second question for our non-catholic brethern

[PRmerger]

“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”

How can the decision that Hebrews is theopneustos and part of the NT be subordinate to the NT?

That doesn’t make sense.

How does the decision that the Epistle of Barnabas is NOT part of the NT be subordinate to the NT?

That doesn’t make sense.

You are claiming that the Ruler used to determine what the Ruler is is doing the measuring.

That’s just :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

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?

 

[PRmerger]

INo wonder Christ established His Church first

Which the Scriptures say is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

The Bible, interestingly, does NOT say that it is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Curious, that!

 

[PRmerger]

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

Yes. That tool is called “The Church”.

Otherwise, when one rejects the tool, he builds on his own fallible self.

And, remember, fallible means: going to be wrong.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

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

So what verse in Scripture contradicts the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Kliska]

Yes. That tool is called “The Church”.

Holy Spirit. Every true believer has Him indwelling them.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes. That tool is called “The Church”.

Otherwise, when one rejects the tool, he builds on his own fallible self.

And, remember, fallible means: going to be wrong.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

No it doesn’t…

It means capable of being wrong.

 

[Kliska]

No it doesn’t…

It means capable of being wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Do you Protestant folks see why we Catholics don’t believe your SS definition?

Because you guys don’t even believe it yourself.

The above is an excellent example of how you really believe this def of SS: “Everything that you profess has to be found in Scripture.”

 

[PRmerger]

No it doesn’t…

It means capable of being wrong.

Fair enough.

So unless you believe that you’re incapable of being wrong in your interpretations of Scripture, then each and every time you read it, independent of the lens which gave you these Scriptures, then you are going to have to worry, “Am I being wrong here in my fallible interpretation?”

Because, remember, you are capable of being wrong.

And incapable of being right every single time you interpret.

 

[PRmerger]

Holy Spirit. Every true believer has Him indwelling them.

Which Holy Spirit is correct then:

Is divorce and re-marriage a sin, or is it just another second chance?

Is Baptism an ordinance? Or is it a sacrament?

Is Sunday the day of worship, or is it Saturday?

Which Holy Spirit, Kliska, is telling them these differing, contrary doctrines?

 

[Kliska]

Which Holy Spirit is correct then:

There is only one Holy Spirit, PR’.

Which Holy Spirit, Kliska, is telling them these differing, contrary doctrines?

Only one Spirit, PR, only one. There are plenty of humans to muck up doctrine, including those running the RCC/ECC/OC/Protestant denoms. We have to study to show ourselves approved, as well as working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When we stand before God to stand behind what we believe, there will be no magisterium to back us up, we are responsible for our beliefs.

 

[Novocastrian]

Fair enough.

So unless you believe that you’re incapable of being wrong in your interpretations of Scripture, then each and every time you read it, independent of the lens which gave you these Scriptures, then you are going to have to worry, “Am I being wrong here in my fallible interpretation?”

Because, remember, you are capable of being wrong.

And incapable of being right every single time you interpret.

Well, yes. I think that healthy appraisal of human fallibility is a crucial element of any kind of responsible intellectual engagement.

You should, however, be able to see that your last two sentences don’t follow. One could be always capable of being wrong while in fact being right in each individual case. Basic logic.

 

[PRmerger]

One could be always capable of being wrong while in fact being right in each individual case. Basic logic.

So are you saying that it’s possible for your pastor, or any person, to have been right every single time he’s interpreted Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

There is only one Holy Spirit, PR’.

Very Catholic of you to say this!

Only one Spirit, PR, only one. There are plenty of humans to muck up doctrine, including those running the RCC/ECC/OC/Protestant denoms.

Exactly.

And that is why we can rest assured when the Holy Spirit guides the Church to infallibly discern things,…so we don’t muck up doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

When we stand before God to stand behind what we believe, there will be no magisterium to back us up, we are responsible for our beliefs.

I don’t know what it means to have “no magisterium to back us up”, but the rest of it,

If by “no magisterium to back us up” you mean that you reject the authority of the magisterium, then that means you will not have had the New Testament. For it is ONLY through the magisterium of the CC that you know what belongs in the NT…

so if you rejected the authority of the magisterium, you wouldn’t have the NT, and by your current SS paradigm, you wouldn’t know that Jesus died and rose for you…so…I don’t know how you could be saved with “no magisterium to back” you up.

 

[Novocastrian]

So are you saying that it’s possible for your pastor, or any person, to have been right every single time he’s interpreted Scripture?

Logically possible, yes, but very very unlikely. I’m just defining fallibility, not arguing that it IS the case that fallible person X actually does always contingently avoid error.

 

[Kliska]

And that is why we can rest assured when the Holy Spirit guides the Church to infallibly discern things,…so we don’t muck up doctrine.

You should be assured when the Spirit guides you, because you will answer for your belief, we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and will account for every vain word we speak/teach. As to the doctrine of the RCC and the rest, those individuals will answer for their beliefs too. Has the Roman Catholic Church mucked up their doctrine? Yes, of course I’d say that, or I’d be protestant, just like you’ll say “no” because you are RC.

Jesus wouldn’t have to have to chastise whole churches and ask if there will be faith on the earth when He returns if the true faith was assured and infallibly promulgated.

 

[PRmerger]

Logically possible, yes, but very very unlikely. I’m just defining fallibility, not arguing that it IS the case that fallible person X actually does always contingently avoid error.

So how will you know when your pastor is interpreting correctly or incorrectly, knowing that he is fallible?

 

[PRmerger]

Logically possible, yes, but very very unlikely.

And since it’s “very unlikely” that does mean that it’s likely–quite likely, in fact–that he’s going to be wrong.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

Which brings me back to my original statement.

Fallible means: going to be wrong.

Or, at least, quite likely to be.