since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

Re-reading post 682 (typo by me alert here)

I said:

I meant:

Catholics often refer to this “saving grace” as “sanctifying grace”. Protestants frequently call it “amazing grace” or “saving grace”.

But does one have saving grace before water baptism or is it prevenient? Can one have saving faith before Baptism ? Do Catechumens have saving faith ? Do you baptize someone who believes that Jesus is indeed their Messiah and Savior ?

 

[PRmerger]

But does one have saving grace before water baptism or is it prevenient? Can one have saving faith before Baptism ? Do Catechumens have saving faith ? Do you baptize someone who believes that Jesus is indeed their Messiah and Savior ?

Are you familiar with Cornelius in the NT, ben?

What does the Bible say about his faith?

 

[benhur]

Are you familiar with Cornelius in the NT, ben?

What does the Bible say about his faith?

Do you mean faith, the gift of God (not to mention baptism in the Holy Ghost), upon hearing the Word of Peter ?

 

[Cathoholic]

But does one have saving grace before water baptism or is it prevenient? Can one have saving faith before Baptism ? Do Catechumens have saving faith ? Do you baptize someone who believes that Jesus is indeed their Messiah and Savior ?

Benhur.

I could ask the same thing of an Anabaptist.

“Why do you have to accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior”? Isn’t prevenient grace enough?

None of the Baptists or other Anabaptists that I know would be OK with that.

My old Baptist Sunday school teachers wouldn’t be OK with skipping a “Sinners Prayer” either.

Are you OK with neglecting a “Sinners Prayer”? Were they wrong? (I think they were wrong in their whole foundation skipping over Baptismal regeneration . . . but what do YOU think? Are you OK with blowing-off a “Sinners Prayer”?)

You have the same problem that you think I have. But I also have the Oral Tradition and authority of the Church to guide me in such situations. I don’t have to speculate.

---

Can one have saving faith before Baptism?

No. Not by ordinary means.

You are going to point to Cornelius and Acts 10 (the Good thief would not be a good example as he MAY have been baptized for all we know–see John 4:1, so that leaves you with Cornelius), and I will answer that if you want, but first I want to know, “Why bother accepting Jesus into your heart”? if God’s prevenient grace saves you (admittedly God’s prevenient grace plays a necessary role in our justification).

(Your whole question here had a built-in false assumption that we are saved by faith ALONE. If you want benhur. Please feel free to start a thread on sola fide - justification by faith ALONE - and I would love to discuss the issue. As a matter-of-fact, I think you should begin a sola fide thread where the thread participants can only appeal to St. Paul, or as the Protestants call him, “Paul”.)

The fact that we are even having this discussion, highlights WHY Scripture ALONE isn’t enough to come to the fullness of truth.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that NULLIFIES the Commandments of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you mean faith, the gift of God (not to mention baptism in the Holy Ghost), upon hearing the Word of Peter ?

No. Cornelius had faith BEFORE hearing the Word of Peter.

Now in Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Cohort called the Italica,*
2
devout and God-fearing along with his whole household, who used to give alms generously* to the Jewish people and pray to God constantly.
3
One afternoon about three o’clock,* he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him and say to him, “Cornelius.”
4
He looked intently at him and, seized with fear, said, “What is it, sir?” He said to him, “Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God.–Acts 10

 

[benhur]

Benhur.

I could ask the same thing of an Anabaptist.

“Why do you have to accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior”? Isn’t prevenient grace enough?

None of the Baptists or other Anabaptists that I know would be OK with that.

My old Baptist Sunday school teachers wouldn’t be OK with skipping a “Sinners Prayer” either.

Are you OK with neglecting a “Sinners Prayer”? Were they wrong? (I think they were wrong in their whole foundation skipping over Baptismal regeneration . . . but what do YOU think? Are you OK with blowing-off a “Sinners Prayer”?)

You have the same problem that you think I have. But I also have the Oral Tradition and authority of the Church to guide me in such situations. I don’t have to speculate.

---

No. Not by ordinary means.

You are going to point to Cornelius and Acts 10 (the Good thief would not be a good example as he MAY have been baptized for all we know–see John 4:1, so that leaves you with Cornelius), and I will answer that if you want, but first I want to know, “Why bother accepting Jesus into your heart”? if God’s prevenient grace saves you (admittedly God’s prevenient grace plays a necessary role in our justification).

