I
Irish_Polock
Guest
How are we to know what your saying is authoritative? Or correct even? Should we check what you have told us against scripture?
- Status
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Come to find out I have 5-10 minutes left. So I think this 5-10 minutes is best spent explaining why I for one believe this.
(1) I have come to believe through the church that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant (at least in theology) written word of God.
(2) I have examined all of the claims of equivalency (from the Book of Mormon to the Catholic Magisterium to Tradition).
(3) In examining all of these claims while there are some sources that I consider to be important (tradition or history being one) I do not believe that any of these sources are incapable of being incorrect. While I am open to being corrected on this, I am unconvinced and will remain unconvinced until several stupid, inconvenient questions in my mind are resolved.
(4) So because I do not accept any other source as being incapable of being incorrect, the Bible is the only source I have that has this authority level.
(5) Hence Scripture to me by default is my only infallible (or inerrant in theology and inspired) source and rule of faith. And will remain so until persuaded otherwise, which is a very hard sell considering that the best Catholic apologists have not done so…much less amateur Catholic apologists.
(6) Hence I believe in Sola Scriptura.
Anyway, supper time.
D
dragoneustace
Guest
Do you think about “thautology”?
In SS Bible is the biggest authority. But person who knows what is Bible are bigger.
Person who interpreted Bible is bigger too.
Paradoxical:
At start of Catechism:* "I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. *
At start of Westminster is chapter 1: Bible.
So we can see that for catholics the most important is God, for protestants: Bible.
(a) to argue from “fallible knowledge” and historical testimony directly to inspired Scripture is not possible by reason – Protestants must simply accept this “by faith alone”
(b) to argue from “fallible knowledge” and historical testimony to an infallible Church founded by Christ and protected from error by the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promises – which same Church ultimately decided the canon – THEN to inspired Scripture is reasonable (Catholic solution)
(c) or Scripture is “a fallible collection of infallible books” (R.C. Sproul’s “solution” to incoherency problem – but how does he know these books are inspired if “fallible” canon?)
(3) Scripture alone can’t resolve the differences in OT canon
**(4) Scripture alone – being an inanimate object – can’t make any infallible and binding decisions concerning either canon or any (mis)interpretation – Scripture is simply assumed by definition to be “self-interpreting” and “self-authenticating” without need of any infallible Church – this begs two important questions
(a) How do I know the Bible IS the Word of God?
(b) How do I know MY interpretation of Scripture is correct?**
(5) Scripture alone can’t function as the sole rule of faith for a Christian populace that was entirely illiterate and Bibles were inaccessible before the age of printing (ante 1450 AD)
IV. SS is INCONSISTENT
(1) the Church recognized the NT canon through “tradition” alone and every Protestant today is the beneficiary of that tradition
(2) to argue the “infallibility of God’s special providence” (Eric Svendsen) allowed the Church to recognize the NT canon can’t be limited to just the canon – i.e. the same providence of God should protect the Church in general from officially teaching error since she is guided by the “Spirit of truth” (Jn 16:13)
(3) everyone has a “tradition” (although Protestants insist it is fallible) when interpreting Scripture so the question is which tradition should one use and why?
(4) also inconsistent to attack the beliefs of that very Catholic Church that gave us the Bible – I would argue of course that the Catholic Church of 400 AD is the same Church of 1996 AD
V. SS is IMPROBABLE – follows directly from II. 3) to 5) above
VI. SS is UNWORKABLE (and impractical)
(1) the fact of over 20,000 Protestant denominations and sects in contrast to the unity of faith (Eph 4:5) in the Catholic Church
(2) Scripture alone is not perspicuous enough (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) to resolve major doctrinal disputes or moral teachings
(3) how can the individual Christian know today who is right?
(4) SS implies nobody is bound to any interpretation but their own since all “churches” and any “traditions” are fallible
(5) each individual Christian is fallible but the historic Christian and Catholic solution is the Magisterium that teaches God’s Word infallibly (e.g. in Ecumenical Councils) – does it really work?
Praise be to God,
Peace of Christ
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That is your opinion.
I believe my description of the ramifications of sola scriptura fit with his definition.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Who told you which books belong in the bible?Come to find out I have 5-10 minutes left. So I think this 5-10 minutes is best spent explaining why I for one believe this.
(1) I have come to believe through the church that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant (at least in theology) written word of God.
(2) I have examined all of the claims of equivalency (from the Book of Mormon to the Catholic Magisterium to Tradition).
(3) In examining all of these claims while there are some sources that I consider to be important (tradition or history being one) I do not believe that any of these sources are incapable of being incorrect. While I am open to being corrected on this, I am unconvinced and will remain unconvinced until several stupid, inconvenient questions in my mind are resolved.
(4) So because I do not accept any other source as being incapable of being incorrect, the Bible is the only source I have that has this authority level.
