second question for our non-catholic brethern

[jmcrae]

You’re whole premise is Begging the Question and that is why it is false dilemma. Another possibility is that the mainline protestant perspective is correct, another is the Orthodox perspective is correct. I understand that for you that isn’t feasible starting with the premises… or actually the conclusion that you express.

If the Protestant perspective is correct, then it is by pure random chance, because there were no Protestants present at the Cross, nor at the Resurrection.

The Eastern Orthodox disagree on very few things with the Catholic Church. They disagree that the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, but they don’t disagree that a Successor of the Apostles has to be in command of Christ’s Church. And they disagree that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son; they say that he proceeds from the Father, only. They also don’t believe in Original Sin; they believe that all human beings are Immaculate Conceptions; not just Mary. However, they agree that infants should be Baptized on the eighth day or earlier, and not only that, but Chrismated and Communed as well. But they agree with us on everything else.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11520651]No, Patrick.

This is not correct.

It was not necessary for Mary to be perfect.

Rather, it was FITTING that she was.

THANK YOU!

you’re right, i was wrong. I gave it careful thought and can discern the difference

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Protestor]

What about those with Down syndrome? Have they sinned?

I do not know what mentally disabled people are capable of. I assume that it is possible. From my understanding there is the full spectrum of abilities within mentally disabled community. I am not sure what you want from me. Are you trying to say Mary was mentally disabled? I guess the other option is to call them sub-human, I am sure that that will offend people. I am not an expert in weird scenarios, but I am sure that God deals with it somehow.

I mean we could get into a whole subject of if there is a mentally disabled person who grew up in muslim household and was a devote muslim will that person go to heaven. Even though that persons mental capacity was such that they would believe whatever their gardian taught them. I cannot answer every silly scenario that is possible. The fact of the matter is that Mary was not mentally disabled.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11520707]Yep.

It appears that since Sola Scriptura has been diced and sliced and refuted quite easily, the definition has changed now.

It is more like what is being argued by some Prots here is Scripture as the Final Authority, or Scriptura Ultima. Not Sola Scriptura.

VERY interesting, can you point me some evidence of this change? It’s HUGE!

God Bless,
patrick

 

[pocohombre]

Yep.

It appears that since Sola Scriptura has been diced and sliced and refuted quite easily, the definition has changed now.

It is more like what is being argued by some Prots here is Scripture as the Final Authority, or Scriptura Ultima. Not Sola Scriptura.

Actually what is the definition per CC ? …“Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”. from Wiki…And of course, since we have 30000 denoms and growing can’t they each have their definition.(wiki didn’t have 30000.only one plus one variation that is “stronger”(baptists). Is there one succint defintion ? Haven’t read all posts but most have stuck to the same definition but perhaps i haven’t read posts that made you say she’s been “sliced and diced”.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually what is the definition per CC ?

The Catholic Church doesn’t define “Sola Scriptura” because it is not a Catholic doctrine.

The notion that everything necessary for salvation can be found in the Bible is absurd; the two things necessary are the person who needs to be saved, and the Saviour. A book cannot save anyone.

 

[Kliska]

"Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the doctrine that** the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.** Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God"

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then why did Christ established His Church first?

And more importantly - who determines which doctrines are consistent with Scriptures?

Further - where in Scriptures does it say that Scriptures demands all doctrines to be contained only from within Scriptures.

And is this knowledge necessary for Salvation seen as formal sufficiency or material sufficiency?

And why on earth does Scriptures themselves command and demand us to stay faithful to the teachings - whether they are oral or by letter?

I’ve asked this in several threads and all I have is silence…

That and where are the original writings? And are we not relying on the testimony of men as to what is Divinely Inspired or not. Or can someone show Divine Revelation as to the books that need to be included in the Bible?

I might have to start my own thread… I doubt it will go anywhere and just be ignored.

 

[Kliska]

Then why did Christ established His Church first?

You’re discounting all of the OT. We have prophecy after prophecy that sets the stage for Jesus. When Jesus appears, now we have the Rosetta stone to make sense of all the OT. That is what Paul was doing when arguing through the scriptures and proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified. That is what Philip did with the Ethiopian.

