Sola scriptura challenge

[Mickey]

But if not, the implication is strong enough that I don’t feel like I have to jump through hoops, make wide leaps in logic, and totally violate my sense of logic and intellectual integrity in order to accept it. In other words, if (and I am not convinced it is) the Trinity is only an implication and not a definition, it is a very credible one.

Exactly. Now, which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are not supported by Scripture which you feel that you must jump through hoops and make wide leaps in logic?

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

I have to regress to the point about sola scriptura addressing deficiencies in the Papacy and the Magisterium. What entitles Luther to edit Sacred Scripture to create, invent a theology of his own because he didn’t appreciate being beholden to Church authority or because he was upset about the abuse of that authority? Nothing.

Sola scriptura was an unknown concept in the Christian world until the reformation. Tradition on the other hand had been accepted since the first days of the Church, preceding the written Bible by centuries. Altering the original theological pairing of Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture puts the onus on non-Catholics to explain it’s validity, not the other way around.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

The real problem is… you are running out of smoke for your smoke screen! For a while there I thought the Fire Marshall was going to put in a post … but, I see it is starting to think out along with your thinning arguments. For example:

The problem is…

That with bad hermeneutics one can say that Scripture implies just about anything they want it to imply. That is why I am concerned about what it says, not what it implies. You realize that even when given direct references to scripture, you simply ignore them saying, in effect, this is simply not what I believe. No more reason then that. With such a line of argumentatation, just what is it you want to accomplish on this list?

Suffice it to say that the leap required from going from these cited texts to the Bishop of Rome is incapable of being in error when speaking on faith and morals, to me is huge. Would you say it is as huge as Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His Chruch and provide it with all Truth? Particularly when I don’t even see anything like “incapable of being incorrect” in these Scriptures yet. How about the promise of the Holy Spirit? Do you think the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to keep the CC from teaching error? No. Well, there is the Scripture that you hold to that says so.

So, suffice it to say, I’m totally not there yet.

And at the same time I could take the Scriptures in the other thread that allegedly prove SS and claim they at least imply it. You know, buddy, you have yet to do this. As far as I am concerned, you are really running low on smoke. And I’m sure you will be just as enthusiastic for my claims as I am yours. So I won’t go there. Dare I say you are basically incapable of going there mainly because SS is bankrupt.

One other reason I am not there yet is that several of the interpretations of the Bible offered by your infallible authority and the infallible authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sort of leave me scratching my head and saying huh, This is so trite on your part - just keep to the topic of the CC and see what you can do with it. By combining other groups, it would appear that your effort is to remain confused and to spread confusion in the post. This is poor argumentation. I am wondering if you are capable of better - so now is the time to show me what you can do… In my mind at least, an infallible authority should produce interpretations of Scripture that when I read them, they really stick out as being correct, not leave me saying “huh”. Oh, I forgot… you are serving as your own authority - and all of this based on that one scripture quote to assess all things carefully. Well, it looks like you forgot you need to be learned in the Scriptures before you go out making pronouncements that others have studied for 2000 years.

But I am sure that you have no issues with the interpretations of the Bible offered by your infallible authority. So therefore, it must be me. How interesting.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why I am NotTooSmart.

Buddy, you are sooooo right.

God bless

 

[NotTooSmart]

Don’t run yourself down.

Oh I am not. My name is partially in jest. And partially because I am not a theological whiz who has studied all this stuff in great depth. I am just a schmuck who has a job.

NotTooSmart…hang in there…Jn 6:53 says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Now, that is what it says, but I think you would take it to imply something else. No? Please, understand me, I’m not trying to score points here…I’m just sayin’.

Actually I am open to believing in some form of Real Presence (this is kind of an open issue to me). That is because I have come to believe that making the leap in Scripture from “This is my body” to “This represents my body” well might not be justified. In other words, I am not convinced I have a good reason not just to believe “This is my body” and leave it at that. But that is another topic.

One comment though. in respect to the Scripture you cite, everybody makes some type of leap with it because nobody believes that what we are eating and drinking has the chemical composition of …l human flesh and human blood. And if they made that claim, it would be nonsense because a chemist could easily prove that one false.

And sometimes literal readings of one Scripture contradict literal readings of other Scriptures, and that is the case with the Scripture you have cited. But that is another issue. This is why I am not a theologian.

I won’t run Mormon beliefs into the ground any more than I would run the beliefs of anyone else into the ground. That said, when I consider their theology I can only remark that calling yourself the Church of Jesus Christ does not make you the Church of Jesus Christ. But that’s another story…God bless…

Yup. And of course from my perspective that applies to y’all too.