(5) Hence Scripture to me by default is my only infallible (or inerrant in theology and inspired) source and rule of faith. And will remain so until persuaded otherwise, which is a very hard sell considering that the best Catholic apologists have not done so…much less amateur Catholic apologists.
(6) Hence I believe in Sola Scriptura.
Anyway, supper time.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
People that God gave this grace to. Why?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
How do you KNOW God gave them the grace? How can you trust them?
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Why shouldn’t I trust that God accomplished His will through humans by empowering them and providing them the necessary grace?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ah. But if you trust them on one thing, why start mistrusting them on other?
And if you mistrust them on others, why trust in the one?
And if you mistrust them on others, why trust in the one?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
How do you discern who God gave this grace to?
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Actually my trust is in God not people. People are case by case.
And this is a fairly easy one to trust God with, considering that the whole church for what 1700 years or so has accepted that they accomplished God’s will.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I don’t get the question.
But I answered this before. Considering that every Christian for 1700 years or has accepted what they have done and have not tried to reinvent the wheel, it is pretty easy for me to do the same methinks.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Um, what about us Catholic Christians then? We’ve been following the same thing for 2000 years, but various people have ‘split off’ at points earlier. If you’re going with the ‘1700 year standard’, why not the ‘2000 year’ standard?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Some Christians reject books of the bible that Catholics accept.
By what authority do they make this decision? Do you also reject these books?
Do you believe in the words of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds? If so, why?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Plus your ‘scripture canon’ for example is sliding right by the contretemps that some (not all) Protestants exclude certain books, Catholics do not, and Orthodox have I believe ‘more’. The Orthodox, of course, ‘split’ in 1054. So either they were wrong (and you’re ignoring them as not germane) and Protestants were ‘right’ (but which ones? They’re all DIFFERENT, none of them fully agreeing with the others). . .or the Catholics were right. I know whom I trust. . .
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Well if I believed that Catholics have been doing the exact same thing since the resurrection of Christ and everybody else split off to do new things, I would be Catholic now wouldn’t I,
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
well Catholics reject books of the Bible that the Orthodox accept.
Why do they do that?
As far as me, the churches that I have all gone to all use the 66 book version. If I were Catholic I guess I would be using the 73 book version. And if I were Orthodox I guess I would be using the 80 book version.
When I grew up as a Methodist we used to recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. We don’t in my current church. But from what I have read and remember of them, sure I believe them. Why shouldn’t I?
I don’t get the point of the zillion questions thing. Isn’t the topic why “Sola Scriptura” is so wrong?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I know that some Orthodox use the 80 book canon.
I know that on the next “Is the Bible 73 books or 66 books” thread there will be a go around on whether the Protestants removed books from the Bible or the Catholics added books to the Bible.
And I know that I will pass on that thread unless I come up with a very stupid question that I just can’t resist asking.
In my mind it is an issue of accepting the authority of the church where I believe God would have me go. They use the 66 book version, so I should. If I were Catholic, I would use the 73 book version because that would be what my church uses.
Besides, why carry the extra weight for the extra 7 books when you know that your pastor will never say “Turn to 2 Maccabees”. I’ll do my little part to help protect the environment by saving paper.
Well, at the time the creeds were formulated the word Catholic meant universal. At least that was what I was taught. And there will be full communion of saints once we all reach our eternal destination. But for now there are saints that have gone on to be with the Lord and saints that are still on earth. The issue is whether it is ok to saints on earth to talk to saints in heaven. I don’t do that myself, probably because one-way conversations to nonDeities are a little weird to me.
And why shouldn’t it be. I mean after it is not like you are a Buddhist or New Age faith where we have very little in common. The last I checked you are a Christian faith. You believe in the historical Jesus Christ that was born of Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Just like I believe. So I would expect that we have quite a bit in common.
Probably for the same reason I don’t believe all of the claims of the Reformed folks here. Or all of the claims of the Baptist folks here. Or all of the claims of the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans here.
I’m just not convinced for any number of reasons on a certain number of issues. Convince me, and I will buy into it.
But anyway, I don’t get how this is related to “Sola Scriptura is Wrong”.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
Dude, you guys are making me dizzy and cross-eyed, & I’m trying to figure out heads or tails of what in the sam hill you guys are bantering about.
Check it out, right? John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word…” Kay? Easy enough. The only bibles around waaay back when were in one of 3 places, the church, a kings castle, or a rich persons home. the first is the more likely of the 3. SO…In the beginning was the word. BUT, not everyone HAD the Word, but kinda understood it enough to get the point, which is why it was the Church’s DUTY to TEACH & SPREAD the Word. Before everyone had a bible in their hands, there was a church doing what it could to teach it & help people grasp & understand it. Now everyone has a bible & literacy is PHENOMINALLY better than what it was say, 1000 years ago.
Think of it as kinda like a barber. Every man that wanted a close shave went to a barber & got a shave. It’s what you did. OR you got your shave when you got a haircut. A razor was a sort of luxury item. Not every man HAD a razor. NOW we dont NEED the barbers as much because razors are pretty easy to come by & they are cheap & easy to find. Same with the Bible & the church. Now that MOST everyone knows how to read, it takes MUCH of the burden off the church.
