Sola Scriptura is True

[Lapey]

And Christian tradition. I shouldn’t have to remind a Catholic of this.

Of course I think that the Church develops in its understanding of the Faith. When there are very good reasons to do so, themselves rooted in the Tradition, then of course we may need to reject a common opinion or practice (I would argue that women’s ordination is a case where this is needed). But you haven’t provided any theological reasons for throwing out this interpretation–only a dogmatic appeal to the canons of modern historical-critical exegesis. That shouldn’t be enough for a Catholic. It certainly isn’t enough for me as an Anglican.

Edwin

First off, if you feel you have to “remind” me, this is your first mistake, and the “why” other denominations just don’t get it. You don’t train people to understand what the world thinks of scripture, you go by what is handed down in tradition, not society.

You last paragraph here provides exactly the reason your arguments are flawed, are you saying the Church should consider ordaining women???

That is not the Church’s decision. Priests have been celibate men throughout biblical history, even though temporary at times as in Levitical priesthood. There is a reason for this, and the Church protects this truth. Nothing more nothing less.

You know something my brother; the more I get into these types of discussions the more I realize how much I love this Church I call home. We don’t have the issues many other denominations like yours do, we have our own but it is most often caused by people not the church. By the way, how is that whole practicing homosexual bishop and priest this going for your church, or the birth control pill? There is a reason the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is what it is, Holy Spirit lead protection! Our Bishops in the 60’s voted to endorse the use of birth control pills, but the Pope at that time, Pope Paul VI I believe, went against the majority. When the truth of the pill causing abortion in some cases came out some 10 or 15 years later, there was no correction that needed to be made, it was wrong before and wrong after.

I get frustrated when you go out of your way to “remind” or enlighten me as to the truth. I take offence when people don’t understand the truth, yet they feel the need to school me on the truth.

The two items you are stuck on are apples and oranges, but you are so much more intelligent than me (sarcasm). Isaiah teachings and the use of anti-Christ are two totally different subjects; your argument is off base.

Reading into scripture is not exegesis, never has been never will be. That is unless you are outside of the truth. To understand the truth within the Church, I do not have to apply the historical meanings which originate outside of that truth. That would lead me to heresy. That my freind is enough for me as a Catholic, why learn untruth when I am surrounded by truth. I study other teachings as examples of what not to believe, I am a convicted Roman Catholic because I believe this Church to contain the entire truth.

 

[placido]

This shows that you don’t understand the logic behind sola scriptura. The classical Protestant argument is that all NT revelation was *eventually *written down in Scripture. Until that happened, of course “sola scriptura” was not true.

Don’t be so over confident. There may be questions you won’t be able to answer. You admit there was a time in Church history when sola scriptura was not true. Now, when did it become true and how do you know (using sola scriptura)? And to follow a “classic protestanent argument” is to follow a man-made tradision. And more: where does the idea that “all NT revelation was eventually written down in Scripture” come from. Definitly not from scripture.
No need to argue futher, you have proven my point.

placido

 

[MrS]

Don’t be so over confident. There may be questions you won’t be able to answer. You admit there was a time in Church history when sola scriptura was not true. Now, when did it become true and how do you know (using sola scriptura)? And to follow a “classic protestanent argument” is to follow a man-made tradision. And more: where does the idea that “all NT revelation was eventually written down in Scripture” come from. Definitly not from scripture.
No need to argue futher, you have proven my point.

placido

 

[Contarini]

First off, if you feel you have to “remind” me, this is your first mistake, and the “why” other denominations just don’t get it. You don’t train people to understand what the world thinks of scripture, you go by what is handed down in tradition, not society.

I find this rather baffling, given your complete disregard for tradition when it comes to Biblical exegesis.

You last paragraph here provides exactly the reason your arguments are flawed, are you saying the Church should consider ordaining women???

Yes. And I’m saying that there are actually traditional theological reasons for reconsidering tradition here. You have presented none in the case of the redefinition of “antichrist.” There may be some–you just haven’t bothered to state them.