And more importantly - who determines which doctrines are consistent with Scriptures?

We can go around and around all of this, but the long and the short of it is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture, obviously the doctrine got off track somewhere. If Paul was preaching that Jesus didn’t descend from David, the listeners would know Paul was wrong.

Further - where in Scriptures does it say that Scriptures demands all doctrines to be contained only from within Scriptures.

Please read the definition again: “Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”

And is this knowledge necessary for Salvation seen as formal sufficiency or material sufficiency?

The way it exists today, I’d say both, if I understand what you mean by the terms you use. To clarify I believe that if a person were put in solitary confinement that never heard about world religions, if given a Bible they could be saved by reading it and faithing on Jesus.

And why on earth does Scriptures themselves command and demand us to stay faithful to the teachings - whether they are oral or by letter?

Again, a key belief in Sola Scriptura is that written scripture is a benchmark; if something that is taught is contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually what is the definition per CC ? …“Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”. from Wiki…And of course, since we have 30000 denoms and growing can’t they each have their definition.(wiki didn’t have 30000.only one plus one variation that is “stronger”(baptists). Is there one succint defintion ? Haven’t read all posts but most have stuck to the same definition but perhaps i haven’t read posts that made you say she’s been “sliced and diced”.

And yet the Bible nowhere teaches: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Such a vital doctrine yet never once mentioned for consideration at the first 7 great ecumenical councils? SS the mother of all doctrines for one’s soul, yet never once mentioned by Jesus or the 12?

 

[Nicea325]

You’re discounting all of the OT. We have prophecy after prophecy that sets the stage for Jesus. When Jesus appears, now we have the Rosetta stone to make sense of all the OT. That is what Paul was doing when arguing through the scriptures and proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified. That is what Philip did with the Ethiopian.

We can go around and around all of this, but the long and the short of it is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture, obviously the doctrine got off track somewhere. If Paul was preaching that Jesus didn’t descend from David, the listeners would know Paul was wrong.

Please read the definition again: “Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”

The way it exists today, I’d say both, if I understand what you mean by the terms you use. To clarify I believe that if a person were put in solitary confinement that never heard about world religions, if given a Bible they could be saved by reading it and faithing on Jesus.

Again, a key belief in Sola Scriptura is that written scripture is a benchmark; if something that is taught is contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

But in practice SS does deny other authorities or else it would not be called Sola meaning only. Again…when was this premise of:

if something is taught contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

When, where and who implemented such a position? Jesus? The Apostles? Not one ecumenical council ever mentions it.

 

[Kliska]

But in practice SS does deny other authorities or else it would not be called Sola meaning only.

This argument makes no sense in the context of the “5 Sola’s” if it were an “only” there wouldn’t be 5 of them.

if something is taught contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

When, where and who implemented such a position? Jesus? The Apostles? Not one ecumenical council ever mentions it.

So… you disagree? If a teaching is shown to be contrary to scripture, then it is right and good?

The only argument that makes logical sense from a RCC/ECC position is to say there has never been a teaching from the magisterium or popes that contradicts scripture. Protestants just don’t agree with the RCC/ECC on that.

 

[SteveVH]

Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God".

I am always amazed that SS proponents treat the Bible as if it were the most plain and simple composition of books ever written. As if we could simply look up the topic and get the answer, regardless of our abilities. In fact, it contains writings that simply cannot be properly understood unless one is well grounded in the language and culture of the time in which they were written. This would include being well versed in rabbinic idioms and methods of argument, among many other things.

The point is that the inspired nature of the Scriptures assures us of their truth, not their interpretation. So how does one keep the other authorities that govern Christian life in check with the Bible when there is no guaranty that one even understands the Bible to begin with? We have Christians who have interpreted the Bible to mean that the earth is only 6000years old, in spite of verifiable scientific evidence to the contrary. We have “Christians” who believe that it is biblical to carry posters with messages that say “God Hates Gays” or “God Hates Soldiers” and to show up at their funerals to harass their loved ones.

