Then, why don’t we agree? Also, where does the bible say that it interprets itself? Scripture interpreting scripture is a tradition of man, since it’s not in the bible. That man has a name.
The 33,000 figure is given by a decidedly non-Catholic source.
I asked*** how you know*** the scriptures ***alone ***are infallible, inspired, and inerrant. Your answer is that scripture alone is infallible, inspired, and inerrant.
Correct but besides the point. That’s not the issue. Why can’t you see that?
And once again I will say the burden of proof is on you, not me. I’m asking you to defend your statement. It’s not up to me to disprove it.
Once again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
No. I thought I made that crystal clear. I’m asking for proof that the scriptures are the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith.
Well, if the scriptures are the **sole **infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, and your statement is an infallible rule of faith, then your statement must be contained within scripture. So where does scripture say that scripture is the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith? Please be sure your quote contains the concept of being both **sole **and rule of faith.
I understand what you are saying here, but it is faulty reasoning. The fact that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant does not equal that they can “rule”. The scriptures do not have the qualities needed for leadership and guidance, which requires decision making, judgement,and discernment. Therefore, what happens with SS is that each individual applies their own measure of these things. That is why there is so much divergence. That is also why Jesus appointed and empowered an authority capable of doing these things, and promised His Spirit to guide them into all truth. This authority He appointed is not to be separated from teh inspired-inerrant Scriptures they produced.
The Scripture does contain the speaking of God, but, just as your example here indicates, the speaking of God never has been, and is not now limited to the Scriptures. JEsus is the ultimate Word of God, and He cannot be confined to the Scripture.
And that Son was the one who breathed upon them, and gave them His own authority. He did not take this back when they committed part of what He taught them to writing.
Well, you will have to take this up with the Reformed members here, who state that “all” does not mean “all” in this verse. This is also an excellent example of how it is that two very sincerely faithful people can read the scripture and come up with opposite understandings. That in itself is sufficient to show that SS is inadequate.
Something that is infallible, appointed and empowered by God, and animated by the wisdom of His spirit. This notion of precluiding God’s ability to act apart from the Scriptures is a fantasy.
I agree that it is essential to know the Scriptures, but the notion that this is the only source we have about Christ is misinformaiton you have been taught. The Scriptures themselves contradict such a notion.
What is relevant is that you are proposing something stand as a rule that does not contain this rule.
Primarily because that is the version that Jesus and the Apostles u sed.
A prophet is a man.
Actually, the Church is not able to “force” anyone to do anything. All the Church can do is hold out the truth. People either accept or reject it.
This is true. It is a much better testimony that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from them.
I a gree with this entirely. And when we look at the fruit of SS, it seems clear that it disproves itself by it’s disunity.
Certainly they are not from your point of view! It is impossible to understand things when a person insists that they do not exist.
Given that you beleive this so strongly, ja4, why are you here on CAF? You have not changed this opinion in almost 2 years of posting here…What is your goal?
Yes, I know. I also know that means, in your mind, it does not exist. Sometimes it seems that the universe must revolve around ja4.
Yes, and such has been the case since CAtholics wrote and published them.
That has nothing to do with the sufficiency of living the Christian life by them.Your demonstration of reason in this is also proof in itself that it is a logical impossiblity.
One has to ignore a lot of the Bible to come to this conclusion. Of course the statements concerning Peter being the rock. Matthias being a successor demonstrates that succession is needed. Clement from the Bible, that lived with the Apostles send letters to other Churches showing his authority while John is still alive. How does one ignore so many facts to believe that one can interpret the Bible any way they want. It is unbibilical on so many levels.107 is not good enough. Sorry. Since we don’t see any churches in the NT referred to as the Catholic church it means its that the Catholic church is not the church that Christ established.
Indeed!
Such a statement is unscriptural in itself. Jesus clearly demonstrated that His words and way of Life is without error. Besides, you are ascribing qualities to scripture that it cannot have, by definition. Scripture cannot be “infallible” because fallibility has to do with human action, human will. Scriptures do not make decisions or “rules”. People do that.
No, and you adding the word “infallible” into the Scriptures where they do not use this about themselves only has the effect of reinforcing your own error in what you have been taught. And this after all your complaints on CAF about “going beyond” scripture. On what basis are you now adding your own words into the Sacred Text?
In fact, you have proved the opposite. By adding in words of your own opinion and raising them to the level of the words used in Scripture, you have shown that the title of the thread is in fact the case, that Protestants do not really believe in SS.
No, what you have demonstrated is that you can add your own opinon to Scripture, then convince yourself what you believe is true, when it is not present in the Scripture.
That would be outside the scope of the thread.,
Yes, please prove that the Holy Writings can make an act of the will.