There is a reason the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is what it is, Holy Spirit lead protection!

Catholics like you have absolutely *no *right to invoke church history or Tradition against Protestants. You really don’t care about tradition at all. You think that you don’t have to worry about it because you can just trust the Pope to get things right. Don’t you see how unconvincing this seems to a Protestant who is trying to find his way back to ancient Christian Tradition? If your trust in the Magisterium leads you to disregard the Christian tradition so flippantly, why should a Protestant listen to anything you have to say?

You have adopted a completely un-Catholic and untraditional approach to Scripture, but you think it doesn’t matter.

I get frustrated when you go out of your way to “remind” or enlighten me as to the truth. I take offence when people don’t understand the truth, yet they feel the need to school me on the truth.

You seem to take offense a lot. This is a place for robust debate. You are going to be challenged and you need to develop a thicker skin. I am going to keep “reminding” you of the importance of tradition until you show some signs of recognizing its importance. So far you just don’t seem to care about it because the “Magisterium” of today is the only thing that matters to you.

The two items you are stuck on are apples and oranges, but you are so much more intelligent than me (sarcasm). Isaiah teachings and the use of anti-Christ are two totally different subjects

They are both relevant in a discussion of the nature of exegesis. If exegesis means only what the original context of the book in question allows it to mean, then Christian interpretations of Isaiah are obviously bogus. Taking “offense” or chiding me for the faults of my own Communion is not going to make this argument any less valid.

Reading into scripture is not exegesis, never has been never will be.

Can you support your definition of exegesis from the Church Fathers? If you can’t, don’t you think that you have a problem? If the Church Fathers were uniformly wrong about the basic principles of Scriptural interpretation, doesn’t Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) crumble?

To understand the truth within the Church, I do not have to apply the historical meanings which originate outside of that truth. That would lead me to heresy. That my freind is enough for me as a Catholic, why learn untruth when I am surrounded by truth. I study other teachings as examples of what not to believe, I am a convicted Roman Catholic because I believe this Church to contain the entire truth.

I have no idea what this is all about. The Church Fathers are not surely “outside the truth” of Catholicism. I think that you are having trouble accepting that a non-Catholic might actually know something about the Church Fathers you don’t. Please don’t let my faults and errors get in the way. Don’t take my word for it. Study the Fathers for yourself. Ask Catholic scholars and theologians if I am wrong in my interpretation.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Ephesians 2:8 ESV
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Could you show me where the RCC rejects this teachings. Please show me where it is written that the RCC rejects that we are all saved through the grace of God?

Here is the teaching of the RCC

Quote ccc The first work of grace of the holy Spirit is conversion effecting justification in accordance with Jesus proclamation at the beginning of the gospel. Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Moved by grace man turns toward God and away from sin thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sin but also the sancitication and renewal of the interior man. unquote

Now could you please show me where this teachings goes against that scripture. If not please do not try to teach a faith that you have no understanding of. Thank you.

 

[Contarini]

You admit there was a time in Church history when sola scriptura was not true. Now, when did it become true

According to the argument, it became true when all of Scripture was written down.

and how do you know (using sola scriptura)?

One doesn’t “know using sola scriptura.” Sola scriptura is a claim about where the Word of God is to be found. There is no reason why one’s view about where the Word of God is to be found needs to be the Word of God. The Church recognizes the Word of God and proclaims it.

And to follow a “classic protestanent argument” is to follow a man-made tradision.

What is wrong with that, if the tradition is in keeping with the Word of God?

And more: where does the idea that “all NT revelation was eventually written down in Scripture” come from. Definitly not from scripture.
No need to argue futher, you have proven my point.

No, you don’t even understand *my *point. Your argument is indeed fatal to some versions of “sola scriptura.” I don’t even like the term “sola scriptura.” I have no attachment to it. I am undecided on the question of whether we can speak of the Word of God when speaking of something that is in no sense found in Scripture. Given how many different ways we can understand the concept of “finding” something in Scripture, I’m not sure that that’s really the most important argument to have in the first place.

