Question for SS believers:

  • Thread starter Thread starter bookgirl32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
The only times I sense the need to argue the theory is when it is misconstrued, ie, a Catholic says the Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura, so, therefore how can you believe it, or noncatholics who claim to be sola scripturists state you can’t believe anything that isn’t in the Bible, or human traditions or specific holiday celebrations like Christmas and Easter should be avoided altogether (because they’re not specifically stated in the Bible).
Make sense?
Jon
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, if that’s what you mean. But what I don’t understand is your personal arbitrary choice to hold the Scriptures to a claim that they don’t make.

And this is the thing with the “necessary for salvation” stuff. I believe that many Protestants will be saved, and will never be in full communion with the Catholic Church. I believe that the Church believes that (although it would wish different). So the whole necessary for salvation thing comes in when you ARE Catholic, and you do believe that the Church carries the deposit of faith, so therefore when you deny any of it’s dogma (not disciplinary matters, which is what “Jesus having brown eyes” could be an example of, although it’s not even that in the Church), any of it’s divinely inspired “faith and morals”, you’re denying Christ Himself. Does that make sense?

So, are you as a Protestant right now denying Christ, no, not really, but IF you could find out if the Church is correct, and there might be a chance that you would be denying Christ if you really opened your heart and looked, don’t you think you at least need to find that out?
 
JonNC said:
The only times I sense the need to argue the theory is when it is misconstrued, ie, a Catholic says the Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura, so, therefore how can you believe it, or noncatholics who claim to be sola scripturists state you can’t believe anything that isn’t in the Bible, or human traditions or specific holiday celebrations like Christmas and Easter should be avoided altogether (because they’re not specifically stated in the Bible).
Make sense?
Jon
Click to expand...
But you still believe that the Bible is the only authority on salvation, period, correct?
 
bookgirl32 said:
I understand what you’re saying, if that’s what you mean. But what I don’t understand is your personal arbitrary choice to hold the Scriptures to a claim that they don’t make.

And this is the thing with the “necessary for salvation” stuff. I believe that many Protestants will be saved, and will never be in full communion with the Catholic Church. I believe that the Church believes that (although it would wish different). So the whole necessary for salvation thing comes in when you ARE Catholic, and you do believe that the Church carries the deposit of faith, so therefore when you deny any of it’s dogma (not disciplinary matters, which is what “Jesus having brown eyes” could be an example of, although it’s not even that in the Church), any of it’s divinely inspired “faith and morals”, you’re denying Christ Himself. Does that make sense?

So, are you as a Protestant right now denying Christ, no, not really, but IF you could find out if the Church is correct, and there might be a chance that you would be denying Christ if you really opened your heart and looked, don’t you think you at least need to find that out?
Click to expand...
Bookgirl,

What you argue in the first paragraph is the assumption, no, belief that the Catholic Church is the only Church, instituted by Christ through Peter. So, if I were a Catholic and denied any of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and I believed what you believe about denying the Church is denying Christ, then yes.
Obviously, since I am not, then no. And I’m not alone, as the Eastern Orthodox might confirm.

As to your second paragraph, I’m here, aren’t I?

Jon
 
SyCarl said:
Therefore whether it is true or not it would not be a necessary belief.
Click to expand...
The only problem I have with this is the addition of the interpreter determining “what is necessary.” The answer to that question should be “What is necessary is what God has chosen to reveal.” Sola Scripturists have for whatever reason concluded Divine Revelation only exists by way of the pen.

Also Sola Scripturists have too often appealed to demands of “show me explicitly” if it is a Catholic teaching. And “here it is implicitly” if it is a belief common to several denominations. That is what bookgirl was driving at, I think.

At least you won’t go so far as to deny something you didn’t see clearly in Scripture. 🙂 Those conversations really get fun. Well, not really… 😊
 
MarcoPolo said:
Also Sola Scripturists have too often appealed to demands of “show me explicitly” if it is a Catholic teaching. And “here it is implicitly” if it is a belief common to several denominations. That is what bookgirl was driving at, I think.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is my point. As in the other thread “Why Doesn’t the Bible Say Mary is Sinless”, there is one poster (only one I’m referring to), that consistently wants to know where it specifically says this. Obviously, it doesn’t say, “Mary was sinless.” So when that poster is faced with the question, “Where is the word Trinity?”, he refuses to apply his own argumentitive technique to himself, saying that “of course it’s in there, it’s implied often.” Well, it could be interpreted, by “full of grace”, “all nations call me blessed”, etc, that so is the sinlessness of Mary. But he needs the specific text for that. So in reality he’s really showing that he’s just choosing, himself, what to believe and what not to, and not really going by the Bible at all in some cases.

It doesn’t REALLY matter to me in the end b/c I don’t need the proof-texting from the Bible to believe it (I believe the Bible has no “proof-text” for itself, and still fully believe the Bible). But it’s a frustrating situation.
 
bookgirl32 said:
Where does the Bible say it states all that is necessary for belief? It doesn’t, does it? So doesn’t that shoot a hole in your theory?
Click to expand...
I believe that the Bible tells us that the Gospel of John tells us all that is necessary for salvation.