(Your whole question here had a built-in false assumption that we are saved by faith ALONE. If you want benhur. Please feel free to start a thread on sola fide - justification by faith ALONE - and I would love to discuss the issue. As a matter-of-fact, I think you should begin a sola fide thread where the thread participants can only appeal to St. Paul, or as the Protestants call him, “Paul”.)

The fact that we are even having this discussion, highlights WHY Scripture ALONE isn’t enough to come to the fullness of truth.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that NULLIFIES the Commandments of God.

Touche. Your passion is more than I can muster up to , and I can only laugh and shake my head, with no desire to rally a rebuttal this morning, but Blessings on the day.

 

[benhur]

benhur;12787085:

Agreed. It can reference protestants who are religious also. And I agree there are more religious expressions in the Catholic faith. They are very beautiful.

Understand

I think I understand what you are saying here about works. It is usually a misunderstanding of the Catholic faith, though. I didn’t understand for a long time either.
Learning, studying and God’s grace helped me understand. Here are a couple of links I found.

catholic.com/tracts/reward-and-merit

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-does-the-church-teach-that-works-can-obtain-salvation

:compcoff:
Took a look thanks. It seems so simple yet so easy to muddle up. Works because we are justified and works to be justified are not the same thing. Just because we do them by grace does not do away with being justified by works of righteousness per CC view.

 

[Magdalena59]

Took a look thanks. It seems so simple yet so easy to muddle up. Works because we are justified and works to be justified are not the same thing. Just because we do them by grace does not do away with being justified by works of righteousness per CC view.

I get what you are saying. I have read a lot of your posts. You disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church.

That’s okay, the Holy Spirit is working on all of us and we are all learning and working for that heavenly goal, though I still haven’t received an answer as to why I should believe your interpretation over the Catholic church or even over other protestant churches or where in God’s Word does it say he will build a book that everyone can interpret on their own and ignore the Church he said he was building and I know it doesn’t say listen to benhur on a Catholic forum because his interpretation will be correct.



God bless.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You stated:

Just because we do them by grace does not do away with being justified by works of righteousness per CC view.

That is a partial truth regarding “CC view” or Catholic Church view. Catholics do not affirm “works righteousness” though.

You don’t think your faith EARNS you your salvation either do you benhur??

Justification is a complex issue.

Anabaptist Protestants frequently look at justification as a "moment ALONE".

(They have lots of “ALONES” in Protestantism.)

The moment ALONE motif was why we as young adults would get little cards that we had to fill the date in at campfires or rallies or whatever. “Now you are saved. Today was the day you were saved and you cannot lose it”, we were told.

Catholics affirm justification is a moment but not a MERE moment.

Justification is a moment followed by a life-long process.

So you are correct, we need to look at initial justification . . . BUT THEN . . . we need to look at MORE. We need to look at as Trent says (quoting Revelation), “he that is justified, let him be further justified still.”

If you want to begin a thread on justification (or a thread on the bogus claim of Once Saved Always Saved), I would be willing to participate (if I don’t join in promptly and you don’t mind, PM me in case I miss it if you begin such a thread).

 

[Church_Militant]

Hold it…this thread is supposed to be about whether or not scripture is all Christians need as final and ultimate authority…not justification, or grace vs works, or the “baptsim of the Holy Spirit”, so we need to get back on topic or the thread will get closed by the mods for sure.

So…in order to get things rolling on topic again, I am putting forward the following question.

Where in the Bible does it specifically lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice?

I am asking for chapter and verse and I am asking that anyone who offers scripture in support of Sola Scriptura take the time to explain exactly how any such verses/passages do so. So far…despite numerous requests by myself and other Catholics here, no such effort has been made. Surely such a doctrine must have a scriptural basis or else, by its own premise, it cannot be a true Christian doctrine because it would prove to be unbiblical.

 

[Cathoholic]

Good point Church Militant.

Five Reasons why 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be teaching sola Scriptura.

Reason One: Think of the word “Alone”.

Re-read 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 and try to find the word “ALONE” or “ONLY” or some facsimile thereof.

2nd TIMOTHY 3:16-17 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The word “ALONE” is NOT there. Yet people frequently keep proverbially “throwing” the word “alone” into this passage.

