G
GeorgiaPeach
Guest
The Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept.
Do you know how ridiculous this claim is?
youtube.com/watch?v=dkeAOtn6OLs
- Status
I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept.
youtube.com/watch?v=dkeAOtn6OLs
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Yet you claim that even with the word universal which is what the word catholic mean in the bible does mean that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus? Strange in one case it is not necessary for proof and in another it does not count.
I
IronHammer
Guest
I realize this is late but I just had to comment. That’s a great story. She seems very astute and possibly young and innocent enough to give a truly unbiased reading of the Word. Ask her what she thinks of John 6:32-69 (Bread of Life discourse)
J
justasking4
Guest
In a sense yes. All human beings are fallible including popes, councils etc
.
See 1st reponse.
I have provided much evidence for my position. The main one has and continues to be the nature of the Scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Do you doubt the this about the Scriptures?
.
No you should not reject this since I have demonstrated that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. Where we differ is what is the implications of this.
She is not the primary focus in this discussion but the doctrines are excellent examples to demonstrate how Sola Scriptura vs Catholic teachings are so different because it rejects the Scriptures as being the supreme authority in matters of faith and doctrine.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you give me an example?
If you think scripture is the sole inspired, inerrant authority, what is your proof?
I already shown you that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. Now lets test this against other claims of authority that catholics rely on. If it can be proven that there is another equal to the Scriptures that is also inspired-inerrant then that would diminish or destroy my position. In other words it would falsify my belief about Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, if another equal authority that is also inspired-inerrant cannot be produced your position is falsified.
Your burden is to show another inspired-inerrant authority.
Not shifting but sharing.
No. All beliefs you accept from your church are from fallible men who can and have erred. Rather you should accept my conclusions based on the fact that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant and because of this are the only ultimate rule of faith.
.
No it is about Catholicism since it is the catholic church that attacks the Scriptures as not being sufficient. That’s why part of this discussion must include the basis of authority for the Catholic church. Its not just the Scriptures on trial but also the Catholic church and its claims.
This is not changing the subject but another example how Sola Scriptura works in practice.
See above and other posts.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
View attachment 4099Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
Protestants cannot possibly believe in Sola Scriptura because they only believe what is in the Bible, and Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.
Mea Culpa
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
This is really outrageous that you would say the Catholic Church is attacking the Scriptures. Where do you think the Bible came from? Who do you think copied it by hand for centuries to preserve it? (Catholic monks, thank you very much.)
Nobody is putting the Scriptures on trial, just the ridiculous, false, unscriptural, heretical doctrine of sola scriptura. You, by your own admission, don’t believe in sola scriptura - you claim sola scriptura itself is a doctrine that is not taught in scripture, but is still valid. How can that be?
As for you putting the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, built by the saints and the blood of the martyrs - if you think you have the authority to put Christ’s Church on trial, you had better think again.
Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This is the clear teaching that Jesus founded the Church, gave it authority to bind and loose, gave it the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it.
Where in the Bible is the clear teaching where Jesus says, “I command you to write a book, and this book shall be your sole rule of faith. What this books binds on earth, shall be bound in heaven. The gates of Hades shall not prevail against this book.”
Don’t bother looking. It’s not in there. Jesus established a Church - the Catholic Church - because that is the instrument of our salvation on earth.
The heresy of sola scriptura is that it takes the Bible - a product of that Church - and tries to separate it from the Church and then deny the authority of the Church.
Protestants can’t really believe in sola scriptura - because it’s not taught anywhere in scripture. People like ja4 have conceived the doctrine of pseudo sola scriptura - the doctrine that their rule of faith is what’s in scripture, plus whatever else they want it to be. The doctrine of sola scriptura itself is said to be part of this “anything else they want it to be,” since it’s not in scripture.
ja4 has no arguments to support sola scriptura. All he can do is attack the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself - by saying that the Catholic Church is “attacking the Scriptures.” That is a slanderous, dishonest lie. He’s also back to “what is your definition of sola scriptura” and “where is the list of Catholic traditions.” (By the way, the list of Catholic traditions is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Sola scriptura is unscriptural. It is a heresy. It is self-refuting. It is a man-made doctrine. It is a lie.