John 20:30-31
  1. Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
  2. but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and believing you may have life in His name.
Click to expand...
Admittedly John here says that Jesus performed many other signs which are not written in this book. Not however that this is not a support for Tradition. He says that Jesus performed more signs. Does Tradition contain descriptions of other things that Jesus did? I have never seen any.

But the important part of the passage is verse 31. Despite saying that it doesn’t contain all Jesus’ acts, John tells us that he has written his Gopsel so that we may believe. He doesn’t say to help us to believe. He says that what he has written will alllow us to believe. The result of that believing is that we may have life. So if we accept what John has written we can believe and be saved. This would say to me that his Gospel contains everything that is necessary. If his one Gospel contains all we need to be saved, then how much more true when we have the rest of the Bible besides?
 
bookgirl32 said:
But you still believe that the Bible is the only authority on salvation, period, correct?
Click to expand...
No, I believe that Christ is the sole authority on salvation. But I do believe that scripture is what we have, along with the Holy Spirit to guide our belief and faith( and yes I do believe the HS guides the CC, but He guides us, too). I have quoted here already how Lutherans feel about tradition, that it is necessary for the good operation of the Church. The creeds, for example are traditions of men, that are guided by scritpure and the Holy Spirit. Our Lutheran liturgy, Mass if you will, is part of human tradition that assists the church in doing its two main functions; preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.

See, I view this as sort of a gotcha moment. You expect me to take the position that sola scriptura is what groups like the above referenced united pentcostals teach: “The KJV doesn’t ‘say’ Trinity so it can’t be true. And if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for us.” And then you’ll say, “but the CC wrote the scripture, so you should accept our interpretion of it.” or words to that effect.

The only area of disagreement I have with the CC is where Lutherans, in our confession (also a work of human tradition) believe Catholic doctrine strays from what is specifically taught in scripture. And speaking only for me, that isn’t much.
For example: I don’t necessarily disagree with Catholic marion dogma, except that it is doctrine. Purgatory makes some sense, but scripture is clear on this. Transubstantiation is a reasonable human attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, but even the EO will tell you “not doctrine”.

But I ramble… 🙂

Jon
 
SyCarl said:
I believe that the Bible tells us that the Gospel of John tells us all that is necessary for salvation.

John 20:30-31

Admittedly John here says that Jesus performed many other signs which are not written in this book. Not however that this is not a support for Tradition. He says that Jesus performed more signs. Does Tradition contain descriptions of other things that Jesus did? I have never seen any.

But the important part of the passage is verse 31. Despite saying that it doesn’t contain all Jesus’ acts, John tells us that he has written his Gopsel so that we may believe. He doesn’t say to help us to believe. He says that what he has written will alllow us to believe. The result of that believing is that we may have life. So if we accept what John has written we can believe and be saved. This would say to me that his Gospel contains everything that is necessary. If his one Gospel contains all we need to be saved, then how much more true when we have the rest of the Bible besides?
Click to expand...
But this passage does not say the others aren’t necessary, just that these are. No one denies that the Bible contains fundamental truths to salvation. Just that it’s not the only source that does.
 
SyCarl said:
I believe that the Bible tells us that the Gospel of John tells us all that is necessary for salvation.

John 20:30-31

Admittedly John here says that Jesus performed many other signs which are not written in this book. Not however that this is not a support for Tradition. He says that Jesus performed more signs. Does Tradition contain descriptions of other things that Jesus did? I have never seen any.

But the important part of the passage is verse 31. Despite saying that it doesn’t contain all Jesus’ acts, John tells us that he has written his Gopsel so that we may believe. He doesn’t say to help us to believe. He says that what he has written will alllow us to believe. The result of that believing is that we may have life. So if we accept what John has written we can believe and be saved. This would say to me that his Gospel contains everything that is necessary. If his one Gospel contains all we need to be saved, then how much more true when we have the rest of the Bible besides?
Click to expand...
Also, which of the scriptures is he talking about there?
 
bookgirl32 said:
." Well, it could be interpreted, by “full of grace”, “all nations call me blessed”, etc, that so is the sinlessness of Mary.
Click to expand...
Yes, Yes, Yes. Exactly! And I believe that! But since it is only implied, not explicit, and *not *a belief necessary for salvation (“he that believes, is Baptized and believes Mary was sinless,shall be saved.”), it shouldn’t be doctrine!