Here is what 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 DOESN’T say:

2nd TIMOTHY 3:16-17 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is the ONLY INFALLIBLE source for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The other four reasons to come later.

 

[benhur]

Hold it…this thread is supposed to be about whether or not scripture is all Christians need as final and ultimate authority…not justification, or grace vs works, or the “baptsim of the Holy Spirit”, so we need to get back on topic or the thread will get closed by the mods for sure.

The above quote is not the same as the one below:

Where in the Bible does it specifically lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice?

 

[Magdalena59]

The above quote is not the same as the one below:

This is your interpretation based upon your adherence to the error of Sola Scriptura which itself has no basis in the Word of God, therefore violates its own premise and by its own standards cannot be a correct doctrine…

This is what I see as the original question. (underlining mine)

I am pretty sure that the question is where in the bible do you find sola scriptura?

 

[benhur]

Hold it…this thread is supposed to be about whether or not scripture is all Christians need as final and ultimate authority…not justification, or grace vs works, or the “baptsim of the Holy Spirit”, so we need to get back on topic or the thread will get closed by the mods for sure.

So…in order to get things rolling on topic again, I am putting forward the following question.

Where in the Bible does it specifically lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice?

I am asking for chapter and verse and I am asking that anyone who offers scripture in support of Sola Scriptura take the time to explain exactly how any such verses/passages do so. So far…despite numerous requests by myself and other Catholics here, no such effort has been made. Surely such a doctrine must have a scriptural basis or else, by its own premise, it cannot be a true Christian doctrine because it would prove to be unbiblical.

You claim SS has no scriptural basis as in zero ?

Is there any infallible Catholic doctrine that is not “scriptural”, as in zero ?

 

[Magdalena59]

You claim SS has no scriptural basis as in zero ?

Is there any infallible Catholic doctrine that is not “scriptural”, as in zero ?

You are still not answering the question. Where in scripture do you find sola scriptura? You are just answering a question with another question.

 

[benhur]

This is what I see as the original question. (underlining mine)

I am pretty sure that the question is where in the bible do you find sola scriptura?

Thanks.Took a look also back to post#1 .

 

[PRmerger]

Is there any infallible Catholic doctrine that is not “scriptural”, as in zero ?

Well, the 27 book canon of of the NT is not Scriptural. There is no inspired author who listed them for us.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive to unity. It is unhistorical because the Catholic Church existed well before there was ever a New Testament and those who received the word of the Church did so solely on its authority(1Thess 2:13). It is illogical because it says anything outside the scripture is not to be believed, yet this belief is not supported anywhere in scripture. It is fatal to the virtue of faith because faith consists in submitting and private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader. It is destructive to unity because it accepts no human authority, and as a result, there are over 40,000 communities adhering to Sola Scriptura who disagree with one another (Mk 3:24). However, the Catholic Church which teaches the one and same Faith (Eph 4:5) throughout the whole world.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You claim SS has no scriptural basis as in zero ?

Is there any infallible Catholic doctrine that is not “scriptural”, as in zero ?

We do not claim that all doctrine on faith and morals has to be explicit in Scripture. We have Tradition and the teaching authority given by Jesus through the Holy Spirit (Magisterium). We find it silly that all doctrine must come from Scripture (how can one possibly address modern issues of faith and morals if Scripture is our only authority? Even in Scriptural times, they had to have councils and decide on things not found in Scripture [Acts 15]).

You, on the other hand, lay forth the claim that Scripture is the only authority. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove from your only authority that it is, in fact, what you say it is.

Bear in mind, unless we have the author of a written work speak to us the actual meaning, every written work must be interpreted. This includes the bible. Which is why we have so many protestant congregations claim different things about the same verses. Just the other day I was told that there is a God the Mother as well as God the Father. He ‘proved’ his interpretation using scripture. This is exactly where relying on personal interpretation of a written document leads.

 

[Magdalena59]

One logical proof that Scripture alone is an incorrect doctrine and can’t be followed is just by looking at how those who follow that belief argue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians because we don’t follow Scripture alone and also argue with each other over how those Scriptures are to be understood.

Just by my following the several different threads that have been going lately on these forums and reading the arguments over how Scripture is understood has sent my mind in a spin and I am ever so grateful that God did know us humans he created and that we would need a place to give us understanding of his Word and so left us the Magisterium and Tradition.