Scripture… is it sufficient

[Lisa4Catholics]

Christ's friend:

Me thinks you have a pride problem and YuRa is a humble individual who apologized for his sin.

Me thinks you should read YURAS posts and understand that if it is the other posters first time to read them,the poster might be alittle upset As humans it sometimes happens.YuRa has apologised and alot of us have had time to reflect on the vicious attacks,the poster you just gave a correction to may not have seen them before and is reacting on an emotional level,which humans sometimes do.So please give the poster time for reflection like YuRa had God Bless

 

[DianJo]

I am truly sorry if the post I made concerning YuRa’s previous posts on another thread came across as prideful. That was not my intention.

I was simply making an observation on the similarity of the two posts. In fact, many people who posted to this thread posted to the Mary thread and absolutely showed anger at YuRa’s postings and accused him of evangelizing when he really was not supposed to be (according to the rules of the forum). By pointing out the similarities of the posts, I was showing how their observations were probably true - that he was here not to learn but to “save our poor Catholic souls” and to do what some call “hit and run”.

I don’t consider myself to be a prideful person. If I am wrong, I am wrong. It was only his admission that he was angry (on both threads) - not mine. I apologize if I offended anyone. It was just an observation.

 

[Christ_s_friend]

Let me put it this way: me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related. And YuRas and Solo Christos accounts were closed. I also understand you consern about the first time readers, and I will keep that in mind. Even though I agree with the context of the posts and not the tone.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

DianJo:

I am truly sorry if the post I made concerning YuRa’s previous posts on another thread came across as prideful. That was not my intention.

I was simply making an observation on the similarity of the two posts. In fact, many people who posted to this thread posted to the Mary thread and absolutely showed anger at YuRa’s postings and accused him of evangelizing when he really was not supposed to be (according to the rules of the forum). By pointing out the similarities of the posts, I was showing how their observations were probably true - that he was here not to learn but to “save our poor Catholic souls” and to do what some call “hit and run”.

I don’t consider myself to be a prideful person. If I am wrong, I am wrong. It was only his admission that he was angry (on both threads) - not mine. I apologize if I offended anyone. It was just an observation.

That was the reaction of alot of posters at first,it is okay.God Bless

 

[DianJo]

Christ's friend:

Let me put it this way: me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related. And YuRas and Solo Christos accounts were closed. I also understand you consern about the first time readers, and I will keep that in mind. Even though I agree with the context of the posts and not the tone.

*Just curious - What do you mean by: " *me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related."?

 

[Christ_s_friend]

DianJo,

Your appology is excepted as hopefully mine was to you and everyone ; ).

The rules say not to evangalize, but what is evangelism? Is in not helping to save the lost? So that means by your rules you are implying “Don’t help us when we are lost” or implying your not Christians. I am sure that is not what the rules mean but that is how it seems by the lauguage. I realize they mean no anti-catholic preachig, but if a person can not defend there beliefs it shows quite a weakness dont you think? So take my “evangalism” as a call to grow strong in your beliefs or to change them. You decide.

 

[Christ_s_friend]

*Just curious - What do you mean by: " *me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related."?

lol put 2 and 2 together. As long as accounts like solo christo and so on get deleted new accounts will appear.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Christ's friend:

Let me put it this way: me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related. And YuRas and Solo Christos accounts were closed. I also understand you consern about the first time readers, and I will keep that in mind. Even though I agree with the context of the posts and not the tone.

Well, I hope you seek to understand even if you do not agree YuRa and Solo Christos are to be commended for their convictions and hopefully they will seek to understand that Our Lord loves Catholics and Catholics love Our Lord and when they or he understands that the misunderstandings will fall away.God Bless

 

[Christ_s_friend]

I do seek to understand, and I hope the Catholic position does the same. I reform my self continuesly; as Christians we should all do that including the Catholic Church. So if the people of this forum are scared of a challenge to thier faith then they are weak in there beliefs. I see all of you are very strong in them so do not be stared of loyal opposition.

 

[ANWK]

Hi, i read almost all the posts on this thread. some in a bit more detail than others. just want to add my 2 cents worth.