Now I can shave all by myself. I can do a pretty good job when I do it. But cutting my own hair? Trying to cut my own hair would be disastrous if I ever expect to be taken seriously. SO, I still need a barber. I can take care of the shaving on my own, But they do a better job at cutting hair than I can do for myself, because it’s all they do. It’s what they went to school for & it’s what they do all day.
CATCHIN MY DRIFT??? :coffeeread:
Before the printing press, there was a church. We as Christians should see the very fact that we can have a bible of our very own, even one per person/per household is a luxury that was inconcievable to people in the times when they were still written by hand.
SO, back to the question. Scripture alone. Is it right or is it wrong. My person feeling is this. The bible has everything you need to know for your own salvation & the Church knows precisely how to help you along that path. The two go hand in hand.I can sit there & read scripture & I’m a reasonably smart man, But what if I get all sleepy-eyed every time I try to read the book of Numbers or parts of Genesis? WHO pray-tell is going to help me make sense out of that?..I’ll give you a hint…it’s the building with the big lower-case T on the roof. You nailed it. The church!
Traditions of the church are rooted in scripture. For instance, scripture answers questions such as, why is the mass a sacrifice, why does the priest add water to the precious blood during the eucharist, why is the bread broken? Why is that little boxy thing w. a candle next to it called a tabernacle? Why do we get baptized? Why do we say Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you…? We pray the words our Savior taught us…What are those? Why do we sit, kneel, stand & bow? what do they mean? ALL these answers are in scripture. It helps to know scripture. It betters your understanding of the church. It seems less like tradition & a recreation of passage of scripture itself.
The church is up to its eyeballs in scripture in pretty much everything it does.
Scripture alone? Sola scriptura? I mean, if you are good reading everything & you’re a super genius & comprehend everything the way it was meant to be understood, then be my guest. There was a Church before a bible. There was the Word before there was a Church. They go hand in hand.
Check it out, right? John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word…” Kay? Easy enough. The only bibles around waaay back when were in one of 3 places, the church, a kings castle, or a rich persons home. the first is the more likely of the 3. SO…In the beginning was the word. BUT, not everyone HAD the Word, but kinda understood it enough to get the point, which is why it was the Church’s DUTY to TEACH & SPREAD the Word. Before everyone had a bible in their hands, there was a church doing what it could to teach it & help people grasp & understand it. Now everyone has a bible & literacy is PHENOMINALLY better than what it was say, 1000 years ago.
Think of it as kinda like a barber. Every man that wanted a close shave went to a barber & got a shave. It’s what you did. OR you got your shave when you got a haircut. A razor was a sort of luxury item. Not every man HAD a razor. NOW we dont NEED the barbers as much because razors are pretty easy to come by & they are cheap & easy to find. Same with the Bible & the church. Now that MOST everyone knows how to read, it takes MUCH of the burden off the church.
Now I can shave all by myself. I can do a pretty good job when I do it. But cutting my own hair? Trying to cut my own hair would be disastrous if I ever expect to be taken seriously. SO, I still need a barber. I can take care of the shaving on my own, But they do a better job at cutting hair than I can do for myself, because it’s all they do. It’s what they went to school for & it’s what they do all day.
CATCHIN MY DRIFT??? :coffeeread:
Before the printing press, there was a church. We as Christians should see the very fact that we can have a bible of our very own, even one per person/per household is a luxury that was inconcievable to people in the times when they were still written by hand.
SO, back to the question. Scripture alone. Is it right or is it wrong. My person feeling is this. The bible has everything you need to know for your own salvation & the Church knows precisely how to help you along that path. The two go hand in hand.I can sit there & read scripture & I’m a reasonably smart man, But what if I get all sleepy-eyed every time I try to read the book of Numbers or parts of Genesis? WHO pray-tell is going to help me make sense out of that?..I’ll give you a hint…it’s the building with the big lower-case T on the roof. You nailed it. The church!
Traditions of the church are rooted in scripture. For instance, scripture answers questions such as, why is the mass a sacrifice, why does the priest add water to the precious blood during the eucharist, why is the bread broken? Why is that little boxy thing w. a candle next to it called a tabernacle? Why do we get baptized? Why do we say Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you…? We pray the words our Savior taught us…What are those? Why do we sit, kneel, stand & bow? what do they mean? ALL these answers are in scripture. It helps to know scripture. It betters your understanding of the church. It seems less like tradition & a recreation of passage of scripture itself.
The church is up to its eyeballs in scripture in pretty much everything it does.
Scripture alone? Sola scriptura? I mean, if you are good reading everything & you’re a super genius & comprehend everything the way it was meant to be understood, then be my guest. There was a Church before a bible. There was the Word before there was a Church. They go hand in hand.
- Status