But if “sola scriptura” is defined modestly as a negative claim about the limits of what we have reason to recognize as divine revelation, then it is certainly not self-refuting. One doesn’t need divine revelation to make a statement about where divine revelation is to be found. That leads to infinite regress. It is our task, guided by the Holy Spirit, to recognize divine revelation. A tenable “sola scriptura” position is simply a statement that the Church recognizes divine revelation in Scripture and that anything else needs to prove itself by comparison with what we know to be divine revelation.

You cannot show a logical contradiction in this position, because it does not claim to be itself divine revelation.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

According to the argument, it became true when all of Scripture was written down.

One doesn’t “know using sola scriptura.” Sola scriptura is a claim about where the Word of God is to be found. There is no reason why one’s view about where the Word of God is to be found needs to be the Word of God. The Church recognizes the Word of God and proclaims it.

What is wrong with that, if the tradition is in keeping with the Word of God?

No, you don’t even understand *my *point. Your argument is indeed fatal to some versions of “sola scriptura.” I don’t even like the term “sola scriptura.” I have no attachment to it. I am undecided on the question of whether we can speak of the Word of God when speaking of something that is in no sense found in Scripture. Given how many different ways we can understand the concept of “finding” something in Scripture, I’m not sure that that’s really the most important argument to have in the first place.

But if “sola scriptura” is defined modestly as a negative claim about the limits of what we have reason to recognize as divine revelation, then it is certainly not self-refuting. One doesn’t need divine revelation to make a statement about where divine revelation is to be found. That leads to infinite regress. It is our task, guided by the Holy Spirit, to recognize divine revelation. A tenable “sola scriptura” position is simply a statement that the Church recognizes divine revelation in Scripture and that anything else needs to prove itself by comparison with what we know to be divine revelation.

You cannot show a logical contradiction in this position, because it does not claim to be itself divine revelation.

Edwin

Quick question could you show me scripture that says all scripture is written down. Because according to the bible it says quite the opposite, Thanks

 

[Zooey]

If the verse said ‘scripture AND NOTHING ELSE’ then you might be correct.

Remember the Apostles didn’t even HAVE all of scripture - for decades! Were they less equipped to teach, to reprove etc etc etc before John wrote Revelation??? Was HE less equipped before he wrote it? Of course not, the very notion is preposterous.

There aren’t any writings by a prophet or apostle that isn’t in the bible. The Jews and the CHurch received all of them and held them as scripture.

And you know this…Exactly how, precisely? (Other than the table of contents in your Bible, which is itself** Tradition**).

No. The apocrypha was not written by prophets as it was all written after the time of Ezra Nehemia in which the Jews assure us that prophecy stopped. The apocrypha is interesting but not inspired scripture from God.

And your source for this statement is what??
Ooops!! That’s right: Its based on Tradition. (after the manner of Luther, Calvin, et al).
"DD2007:

The Didache was not written, dictated, or blessed as true by an apostle of Christ.

Your source?
Oh, that’s right: your source is Tradition.

DD2007:

It is not scripture. We have 27 actual apostolic books in the New Testament.

Which you know from the aforementioned Tradition which tells us the table of contents…

DD2007:

We have 39 books written, dictated, or blessed as true by an actual prophet of God in the Old Testament. These are held to be authoritative by traditional Jews and Christians alike.

There you go again: quoting Tradition.
And what makes your Tradition better than my** Tradition**? Oh that’s right: You like your Tradition.

So, who is correct? St. Peter, or the Jews who would disinherit him from the traditions of the Prophets?

You can’t have it both ways, and your argument only works if these “scriptures” were written AFTER the Bible was compiled by the Church. When St. Paul told Timothy that “all scripture is inspired,” he was not referring to his Apostolic letters as Scripture. To be consistent with your argument, we would have to disallow the entire NT because none of it was “scripture” until 300 years after the last NT letters were written and the Apostles were long gone.

