Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[cfrancis]

Still waiting for JA4 to list the facts he claims prove scripture is the sole rule of faith.

By my count, this is now the ***sixth ***time I’ve asked for these facts.

I can’t help wondering what it says to any lurkers here that I’ve already asked five times and have been given nothing but excuses. Since JA4 claims to have such facts, it should be a piece of cake for him to state them.

If it is the truth that scripture is the sole rule of faith, that is something all Christians should believe. JA4 should have enough Christian honesty and integrity to show the facts he says he has, so we can all believe this “truth.” Yet, so far, he has utterly refused to do so.

So, JA4, what are these facts? And please stick to your sole rule of faith when answering. After all, if it is your ***sole ***rule of faith, you shouldn’t use anything else.

Surely ja4 has a very clear Bible verse that says the Bible is the sole rule of faith…

 

[tmac1956]

Still waiting for JA4 to list the facts he claims prove scripture is the sole rule of faith.

By my count, this is now the ***sixth ***time I’ve asked for these facts.

I can’t help wondering what it says to any lurkers here that I’ve already asked five times and have been given nothing but excuses. Since JA4 claims to have such facts, it should be a piece of cake for him to state them.

If it is the truth that scripture is the sole rule of faith, that is something all Christians should believe. JA4 should have enough Christian honesty and integrity to show the facts he says he has, so we can all believe this “truth.” Yet, so far, he has utterly refused to do so.

So, JA4, what are these facts? And please stick to your sole rule of faith when answering. After all, if it is your ***sole ***rule of faith, you shouldn’t use anything else.

JA4’s response to almost every question usually takes the form of another question. This reminds me of the Turing test (circa 1950) designed to test whether a computer possessed intellect. In the early days, when a question was put to the computer, it was programmed to respond by picking a word or phrase from the original question, and then build another question around that word or phrase – in order to sound intelligent I mean.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;4292047]
Do you consider the teachings of the immaculate conception and her assumption as sacred Scripture?

Those teachings became Dogma by the Council of Bishops- the Magesterium (direct successors to the Apostles) and approved Officially by The Pope (direct successor to St Peter). They are not the same as the Holy Bible, but equivalent. They are basic Dogma of the Church. Have previously cited the Bible on Our Lord Authorizing the Apostles and His Church to bound on Earth: Mathew 18:18-20 (Dogma, obviously) :bible1: These doctrines derive from common knowledge virtually since the early Centuries, basically.
Vivat Jesus. :knight1: Tony

If these dogmas are equivalent are they also inspired-inerrant?

 

[justasking4]

Still waiting for JA4 to list the facts he claims prove scripture is the sole rule of faith.

By my count, this is now the ***sixth ***time I’ve asked for these facts.

I can’t help wondering what it says to any lurkers here that I’ve already asked five times and have been given nothing but excuses. Since JA4 claims to have such facts, it should be a piece of cake for him to state them.

If it is the truth that scripture is the sole rule of faith, that is something all Christians should believe. JA4 should have enough Christian honesty and integrity to show the facts he says he has, so we can all believe this “truth.” Yet, so far, he has utterly refused to do so.

So, JA4, what are these facts? And please stick to your sole rule of faith when answering. After all, if it is your ***sole ***rule of faith, you shouldn’t use anything else.

i don’t recall an answer either by you or someone that i asked about the Scriptures themselves. That question is something like this:
Are the Scriptures alone inspired-inerrant? Does the Catholic church teach this also?

These are not difficult questions to answer. Can you do so?

 

[justasking4]

JA4’s response to almost every question usually takes the form of another question. This reminds me of the Turing test (circa 1950) designed to test whether a computer possessed intellect. In the early days, when a question was put to the computer, it was programmed to respond by picking a word or phrase from the original question, and then build another question around that word or phrase – in order to sound intelligent I mean.

Many of my responses contain other questions for a number of reasons.
1- this is a discussion forum and questions are a great way to get people to think
2- some answers lead to more questions that help to get the truth of the matter

 

[cfrancis]

i don’t recall an answer either by you or someone that i asked about the Scriptures themselves. That question is something like this:
Are the Scriptures alone inspired-inerrant? Does the Catholic church teach this also?

These are not difficult questions to answer. Can you do so?

Jesus Christ is inerrant; all He said was inerrant, as He is the Word.
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

*“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”*SIZE=“1”]70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, **we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[guanophore]

I think you should get a Catechism and then you would not need to ask the same question over and over and over again.

All that would be required would be for you to read the answers over and over and over again!

