Sola Scriptura is True

[Filioque]

As for the early belief in the Immaculate Conception, such a doctor of the Church as Bernard of Clairveux didn’t seem to be aware that had been held by the early church.

Bernard of Clairveaux (LETTER LXV (circa A.D. 1140),To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary.)
ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html.

Yes indeed he did. And St. Thomas Aquinas debated both sides of the issue. There was also no clear idea as to when conception took place, was it at the point of quickening or earlier? So I don’t really see how one or two, or even a dozen writers who had not heard of the teaching, and who had no authority to decide on the issue would make me loose my Faith and reject the Church Christ built.

I do however think it points out a few fallacies about the attacks on the Big Bad Evil Conspiracy to suppress all who do not toe the line of Catholic Anti-Christ Apostate Dominance, that some Protestants try to paint the Catholic Church and the Clergy as being is proven to be a false notion if St. Bernard could air his concerns. Moreover, if you read through the entire document it is not so much that he denied the Immaculate Conception, as much as he protested the right of the Church at Lyon to institute a new Feast into the Missal, whereas he states near the end of the document that he would submit if Rome did. Read in context it is more about who has the authority to include a Feast into the Missal, which traditionally did not exist in that region. So the argument does not hold water on many levels.

Please submit another objection from whichever resource you are using. Be it White, or Chick or any other professional Anti-Catholic “Apostolate” there is nothing new in the attacks against Christ’s Church. The objections have all been answered by more able defenders of Christ than myself time and time again, so I fear no attack.

 

[placido]

Knights of Columbus
1st degree
Had the Rosary.
Went to meetings.
Had the insurance.
Did charity functions.
Seved in the RCIA as sponser.
Gambled…
Drank beer at church…etc.

Sorry you don’t believe me Bill. Don’t worry. I won’t break my word.

Let us suppose I was a member of a robbing gang where all members made a vow of secrecy, but in the meantime I repented and accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior … would the vow of secrecy still be biding on me? If so, it would make confession of sins and the giving back of the robbed property to the rightful owners impossible. This, in turn, places a question mark on my sincerity.
Most of people who refuse to provide more details to substantiate their allegations apparently because they made vow never to reveal the information, are in fact just protecting a lie that, if revealed, would be out there for every one to see.

placido

 

[Mickey]

I do believe that getting a buzz is sinful.

What is your interpretation of “a buzz”?

 

[rinnie]

Let us suppose I was a member of a robbing gang where all members made a vow of secrecy, but in the meantime I repented and accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior … would the vow of secrecy still be biding on me? If so, it would make confession of sins and the giving back of the robbed property to the rightful owners impossible. This, in turn, places a question mark on my sincerity.
Most of people who refuse to provide more details to substantiate their allegations apparently because they made vow never to reveal the information, are in fact just protecting a lie that, if revealed, would be out there for every one to see.

placido

You know I was thinking about this again last night. Now my Dad was what I believed to be a Grand Knight. I am not sure if this is correct but I can check. Anyway here is my point. THis is what hit me, He served mass at least 3 days a week. I could tell you what Church he went to, what kind of car he drove, how many kids he had, went he passed, and where he lived at the time, and where he lived when he worked. Thats all I would have to tell you. Not even his name. Now if someone called the Church and talked to Father he would know exactly who I was talking about. Now thats because the truth is the truth.

Now the facts speak for themself. Do I believe that DD thought about becoming a knight? Possibly, but not probabally. Here is why. THe KOC is such a wonderful bunch of People who work so hard to help others and show Love and respect for their God. They do alot for the community. Alot. Now even if DD would have left the CHurch he would not have talked smack on the KOC. Because he would have known the true love for Christ they have, and the extensive work they really do. And he would undertand the RCC so so much better. He would have to. While he may not agree with ALL of the teachings of the church he would have understood them quite clear. That I know for a fact.

 

[Mickey]

where Dr. Macarthur feels the RCC is utterly apostate.

I’m speechless for that one.