This argument is patently absurd, and Protestants with any sense of intellectual honesty do not use it anymore. They know better.

(And thank you for the compliment to, well…moi…).

 

[Lapey]

I find this rather baffling, given your complete disregard for tradition when it comes to Biblical exegesis.
Edwin

Religion Exegesis is the science (some would call it an art or method of interpretation) of determining exactly the meaning of a particular passage of writing. This technique is used by all who study any writing, but especially by those who study religious scripture. Scriptures of all religions were written within the context of a particular culture and belief system. No one can write without having a certain frame of reference. Words mean different things to different people. Worldviews change. Even the meanings of words change over the years. Imagine the embarrassment a modern teenager feels when asked to stand up during a youth-group meeting of her peers and read the Kings James version of the Ten Commandments. What will she do when she gets to the part that says we are not to “covet our neighbor’s ***”? She would have been on solid ground back in the seventeenth century. But the language is a bit awkward in the twenty-first.

Gabriel Fackre of Andover Newton Seminary has developed a formula that can be used by anyone who wants to do exegesis. This four-part system, outlined in Gabriel and Dorothy Fackre’s book Christian Basics, works especially well when dealing with the Bible, but it can also be used by the student of mythology or any other ancient writing:

1. -Common Sense: Start with its common-sense meaning-reading it just like a newspaper story.
2. -Critical Sense: Next check out the ideas of some of the other students who have studied the passage’s background, original language, and literary style.
3. -Canonical Sense: Compare it to the rest of the author’s writing. Is it consistent with the rest of the story?
4. -Contextual Sense: What does the passage mean in terms of personal and contemporary culture?

The system will save the student from arriving at conclusions that might be “contemporary” or “politically correct” but totally at odds with what the original author really meant.

Pay close attention to the last statement. Is that evidence enough?

Use this process to evaluate the term anti-Christ and its current use in the world, and the text that DD started this thread about and you will see that “sola scriptura” is a farce. It’s is most definitely about the author’s original intent and its original use. Then in theology we learn the lessons from the text and put them into use in our life. The resulting belief may not be politically correct, but if it’s the truth then let it be the truth.

That does not mean I believe the Old Testament writings are bogus, and you know it.

Sometime its better to agree to disagree, you cannot change what is truth.

 

[Contarini]

Quick question could you show me scripture that says all scripture is written down. Because according to the bible it says quite the opposite, Thanks

First of all, you can’t have meant to say “all scripture.” By definition “scripture” is written down. I don’t see why you would use the word any other way. You must mean “all revelation.” And again, obviously it would not be true at any point while Scripture was being written that all revelation had already been written down. That would be self-contradictory.

There is no way to tell whether Scripture contains all revelation except to listen to the witness of the Church. And that witness is somewhat ambiguous. There are clear statements by the Fathers about the uniqueness and authority of Scripture, but we also find statements claiming authority for apostolic tradition as well. That is why I myself would not claim to hold to “sola scriptura.” My point is that one way or the other the question has to be decided by an appeal to something other than Scripture, and that this appeal is not automatically a defeat for sola scriptura simply by the fact that it has to be made.

Clearly what we can say is that *if *sola scriptura is true then it is not itself divine revelation. We do not have a statement somewhere in Scripture saying “this book plus this list of 65 or 72 other books which have already been written constitute the entirety of divine revelation.” (Some Protestants try to make Rev. 22:18 such a statement, but it pretty clearly isn’t.) So Protestants have no grounds for railing at Catholics for not holding to sola scriptura. Instead, we should examine specific claims of divine revelation (whether for disputed books such as the deuterocanonicals or for unwritten traditions such as infant baptism) on their merits.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

Contarini:

But the same kinds of arguments were made on both sides, and many of the same suspects lined up as skeptics or defenders. Your position is illogical. You have tied yourself into a corner you can’t get out of without simply appealing to blind faith or to a Mormon-style “burning in the bosom” which could be used to defend any books that happened to strike one as divinely inspired. Are you really satisfied with that?