Jon
 
JonNC said:
No, I believe that Christ is the sole authority on salvation. But I do believe that scripture is what we have, along with the Holy Spirit to guide our belief and faith( and yes I do believe the HS guides the CC, but He guides us, too).
Click to expand...
Agreed that He guides us both. But the HS “guiding” and the HS “guiding revelation” are different.
I have quoted here already how Lutherans feel aboout tradition, that it is necessary for the good operation of the Church. The creeds, for example are traditions of men, that are guided by scritpure and the Holy Spirit. Our Lutheran liturgy, Mass if you will, is part of human tradition that assists the church in doing its two main functions; preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.
See, I view this as sort of a gotcha moment. You expect me to take the position that sola scriptura is what groups like the above referenced united pentcostals teach: “The KJV doesn’t ‘say’ Trinity so it can’t be true. And if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for us.” And then you’ll say, “but the CC wrote the scripture, so you should accept our interpretion of it.” or words to that effect.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t expect YOU to say that, I’ve read too many of your posts. I only have issue with the “human tradition”. by your definition, the Bible would also be a “human tradition”. Not because the CC “wrote” it (I would say defined it, not wrote it), so therefore you should believe the Catholic Church. But because HUMANS defined it, and it did not define itself (lack of “table of contents”) So accepting that, the only difference between “Tradition” and “Scripture” is that one is written, one is oral. And again, the Bible speaks equally of both.

I also think you’re getting hung up, even though you might think you’re not, on what a “tradition” is and what “Tradition” is. “Tradition” is an oral “statement”, like the written Bible, of God’s revelation. It’s singular, not plural, like a “bunch of traditions” collected together, does that make sense?
The only area of disagreement I have with the CC is where Lutherans, in our confession (also a work of human tradition) believe Catholic doctrine strays from what is specifically taught in scripture. And speaking only for me, that isn’t much.
For example: I don’t necessarily disagree with Catholic marion dogma, except that it is doctrine. Purgatory makes some sense, but scripture is clear on this. Transubstantiation is a reasonable human attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, but even the EO will tell you “not doctrine”.

But I ramble… 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t see it as rambling, and it does have to do with this thread in that it has to do with, again, the accepted source of divine revelation and authority, but I don’t want to derail the thread. If you’d start another one, though, I’d contribute.
 
JonNC said:
Yes, Yes, Yes. Exactly! And I believe that! But since it is only implied, not explicit, and *not *a belief necessary for salvation (“he that believes, is Baptized and believes Mary was sinless,shall be saved.”), it shouldn’t be doctrine!

Jon
Click to expand...
Other Catholics correct me if I’m wrong, but it would be necessary to believe for salvation in that, again if you were Catholic, you would be denying Jesus Himself. So it’s not necessary for you at this point, but if you find yourself eventually accepting the Church as what it claims to be, then it would be, does that make sense?

It might, on a much deeper theological level, be a necessary in pertaining to Jesus being both God and man, and God could not have DNA stained with original sin, but that’s just a guess (again, not worth derailing the thread at this point).

Glad to see you think that it COULD be true though. If you think that it might be, and could MAYBE SOMEDAY believe it, you’d find out a lot of other things we say about Mary are personally, to yourself in terms of God’s family, pretty amazing.
 
bookgirl32 said:
No, I didn’t expect YOU to say that, I’ve read too many of your posts. I only have issue with the “human tradition”. by your definition, the Bible would also be a “human tradition”. Not because the CC “wrote” it (I would say defined it, not wrote it), so therefore you should believe the Catholic Church. But because HUMANS defined it, and it did not define itself (lack of “table of contents”) So accepting that, the only difference between “Tradition” and “Scripture” is that one is written, one is oral. And again, the Bible speaks equally of both.
Click to expand...
No, the Bible was divinely inspired, whereas the creeds are human tradition. The organization of it, the Bible, was by humans, hence no table of contents. But I see your point.

Hope I didn’t offend with the gotcha paragraph.
Jon
 
bookgirl32 said:
Also, which of the scriptures is he talking about there?
Click to expand...
He is talking about the book that he wrote. It is not necessary to say that nothing else is necessary. It is implied by saying that what he wrote will allow us to believe and be saved. If what he says is true, then why would he add that nothing else is required when he already tells us that his gospel contains enough?
 
JonNC said:
No, the Bible was divinely inspired, whereas the creeds are human tradition. The organization of it, the Bible, was by humans, hence no table of contents. But I see your point.

Hope I didn’t offend with the gotcha paragraph.
Jon
Click to expand...
No, not at all. But how do you know, if you’re not also taking the men in the Council to be divinely inspired as the authors were, that it IS divinely inspired?
 
SyCarl said:
He is talking about the book that he wrote. It is not necessary to say that nothing else is necessary. It is implied by saying that what he wrote will allow us to believe and be saved. If what he says is true, then why would he add that nothing else is required when he already tells us that his gospel contains enough?
Click to expand...
Because he was just talking about what he wrote, and if what he wrote was all that was needed, then why the others? I don’t think that the authors of all of the books of the Bible were all omnicient (sp?) when it came to what was going to be the Bible. I don’t think that is explicit OR implicit, anywhere in the Bible. So if that’s true (and you might disagree with it), then he was, again, only speaking about his own book. So by YOUR definition then he’s negating the need for the other books as well as Tradition.
That’s my point.
 
bookgirl32 said:
No, not at all. But how do you know, if you’re not also taking the men in the Council to be divinely inspired as the authors were, that it IS divinely inspired?
Click to expand...
The Bible make prophesies and those prophesies come to pass. That is how you know the Bible is of divine origin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top