L
lak611
Guest
Who are the Feenyites?Yeah, the Feenyites claim they hold to the view of the Church also
- Status
T
TriLogic
Guest
If I wrote a book of “nice or happy thoughts” and circulated them as the inspired word of a supernatural all powerful being most people would think I was either out of my mind or a phoney. (There would be some nutcases though that would follow along) Similarly, If I were to take the Scriptures and write up some additions I thought helpdful and claim them to be inspired people would not think much differently. If I removed some of what should be there because it conflicted with my personal theology (soime) people would also find it troublesome.
When individuals make the claim for Sola Scriptura they are in effect doing the same thing. They take a book and claim it to be true, based upon itself.
What they don’t want to admit though is that they hold the Scriptures to a certain Christian Tradition - They accept what has been acceptable before them. They therefore make an appeal to a historical tradition which they hold. They accept the historical tradition of what should be in the bible and what should not.
One fine example is the Chritian Tradition of what books should be contained within the Bible - as there is no table of contents aside from what Chritian Tradition has defined (much later then the original writings) to be proper.
When individuals make the claim for Sola Scriptura they are in effect doing the same thing. They take a book and claim it to be true, based upon itself.
What they don’t want to admit though is that they hold the Scriptures to a certain Christian Tradition - They accept what has been acceptable before them. They therefore make an appeal to a historical tradition which they hold. They accept the historical tradition of what should be in the bible and what should not.
One fine example is the Chritian Tradition of what books should be contained within the Bible - as there is no table of contents aside from what Chritian Tradition has defined (much later then the original writings) to be proper.
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Romans 10, 8
The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.
I John 5, 10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony within Himself.
The written word is first in our hearts.
If one thinks that the written word is the only thing that one needs, they are being to literal. The Word is in our hearts.
Also…
I Thess. 5, 8…putting on the breastplate of faith and love…
Eph. 6, 14…clothed with rigtheousness as a breastplate…
Breastplate of righteousness includes love and faith.
If one holds justified and saved by faith, then one must see here that faith is within our heart, and thus our justification and salvation is within our heart. Justification is not outside us; justification is within the heart/soul.
The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.
I John 5, 10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony within Himself.
The written word is first in our hearts.
If one thinks that the written word is the only thing that one needs, they are being to literal. The Word is in our hearts.
Also…
I Thess. 5, 8…putting on the breastplate of faith and love…
Eph. 6, 14…clothed with rigtheousness as a breastplate…
Breastplate of righteousness includes love and faith.
If one holds justified and saved by faith, then one must see here that faith is within our heart, and thus our justification and salvation is within our heart. Justification is not outside us; justification is within the heart/soul.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
A group that literally believes if you are outside of the Roman Catholic church you have no chance of salvation. All people who are not baptized in the Roman Catholic Church are going to hell.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Yes, but they would say they are viewed that way because the current church is contradicting infallible Oral Tradition. So now we see and infallible source does not prevent numerous interpretations, because individuals still have to interpret the infallible teaching for meaning.Ahh, but how does the Church view the Feenyites? That is the question.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Go right ahead. I don’t mind. I can’t be here at every response SS has.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
You should make this your signature.
Well, I thought that we Protestants never answered the questions? I know us two have.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
You have not shown us these passages that claim to be in the bible that claims the Bible is a sole rule of faith or that the Bible is the Supreme Authority.You should make this your signature.
Well, I thought that we Protestants never answered the questions? I know us two have.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
I’ve actually given verses and people tried to discredit them. That’s not a wise thing to do with Scripture.
I’ve also said some of the same things as SS said.
I have a book in front of me right now called Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. If only I could plagiarize from it like some of the Catholics do on here.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You do know that the Vatican dealt with them, correct?
The Church doesn’t allow this type of heresy to continue, either.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
We are discredting your twisted interpretation of that scripture.
And you were both wrong.
It not called plaguerising, it’s called providing direct quoting.
(Edited by Moderator)
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
It would be called plagiarizing. It is a copyrighted piece of work. And you guys quote from copyrighted pieces of work as well.
No, we weren’t wrong. You just think so.
LOL why would I burn this book? Don’t only cults tell people to burn their books and forbid their people to study to show themselves approved, rightly dividing the Word (not traditions)?
Have a good night.
No, we weren’t wrong. You just think so.
LOL why would I burn this book? Don’t only cults tell people to burn their books and forbid their people to study to show themselves approved, rightly dividing the Word (not traditions)?
Have a good night.
H
historyb
Guest
It’s only plagiarizing if when you quote something not to give the source you got it from. I know the College I go to repeats it like a mantra.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
SS << You have once again demonstrated what I have been saying about you all along. You read for prooftexts and not truth. King clearly believes the church has the authority to interpret Scripture >>
OK fine, King believes there are such things as teachers in the Church. That’s good. Wonderful. But what kind of authority do those teachers really have? Not much apparently. My claim was that neither King nor Webster say the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture, and they ignore the statements of the Fathers on the point. Mathison is more explicit:
=====
Mathison: According to the Fathers, the Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).