Edwin is right on the mark here.
At some point, everybody accepts some Tradition. We have to; without it, we are, indeed, left out in the world of “feelings”.
The only question is, which Tradition shall we appeal to? None of us gets to pick and choose depending on our feelings & preconceived opinions. If we do that, we might as well throw up our hands and let faith be ruled by the barometric pressure, or that stray hot pepper in last night’s Chinese takeout.

 

[rinnie]

First of all, you can’t have meant to say “all scripture.” By definition “scripture” is written down. I don’t see why you would use the word any other way. You must mean “all revelation.” And again, obviously it would not be true at any point while Scripture was being written that all revelation had already been written down. That would be self-contradictory.

There is no way to tell whether Scripture contains all revelation except to listen to the witness of the Church. And that witness is somewhat ambiguous. There are clear statements by the Fathers about the uniqueness and authority of Scripture, but we also find statements claiming authority for apostolic tradition as well. That is why I myself would not claim to hold to “sola scriptura.” My point is that one way or the other the question has to be decided by an appeal to something other than Scripture, and that this appeal is not automatically a defeat for sola scriptura simply by the fact that it has to be made.

Clearly what we can say is that *if *sola scriptura is true then it is not itself divine revelation. We do not have a statement somewhere in Scripture saying “this book plus this list of 65 or 72 other books which have already been written constitute the entirety of divine revelation.” (Some Protestants try to make Rev. 22:18 such a statement, but it pretty clearly isn’t.) So Protestants have no grounds for railing at Catholics for not holding to sola scriptura. Instead, we should examine specific claims of divine revelation (whether for disputed books such as the deuterocanonicals or for unwritten traditions such as infant baptism) on their merits.

Edwin

Sorry Edwin, my bad, I thought when I read your response you were saying that all scripture was written down and agreed with SS. Again my bad:blush:

 

[rinnie]

Edwin is right on the mark here.
At some point, everybody accepts some Tradition. We have to; without it, we are, indeed, left out in the world of “feelings”.
The only question is, which Tradition shall we appeal to? None of us gets to pick and choose depending on our feelings & preconceived opinions. If we do that, we might as well throw up our hands and let faith be ruled by the barometric pressure, or that stray hot pepper in last night’s Chinese takeout.

It is not a question at all for a Catholic. We are to appeal to the Tradition of the early Fathers of the CHurch, not the tradition of man. Its pretty simple. We obey the commandments of the Apostles that we guided by the HS to teach us.

 

[caoimhin]

A tenable “sola scriptura” position is simply a statement that the Church recognizes divine revelation in Scripture and that anything else needs to prove itself by comparison with what we know to be divine revelation.

You cannot show a logical contradiction in this position, because it does not claim to be itself divine revelation.

That was also the position I retreated to as a last-ditch effort. But if there is not a claim that the doctrine of *sola scriptura *is revelation, then it comes from men who are fallible. If it’s a tradition, and not a divine one, then it’s a man-made tradition. And we know what scripture says about that. That’s why I think that recognition of the epistemic uncertainty here seems to resolve itself into either relativism or a move toward the Catholic-Orthodox end of things.

That aside Edwin, I’ve really been enjoying you posts. You obviously bring scholarship and a sensitivity to the complexities in these issues.

 

[Contarini]

Gabriel Fackre of Andover Newton Seminary has developed a formula that can be used by anyone who wants to do exegesis. This four-part system, outlined in Gabriel and Dorothy Fackre’s book Christian Basics, works especially well when dealing with the Bible, but it can also be used by the student of mythology or any other ancient writing:

1. -Common Sense: Start with its common-sense meaning-reading it just like a newspaper story.
2. -Critical Sense: Next check out the ideas of some of the other students who have studied the passage’s background, original language, and literary style.
3. -Canonical Sense: Compare it to the rest of the author’s writing. Is it consistent with the rest of the story?
4. -Contextual Sense: What does the passage mean in terms of personal and contemporary culture?