Nobody really believes in it, or they would be able to show where it is taught in Holy Scripture.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Again, since ja4 and other sola scripturists have no way to defend their doctrine of sola scriptura, this is about all that can be expected of them.
J
justasking4
Guest
Not in the manuscripts.
What manuscripts are the current Catholic translations based on? I’d be curious to know.
.
How can this be when there is much in the Catholic church that Christ did not teach?
i don’t follow these men. If anything it was your church that changed the Scriptures when it “elevated” the DC’s to full canonical status. Before this time these books did not have full canonical status. Let me quote for the The New Catholic Encyclopedia :
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”
I have never seen St Luther or St Calvin ever charged with murder. I am aware that there was an inqusition of the Catholic church through the centuries that did result in many being tortured and put to death.
.
Here is what the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) translate this verse: And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
G
GeorgiaPeach
Guest
The Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
Ummm, Christ?
I might add, the Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
Are you calling Christ fallible? I hope not. Remember, the Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
Once again, the Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
Authority given by Christ…the Catholic Faith is grounded on the teachings of Christ.
J
justasking4
Guest
Not all teachings in the church can this be said. If you study the NT and compare various teachings of the church you will find this is not the case at all.
D
distracted
Guest
In my experience… that is entirely, absolutely and positively
NOT TRUE…
Protestants i have known do NOT believe in the Bible… They may believe a passage here & there… but they ignore 90% of the rest of it… (generally speaking). They definitely ignore those Catholic-sounding ones… & the whole Bible is “Catholic-sounding”… (to those of us who know Catholicism well…).
I have yet to meet an Protestant who lives well the scriptures… They make excuses for their sins… because most believe thye are saved by faith alone… Even the ones who claim not to believe in that… pretty much DO… Heck, even we Catholics act like we believe it a lot of the time… Massive Protestants in our culture… well, that tends to have an effect on us… whether we like it or no… whether we see it or not…
It is the Catholics who really, truly live the scriptures… and even they don’t… too much of the time…
A
Agnes_Ainsworth
Guest
I’ve never heard this before, except in an earlier thread but nobody followed it up. There are more than twenty verses in John ch 6 that the Church taught right from the beginning, as fundamental, not metaphor, on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Gospel writer three times ( vs 41, 52 and 60) demonstrates how some Jews questioned this blunt teaching, found it hard to take, then turned away because each time, Jesus repeated in a more forceful way that He meant what He said. Instead of running after those who turned away and left Him, saying I only meant it metaphorically, don’t take Me literally because I said “I am the door and I am the vine” Instead He turned to His disciples asking “…do you want to go away too?”
As always, it is Peter, as leader, who answers: “You have the message of eternal life and we believe: You are the Holy one of God.” There is nothing in Scripture that could be clearer than this teaching yet Protestants never identify with those who turned away because this teaching was too hard to take. Just as in the first days, because of the accusations of cannibalism, the Church kept this teaching as a secret. There were martyrs in the early Church who refused to divulge this “secret”. Even today some Protestants talk of cannibalism.
On second thoughts, a Bible study on the person of Peter is just as clear and held from the beginning, where he has his name changed to Cephas, (John 1 42) not a little pebble as the Protestants say; is always listed first but wasn’t called first; called to feed the flock; consulted about the half shekel; called to confirm the faith of the disciples; and is mentioned more than all the rest of the twelve apostles together. Most importantly, he is given the keys which they all understood the significance of, knowing their Scriptures (OT) and for his successors, the title of the Chair of Peter was given as the Holy Spirit continued to lead the Church into all Truth. Doctrines which the Church teach as infallible are pronounced from the Chair just as Moses taught the important rulings from “The Chair”. Even the title that developed as Pope meaning “Father”, in fulfillment of the role of shepherd given by Jesus to Peter was prefigured by Abraham as the “Father” of all nations. The whole living Magisterium is rooted in Old and New Testament and without ears to listen and understand and eyes to see and perceive, without these living Traditions, Protestants will never find these “proven” to their satisfaction but in their denial of Catholic teaching they miss out the significance of much in the Bible especially in regard to Mary in the Old Testament.