 

[Mickey]

One comment though. in respect to the Scripture you cite, everybody makes some type of leap with it because nobody believes that what we are eating and drinking has the chemical composition of …l human flesh and human blood. And if they made that claim, it would be nonsense because a chemist could easily prove that one false.

There have been Eucharistic miracles where the Holy Gifts truly became genetic blood and flesh.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Exactly. Now, which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are not supported by Scripture which you feel that you must jump through hoops and make wide leaps in logic?

Papal infallability is the biggie.

There are other littlleies like the Marian Stuff, but if the elephant in the china closet could be proven true, then the littleies are true on the basis of “The pope said so, I believe it, and that settles it.”

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

The real problem is… you are running out of smoke for your smoke screen! For a while there I thought the Fire Marshall was going to put in a post … but, I see it is starting to think out along with your thinning arguments.

You know, it is not convincing and in fact condescending when I hear “you are throwing up smoke screens” and my arguments are “thinning”. You might be convincing the “Amen” corner around here, but you are not convincing me one bit.

You want to know something. Believe it or not, I am not here to convince you of the rightness of my theological position with respect to yours. If you want to believe what you believe, fine. We will find out in eternity who is right and wrong.

I am just collecting my thoughts and telling you all what I find to be incredulous for me to believe in the arguments you are putting forth to me.

And one thing that I do find to be incredulous is when you start leaping from what the Scripture is plainly saying to a different conclusion. And throwing up your hands and saying “We gave you Scripture…you are just not believing it” does not make you any more believable.

 

[NotTooSmart]

There have been Eucharistic miracles where the Holy Gifts truly became genetic blood and flesh.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But in my mind a miracle can not prove anything theological. That is because blatantly false, pagan religions have their own claims of miracles.

 

[Mickey]

But in my mind a miracle can not prove anything theological.

What is theology?

A true theologian has experienced Christ. I believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is a miracle. And I do not need a theological dissertation to prove it.

There have been Eucharistic miracles to bolster the faith of the unbelieving (Lanciano comes to mind). But it is not necessary for me to experience such an event to believe Jesus Christ when he says, “This is my Body”.

God bless.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Oops. I edited the second quote and it didn’t exactly come out right.

Read my first quote again, please.

Lemme restate it:

If you do not consider your church to be infallible,
then it’s possible for your church to be wrong about (it’s) interpretation of Scripture.

Hmm…yes.

And it probably is to some small extent. I personally don’t believe that any church is 100% accurate in its interpretation of Scripture. At the very least, I do know that it statistically improbable one church is…

So it doesn’t worry me. I trust that the Holy Spirit has guided me to the right local assembly for the care of my soul and leave it at that.
If you do consider your church to be infallible, it says so nowhere from Scripture.

Where is the logical flaw in either statement?

Fair enough. But not all Christian churches agree on theological matters. How do you reconcile that fact?

No problem. The text is nowhere a guarantee that any church, let alone your church is 100% accurate with no possibility of failure in its teaching of Scripture.

 

[NotTooSmart]

What is theology?

To better explain…just because Catholicism may (or may not) have a Eucharistic miracle, it does not mean that Catholicism is correct. Otherwise the claims of miracles of pagan religions mean that their pagan religion is correct. Note that I am in absolutely no position to verify the claims of a Eucharistic miracle either way and I am no way bad mouthing these reports of miracles. I just can’t verify.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Said Kindergarten teacher was not passed the alphabet from 2000 years of intimate knowledge of it and it’s creator. Said alphabet is not divinely inspired.

Christ did not hand over the alphabet to the kindergarten teacher to safe keep until His return.

The ramafications of getting the alphabet wrong even until the end of time is not damnation to hell.

That does not in the least tell me why I should accept the logic of the church example when the logic of the kindergarten example is wrong.

In every other walk of life, it is not a requirement that the teacher be “incapable of being incorrect” in order by me as a student to receive information and learn truth from said teacher. So why again is this requirement so absolutely, necessary when dealing with Spiritual truth.

I must really be NotTooSmart because this little stupid question totally has me perplexed.

 

[Radical]

Banjo, thanks for your response

I don’t believe you could substantiate even just the hierarchy as being totally in error.

We might be talking past each other here…when I said,“it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error.” I didn’t mean that they only taught error and/or only acted in error.

As to the rest of your post I would offer a reply from Lateran V but your last paragraph pretty much implies you would not be impressed. It seems we are at an impasse.