This is certainly an interesting topic, even though your conclusions are false because the reasoning is flawed, it does not belong on this thread. Would you like to open a thread on this? I know it is hard to stick with the topic of man made doctrine such as SS and refrain from bashing the Catholic Church, but do your best.
This is a faulty conclusion also, and beyond the scope of this thread.
That is not the topic, ja4. YOu are dodging. Protestants don’t really believe in SS because SS is not taught in the Bible. Regardless of how it is defined, none of the definitions are found there. Scripture does not say of itself that it is the sole infallible rule of faith. Such a doctrine is extrabiblical, or as you are fond of saying “goes way beyond” the scriptures.
Faulty reasoning, ja4. In the NT, the Church is, indeed, referred to as Catholic. It is also called “The Way”, meaning a manner of life that is consistent with the teachings of Jesus, spread around the whole world. In Col 1:6 we see the word “kathoós”, means “whole” and combined with “holos” means “throughout the whole”. This is the meaning of the word Catholic. It describes the faith of the Apostles embraced “throughout the whole world”. The reason this word is used in AD 107 is because it was used before the NT was written. Here is a fragment of a hymn that predates the NT"107 is not good enough. Sorry. Since we don’t see any churches in the NT referred to as the Catholic church it means its that the Catholic church is not the church that Christ established.
It is irrelevant to the thread, ja4. There is no defintion of SS that is found in scripture. There are no verses that state that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. In fact, Scripture states the opposite.
It is a problem. When one separates one’s interpretation of the NT from the perspective of those who wrote it, then the contents become unrecognizeable.
It is a diversion, ja4. You cannot produce any verse that supports any of the myriad of definitions of SS, so you are trying to throw a smokescreen. SS is a man made doctrine that did not emerge until a millenia and a half after the Apostles. This is the same criteria that you use to debunk many other doctrines of the Catholic Church, yet when it is applied to you doctrine, somehow the criteria is no longer valid.
I agree.
This may be true, Claudius, but it is most often done in ignorance. Most Protestants have been taught that the Church cannot be trusted, and teaches errors.
This is not our place to judge, Claudius. The Church teaches that all who have been validly baptized are members of the Body of Christ. they may be poorly catechized, but they are Christians.
This is not true either. The Church teaches that those who recognize the God of Abraham share our faith to that extent. This includes Muslims and Jews, as well as poorly catechized Christians.
Well said!
This is a good point too. ja4 believes this because he has accepted Sacred Apostolic Tradition, though he denies that it exists.
Is this really your place to decide?
I am sure ja4 agrees that Jesus founded a Church. He just does not recognize that Church as Catholic.
I think these questions are beyond the scope of this thread. Howeve, I would like to point out that most Protestants do believe that baptism is necessary,a nd some even hold a Catholic view of Eucharist. It is not helpful to lump all Protestants together and castigate them like this. There are a lot of bigoted and prejudicial questions in you post, all of which are off topic.
Most Catholics don’t faithfully follow the Bible either, or even read it, so I think that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Claudius, if you do not find a way to express yourself in a more charitable manner, then you are going to get sanctioned. Catholics here are expected to give a defense of the faith in gentleness. Instead you are making rash and hostile sounding accusations without merit.
You are judging, Claudius. If you want people to go to heaven, then I suggest you pursuade them in a more charitable manner, rather than using the accusatory rhetoric.
It is also adviseable to talk about what you want and need, rather than what others need to do . It comes across sounding condescending and demanding.
There are also Catholic clergy teaching the same, and worse. It is wise not to throw stones.
God’s will is more likely to be done if you approach the task with humility and gentleness.
Claudius, you are way off topic here, and that is a violation of the forum rules. Furthermore, CAF is not here to “banish evil”, but to answer questions about the Catholic faith. If you feel that you must continue this type of off topic preaching, perhaps you will consider another venue?
Where does it say in the Scriptures that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Christ established? Where is this name, “Roman Catholic” used?
I agree. The Scriptures cannot be interpreted any way someone wants and expect it to be true. That’s why context and what specific words mean is of the utmost importance to understand what it is saying.
No doubt there have been some who have missinterpreted the Scriptures incorrectly but that does not mean that the principle of Sola Scriptura is wrong.
ja4, please do not encourage Claudius to derail the thread.
Scripture does not wield “authority”. This is a trait of persons, not Holy Writings.
I think you are in a better position to answer this than anyone. The Catholic Church does not contradict or circumvent the Scriptures. There is nothing in them that is not consistent with Catholic Teaching since they both come from the same source.
Congratulations on mastering the quote feature, btw. It makes them a lot easier to read. It goes to prove you are trainable.
The main one being that they were consistent with the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said that the spirit would guide the church into all truth?
