,

Here is another from Paul

GAL 1: 6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be **anathema. **

Paul, a superior of the early Church says, someone who preaches perverted a.k.a. distorted “good news” is to be an anathema or excommunicated.

peace be with you

I could agree with you, if I agreed with your definitions.
The “church” in Galatians is the same meaning as the “church” in 1 Corinthians 3:9, simply the community of believers, not a monolithic bureaucracy in Rome.
Likewise your interpretation of Galatians 6:8, Paul refers to the Gospel of Christ, a very simple teaching yet a mystery at the time to both Gentiles and the Jews. An extrapolation of Paul’s reference to the Gospel to cover theologies added by Rome in the intervening years is hardly warranted.

 

[WayneTalbot]

You are confusing dissent and obedience . There will always be dissent , there will always be people who will not agree, but the
proof of their belief in the Catholic Church is obedience to its
teachings.
You quote dissent from the Americas and Africa , yes, there is
dissent. and there always will be .
May God bless us All

I take your point re the difference between dissent and disobedience, but I would offer that such a difference is secular; in a spiritual sense, there is no difference because true obedience is in the heart, not in our actions, unless our actions are a reflection of our hearts.
As to the unity of the Catholic Church, you may like to read up on what some observers have defined as the six categories of Roman Catholics today: the ultratraditionalists, traditionalists, liberals, charismatic / evangelicals, culturals, and popular folk.
The RCC does strive to portray itself as unified, but not everyone sees it that way, and it would be uncharitable to judge all such observers as having malicious intent.
It is not my intention to belittle anyone who places their faith in the Catholic Church, but I do feel I should respond when statements are made that are at odds with what can be seen from other sources.
But maybe I should not.
With no false humility, I continue to pray on such matters.

 

[WayneTalbot]

It is unfortunate that it gets under your skin Wayne…The Church has final authority…it is what Jesus taught.

Paul, a superior of the early Church says, someone who preaches perverted a.k.a. distorted “good news” is to be an anathema or excommunicated.
peace be with you

Oops, I forgot to mention, that the Church, while not exactly revoking its pronouncements on anathema’s, has certainly tempered its language to the extent that I’m not quite sure where I stand in relation to being excommunicated.
In the 12th century, the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed that “There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which none will be saved”. In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared: “It is to be held as a matter of faith that no-one can be saved outside the Apostolic Church. It is the only ark of salvation and anyone who does not enter it must sink in the flood”.
Since Vatican Council II, however, all who are named “Christian”, including non-Catholics, are viewed as God’s family. Non-Catholics are considered “separated brethren”.
So the question remains: can members of God’s family be denied salvation?
The Church is quite coy on the subject, no longer saying that Christian bethren “must sink in the flood”, nor explicitly retracting previous articles of faith.
Does anyone know the “official” Church position, and can you quote a reference post Vatican II ?

 

[Romulus]

The “church” in Galatians is the same meaning as the “church” in 1 Corinthians 3:9, simply the community of believers, not a monolithic bureaucracy in Rome.

Again, as I mentioned to Nick…

Sure it is called a church too…but, there is a problem… In Matthew 18, Jesus differentiates between “two or three witnesses/followers” and “the Church”…so they could not be entirely the same… There has to be “a final authority”…and Jesus teaches us it is his Church…In Timothy, “Pillar of Truth”…the Church.

Matt 18: 15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Wayne, this is off topic… but a good topic where we will have to get into the original koine Greek…, we need to jump on over to a different thread in regards what/where is the “Pillar of Truth” a.k.a CHURCH.

 

[believer112]

I take your point re the difference between dissent and disobedience, but I would offer that such a difference is secular; in a spiritual sense, there is no difference because true obedience is in the heart, not in our actions, unless our actions are a reflection of our hearts.
As to the unity of the Catholic Church, you may like to read up on what some observers have defined as the six categories of Roman Catholics today: the ultratraditionalists, traditionalists, liberals, charismatic / evangelicals, culturals, and popular folk.
The RCC does strive to portray itself as unified, but not everyone sees it that way, and it would be uncharitable to judge all such observers as having malicious intent.
It is not my intention to belittle anyone who places their faith in the Catholic Church, but I do feel I should respond when statements are made that are at odds with what can be seen from other sources.
But maybe I should not.
With no false humility, I continue to pray on such matters.

Obedience is in doing . That’s it. You chose either to heed the Church or not heed it and to go your own way.

Please don’t confuse the diversity of the people of the Catholic Church as a lack of unity . One of the earliest symbols of the
Catholic Church was the promegranate , the fruit has an outside
skin , but holds many seeds inside.
The dogma, beliefs .and tradition of the Catholic Church is the
skin of the fruit. The seeds of the promegranate are the people . They come in different sizes, different educational backgrounds,
different races, and from different financial strata. But these diversified people are united in their belief in the One Church that
Jesus Christ established on Earth .

That’s the problem with sola scriptura, It changes in meaning depending on which protestant church you ask. I know, because it comes up every time I and my friends gather for our annual picnic. If the Protestants themselves cannot agree with themselves what sola scriptura means, how can it be a valid
principle ? Because how would someone know who to believe ?

God Bless us all and Merry Christmas to everyone.

 

[Romulus]

Another question for you, as I realise that I am unclear as to the meaning of the Major Premise:
"All God breathed things are insufficient
Does this mean that:
a. Not any are sufficient.
b. Not all are sufficient, i.e. you have to have all to achieve sufficiency; or
c. All are not sufficient, i.e. even if you have all, it is still not sufficient.

I see it as (c)… All God-breathed things are insufficient…All Sacred Scripture and All Sacred Tradition…

(Barbara syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All Scripture is God breathed
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

If the latter, (c), the syllogism is invalid because of the circular logic: you are using as a premise that which you are trying to conclude (I think, but it is early morning and I haven’t had my coffee yet).

The syllogism is valid. Double check here again. You mean it is The fallacy “Begging the question”…it can be if we don’t make the major premise an axiom (axiom - taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.) Therefore, this argument is clear, logical and convincing for scripture insufficiency.
Here is more on Begging the question.

Since you believe that it is the fallacy “Begging the question”…then you don’t accept the Major premise as an axiom…and believe it to be false. We both accept the minor to be true since it is explicit in Timothy.

Ok, if you accept the major premise is to be false…then by the Law of non-contradiction the negation is true…which you have to accept. Negation of major premise is “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…this is what you would end up having to believe…

Timothy: 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So some and not all of the scriptures can instruct thee to salvation…you don’t need all of it…Which ones are sufficient and which ones are not? Do you believe this? I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.