E
estesbob
Guest
Exactly. It took about 1500 years for the train to run off the tracks but one can easily see the mass confusion that resulted once people started interpreting Scripture on their own.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Again, that’s not what I said at all.
Can you possibly get that chip off your shoulder? Sheesh!
And you accuse Catholic posters of bad comments? Where do you get off with a crack like that?
The Catholic Church isn’t “coming around”…this has been their teaching for 2,000 years. Does your particular faith community have that much actual history?
Question:
What is your definition of Sola Scriptura and what do you base that definition upon?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
We really need to try to stay on the topic though or the thread will get closed…
N
notsmart
Guest
I’ve been looking for a concrete list of what interpretations must be adhered to as a catholic, but I cant find one.
But, doing some research on some denominations so far, there is a lot of different ideas about even baptism, but then the list grows from there. I even saw a site that claimed it was optional to have a baptism with water.
And, that is in the bible. I don’t understand all these different ideas.
S
Skip_Wiley
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No, I simply pointed out that the passage in James actually says that the pastor and/or elders are “called” to the sick person…not that the sick person goes to church and responds to some call to come forward. I don’t recall a place in scripture where that idea is specifically taught, so please enlighten me if you know of one.
.:yup:
If you say so… Perhaps you could open a new thread and show me this. Frankly, I’d like to see it and any sources that you can offer that verify this.
I’ve already supplied this, but I’ll do so again. MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY tells the definition that the Catholic Church has for this. Yours may vary, but I really would like to get your definition and then see specifically what you base it on. Can you do that?
J
JRKH
Guest
I don’t know why it should be considered off topic since it is part of the OP, but so be it.
I started another thread here called: Altar Calls Not Biblical??
Peace
James
E
estesbob
Guest
Bingo! There isn’t one. the church does not play the game of trying to interpret individual verses of Scripture. I believe there are at the most five or six verses of Scripturethat the church has definitive interpretations of. Church doctrine rests upon three pillars, Scripture,tradition,and the unchanging teachings of the magisterium.I’ve been looking for a concrete list of what interpretations must be adhered to as a catholic, but I cant find one.
But, doing some research on some denominations so far, there is a lot of different ideas about even baptism, but then the list grows from there. I even saw a site that claimed it was optional to have a baptism with water.
The reason you run across all these different ideas is that once every man got to be his own theologian chaos was inevitable.
N
notsmart
Guest
Thats good to know. I assumed that I could not find a list because the list was either too long
or too short to mention.
I rather the list be shorter, so its easier for me to know it.
S
sandusky
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
PeaceI don’t know why it should be considered off topic since it is part of the OP, but so be it.
I started another thread here called: Altar Calls Not Biblical??
JamesI see your point, but I think Eucharist04 was citing examples of things that he (?) feels are not found in scripture and are therefore exemplary of a defacto belief in (modern) tradition + scripture instead of SS in the sense that so many usually profess in their discussions with us Catholics. I’m not sure they are really meant to be topics for discussion per se. If so I suppose that works too though…
One of the very biggest hurdles is getting some specific definition of what n-Cs mean when they say they believe in SS, and that’s why I refer it all to that article on Formal and Material Sufficiency. It makes a point from which individuals can say either “Yes, that is what I believe” or “No, I believe something else, and here’s why.” and then the discussion can (hopefully) proceed from there.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
So then, which of the two definitions in that (mercifully brief) article would you (and Mr. Hodge) accept and endorse.
Ya don’t suppose that you could possibly find something similar without all that anti-Catholic rhetoric do you?
Why is it you have to come to the discussion with such when I am sure that there has to be someone out there who actually makes their case without all the a-C garbage?
This is essentially just like I find in so many n-C messages. They can’t seem to simply present the Gospel of Christ without the compare and contrast. I’m grateful to God that I don’t go to Mass and here that kind of stuff. IMO, either a teaching stands or falls based on its own merits, and not what the guy across the street or anyone else believes and teaches.
I have actually read Hodge’s diatribe before and bookmarked it for later refutation if I can find the time.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
One compelling argument against *sola scriptura *is that it is an unScriptural teaching. It is not found anywhere in the Bible. So, if protestants say they believe in only what is found in the Bible, they can’t believe in sola scriptura, because it’s not in the Bible!
S
Skip_Wiley
Guest
See 2 Tim 3:15-17
S
Skip_Wiley
Guest
The point of the passage is seeking prayer by the pastor and elders, not where that prayer takes place.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Sorry Skip, but I think this is a point made with regard to n-C communities use of a modern traditional practice as opposed to what the Word of God specifically says and your effort to rationalize and defend it just shows how ingrained the tradition has become.
While there is nothing wrong with the practice that n-Cs have established, the fact is that the scripture specifies something different.
To Catholics who are accustomed to hearing from “Bible only” a great deal of polemics about non Biblical traditions, it comes away as weird.
S
Skip_Wiley
Guest
OK. If you want to make the location of the prayer the point of the passage, then that’s between you and God.
Really? Where does the scripture “specify” that we’re not to ask the pastor or elders for prayer?
If believing the Bible is weird, then I guess I’m weird.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Okay Skip, here’s that passage. [15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Now notice that St. Paul refers to Timothy’s training and familiarity with “the sacred writings”, but even the Jews of his day studied and referred to traditional writings. For example, notice that St. Jude quotes from two such sources in his letter in the New Testament. Now if the apostles refer to these kinds of sources and cite them as authoritative enough to include them in the inspired canon of scripture, then what does that tell you about the “sacred writings” that Sts. Paul and Timothy are discussing?
As for the rest of your reference:
But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means. Here again, I think we have n-Cs kind of forcing their theology onto the text of scripture instead of actually drawing their theology from it as they claim to do.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And you and He as well…
Sorry Skip, but that was never my point and here you are whipping up on what is known as a “straw man”, an argument that I never made to begin with. The point is that n-C modern traditional practice differs from what the passage that you cited specifically says, not that the different practice is wrong in and of itself.
Which would make two of us then…
S
Skip_Wiley
Guest
And here again, as usual, we have a Catholic doing exegetical gymnastics in a vain attempt to deny what the Bible says.As for the rest of your reference:Here again, I think we have n-Cs kind of forcing their theology onto the text of scripture instead of actually drawing their theology from it as they claim to do.
No, actually, you’re the one who said that, I didn’t.
I wish you’d make up your mind.
First it is, then it isn’t, then it is, then it isn’t…
Really? The passage says that we’re to seek prayer from the pastor and elders. We offer people an opportunity to seek prayer from the pastor and elders. I don’t see any difference, except where the prayers are held, which you seem to think is the point of the passage.
No, that would make one of us who believes the Bible and one of us who believes what the Catholic church has told him the Bible says.
- Status