It would certainly save time and effort and space on this thread

I believe that the anti-Catholic fundamentalist group that uses this login does have a catechism, or at least postings have claimed this, and posted information indicating it is being read. However, so far as I can tell, the objective is not to learn about the Catholic faith, but to identify, through trolling questions, Catholics who are weak in their faith who might be encouraged to rebel against the Magesterium.

I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant.

Those things not in the scriptures are not binding though. They do not carry apostolic authority.

Keep in mind that most of these if not all of them are not grounded in the scriptures.

ja4 believes that the Sacred Tradition is false teaching, and wants Catholics to use the Bible to question and confront the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, because they have strayed from “biblical truth”.
"guanophore:

Sometimes it seems to me like the only reason you are here on CAF is to encourage Catholics to question their leadership.

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

"guanophore:

But you have already made it clear that you consider these “speculations of men” and false teaching that has crept into the Church, so why keep bringing it up?

(talking about Sacred Tradition) might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

i want to help others see it to.

ja4 believes all the Catholic Traditions he cannot find in his bible are “false gospel”.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church. See Galatians 1:8-9. He never taught anything about the marian doctrines for example. That was never a requirement of the gospel he taught.

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

Its (scripture) all we have. Anything else is mere specualtions and its not wise to build doctrines on speculations. You need facts to show and those facts don’t exist. Thats just the way it is. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

"guanophore:

It seems that you don’t beleive that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church.

You can claim to be led all you want but if its not in the scriptures nor are there any historical facts you don’t have the truth but speculations.

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

"guanophore:

What is it you think that Catholics need to do about the “false teachers”(Magesterium) in the church who are 'deceiving many"

Confront them and expose them.

This is just a small sampling of the posts that seem bent on fomenting rebellion among Catholics.

 

[Sailka]

If these dogmas are equivalent are they also inspired-inerrant?

Yes! Our Lord operates through the Council of Bishops and the Pope. Please read the Cited Matt 18:18-20 for what God told us for about 1970 years ago. Where earthly Authority is, to resolve disputes and dogma. The Catolic Church is the only one Living, Teaching the Inspiring/Ineranting Living Saviour. :bible1: Please remember that we Roman/Eastern/Orthodox Catholics of Matt 16:18-19 are about 70% of all Christians, and the only Fully Living Lord Church. Vivat Jesus. Tony

 

[tmac1956]

i don’t recall an answer either by you or someone that i asked about the Scriptures themselves. That question is something like this:
Are the Scriptures alone inspired-inerrant? Does the Catholic church teach this also?

These are not difficult questions to answer. Can you do so?

That’s two questions - AND, you already know the answers to both.

1. Catholics do not hold to the man-made doctrine of sola Scriptura.
2. Thus, the Catholic Church does not teach sola Scriptura.

However, if you remove the word “alone” from your question(s), then a different response is required – see post #642 by cfrancis.
Thanks!

 

[PJM]

This did not clear up my confusion. Must a person believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again to be saved? What does the Catholic church teach?

Yes, this is what the RCC teaches. But in addition one must (read John 3:5 and Mt. 19:16.). This too is taught by the RCC. Amen:thumbsup: Because they are the very words and instructions of Jesus Christ Himself.

The RCC does not teach that Salvation is through “faith only” because this philosphy is not bibical. Read James Chapter two for starters, on this topic.

God’s continued Blessings my friend in Christ,
PJM m.c.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
This did not clear up my confusion. Must a person believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again to be saved? What does the Catholic church teach?

PJM
Yes, this is what the RCC teaches. But in addition one must (read John 3:5 and Mt. 19:16.). This too is taught by the RCC. Amen:thumbsup: Because they are the very words and instructions of Jesus Christ Himself.

The RCC does not teach that Salvation is through “faith only” because this philosphy is not bibical. Read James Chapter two for starters, on this topic.

God’s continued Blessings my friend in Christ,
PJM m.c.

It seems that the catechism says something different i.e. you do not need to believe in Christ to be saved. In 847 it says
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Clearly the catechism is saying something that contradicts the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

tmac1956;4295259]That’s two questions - AND, you already know the answers to both.

1. Catholics do not hold to the man-made doctrine of sola Scriptura.
2. Thus, the Catholic Church does not teach sola Scriptura.

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

However, if you remove the word “alone” from your question(s), then a different response is required – see post #642 by cfrancis.
Thanks!

 

[tmac1956]

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

I would use the creator’s definition (Luther):
The bible is the sole source of authority.

However, there seems to be no agreed upon definition among Protestants. If you have a universal definition, then I would be happy to change mine in light of it.
Thanks!

 

[justasking4]

I would use the creator’s definition (Luther):
The bible is the sole source of authority.