I think it all boils down to the 2 different Bibles that Catholics and Protestants use.

To all Protestants reading this, you either have to accept that the early Church Councils were right in compiling 46 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT or you would have to reject both the OT and the NT that they compiled.

There is no middle ground. There is no stand to say that I only accept the NT, but I think they made a mistake with the OT.It is not reasonable, much less logical, to say that the Councils were right in compiling the NT but made a mistake in compiling the OT.

You mean to say that the Holy Spirit was only present when they compiled the NT and He went to take a rest as they were compiling the OT?

Let’s think about this rationally here. There are only 2 logical conclusions that we can arrive at.

1. The Holy Spirit was present when the Bible was compiled. Therefore the Bible (with 46 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT) was infallibly compiled because of guidance by the Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit was not present when the Bible was compiled and hence the Bible is a flawed book because there is no guidance from the Spirit.

Note that the 2 choices are mutually exclusive, either the Spirit was present when the Catholic Bible was compiled or the Spirit was absent and the Bible that we have today, be it Protestant or Catholic is flawed and cannot be relied on.

Choose your own conclusion.

Even if you want to argue that Scripture in itself is sufficient, it still has to be the right Scriptures or it would amount to nothing, would it?

To Protestants that are saying that Scripture is sufficient, are you in the first place, sure that you have got the “real” thing in your hands or just a man-made (as opposed to God-inspired) watered down version?

 

[anon50111284]

*Just curious - What do you mean by: " *me, YuRa, and Solo Christo are very closly related."?

The “Christ’s friend,” “YuRa,” and “Solo Christo” accounts were suspended due to activities under one of their other forum identities.

 

[Ignatius]

ANWK:

Hi, i read almost all the posts on this thread. some in a bit more detail than others. just want to add my 2 cents worth.

I think it all boils down to the 2 different Bibles that Catholics and Protestants use.

H ANWK,

There really are not two different Bibles. The Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books of the OT; but other than that they are identical.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[illuminator]

This is my first post so I’ll be cautious.

I guess my first question is what is meant by Isaiah 8:20
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Here’s a helpful sight:
http://www.greatlakes.net/~churchcr/sermons/traditions_of_men.pdf#search=‘beware%20of%20the%20traditions%20of%20men’

Let me know what you think

 

[Church_Militant]

illuminator:

This is my first post so I’ll be cautious.

I guess my first question is what is meant by Isaiah 8:20
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Here’s a helpful sight:
(I dumped the link to that anti-Catholic article. One link to such is more than enough. )

Let me know what you thinkWhat I think is that you mistakenly revived a thread that has been dead for well over a year, and that (having looked over your CoC website, which misrepresents Catholic teaching in a BIG way) you need to do your own research into what the Catholic Church really teaches so that you can see for yourself the misinformation of guys like David J. Riggs.

Your out of context citation of Isaiah 8:20 is just that and nothing more.The lengthy “sermon” or whatever it is displays a severe lack of understanding of both what Jesus condemned as traditions of men and the Catholic teachings on Sacred Tradition. Your sources are way outdated and as usual taken out of context in order to make them seem to say something that is not in fact what the Catholic Church believes. The entire message then becomes nothing but an excercise in beating up a “strawman argument”.

I suggest that before you post again that you take the time to read and study the information that you will find in the CA Library. You might start with Scripture and Tradition.

Again, I have to thank God for the truth of this quote from Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.
“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.”

…and like John Martignoni says, “I don’t care if you disagree with what I believe as a Catholic. Just make sure that it’s really something that we do believe.”
Pax tecum,

 

[Will_Pick]

YuRa:

Alright I will, and I want everyone to know right off the ball that I am an Evangelical Christian and support all reform theology. (I might disagree with a little fraction of it but that is irrelevant).

So I will be very blunt in my example of how tradition can overrule Scripture.

I know things have changed in the last 10 years I believe, but I will be talking about Traditional Catholicism.

The Bible is very clear on the fact that we are saved apart from works. That we are saved by Gods grace in which he uses an instrument we know as being faith to save a person, and that works are a fruit of faith. Which means the equation: Faith = Salvation + Works not the traditional Catholic teaching of Faith + Works = Salvation.