 

[Mickey]

I love Christ and remain in the church and continue to be active in it. But - for exmaple - I simply refuse to say the Apostles Creed when that is recited. It was written for a different age (‘sitteth on the right hand of God the Father’???), contains doctrines I question (virgin birth) and some that I don’t accept (our physical resurrection).

Let me see if I got this right. You claim to be a Christian. But you question that Christ sits on the right hand of the Father. You question the Virgin Birth. And you do not accept the Resurrection.

Something is not adding up!!!

 

[NotTooSmart]

  Our problem with sola scriptura (and this applies to traditional Catholicism, too) is that there are many fables, legends, myths and false history in the Bible (e. g., Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood)  and some concepts are simply anti-Christian (e. g., endorsement of slavery, 'suffer not a witch to live', and much more). Space doesn't permit me to start citing the scores of examples, but I did mention a few more specifics in an earlier posting.

Now I have sort of been lurking in this thread but not getting involved (kind of because I don’t want to get in the position of trying to prove something that I can’t prove … probably because I am NotTooSmart…and don’t think it is necessary to prove anyway).

But I just can’t let this one pass.

The minute that I decide that the Bible is no longer '“Is The Word of God” but “Contains the Word of God” I have a big time problem.

How in the wide world of sports do I know what passages are the Word of God and what passages are not. And who is the arbitrator of this decision.

The answer in the overwhelming number of examples is that “Me, myself, and I” become the arbitrator of what is and what is not the Word of God in the Bible.

And then the written Word of God then is reduced to the passages that I like, agree with, and/or practice.

And the passages that I do not like, agree with, and/or do not practice I am free to chuck out as being “not the Word of God”.

This is exactly what happens in Liberal Christianity.

It is exactly this mentality that leads to Protestant denominations endorsing gay marriage and being pro-abortion.

You know, despite the 50 odd pages in this thread where y’all have debated back and forth whether Sola Scriptura can be proven true or not…

At least the Catholic church believes that the Bible in entirety “is the word of God”.

So despite questionable interpretations on some points of doctrine (example Mariology), at least the Catholic church has not thrown out the parts of the Bible that they don’t like.

So therefore they have not gone the way of some Protestant denominations in gay marriage, pro abortion and other decadent moral teachings.

So in that you are to be commended.

Anyway, back to your Sola Scriptura debate and back to lurking.

 

[SyCarl]

I do however think it points out a few fallacies about the attacks on the Big Bad Evil Conspiracy to suppress all who do not toe the line of Catholic Anti-Christ Apostate Dominance, that some Protestants try to paint the Catholic Church and the Clergy as being is proven to be a false notion if St. Bernard could air his concerns. Moreover, if you read through the entire document it is not so much that he denied the Immaculate Conception, as much as he protested the right of the Church at Lyon to institute a new Feast into the Missal, whereas he states near the end of the document that he would submit if Rome did. Read in context it is more about who has the authority to include a Feast into the Missal, which traditionally did not exist in that region. So the argument does not hold water on many levels.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what Bernard objected to since it appears to me that he objected to the feast because of what it celebrated. I agree that he would have submitted to Rome. However, given his view and the disagreement between the Franciscans and the Dominicans on the issue, I wonder why it took more than 500 years to finally define the issue if it was so important.

I would hardly call the Church a Big Bad Evil Conspiracy Catholic Anti-Christ Apostate Dominance. However I do think that the Church has over-defined dogma to exclude views that in the early church would have been considered completely within the realm of orthodoxy even though such views might not have been dominant. God and His ways are far beyond our capacity to comprehend and I do think that too many things are defined simply because we want to pretend that we can comprehend things that should be left as mysteries. This applies to Protestants as well when they try to exclude previously acceptable views.

Please submit another objection from whichever resource you are using. Be it White, or Chick or any other professional Anti-Catholic “Apostolate” there is nothing new in the attacks against Christ’s Church. The objections have all been answered by more able defenders of Christ than myself time and time again, so I fear no attack.

I do not use any particular apologist as a resource. I try to read the original material and make notes of things I find interesting and come to my own conclusions. I try not to attack things, although I guess in discussions there can be a tendency to do so or, at least, to appear to do so. I do not think that there are absolutely conclusive arguments on either side and that is why disagreements remain. My purpose here is to try to explain my views, why I hold them and how they are not incompatible with the early church, which I believe was willing to accept much more diversity than we are today.

