Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You should be an apologist. Oops, you already are!
- Status
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i think you need to stop assuming people don’t “understand” the bible. if it’s “everywhere” then why was there so much argument over it within the catholic church? because it’s not “everywhere”. the archetypes that can be interpreted as leading to it are in the OT, and Revelation 12 can be interpreted that way, but they can also be interpreted other ways as well.
N
nilofc
Guest
God Bless you and your family.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i try to learn as much as i can. i want to say that i deeply respect the RCC. i am very close to actually “coming home” but i do have a few problems that i am still wrestling with. this is a great place to do that.You should be an apologist. Oops, you already are!
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Take him to another thread, or start one, or we’ll get derailed here, which is what happens when posts are replied with off topic answers!
L
Lampo
Guest
Well, the same one the Catholic Church uses today. Not the same as Protestants use today.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
The leap is hard. It’s all a journey. You will find most Catholic Converts are grateful for their Protestant experiences. Except the ones who feel they were deliberately lied to.
I’m definately still on my journey. I will have arrived if/when I make it to the Pearly Gates, and St. Peter says, “Well done good and faithful servant.” :angel1:
B
bengal_fan
Guest
so you agree with me that the (and i will include the dueterocanonicals) scripture (and today we would call it the Bible) is the first and foremost rule of authority and that all other authorities (which i believe exist, i.e. Tradition and Magisterium) are subject to it and not interchangeable?
B
bengal_fan
Guest
don’t lump all protestants together. many use the dueterocanonicals for teaching just not for establishing doctrine.
L
Lampo
Guest
No. Not one over the other. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth through as revealed by God through Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium.
L
Lampo
Guest
Okay, I definitely believe that. My bad.
L
Lampo
Guest
BTW, you must be from Cincy. I’m just down the road from y’all.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
so if (and this is purely hypothetical) the Magesterium came out with a doctrine that was actually nowhere to be found in scripture and some places even could be easily argued against, you would go with Magesterium or Scripture?
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i am from cincy but don’t live there anymore. i’m in sunny florida now.
L
Lampo
Guest
This already happens in a sense(keep in mind nothing in the Catholic Church can contradict Scripture and vice versa). Yes, I go with the Catholic Church. Do you mean like the Trinity, Purgatory, Assumption of Mary, etc.? Those are all implied. People argue against the Trinity. I’ll put my money with the Church that Jesus established, which has the promise of the Holy Spirit that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it.
N
nilofc
Guest
The Bible is the final authority??? That’s not scriptural.
1 Tim 3:15.
If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then what is given by the Church with regards to faith and morals ought to be followed. Afterall, it is the Church which gave us the Bible.
Who is the final authority? Read on: Matthew 18:15-17
And please don’t give me “It is the Holy Spirit who gave us the bible” because we all agree on that. But the bible couldn’t have fallen from heaven one fine dandy morning. Someone must have compiled it with the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Like the Statue of Liberty couldn’t appear magically out of thin air. Someone must have built it.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
you don’t need to answer this question… i was baiting.
my point is that there must and always will be a final measuring rod. now, the plan is for Tradition, Magisterium, and Scripture to constantly be complementing each other. but in every council, when there have been disagreements, they always went back to the apostles’ teaching (which today we have as scripture). the final authority on interpreting the primary authority is the Magisterium and Tradition grows out of both. that is why i say prima scriptura.
L
Lampo
Guest
What kind of doctrine do you mean? If it is in regards to faith and morals, yes I go with the Church.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
but where do you think they get their doctrines on faith and morals? it’s from scripture. humanae vitae which is (arguably) one of the most controversial documents of recent history (meaning lots of people disagreed with it… including from within the church) was formed out of the pope’s understanding of scripture, not just what the pope thought. that’s just one example, but my point is that all doctrines find their way back to scripture. i just have a problem when doctrines are made binding and there is little to no scriptural support for them. it doens’t mean those doctrines are wrong, just that they shouldn’t be binding.
M
Montgomeryatty
Guest
The debate is really over one component of Sola Scriptura: the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
It seesm to me that a nice paraphrase of formal sufficiency is that the Bible holds a place of preeminence as the sole rule of faith. Other sources, stemming from church tradition down to (heaven forbid) the latest Joel Osteen book, might be a helpful suggestion to assist a Christian in his understanding of what the Bible might say, but does not command the same degree of respect as the Bible. Such sources, says the advocate of sola scriptura, ultimately need not be accepted as the proper or most instructive interpretation of what the Bible says. In short then, all theological books, sources, and theological commentaries one learns from are subordinate to the Bible.
All of the above begs the question: If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, what about the thousands of denominations holding multiple, sometimes wholly contradictory, interpretations of the same passages? Who is correct? What if the proper interpretation is a close question? Where do we go? The answer from a Protestant, in true circular argument fashion, is usually to go to Scripture. For Christians who have immersed themselves in Scripture and are attempting to harmonize or interpret Scripture, this is both useless and illogical. Yet this seems to be the practical reality of formal sufficiency.
Although many Protestants go to great lengths to assure themselves and others that they have not discarded centuries of tradition and the views of the saints, formal sufficiency boils down to the reality that one’s opinion on faith, morals, and/or theology is judged according to “me and the Bible on a hill.” Again, few Protestants assert that this is their view. Some Protestants, particularly Anglicans, assert that they assent to prima Scriptura, where Scripture is still preeminent but tradition has a place. Some label the “me and the Bible on a hill” approach as solo (with an “o”) Scriptura and denounce that approach; of course some do claim to adhere to solo Scriptura. But how, precisely, does the practical effect of sola Scriptura differ from its unabashed solo counterpart? Certainly, the sola Protestant may be more well-read or able to navigate his way through a Biblical commentary, and perhaps may have read the Fathers and/or the Reformers. But will any of those sources really do anything other than reinforce, or at best nuance, his interpretation of Scripture? Having been a Protestant who claimed to adhere to sola Scriptura, I can say with some personal experience that when I read commentaries or authors and agreed, I perhaps borrowed the phrasing or characterization of the issue, if the source explained something more forcefully or succinctly than I had. When I disagreed, however, I typically dismissed the contrary viewpoint as errant and moved on. In practice, then, my own personal interpretation of Scripture trumped any external source.
- Status