It is evident that we need an authentic interpreter of Scripture if we are to know the truth, many times hidden, in the pages of Scripture. And even then, the Bible does not contain everything handed down to us by the Apostles. I realize that if one chooses to remain separate from the Catholic Church then all they really have to hold on to is the Bible and it is reasonable that one left with only this option is going to want to believe that it contains all they need for their salvation. Unfortunately, believing this does not therefore make it true.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re discounting all of the OT.

I am not. Moses and Aaron and the Levite Priesthood precedes the OT. Abraham was before a single word of the OT was written.

We can go around and around all of this, but the long and the short of it is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture, obviously the doctrine got off track somewhere. If Paul was preaching that Jesus didn’t descend from David, the listeners would know Paul was wrong.

Contradict according to whom?

Please read the definition again: “Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”

Sola Scriptura is denied by the very same Scriptures. Period. There is not one single definition for it… And it can be molded to fit the needs of each ecclesiastical community or single person.

The way it exists today, I’d say both, if I understand what you mean by the terms you use. To clarify I believe that if a person were put in solitary confinement that never heard about world religions, if given a Bible they could be saved by reading it and faithing on Jesus.

Another minimalist approach that ignores the entire picture.

Again, a key belief in Sola Scriptura is that written scripture is a benchmark; if something that is taught is contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

There is not one single belief of Sola Scriptura. The written Scripture is dependent on the witness and authority of the Church, unless the originals appear. At which point you’d also need to validate them with the an authority.

And what you say is completely illogical. The written text is authoritative by the external influence of the authority which defends it and interprets it.

It’s like saying that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States enforce themselves without the government which produced it.

The Criminal Code of Law is enforced according to the interpretation of its citizens and not the Police Force and the Judicial Power.

No wonder Christ established His Church first

 

[Kliska]

I am not. Moses and Aaron and the Levite Priesthood precedes the OT. Abraham was before a single word of the OT was written.

The church began on Pentecost, the OT writings were around before Pentecost.

Contradict according to whom?

Again, this isn’t all that hard; Paul reasoned with people from scripture while proclaiming Christ and Him crucified. If he had said that Jesus was not of the line of David, they would know that Jesus was not Messiah because it would contradict scripture. The idea is clearly there.

Sola Scriptura is denied by the very same Scriptures. Period.

We disagree.

There is not one single definition for it… And it can be molded to fit the needs of each ecclesiastical community or single person.

You and others have asked for definitions of SS, and when it is given from a protestant perspective you don’t accept it. That is your right if you wish to see it a certain way.

And what you say is completely illogical. The written text is authoritative by the external influence of the authority which defends it and interprets it.

God is the authority that stand behind inspired scripture. Believers recognized it, and have the necessary tools to interpret it.

No wonder Christ established His Church first

God has all things planned out, history itself bends to God’s will. The OT happenings and writings were around long before the church for a reason.

 

[pocohombre]

The Catholic Church doesn’t define “Sola Scriptura” because it is not a Catholic doctrine.

The notion that everything necessary for salvation can be found in the Bible is absurd; the two things necessary are the person who needs to be saved, and the Saviour. A book cannot save anyone.

Sounds Protestant. A church can not save anyone either ,right ?

 

[pocohombre]

And yet the Bible nowhere teaches: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Such a vital doctrine yet never once mentioned for consideration at the first 7 great ecumenical councils? SS the mother of all doctrines for one’s soul, yet never once mentioned by Jesus or the 12?

The bible does not teach the infallibility of the bishop of Rome. Jesus and Paul said you can find eternal life in the scriptures.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The bible does not teach the infallibility of the bishop of Rome. Jesus and Paul said you can find eternal life in the scriptures.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

 

[pocohombre]

It is evident that we need an authentic interpreter of Scripture

Well we have One .And a Teacher Now there are also teachers, but they to are bound to Scripture also, for scripture is His Word.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A church can not save

Is that a quote from Patriarch Phil of duck dynasty too? Fallible people with an inspired book? I don’t know Phil is freaking me out. Phil has the civil war confused with scripture. You guys might be considered a US watch group soon.

The bible does not promise infallibility of its reader for sure.