In the development of Doctrine, which is the term used for the leading into all Truth, the practices of the essential teachings for the life of Christians, became known as Sacraments, and there are seven in number, which are the committed oaths we make to confirm our faith in the Lord Jesus and they are all the living realities of how the Church lived Scripture. Perhaps a prefiguring of these Sacraments is Naaman the leper being commanded to
bathe seven times in the river Jordan.
It is arrogant to keep denying the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture when these truths have been practised for two thousand years even if at first some of these Sacraments were loosely interpreted before the all Truth was revealed. The strictures of the disciplines may have varied but the Church has always taught that the binding power of the keys was authoritative. During the reigns of the few bad Popes, no one has ever shown that the essential teachings were ever changed, they might not have been developed further, but were not denied.
A
Agnes_Ainsworth
Guest
A few lessons in logicality.
A
1)The only inerrant/infallible source of truth is the Bible which doctrine is called Sola Scriptura.
2)This doctrine does not have to be/is not actually written in Scripture SO
3)It must be a fallible doctrine i.e. not true.
B
However, the Biblical basis for the Infallible Church with the Pope as its head and the Doctrine of the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is self evident to me, if not to some contributors to this thread.
Are sola scriptura believers claiming some esoteric knowledge about this doctrine because they just “know” it is true? This is another heresy called Gnosticism.
Just to take one example; the Jehovah’s Witnesses base all their beliefs on Scripture. Once again they hold this esoteric knowledge that they are entitled to their personal interpretation because Scripture is self interpreting(sic). No Protestant can deny that because the Witnesses themselves say it. (Some cheeky, ignorant Protestants insist on telling other denominations what their beliefs are without bothering to investigate probably because they have been misinformed by their teachers/pastors who of course are fallible human beings like all men are). The JWs told me they have the best Scripture Scholars in the world so they must know they are right! Having studied their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity as proven by Scripture, perusing every Scripture reference they give, I personally disagreed with every one of their interpretations but I am fallible like them so we don’t know who has the true interpretation do we?
Fortunately, thank God, I have the background of belonging to the Church that Jesus founded which over 2000 years has written, interpreted and lived the Scriptures holding them in great reverence and awe, so my faith in these revelations is strong. I know with the certainty of faith that Jesus is God and when my sister-in-law, who was a JW, was dying my husband prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet for her conversion to Jesus. We trusted in His Mercy as Jesus promised to St Faustina, that when this prayer is prayed at the bedside of a dying person, He would stand before His Father as a Merciful Saviour, not as a just judge. Which revelation is not in Scripture but not opposed to it but part of the ongoing revelation of Truth revealed for these times.
I believe that much of the Bible IS self interpreting and many Protestants lead holy lives derived from their interpretation, but they only hold that part of the Truth which they share with the Roman Catholic Church eg the Trinity which some denominations believe is the mark of being a Christian.
A
1)The only inerrant/infallible source of truth is the Bible which doctrine is called Sola Scriptura.
2)This doctrine does not have to be/is not actually written in Scripture SO
3)It must be a fallible doctrine i.e. not true.
B
- No person or authority is infallible because we are all fallible human beings SO
- There can be no misinterpretation of Scripture because no person or authority can claim to be right. THEREFORE
- Any Protestant who declares that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus’ words is wrong, is claiming infallibility for himself.
However, the Biblical basis for the Infallible Church with the Pope as its head and the Doctrine of the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is self evident to me, if not to some contributors to this thread.