I have some problems with this. I am not sure that reading Scripture or any other ancient text “just like a newspaper story” is going to be very helpful. And I think it’s odd to use the phrase “canonical sense” for comparing the text to the rest of that *author’s *writing. That’s important, but I’d think that a “canonical sense” would involve the entirely of the Scriptural canon. And if the “contextual sense” doesn’t include an appeal to Christian tradition, then it’s woefully inadequate.

The bigger question is why, given your professed disdain for non-Catholic views, you are uncritically accepting a *liberal Protestant *approach. You have made my point quite nicely by citing Fackre–a UCC minister at a UCC seminary. How can you dismiss my appeal to the Fathers simply because I’m not Catholic and then give such credence to a Congregationalist? I’m sorry that my way of communicating has offended you. I am a person of many flaws, but that really isn’t the issue here, is it? Please get past any personal offense or hurt pride that you may feel and think about why you are trusting a modern liberal Protestant rather than the Fathers of your own Church. (Of course I don’t think that Congregationalists should be dismissed just because they are Congregationalists. But the flaws that I found with Fackre’s method are exactly the kinds of flaws that one would expect from a liberal Protestant–overreliance on “common sense,” historical-critical analysis, and contemporary context and a disregard for the canonical context and for Christian tradition.)

The system will save the student from arriving at conclusions that might be “contemporary” or “politically correct” but totally at odds with what the original author really meant.

Pay close attention to the last statement. Is that evidence enough?

Use this process to evaluate the term anti-Christ and its current use in the world, and the text that DD started this thread about and you will see that “sola scriptura” is a farce. It’s is most definitely about the author’s original intent and its original use.

This is, again, self-contradictory. Focusing on the author’s original intent exclusively *is *a sola scriptura approach–in its liberal rather than its more traditional, confessional form. Again, where is Christian tradition? If you don’t believe in sola scriptura, why aren’t you paying attention to how the Fathers and other Catholic theologians through the ages have interpreted Scripture?

Then in theology we learn the lessons from the text and put them into use in our life. The resulting belief may not be politically correct, but if it’s the truth then let it be the truth.

But it’s pretty clear that one major reason modern Biblical scholars are so determined to “divide and conquer” the apocalyptic NT texts is that it is not “politically correct” to expect the coming of Antichrist in the traditional Christian sense. That doesn’t mean that the scholars are wrong. But they aren’t without their own bias, and it’s pretty weird to say that you disregard political correctness when the view you’re defending is to some extent driven by political correctness.

That does not mean I believe the Old Testament writings are bogus, and you know it.

And of course I never suggested that you did. I don’t know where you are getting this from. It’s precisely because I know that you don’t think the OT is bogus that I’m trying to get you to think about the implications of your view of exegesis. It kills off the Christian interpretation of the OT. Please deal with the issue instead of taking offense.

Sometime its better to agree to disagree, you cannot change what is truth.

No, but you’re doing a very good job of ignoring it.

Again: please pay attention to the Fathers of the Church. You know, the *Catholic *Church Fathers? I don’t care what you think of me. I only care that you give your own tradition a more serious look instead of trusting uncritically the liberal Protestant interpretations that your seminary professors have foisted on you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That was also the position I retreated to as a last-ditch effort. But if there is not a claim that the doctrine of *sola scriptura *is revelation, then it comes from men who are fallible. If it’s a tradition, and not a divine one, then it’s a man-made tradition. And we know what scripture says about that.

No, that’s a false dichotomy. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in receiving and interpreting divine revelation. Protestants simply don’t think that this reception and interpretation is itself on the same level as the original revelation. Think about it: your position would condemn all the writings of the Fathers, the scholastics, etc., insofar as what they are saying is not *itself *divine revelation. Clearly that is not a tenable position for either Catholics or Protestants. When the NT speaks of “human tradition” it is clearly speaking of human tradition that *contradicts *divine revelation, not of the divinely guided human activity of receiving and interpreting divine revelation.