Mathison: On the nature of the Church, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (268). The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16).
Mathison: And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (272).
=====
Come as far as Mathison and there wouldn’t be too much difference between the Roman Catholic or Orthodox view and Mathison’s view. But I might re-read King’s volume 1 since its been about 5 years since I read those volumes.
But let me get this straight: you are saying St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine make no appeals to tradition as authoritative or the Bishop of Rome as authoritative, is that right? They only appeal to Scripture alone as authoritative in their writings, is that right?
You complained about my “volume” earlier but on those Fathers I have plenty of volume that demolish Webster/King’s claims. The chapter by Gallegos in Not By Scripture Alone is enough.
Phil P
OK fine, King believes there are such things as teachers in the Church. That’s good. Wonderful. But what kind of authority do those teachers really have? Not much apparently. My claim was that neither King nor Webster say the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture, and they ignore the statements of the Fathers on the point. Mathison is more explicit:
=====
Mathison: According to the Fathers, the Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).
Mathison: On the nature of the Church, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (268). The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16).
Mathison: And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (272).
=====
Come as far as Mathison and there wouldn’t be too much difference between the Roman Catholic or Orthodox view and Mathison’s view. But I might re-read King’s volume 1 since its been about 5 years since I read those volumes.
But let me get this straight: you are saying St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine make no appeals to tradition as authoritative or the Bishop of Rome as authoritative, is that right? They only appeal to Scripture alone as authoritative in their writings, is that right?
You complained about my “volume” earlier but on those Fathers I have plenty of volume that demolish Webster/King’s claims. The chapter by Gallegos in Not By Scripture Alone is enough.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
SS << So there is a difference in the application of the principle. To say Protestants limits the “analogy of faith” to Scripture alone doesn’t make sense. >>
Makes sense to me. Maybe I can word that better. You limit the “analogy of faith” (the interpretive principle) to Scripture alone, while Catholics do not. Here is Theopedia on the “analogy of faith”:
"A key principle of interpretation taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which is the principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession (1.9) in this manner: ‘The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.’ " (Analogy of Faith, from Theopedia)
Here is the Catechism paragraph 114 using the phrase the “analogy of faith” I quoted earlier. The context is 111 to 114 here:
Phil P
Makes sense to me. Maybe I can word that better. You limit the “analogy of faith” (the interpretive principle) to Scripture alone, while Catholics do not. Here is Theopedia on the “analogy of faith”:
"A key principle of interpretation taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which is the principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession (1.9) in this manner: ‘The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.’ " (Analogy of Faith, from Theopedia)
Here is the Catechism paragraph 114 using the phrase the “analogy of faith” I quoted earlier. The context is 111 to 114 here:
- But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.” The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
- {1} Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”…
- {2} Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture…
- {3} Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
Phil P
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Ok thanks. I thought I couldn’t even quote anything from a copyrighted book, even if I did name the source.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
SS << Now if a father only believes the Roman magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture you may have a point, but otherwise you are swinging at the wind. >>
Do you understand the Catholic Church doesn’t say the magisterium is the Pope alone, right? You keep suggesting I don’t understand things, but let’s get this straight. Read the Catechism on what the magisterium is (paragraphs 85 and following):
The Magisterium of the Church
Thanks, you are hard to keep pace with but I’m giving it a shot.
Phil P
Do you understand the Catholic Church doesn’t say the magisterium is the Pope alone, right? You keep suggesting I don’t understand things, but let’s get this straight. Read the Catechism on what the magisterium is (paragraphs 85 and following):
The Magisterium of the Church
- “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
- “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
Thanks, you are hard to keep pace with but I’m giving it a shot.
Phil P
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
The magisterium is all the Catholic bishops in the world, in union with the Pope.
Yet someone had the nerve to laugh at me for saying this. They basically said the magisterium was something on the level of the Force from Star Wars.
Anyways, to be on topic, do you guys realize that the Traditions that were passed down were what became SCRIPTURE? The traditions that Paul refers to in Timothy were the Old Testament Scriptures were they not? I am a Protestant and this is my defense.
Yet someone had the nerve to laugh at me for saying this. They basically said the magisterium was something on the level of the Force from Star Wars.
Anyways, to be on topic, do you guys realize that the Traditions that were passed down were what became SCRIPTURE? The traditions that Paul refers to in Timothy were the Old Testament Scriptures were they not? I am a Protestant and this is my defense.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Did ALL tradition become scripture? Or did just some of it?The magisterium is all the Catholic bishops in the world, in union with the Pope.
Yet someone had the nerve to laugh at me for saying this. They basically said the magisterium was something on the level of the Force from Star Wars.
Anyways, to be on topic, do you guys realize that the Traditions that were passed down were what became SCRIPTURE? The traditions that Paul refers to in Timothy were the Old Testament Scriptures were they not? I am a Protestant and this is my defense.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
I think the ones that are binding upon us have become Scripture. I’m trying here. I’m a Protestant. I’m trying to understand you guys and open my mind up. Patience my friend, patience.
- Status