W
wisdomseeker
Guest
well believing is not so much an issue as to being obedient. who do you obey?
- Status
J
jdevoir
Guest
Hi Mach1 
you are right and that is a sad commentary that there are Catholics that do not follow the teachings of the Church. But that doesn’t take away from the Church’s ability to interpret scripture it just means that individuals have a problem accepting it. Just because people walked away from Jesus in John 6 didn’t mean what he was teaching was false, they just did not have the faith to believe it. Correct me if I am wrong on this fellow posters but if you say that you are Catholic but do not believe in all of the Doctrines of the Church then you are not truly Catholic. It would be like a Muslim not believing in the 5 pillars of Islam and still calling himself a Muslim.
In Christ
:grouphug:
you are right and that is a sad commentary that there are Catholics that do not follow the teachings of the Church. But that doesn’t take away from the Church’s ability to interpret scripture it just means that individuals have a problem accepting it. Just because people walked away from Jesus in John 6 didn’t mean what he was teaching was false, they just did not have the faith to believe it. Correct me if I am wrong on this fellow posters but if you say that you are Catholic but do not believe in all of the Doctrines of the Church then you are not truly Catholic. It would be like a Muslim not believing in the 5 pillars of Islam and still calling himself a Muslim.In Christ
:grouphug:
M
Mach1Man
Guest
I obey Christ and his teaching. I am not saying that we need not be obedient, we obviously need to obey Christ but I disagree with you on believing not being so much an issue.
Can we go to Scripture and see how many times it is mentioned?
Believes- 30
Believe- 156
Believed- 81
Obey- 76
Obedient- 11
I seems pretty clear to me that they are both important, but thats just my interpretation.
J
JTBT
Guest
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/can-catholics-affirm-sola-scriptura/
OK guys here you go, read this. and let me know what you think.
This is actually the mainstream view of sola scriptura.
OK guys here you go, read this. and let me know what you think.
This is actually the mainstream view of sola scriptura.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
exactly your enterpretation. how do you know you are obeying Christ and His teachings? do believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? do you believe that Christ built a Church and commanded us to obey her?
J
jdevoir
Guest
Hi JTBT I started to read the link and got to this part and had to stop and reply or I would forget Michael Patton says…Again, historic Protestantism holds to apostolic succession, just not infallible apostolic succession. In other words, the Church can get it wrong. I won’t even go into Scripture on this one, I am just going to go with my gut feeling…ouch! That to me is scary, if as a Protestant I go to church and what I am hearing could be wrong why am I going then?
In Christ
:grouphug:
I started to read the link and got to this part and had to stop and reply or I would forget Michael Patton says…Again, historic Protestantism holds to apostolic succession, just not infallible apostolic succession. In other words, the Church can get it wrong. I won’t even go into Scripture on this one, I am just going to go with my gut feeling…ouch! That to me is scary, if as a Protestant I go to church and what I am hearing could be wrong why am I going then?In Christ
:grouphug:
J
JTBT
Guest
well ok, I would recommend reading the rest of the post, it is pretty good at defining both where we agree and our differences, but basicly yes any one person can get it wrong, you have to look for the common the belief among the Church, and it must not contradict scripture, that is how you can know if you are going the right way.Hi JTBT
In Christ
:grouphug:
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Not a valid argument at all, since there is only one authority in the Catholic Church and any Catholic who holds a differing belief is wrong. It’s that simple. I’ll wager that those you encountered who disagreed with authentic Catholic teaching are also people who do not actively practice their faith nor do they have a correct knowledge of what the church teaches any more than you do.
I can produce similar such sources from my own experience with n-Cs I know. So what?!
I’ve heard and seen that assertion by n-d n-Cs before and it’s cute but fallacious since when you sit them all down and ask them specific questions without reference to each other, on the second coming and even Sola Scriptura, (for example) you get divergent opinions.