 

[Bill_Pick]

How about an yes and no.

Dr. Sproul and Dr. Macarthur share a common soteriology.

In regards to Roman Catholicism, Dr. Sproul considers Roman Catholics as christians who are simply in error where Dr. Macarthur feels the RCC is utterly apostate. So they differ here.

Dr. Sproul is far less abrasive that Dr. Macarthur. He has a good sense of humor as well.

He wrote the classic The Holiness of God.

DD Why do you listen to any one that has so much hate for the Church, you have to know most are just lies.
And your not going to answer about the K of C,your just going to let it go…I,m 1500 miles away from Texas and we all use hanple so why not just clear it all up,you know the truth can set you free,try it it works

 

[DD2007]

I once aked several people this question: “if someone is given to drink a 500 ml glass of juice with 5 ml of poison added to it, did this person drink juice or did he drink poison?”
100 % persent of the respondents said “he did drink poison”.
The same applies here. DD2007’s misunderstand of one crucial word (“ALL”) has poisoned his otherwise good understanding of Scripures. The passage says “ALL Scripture” and he reads “ONLY Scripture”.
Oh yeah, distorting God’s Word is the same as adding to God’s word - it is dangerous.

placido

Actually the word all simply specifies all of scripture as being inspired by God. In other words there are no parts of it that are just the human authors opinion.

The sufficiency is proved by what scripture is meant for and what it does when studied.

17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

 

[MrS]

In regards to Roman Catholicism, Dr. Sproul considers Roman Catholics as christians who are simply in error where Dr. Macarthur feels the RCC is utterly apostate. So they differ here.

Dr. Sproul is far less abrasive that Dr. Macarthur. He has a good sense of humor as well.

He wrote the classic The Holiness of God.

And James McCarthy wrote the fiction:
amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

which is thoroughly responded to here:
grottopress.org/

They are ALL cut from the same cloth of dissent. And it seems that they all, and DD included, have only one thing in common. It is all Bush’s fault… no seriously… the thing they have in common is that the Catholic Church must be wrong for them to be right.

.

 

[humblelurker]

I once aked several people this question: “if someone is given to drink a 500 ml glass of juice with 5 ml of poison added to it, did this person drink juice or did he drink poison?”
100 % persent of the respondents said “he did drink poison”.
The same applies here. DD2007’s misunderstand of one crucial word (“ALL”) has poisoned his otherwise good understanding of Scripures. The passage says “ALL Scripture” and he reads “ONLY Scripture”.
Oh yeah, distorting God’s Word is the same as adding to God’s word - it is dangerous.

placido

Very Good.

I tried to explain that the passage does NOT have “All scripture alone”, and it didn’t help DD2007 to understand. The passage clearly does NOT have “Only Scripture” as well. I hope your poison example helps, but I doubt it.

Does DD2007 not understand, or does DD2007 not want to understand? Maybe as an ex-Catholic there is too much bad feelings (maybe anger) for him to accept anything on CAF (Catholic Answers forums)?

Only DD2007 can answer that.

 

[Mickey]

It is all Bush’s fault.

 

[humblelurker]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (as posted by DD2007)

Lets look at it this way:

All oxygen is good for living.

So you are saying: all we need is oxygen to live.

But we are saying: oxygen is good, but not oxygen alone.
You also need food, or you will die.

Food too is good for living.

 

[humblelurker]

Furthermore, when St. Paul was writing to Timothy, Revelations was not written by John. So what scriptures is St. Paul talking about?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Very Good.

I tried to explain that the passage does NOT have “All scripture alone”, and it didn’t help DD2007 to understand. The passage clearly does NOT have “Only Scripture” as well. I hope your poison example helps, but I doubt it.

Does DD2007 not understand, or does DD2007 not want to understand? Maybe as an ex-Catholic there is too much bad feelings (maybe anger) for him to accept anything on CAF (Catholic Answers forums)?