No, ja4. Individual and falli ble members have erred. The Church is Holy and Blameless.
What do you think He meant when He said the Gates of Hell would not prevail? Oh, never mind, that is off topic too
Do you think the Bible was formed by some other entity besides the Church?
Yes, ever since this word “katholos” was used prior to the writing of the NT letters.
No ecclesial community separated from the Magesterium could be.
Most especially when read with anti-catholic glasses. But, can’t you take this detraction to a new thread?
Sola Scriptura is anti-biblical. All the other errors based upon it flow from that one. Rejection of the Apostolic Succession is another.
Each man is free to choose to do what is right in his own eyes.
Both of you are off topic.
To answer this fully would require pages and pages. I know that Catholics and Protestants agree on this so its not necessary to go into it.
Probably because i’m dense—View attachment 4033
Do you doubt that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired-inerrant?
i must have missunderstood you (its easy on these forums).
i’m not aware of any passage specifically that would cover the entire Scriptures for this although i could bring up a few that i think do. I’m arguing from a different perspective and that is from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since we agree that they are inspired-inerrant then it follows that they carry an authority higher than any institution or man since they are from God Himself.
You do carrry the burden in demonstrating another “infallible-inspired-inerrant” rule since i have claimed there is no other. If you think there is, then what is it? If you say its the Catholic church then we can look at the Catholic church and see if it does meet the standard of being “infallible-inspired-inerrant”. If you say its the pope, then the same tests will need to be done.
It doesn’t nor is it necessary. We already know the nature of the Scriptures. Its divine nature is derived from God Himself. Since this is the case, this is what makes them the sole infallible-inspired-inerrant rule of faith. To defeat this idea that the Scriptures are not the “sole” infallible rule of faith we need to see another rule that qualifies. That has yet to be done.
If you do not believe in the heirachy of the Church please explain why Matthais was made an Apostle. Paul was made an Apostle also. This negates needing a 12th Apostle as we now have 13. Why create succession and even an enlargement of the number of Apostles just to have it die out x number of years later?
Actually there are more apostles mentioned than what you state here.
Did Clement put out any commands or encylicals to all the churches that had to be obeyed?
Actually there were at least 3 main centers of the church in the early centuries. Evenually Rome won out.
What do you mean by “2 Bibles”?
Sola Scriptura does not demand people have a Bible. Rather it has more to do with doctrines and practices and what are they grounded on.
He had others do it.
It is true that the Scriptures are the fullest and clearest communications from God. That’s why the church considers them inspired-inerrant.
I have yet to see where Jesus used some tradition that was to be an authority for Christian doctrine and practice.
Sola Scriptura rests on the principles i have outlined. Even Catholics would agree that the Scriptures are inspired etc. What we differ on what follows from it.
I’m praying that Luther will some day be recognized for the great saint he was…
i have given some principles for it. Now we should look at the details how it works in the Scriptures and practice.
I have to say it’s nice seeing someone else who knows about LinuxAnd like so many linux distros, they trail off into oblivion…
I fear to think you think that Christianity has some kind of relation to the progression of Linux development in the open source community. Christianity is not an community effort. That would be juvenile at best, demonic at worst. Forgive me for the leap of logic.
But hey, at least the analogy holds up in that Linux is…a copy of the real deal UNIX with letters changed…to match the name of Linus T. who created it
I was trying to show there are not 40,000 denomination like is perceived, at the time it’s the first thing that came to my mind.Did he founded an institution?
No, still searching and officially catholic
8)i have given some principles for it. Now we should look at the details how it works in the Scriptures and practice.
- Did Clement put out any commands or encylicals to all the churches that had to be obeyed?
- Actually there were at least 3 main centers of the church in the early centuries. Evenually Rome won out.
- What do you mean by “2 Bibles”?
- Sola Scriptura does not demand people have a Bible. Rather it has more to do with doctrines and practices and what are they grounded on.
- He had others do it.
- I have yet to see where Jesus used some tradition that was to be an authority for Christian doctrine and practice.
- I’m praying that Luther will some day be recognized for the great saint he was…
Thank GOD for the sinner’s prayer.
The Church didn’t do this Christ did
Have to look at this one, pleas tell me where Clement said this. What book and such so I can see it please.
While they may deferred it does not mean they thought rome was the head.
One Bible, one has more books than the other
All the books in the Bible were in use before they were formally declared, God made sure the Christians had what they need.
?
Actually it can be quite supported from history and the use of traditions along with Scriptures at the same authoritative level can’t be supported from Scriptures. The use of Scriptures alone can though.
They searched Scripture daily, yes it wasn’t the NT but it also wasn’t tradition neither. It was Scripture alone, now if they were wrong then they should have been corrected.