Are sola scriptura believers claiming some esoteric knowledge about this doctrine because they just “know” it is true? This is another heresy called Gnosticism.
Just to take one example; the Jehovah’s Witnesses base all their beliefs on Scripture. Once again they hold this esoteric knowledge that they are entitled to their personal interpretation because Scripture is self interpreting(sic). No Protestant can deny that because the Witnesses themselves say it. (Some cheeky, ignorant Protestants insist on telling other denominations what their beliefs are without bothering to investigate probably because they have been misinformed by their teachers/pastors who of course are fallible human beings like all men are). The JWs told me they have the best Scripture Scholars in the world so they must know they are right! Having studied their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity as proven by Scripture, perusing every Scripture reference they give, I personally disagreed with every one of their interpretations but I am fallible like them so we don’t know who has the true interpretation do we?
Fortunately, thank God, I have the background of belonging to the Church that Jesus founded which over 2000 years has written, interpreted and lived the Scriptures holding them in great reverence and awe, so my faith in these revelations is strong. I know with the certainty of faith that Jesus is God and when my sister-in-law, who was a JW, was dying my husband prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet for her conversion to Jesus. We trusted in His Mercy as Jesus promised to St Faustina, that when this prayer is prayed at the bedside of a dying person, He would stand before His Father as a Merciful Saviour, not as a just judge. Which revelation is not in Scripture but not opposed to it but part of the ongoing revelation of Truth revealed for these times.
I believe that much of the Bible IS self interpreting and many Protestants lead holy lives derived from their interpretation, but they only hold that part of the Truth which they share with the Roman Catholic Church eg the Trinity which some denominations believe is the mark of being a Christian.
E
elts1956
Guest
Give it a rest. Pope, hierarchy, magisterium, Council of Trent, Tradition, tradition etc. etc. are not named in the Bible, so what makes them untrue? You say Sola Scriptura is not mentioned in the Bible either. To me Sola Scriptura, is interpretation of personal salvation from the Bible only. There are too many interpretations and too many Protestant churches for all of them to be in accord to the smallest topic. I don’t have the dates for the institution of all of these groups, but they sure weren’t started with all the truth in the time of Christ. Neither are they directed by the Holy Spirit. If they were, they wouldn’t be so diversified in their beliefs.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
What any of this has to do with sola scriptura is a great mystery. Protestants themselves do not believe in sola scriptura … they believe in using individual Bible verses taken out of context to justify whatever man-made doctrine they believe in this week. Sola scriptura is a lie. It is from the father of lies. It leads people away from the Church and therefore away from Jesus.
The fact that in all of scripture they can’t come up with one verse that supports sola scriptura shows that the Holy Spirit must have been very careful to make sure there was nothing in the Bible that could be twisted around to seem to support sola scriptura.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
So then it’s based on fallible human beings instead of a revelation from God? If so, why should I believe it?
You have provided no evidence at all that scripture is the ***sole ***rule of faith.
No, we differ in you saying scripture alone is inspired and inerrant. And you have offered not one shred of evidence to back it up.
Again, I will not derail the thread with a discussion about other topics.
Sigh. I already did, twice. Your claim is that something being inspired and inerrant makes it the only thing that is inspired and inerrant. I demonstrated that the gospel of Matthew is inspired and inerrant, but that doesn’t make it exclusively inspired and inerrant.
Inspiration and inerrancy does not = exclusivity.
You have shown me no proof at all that the scriptures ***alone ***are inspired and inerrant. All you do is keep claiming it without anything to back it up.
Also, I have no burden whatsoever concerning statements you claim are true.
I have no burden whatsoever concerning statements you claim are true.
You yourself are going outside your ultimate rule of faith. Where does scripture claim it is the sole rule of faith? It doesn’t. Instead, by your own admission, you’re basing this claim on fallible men.