In spite of the lip service paid to Sola Scriptura by most n-Cs I have met, in the end they cannot make a case for either authority or unity, no matter how hard they try. There is no central authority in n-C Christianity and never will be, especially among n-ds and such because they are all afraid of the anti-Christ leading them into a one world religion under him. :bigyikes:
Still, how does your post address the topic of whether Sola Scriptura really exists? IMO, arrogance is telling me to believe in a fundamental doctrine that I cannot find taught in the Bible itself.
If you have proofs please, by all means bring them to this discussion, but leave the off topic rant aside. It doesn’t really help.
J
JTBT
Guest
can we 1st agree on the meaning of Sola Scritura that you are wanting me to defend? I propose this one
The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian
if we can agree on this then we can proceed with a conversation.
J
jdevoir
Guest
JTBT how do I put what you said into a box like you did with mine? I did read the rest of it, but my question still is if the church can get it wrong why go? and how am i going to know if it contradicts scripture if I dont have an authority to tell me that it does? There are people that believe Jesus is not equal to God and they can pull it from scripture, so if the majority says that is true then it’s right? We know what the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is so should we not go to it for our answers?
In Christ
:grouphug:
I have to go to lunch
In Christ
:grouphug:
I have to go to lunch
C
Church_Militant
Guest
OK guys here you go, read this. and let me know what you think.
This is actually the mainstream view of sola scriptura.Okay,
Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:
**
The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian**
Notice the difference? In the first, there are other sources of authority recognized (parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation, and, yes, church authorities [1 Pet. 2:13-15; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:22]). In the second, the common slogan sums it up well, “If it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”
It must be stated emphatically that historic Protestantism does not recognize the second as a legitimate definition of what the Reformers meant by sola Scriptura. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would all recognize other authorities for the Christian. They would simply say that all other authorities can fail since they are not inspired. But this does not mean in any way that these other authorities lose their status because of the possibility of failure.
Therefore, let us set aside the aberrant view of sola Scriptura and go with this one:
**The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.**So, is this last the one that you wish to use?
If so, can you please show me from scripture where that is taught?
Also, can you do the same for that last statement,
In the context that until the New Testament was written and then collected and canonized by the Catholic Church, all teaching and evangelization by the apostles and the early church did not have one to use?
if we can agree on this then we can proceed with a conversation.That works for me if you are happy with it.
J
JTBT
Guest
we can use the last one but, if we are going to use it we will have to take each sentence on it own. that way we do not jump from topic to topic I suggest we exaust one and then the other.Okay, So, is this last the one that you wish to use?
If so, can you please show me from scripture where that is taught?
Also, can you do the same for that last statement, In the context that until the New Testament was written and then collected and canonized by the Catholic Church, all teaching and evangelization by the apostles and the early church did not have one to use?That works for me if you are happy with it.
I don’t understand your second challenge though, why is it a problem for me to say that They contain all that is necessary for salvation.
that in no way denys what was used before the canon was established.
all that is saying is that TODAY the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.
J
JTBT
Guest
below each persons post is a little box that says quote, just click that within the post you are quoting and is will copy it for you within a reply boxJTBT how do I put what you said into a box like you did with mine?
I have to go to lunch
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
perhaps you can explain what is meant by contain everything that is necessary for salvation. since is what you teach, you should be able to explain to us so we can undersstand.
J
JTBT
Guest
all the knowledge that is necessary to be a Christian is contained in the Bible.
T
trrocks03
Guest
Good idea, lets tackle one idea at a time.
So within sola scriptura is the notion that “The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian (only after the canon was collaborated)” I added that parenthesis part cause I didn’t see it in there. Could you show me where Jesus (or anyone else in the bible) directed anyone to write a book and use it as the sole authority, at which point throw out tradition as an infallible authority? Jesus had to of known that the bible was going to take another 250 years to be compiled, so he must have said that somewhere in there, sort of like a disclaimer, right?
S
SilentKnight
Guest
JT, the expressly stated intent of this thread was (is) to 1) shed new light on an age-old debate, and 2) to discuss the issue in that new light, not fight about it or to revert back to the old manner of viewing it. If you’d rather not do either, then perhaps an alternate thread on the topic would be good for you?