That’s why I think that recognition of the epistemic uncertainty here seems to resolve itself into either relativism

Some of us would say that what we practice is “epistemic humility.” Which looks like relativism to those coming from a more dogmatic position.

Edwin

 

[Lapey]

I Catholics like you have absolutely *no *right to invoke church history or Tradition against Protestants. You really don’t care about tradition at all. You think that you don’t have to worry about it because you can just trust the Pope to get things right. Don’t you see how unconvincing this seems to a Protestant who is trying to find his way back to ancient Christian Tradition? If your trust in the Magisterium leads you to disregard the Christian tradition so flippantly, why should a Protestant listen to anything you have to say?

You have adopted a completely un-Catholic and untraditional approach to Scripture, but you think it doesn’t matter.

You seem to take offense a lot. This is a place for robust debate. You are going to be challenged and you need to develop a thicker skin. I am going to keep “reminding” you of the importance of tradition until you show some signs of recognizing its importance. So far you just don’t seem to care about it because the “Magisterium” of today is the only thing that matters to you.

Edwin

I believe I was defending, not attacking. I was not “invoking tradition” but defending its use against the protestant tradition of “sola scriptura”. I most certainly value tradition and the Early Fathers of the Church, but not to disprove what the Church teaches, but to defend it.

And yes I do trust the Pope to do what’s right to protect the truth, question is, why don’t you? I am not trying to convince you of anything besides what is the truth of the teachings of the Church; you are trying to convince me that I have been duped! Don’t you see the irony in your statements? You are outside of the Church schooling me on the Church. What’s wrong with this picture?

To make the statement you make about trusting the magisterium, even though they cause me to “so flippantly” disregard Christian tradition, shows your lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Church, let alone the history of it.

So to be Catholic in my understanding of scripture, you want me to believe that the author of the Johanine letters was referring to the Pope as the anti-Christ, also that I have adopted some other view of tradition and scripture? Wow, I am worse off than I thought!

I to take offence when someone who does not know as much as he tells everyone he knows, tries to tell me that I am wrong when it is as easy to back up my statements as googleing the word exegesis like I did. That to me is offensive. Get off your high horse of Protestantism and join a robust debate, not a teaching session with you as the master teacher. You even know better than all the leaders of Catholic Seminaries how to teach men in formation to be ordained Catholic Priests and deacons! Can’t you see why this would come across as being extremely arrogant on your part? Please take of your protestant glasses if you want to instruct me on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I respectfully disagree with your premises!

I even more respectfully ask you to pray for me in my pursuit of truth and I shall pray for you. No matter what our differences may be, you are my Christian brother and I need you.

Peace in Christ
Gary

 

[jblake]

caoimhin;:

we end up with a minimalist view of Christian liberty that forbids anything not specifically mentioned in Scripture.

One of the major issues of the Restoration Movement was whether everything not explicitly permitted was prohibited, or only that which was explicitly prohibited, was prohibited.

jonathon

 

[Lapey]

Edwin

What veiw do you want? All I did was copy and paste from google. All of the definitions that came up when I googled it were basically the same. Exegesis means exegesis, I don’t understand your point that it means anything else.

You can call me whatever you want but the word still means the same thing!

Please stop teaching and try to think!

 

[Zooey]

It is not a question at all for a Catholic. We are to appeal to the Tradition of the early Fathers of the CHurch, not the tradition of man. Its pretty simple. We obey the commandments of the Apostles that we guided by the HS to teach us.

Yes, I realize that.
But my point is, that everybody relies on some Tradition (or tradition).Its the person who claims to follow Sola Scriptura who has a big problem because Sola Scriptura is itself somebody’s Tradition.
None of us can just walk away claiming to follow “only” the Bible. When we’re being honest (& I try to be, I hope), we have to admit that we are following after someone’s opinion.
The trouble arises when that claim proves to be based on something other than the actual words of Scripture. Because, after all, there we are again::slapfight: over the table of contents.