However, there seems to be no agreed upon definition among Protestants. If you have a universal definition, then I would be happy to change mine in light of it.
Thanks!

i can agree with this.

 

[Sailka]

Many of my responses contain other questions for a number of reasons.
1- this is a discussion forum and questions are a great way to get people to think
2- some answers lead to more questions that help to get the truth of the matter

Thanks for your great reply, JK4! Fully Agreed! Forumns are best way to Find Truth, and get us thinking. Vivat Jesus. Tony

 

[cfrancis]

It seems that the catechism says something different i.e. you do not need to believe in Christ to be saved. In 847 it says
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Clearly the catechism is saying something that contradicts the Scriptures.

You couldn’t be more wrong. You have, subconsciously, added to the words of the Catechism something like, “those too may achieve eternal salvation without going through Jesus Christ.”
Nowhere does the CCC say this.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

All must go through Christ to gain eternal life; how and when those who never hear the gospel do this is known only to God.

 

[PJM]

It seems that the catechism says something different i.e. you do not need to believe in Christ to be saved. In 847 it says
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Clearly the catechism is saying something that contradicts the Scriptures.

Reply: Nope

First I congradulate YOU on reading the CCC.

Note is say’s through “no fault of their own.” Why and what does this mean?

It means, as unlikely as it may seem to those or us blessed to live in America, there are places where the “word of God” has not reached, parts of Africa, China, Russia, where freedom of religion is not practiced, for example.

Can we agree that Christ desires that all mankind be saved, or did He become man, and die, just for a few?

Answer: He desires that all mankind be saved, but knows full well as our “All Knowing God”, that not everyone is going TO CHOOSE to be saved. God does not send us either to Heaven or to Hell. Those are choices WE MAKE, utilizing our God given free will and intellect.

God possess ALL attributes and all attributes to their perfect and maximun capacity. Thus God is All Knowing, All Loving, All Kind, ect.,ect., and ALL JUST. Amen:thumbsup:

It is God’s Justice that permits and indeed, demands that “equal opportunity for Salvation” in available to everyone. So, if one truly has had no opportunity to come to the personal knowledge of God as our Savior, through the Redeemtive Loving act of Jesus, God who as I say, "has to be “All Just,” cannot, and most certainly “will not” allow those innocent brethern, who through NO fault of their own, do not know, and therefore cannot choose to decide to accept Christ love or to reject it, and thus are granted a “special kind of Baptism” based on how they have lived their lives. (God decides!)

In my last post I suggested that you read: John 3:5 on Baptism,
and Mt. 19:16 on obeying God’s Commandments.

God in additiion to being “All Just,” is also “ALL Wise,” and permits two other forms of recognized Baptism, based on the Power, Mercy and unlimited Love that God has for all of us.

They are “Baptism of Desire” were one in in Christian formation, but not yet Baptized, and or when one truly, truly had had no opportunity to get to know Christ. The Third form of Baptism, is “Baptism of Blood” where one who has yet to receive Baptism by “Water and the Spirit” actually give there life, literally, for God.

Baptism, is of course the “Sacramnet of Salvation,” and frees us from “all sin,” and the consequences of our sins, making our souls pure enough to merit, in conjunction with and THROUGH THE MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, to get to Heaven. However if we do not die at or soon after Baptism, we are then obligated to “Keep my Commandments if you are to see life.” And to do “good works.” See James Chapter two, as a begainer couse on the topic of “Justification.”

Good questions
God’s continued blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
It seems that the catechism says something different i.e. you do not need to believe in Christ to be saved. In 847 it says
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Clearly the catechism is saying something that contradicts the Scriptures.

cfrancis
You couldn’t be more wrong. You have, subconsciously, added to the words of the Catechism something like, “those too may achieve eternal salvation without going through Jesus Christ.”
Nowhere does the CCC say this.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

All must go through Christ to gain eternal life; how and when those who never hear the gospel do this is known only to God.

If a person dies without believing in the gospel message (See I Corinthians 15:1-4) will that person go to heaven?

 

[Cinette]

There is plenty of hard historical evidence that the Bible was written and compiled by the Catholic Church. This is a historical fact.

How then can our separated brothers and sisters in Christ trust the Bible - the Catholic book - to support their claims regarding Sola Scriptura? This is quite remarkable

I really need to understand this as it boggles the mind!:whacky: :dts:

 

[cfrancis]

If a person dies without believing in the gospel message (See I Corinthians 15:1-4) will that person go to heaven?

Without believing? That implies they’ve heard it and understood it; in this case, no, they will not have eternal life.

The issue, I’m sure you know, is not about those who have heard and believe; it’s about those who have never heard the Gospel!