I asked you a very simple question for clarification and you incorrectly interpreted that question and brushed me off. This is an open forum, so it is your prerogative to misjudge and post whatever you want to accordingly. Just wanted to point out that if your intent in being here is to engage productively, the arrow has quickly sailed away from the target and landed in a nearby tree.
My hope is that we can pull it out and get it back and try again.
Of course, that’s up to you.
SK
S
SilentKnight
Guest
In theory, Sola Scriptura exists and sounds great. Even to me as a Catholic.
eek: 
) The idea of simply “letting God’s word be the final and only infallible say” is not only a noble thought, it’s actually very Catholic - as the phrase is worded.But when it comes to brass tacks, Sola Scriptura not only isn’t taught by Scripture, it does not exist period is my contention, any more than nutrition exists apart from consuming foods with nutrients in them. It’s all well and good to have an abundance of nutrient rich foods. But until one consumes the right combination of those foods, one is bound for starvation and a whole host of other problems related to deficiency.
If someone has an abundance of every food on the planet but eats only tomatoes because tomatoes are red and round and red, round things are their favorite and they therefore faultily reason that tomatoes are all they need…
A Protestant Christian cannot be said to allow God’s word to be the final arbiter of Christian truth because that Protestant Christian is - himself - the final arbiter of Christian truth. The allegation is that the Bible is the final arbiter and not the Christian himself, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible does not have a voice and must be interpreted by that Christian. That individual Christian may be very sincere and may deeply desire that God lead him into all truth. But, in the end, his own finite mind and ability to reason is the final call on what is “scriptural” teaching and what is not.
This is very quickly made visible by the thousands of different Christian denominations in the world, all of which sincerely believe they are “just following what the Bible says”.
There is no such thing as “the Bible alone”. Life simply doesn’t function that way. For every document there is an interpretation of that document and then, necessarily, an interpreter, all three of these being equally necessary, one not “subordinate” to the other.
Peace,
SK
J
JTBT
Guest
Wow SK
that is interesting I thought the discussion was actually starting to get somewhere. We had; as a collective, defined Sola Scriptura, which is huge in my thinking, seeing how any productive conversation must start with the parties defining their terms. Which at this point we had done; the challenge was then put to the Reformers to defend our definition from scripture.
If the intent of this thread is actually to shed new light on the topic then actually defining what we are talking about seem to me, to be an important step in doing so.
but by the tone of this post it seems your intent is simply to bash Reformers and what they hold to; ok so be it, this your thread, and you obviously don’t want anyone to actually debate your accusation that Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist.
perhaps I am miss reading you; if I am you have my apology, but please point out where I have brushed you off because I do not recall doing so.
JT
S
SilentKnight
Guest
Mach,
I can sympathize with your feelings of frustration based on what you’ve experienced with Catholics in your area. I’m actually almost tempted to apologize for the confusion they are causing you.
But there remains a qualitative difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching. By its very nature, Catholic teaching is one and static while Protestant teaching is dynamic and hinges on the prerogative of each individual believer. As one other poster noted, Jesus’ teaching was Jesus’ teaching. It was one in essence. There may have been this group that had these false ideas about what Jesus taught and another group that had other false ideas, which collectively, if one paid attention to them all at once, may have made appear that the Christian message was confused. But the Christian message was not. Only some of its adherents were.
There is only one Catholic message and it isn’t that difficult to ascertain if one chooses to ascertain it. If one does not, then one ends up with all kinds of funky ideas about what the truth is and yet the truth remains one and the same - regardless of anyone’s take on it.
There is, on the other hand, really, as many different types of Protestant Christianity as there are Protestants because - in the end - there may only be one central message in Protestant theory (the Bible), but the Bible does not have the ability to interpret itself and thus the individual Protestant mind and prerogative are the final arbiters of Christian truth.
Hope this helps clarify.
SK
- Status