I suspect you are right on both counts

I would like to leave you with a thought. Christ is one person and so the mind and will of Christ are one. Yet we have today many religious bodies professing to proclaim that one mind and will. This cannot be. Therefore, either all of the bodies are wrong or one and only one is correct and the others are in error to one degree or another. I believe the former and I believe that one body is what we know today as the Catholic Church.

Understood

God bless…

you too

 

[puppypatrol]

I believe 1 Timothy 3:15 is probably the verse you have in mind
Glad I can help.

You didn’t answer the question. What does 1 Timothy 3:15 say is the pillar and foundation of faith. The correct answer is “The Church” not the Bible or Scripture.

You may also want to look at 2 Peter 1:20-21

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Then there is :

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

(don’t take it to the Bible but “the Church”)

Ephesians 1:18-23 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
**22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. **

( the Church not the Bible is the Body and Fullness of Christ…)

Ephesians 3:10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

(hum, no mention of a Bible)

Colossians 1:25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,

(preaching the Word of God, still no bible)

Matthew 16:18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
QUOTE] (Not write a Bible on this rock)

We could go on and on but…

The original question, I believe was basically, "where in the Bible does it say that the Bible or written Scripture is the only way we know what is to be taught and believed.

It’s amazing how, when someone cannot find an answer, they change the subject and go wayyyyyy off topic.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again. I regret to say that I’m falling behind a little w.r.t posts that I want to respond to. Although I also note that some “reinforcements” (e.g. Mickey) have arrived, so perhaps that will all “even out”.

Papal infallability is the biggie.

There are other littlleies like the Marian Stuff, but if the elephant in the china closet could be proven true, then the littleies are true on the basis of “The pope said so, I believe it, and that settles it.”

I would completely agree with that if you change the last sentence to: “The pope said so infallibly, I believe it, and that settles it.”

 

[Peter_J]

Because the text says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and my local church is a Christian church.

Please note the two words I highlighted.

 

[banjo]

Banjo, thanks for your response

Radical,
Omitted from my last post to you…regarding your reference to Luther in your post 111…for some background on the politics of the Council of Basel you might check out the following article…

newadvent.org/cathen/02334b.htm

Thanks for a civil discussion…I don’t consider myself an apologist, I have other things I’m trying to do and other reasons for keeping in touch, although irregularly on these forums
God bless…

 

[banjo]

Papal infallability is the biggie.

There are other littlleies like the Marian Stuff, but if the elephant in the china closet could be proven true, then the littleies are true on the basis of “The pope said so, I believe it, and that settles it.”

Perhaps your notion of Papal infallibility isn’t accurate. What exactly does it or does it not mean?
“It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. A Pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as a private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision or that what he says will always be well advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he says will not be false. “ The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451; Adrian Fortescue

 

[NotTooSmart]

Perhaps your notion of Papal infallibility isn’t accurate. What exactly does it or does it not mean?
“It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. A Pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as a private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision or that what he says will always be well advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he says will not be false. “ The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451; Adrian Fortescue

That is my understanding as well.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

I’ll call … your bluff…

You know, it is not convincing and in fact condescending when I hear “you are throwing up smoke screens” and my arguments are “thinning”. You might be convincing the “Amen” corner around here, but you are not convincing me one bit. Believe it or not, ‘convincing you’ is really something you have do for yourself. I am just presenting evidence - and all you are doing is saying, “No way! I don’t believe” Hardly a compelling line of reasoning.

You want to know something. Believe it or not, I am not here to convince you of the rightness of my theological position with respect to yours. If you want to believe what you believe, fine. We will find out in eternity who is right and wrong. In all honestly, I not only do not think you will convince anyone here of anything - based on your non-existant line of argumentation, but, you may not even be convincing yourself. Can you provide one - just one - scriptural basis that denies the Holy Spirit is leading the Church founded by Christ on Peter? if this were a poker game… your hand has just been called.

I am just collecting my thoughts and telling you all what I find to be incredulous for me to believe in the arguments you are putting forth to me. Now, if you can get over your incredulity - can you actually give a reason that goes beyond your tradiotional, “I don’t believe”?

And one thing that I do find to be incredulous is when you start leaping from what the Scripture is plainly saying to a different conclusion. And throwing up your hands and saying “We gave you Scripture…you are just not believing it” does not make you any more believable. It really is YOUR TURN - just what DOES the the Scripture plainly say that we have drawn an invalid conclusion? And, in your enthuasism for providing Scriptural references to support your position, please provide one - just one - to support SS. Now, this honestly means leaving bluster and simply moving toward fact. Your hand has been called.

God bless