If I were a person investigating Christianity for the first time, and you told me scripture is the sole rule of faith, and I asked for proof, is that what your answer would be? You should be able to prove your statement without discussing any other faith tradition.
Still no proof, JA4.
You told me back in post 581, “If it is true that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then the statement is true and infallible.” But when I asked you what you based the statement on, you said, “My belief comes from a lot of study and understanding the nature of the Scriptures” (post 812) and later added “Not just this but what others have also concluded.” (post 835)
So you claim infallibility for the statement, but you base it upon the study and conclusions of fallible men?
G
guanophore
Guest
NOt really. There are many definitions of SS, and none of them are really relevant, because none of them are in scripture, so it is clear that they have been derived from outside of scripture, which proves the point of the Topic, that SScripturists don’t really believe in SS.
Hang around here, and you will!Sola scriptura is defined as “scripture alone.” What does this mean? Scripture alone is the source of Christianity/teaching/salvation. Correct or not so correct?
Furthermore, the need to find the doctrine of sola scriptura in the Bible is necessary, because if it is not found in the Bible, it is self refuting.
So…
step one: Define sola scriptura and agree upon said definition
step two: Locate sola scriptura’s Biblical source
(btw, Church Militant is a very good debater. I’m impressed. I hope I can be as knowledgable or moreso than you some day)
N
ncgolf
Guest
It seems both Catholics and Protestants believe Scripture to be divinely inspired … no argument … then the argument rests on what that divinely inspired text actually means.
It is a question of whose interpretation actually fit what Christ meant. As far as I can tell the Protestant stance is … it reveals it’s meaning individually. I am able using reason and prayer determine what the intent of each passage is.
Based on that assumption I see no reason why a Sola Scriptura advocate has any beef with Catholicism. All are free to interpret as they see fit … there can be no “wrong” interpretation. For anyone to be wrong there has to be a definitive interpretation to base against … does this exist when each individual is responsible for its own interpretation and if the Bible is self-interpreting we all should be reaching the same conclusion and this thread would have been much shorter.
Catholicism itself claims no doctrine within its Cathechism was formed outside of what Scripture has revealed so if it is biblically based it should be absolutely ok … even to Bible believers.
I know not even all Protestants agree on all matters … infant baptism for one … so a Sola Scriptura advocate could not say with certainity who is right (leave out the Catholics) … doesnt someone in that situation possibly believe something less than the truth.
How do Protestants who disagree on Scripture even resolve that themselves … let alone with Catholics?
It is a question of whose interpretation actually fit what Christ meant. As far as I can tell the Protestant stance is … it reveals it’s meaning individually. I am able using reason and prayer determine what the intent of each passage is.
Based on that assumption I see no reason why a Sola Scriptura advocate has any beef with Catholicism. All are free to interpret as they see fit … there can be no “wrong” interpretation. For anyone to be wrong there has to be a definitive interpretation to base against … does this exist when each individual is responsible for its own interpretation and if the Bible is self-interpreting we all should be reaching the same conclusion and this thread would have been much shorter.
Catholicism itself claims no doctrine within its Cathechism was formed outside of what Scripture has revealed so if it is biblically based it should be absolutely ok … even to Bible believers.
I know not even all Protestants agree on all matters … infant baptism for one … so a Sola Scriptura advocate could not say with certainity who is right (leave out the Catholics) … doesnt someone in that situation possibly believe something less than the truth.
How do Protestants who disagree on Scripture even resolve that themselves … let alone with Catholics?
G
guanophore
Guest
On the contrary, she had very much to do with it. The Church identified the inspired canon before the Jews did so. The Church did this based on the collection of books used by Jesus and the Apostles (the Septuagint). There were several collections being used at the time, and on universal agreement, even from those occupying the “seat of Moses” which one was authoritave. It was Jesus that settled that.
The HS is the primary author, the “men” inspired by the HS who “wrote” are the secondary. The two cannot be separated from one another.
- Status