So who is right? The Catholic Church and the tradition that it developed or the original Scriptures?

I do not mean to offend anyone I just want to challenge what you believe in, and see if it is what the Scriptures say

Can you please show me in writting that what you say is the teaching of the RCC.

 

[illuminator]

I’m sorry if I have revived an old thread against anyone’s will but I think this is the most important subject in the forum. In today’s climate of relativism where anyone can do anything they want because “it feels right” or it’s morally right to them - it is important to have some standard of belief. The question comes down to whether it is the Bible alone or the Bible with Tradition. THis is why I decided to post to this thread. I hope I didn’t offend anyone with this and if I did, again, I apologize.

I guess I must say that I am somewhat disapointed with this website. When I first found it, I thought it was an enlightened web site for intellectual discussion about specific ideas relating to theology. To the former, I was not disappointed. Unfortunetly to the latter I was. In my above published rebuff there were no specifics laid out - only generalizations.

Usually when an advocate of a particular view makes a statement that can be made to be false, an apoligetic for the opposite side will waste no time in specifically criticizing it in various ways. When the argument is broadly disparaged and said to be “out of context” etc. This usally shows that not much can be said of this statement and that since not much can be said, either the statement or author must be discredited. Unfortunetly, I experienced both.

Regarding the text Isa 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” I am wondering in what context could this possibly be read in to change the meaning that I get: People who preach on the Law and Testimony - if they disagree with the book (Bible) - then there is no light in them. Please show me where exactly this is taken out of context.

In the rebuff that I was handed, a reference to me not knowing the beliefs of the Catholic Church was also made. I was directed to the library of the web site. I apoligize if I have misrepresented your view point or beliefs. I have gone and read some portions of the library and have found them to be informative and fair. In the future I will site all of my references (and make sure that they are only from the most reputable sources to avoid this problem in the future).

Now my question:

Since we are talking about the bible and its authority, Sunday is the day that is venerated by Roman Catholics as the sabbath of the 10 Commandments (I think we can all agree on this). My question is: why? Is it based on Biblical evidence or Tradition or both?

 

[RyanL]

illuminator,

Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here, and please feel free to ask any questions you would like (as long as respectfully asked, and asked with the intent of having a two way dialog).

illuminator:

In today’s climate of relativism where anyone can do anything they want because “it feels right” or it’s morally right to them - it is important to have some standard of belief.

There are very few people on this site who would disagree with you.

The question comes down to whether it is the Bible alone or the Bible with Tradition.

This actually doesn’t follow from the previous statement, but I’ll agree with it for now. Further, I would state that with the Bible Alone you run a heightened risk of Relativism than with the Bible and Tradition, which is a more objective source for values.

Isa 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Amen!

Please show me where exactly this is taken out of context.

As CM stated, it means what it says, and we believe it - however, it can by no stretch of the imagination be turned into a statement that, “Thou shalt use the Bible Alone as your sole authority.” That would be out of context.

In the rebuff that I was handed, a reference to me not knowing the beliefs of the Catholic Church was also made.

I think it’s because your post implied that the Catholic Church does not speak according to the Holy word of God - in fact, there is no more Biblical a church than the Catholic Church; the reason is that the Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics and for Catholics. If you disagree with this statement, I would question how you came to know which books should be in the New Testament (the “canon of Scripture”) to begin with - as there is no “divinely inspired table of contents,” there are only two options remaining:

(1) I feel a “burning in my bosom” when I read each epistle, so I know that each book is inspired. This is Calvin’s (and the Mormons’) position. (Hannah, Notes, 3.7)

(2) The Catholic Church sat down one day in the 4th Century and determined what the canon of the New Testament would be. This is Martil Luther’s position, and why he felt free to attack James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and 2 Peter - this is also why he felt free to kick seven books out of the Old Testament canon.

Since we are talking about the bible and its authority, Sunday is the day that is venerated by Roman Catholics as the sabbath of the 10 Commandments (I think we can all agree on this). My question is: why? Is it based on Biblical evidence or Tradition or both?

