J
JoeyWarren
Guest
It’s there in the Bible, you just have to recognize it for what it is.
- Status
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
SolaScriptura, why do you believe in the Bible?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Yes, just like the Trinity, however I’m sure you understand that this doesn’t mean it works for all other Catholic doctrines? As a matter of fact some of the Catholic doctrines explicitly contradict the Scriptures, but that is for another topic. ( don’t want to feel the wrath of JaneFrances
)Grace and Peace,
S.S.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hey Joey,
Sure, take your word for it, right? Well, just as soon as you take my word for it that sola Scriptura and sola Fide are there, you just have to recognize it for what it is. Glad we settled that
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hi E.E.N.S. ( BTW, what does the letters stand for?)
Ultimately, because the Holy Spirit of God working in my heart to accept it. Why do you believe in the Bible?
S.S.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
**Sola Scriptura does not mean there has to be an explicit teaching of something in Scripture for it to be true. **
I’ve already said this SS. They don’t listen.
I’ve already said this SS. They don’t listen.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Well put, S.S.! :yup:Hey Joey,
Sure, take your word for it, right? Well, just as soon as you take my word for it that sola Scriptura and sola Fide are there, you just have to recognize it for what it is. Glad we settled that
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Along the same lines as does St. Augustine, the authority of the Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit.
(E.E.N.S. stands for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
)
According to your interpretation maybe, but not according to mine. I believe that some of your beliefs explicitly contradict the Scriptures. Now who’s right?
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
How so? It’s spelled out in black and white in Luke?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Where?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
It at least has to be implicit for it to be true. And it is not.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
And what doe that mean in layman’s terms. I get the first two but not the last two.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
It stands for (the often misunderstood) “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hmmm … that is interesting. So do you accept the Feenyism view or the other Catholic view?Along the same lines as does St. Augustine, the authority of the Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit.
(E.E.N.S. stands for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
The Scriptures are right, so we would both have to make our cases from Scripture, but that is not the point of this thread.According to your interpretation maybe, but not according to mine. I believe that some of your beliefs explicitly contradict the Scriptures. Now who’s right?
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
How to know that you are saved:
Luke 1:76-77
And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to **give his people knowledge of salvation **through the forgiveness of their sins.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
OK, you are not making arguments, but just assertions. I guess our dialogue can stop at this point. Been nice talking with you Joey!!
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
J
jacobaer
Guest
Hi Sola Scriptura,
I posted this: “Let me give you an example. I ask the saints in heaven to pray for me, just as I ask the saints on earth to pray for me. This practice is not contradicted by anything in Scripture. What do you think?”
You said: “I think it is contradicted by Scripture, however even if it wasn’t, but there was no positive command to do it or good and necessary consequence then you could not impose that on anyone else.”
ME: So if a belief or practice is not commanded in Scripture but is not contradicted by Scripture AND there is a good and necessary consequence for believing or practicing it, then it is OK. Have I interpreted your statement correctly?
Peace,
Jacobaer
I posted this: “Let me give you an example. I ask the saints in heaven to pray for me, just as I ask the saints on earth to pray for me. This practice is not contradicted by anything in Scripture. What do you think?”
You said: “I think it is contradicted by Scripture, however even if it wasn’t, but there was no positive command to do it or good and necessary consequence then you could not impose that on anyone else.”
ME: So if a belief or practice is not commanded in Scripture but is not contradicted by Scripture AND there is a good and necessary consequence for believing or practicing it, then it is OK. Have I interpreted your statement correctly?
Peace,
Jacobaer
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Thanks for a critique of my critical thinking, but I’m still looking for quotes of this from Webster/King:
SS << Of course King and Webster believes the church has this authority, they just don’t believe the church equals Rome. >>
Where do they say that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture? I don’t see that in their volumes. Again, here is a summary of Protestant scholars (A) Schaff, (B) Kelly, (C) Pelikan:
(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff);
(B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was “sufficient” in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture’s true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly);
(C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc – only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan).
That’s what the Fathers believed, and that’s what is missing from Webster/King. Mathison admits some of this at least.
Phil P
SS << Of course King and Webster believes the church has this authority, they just don’t believe the church equals Rome. >>
Where do they say that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture? I don’t see that in their volumes. Again, here is a summary of Protestant scholars (A) Schaff, (B) Kelly, (C) Pelikan:
(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff);
(B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was “sufficient” in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture’s true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly);
(C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc – only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan).
That’s what the Fathers believed, and that’s what is missing from Webster/King. Mathison admits some of this at least.
Phil P
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Yes, yeah, and yep
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
How does this fit into the context of the rest of the Scriptures that make it “black and white” that a person must be careful not to lose their salvation? Here are about 100 verses that say otherwise.
Also, I think it would be highly beneficial for you to read this article addressing this exact topic.
Okay, now let’s get back on topic, shall we?
- Status