Only DD2007 can answer that.

DD Thats a good question because you do not understand the CC so what do you have against the CC why do you post your garbage and listen to some one like Macarthur a man like Jack Chick,you will not answer about the K of C so can you please answer this question.and you say you was a Cathloic so you must know a little about Cathloics.

 

[Mickey]

Anyway…don’t worry about it. It’s in the past. I shouldn’t have even brought it up. I hate talking about it personally.

If something happened that compelled you to feel the need to repent of being a part of this organization, why would you not want to share it wiith others? Perhaps you could help prevent others from being scandalized? Why do you feel the need to keep a “secret” if you were injured in some way?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Let me see if I got this right. You claim to be a Christian. But you question that Christ sits on the right hand of the Father. You question the Virgin Birth. And you do not accept the Resurrection.

Something is not adding up!!!

Roy May I ask what church do you go to.I never heard of a Christian church that does not believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection

 

[humblelurker]

DD2007

We have tried and tried to talk to you, but you are not listening.
I’m sure that my last attempt will fail because you just don’t want to listen.
So I will sign off and pray for you.
May God Bless you.

 

[Contarini]

  Our problem with sola scriptura (and this applies to traditional Catholicism, too) is that there are many fables, legends, myths and false history in the Bible (e. g., Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood)

Adam and Eve and Noah and the Flood are indeed mythical stories. Why is this even remotely a problem either with sola scriptura or with orthodox, official Catholic teaching? Neither one requires a literal interpretation of all of Scripture.

and some concepts are simply anti-Christian (e. g., endorsement of slavery, ‘suffer not a witch to live’, and much more).

Chattel slavery is never positively endorsed in Scripture. In the NT slavery is accepted as an existing social institution but never spoken of in a manner that would imply that it should be preserved or that it reflects God’s will for human beings. In the OT there are clear regulations surrounding “slavery” when it comes to fellow Hebrews, making it clear that this is not chattel slavery but a form of indentured servitude. I agree that there is at least one passage implying that a harsher form of slavery could be imposed on non-Hebrews, and that’s a problem. I agree with you that there are laws in the OT which are not anything like perfect embodiments of the eternal law of God. The divine authorship of those laws must be understood in a very broad and general sense, not to mean that God ordained those specific laws as being the best possible (even for that time and place) but that God was working through the Hebrew people to establish a code of law that would in its basic principles and outlines reflect His will and would move human history toward God’s fuller purposes.

   While millions have fallen away from Christianity completely because of this, I love Christ and remain in the church and continue to be active in it. But - for exmaple - I simply refuse to say the Apostles Creed when that is recited. It was written for a different age ('sitteth on the right hand of God the Father'???),

That’s a non-issue. What Christian theologians in the premodern period understood this to imply that God has a literal “right hand”? Anthropomorphism was condemned as a heresy in the early Church. You have been listening to people who don’t understand or care about Christian history and who caricature traditional Christianity to serve their own ideological purposes.

contains doctrines I question (virgin birth)

You are certainly not alone on that one. I understand myself to be bound as a matter of faith to accept the Virgin Birth, but I do understand why many either spiritualize it or reject it outright on theological grounds.

and some that I don’t accept (our physical resurrection).

What do you mean by “physical”? The better term is probably “bodily.” But our bodies will be transformed–St. Paul makes that clear. The point of the bodily resurrection is that our bodies are good creations of God, not prisons from which we need to be freed, and that God’s final purpose for us involves the union of body and soul rather than their separation. Why would you have problems with this?

Those religions that emphasize that they alone follow the one true path are, in my view, inimical to the spirit of Christ

I’m not sure about that. I think that my best access to the “spirit” of Christ is the records about Jesus that we have in the New Testament, and they show him being quite willing to insist on his own authority and uniqueness.

I think that people who fight for what they believe and pursue the truth to its fullness as far as they perceive it are furthering the unity and spiritual development of the human race far more than people who throw up their hands and say that it doesn’t really matter what you believe. But I certainly agree that we need to do this with humility and charity, recognizing that we never understand more than a tiny part of the picture.

Edwin