Both. Link.

It would probably do best to create a new thread for each topic you want to discuss (rambling threads tend to get shut down), and the Apologetics forum is better suited to discussions of doctrine/dogma. That said, I hope your questions have been answerer (although for some reason I doubt that will be the case).

God Bless, and again, welcome!
RyanL

 

[anawim]

illuminator:

Now my question:

Since we are talking about the bible and its authority, Sunday is the day that is venerated by Roman Catholics as the sabbath of the 10 Commandments (I think we can all agree on this). My question is: why? Is it based on Biblical evidence or Tradition or both?

Both. It is in both Scripture (Lk. 24:1; Acts 20:7), but it is also mentioned in the first writing in the Christian Church that is outside of inspired Scripture: The Didache.

 

[Church_Militant]

illuminator:

I’m sorry if I have revived an old thread against anyone’s will but I think this is the most important subject in the forum. In today’s climate of relativism where anyone can do anything they want because “it feels right” or it’s morally right to them - it is important to have some standard of belief. The question comes down to whether it is the Bible alone or the Bible with Tradition. THis is why I decided to post to this thread. I hope I didn’t offend anyone with this and if I did, again, I apologize.

I guess I must say that I am somewhat disapointed with this website. When I first found it, I thought it was an enlightened web site for intellectual discussion about specific ideas relating to theology. To the former, I was not disappointed. Unfortunetly to the latter I was. In my above published rebuff there were no specifics laid out - only generalizations.
…snip…

In the rebuff that I was handed, a reference to me not knowing the beliefs of the Catholic Church was also made. I was directed to the library of the web site. I apoligize if I have misrepresented your view point or beliefs. I have gone and read some portions of the library and have found them to be informative and fair. In the future I will site all of my references (and make sure that they are only from the most reputable sources to avoid this problem in the future).

Now my question:

Since we are talking about the bible and its authority, Sunday is the day that is venerated by Roman Catholics as the sabbath of the 10 Commandments (I think we can all agree on this). My question is: why? Is it based on Biblical evidence or Tradition or both?

I think I may have come off a bit too “strong” on you sir and that was not really my intention so I apologize for that. I think I was probably responding more to the tone of the articles that I read on the website that you lnked, and my opinion on that still stands, but to you, as I said, I apologize.

RyanL has already answered you as well (or better) than I could have so I won’t belabor that point and just let his answer stand.

All too often non-Catholics seem to misunderstand the Catholic beliefs about the Word of God, somehow getting the impression that we do not accept the Bible as authorative, but I think RyanL has summed that up very well indeed, as that is also what I would have said.

BTW, I also welcome you to CAF. Here’s hoping that all our discussions can be as edifying as they should be.
The peace of Christ be always with you.

 

[Ignatius]

YuRa:

The Bible is very clear on the fact that we are saved apart from works.

The Catholic Church and the tradition that it developed or the original Scriptures?

The Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture all agree on this. You missed some of the most important Scriptures which address the issue directly.

The only place faith alone is mentioned in the bible is where it specifically says man is not saved by faith alone. Heres the verse.
James 2:20, 24
But wilt thou know, o vain man that faith without works is dead?
Ye see then how that by works man is justified, and not by faith alone.

It is also clearly indicated in many other places in the bible.

Rom 2:6 God will give to each according to what he has done. To those who by persistance in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life.

Jn 5:28-29 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but to those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must appear before the judgment seat ofChrist, so that each one may receive . . . . according to what he has done in the body.

Also, you will see that this is the constant interpretation of Scripture of the first Christians. Those who were taught at the very feet of the Apostles had the same question, and the Apostles whom Christ Himself sent explained it to them. Many of these expositions on the Holy Scripture are available. If you read what the first post-apostolic Christians wrote IT very clear.

You should know that Sola Scriptura (bible alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone) are false, man made doctrines that are nowhere to be found for the first sixteen hundred years of Christianity. They were invented by the reformers in the 16th century and are innovations of man.

Please research this for yourself. Go and see when these doctrines first appeared. It isn’t until 16 centuries after Christ founded His Church.

Yours in Christ.