We know what we believe, Howie, and we know what we call it. Why do you post that in answer inkaneer’s challenge to you? He challenged you to show where Scripture says all truth of the Christian Faith can be found in Scripture. You have avoided it, as you always do. Then you say we don’t understand you. Howie. We understand you perfectly!
Do you mean because I didn’t type the entire phrase? Please. I assumed you’d know what I meant. Okay, let me type it all and ask you again: What does “everything that is needed to come to the knowledge of salvation in Christ through faith, and all that is needed with respect to faith and morals” contain if not the truth? And you didn’t answer the question, so I’ll ask it again. How is my definition not correct? How about a direct answer for a change, instead of another evasion? (Saying my definition is not correct because I abbreviated a 2-line phrase makes no sense.)
I couldn’t disagreee with you more. How did my ‘edit’ change anything except to abbreviate it? Please prove your accusation or retract it.
Irrespective of what Godfrey, you or anyone else says, if SS doesn’t claim that all of truth is contained in Scripture, it’s a sham. That’s the whole point of SS; that nothing outside of Scripture is valid teaching and that the truth can be found only in Scripture. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I assure you I have no idea what he said. I’ve never read a word of his writing and the odds are excellent I never will.
Wrong. I have no definition of my own. I repeat the definition of just about every protestant who’s ever tried to sell it to me. What I have no interest in is those who try to fudge the definition by blurring the edges enough so they can say it means 12 different things depending on the time of day and the opposing argument.
Well, if all you’re going to do is avoid the subject when you can’t answer a question, move the goal posts every two minutes, complain you’re not being understood and make false accusations you can’t back up, it may be a good idea. As it is, the argument is a waste of your time and mine.
You complained I don’t understand you, I asked what I don’t understand and you replied with the quote above. What nonsense is that? I happen to agree with the gist of that as far as it goes, as long as you agree the Church, as in “The Catholic Church” is the Body of Christ. In that sense she is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Extending your remark, I would direct you to John 16:13, which, along with the Lords’ “binding and loosing” promise, is the Church’s guarantor of her infallible teaching authority.
Ok this is how im reading what you just wrote. That WE CATHOLICS repents and trust Christ for our salvation and not Sacred Tradition and men. Again thats how IM reading the sentence.
Hi Howie,There’s always that possibility, as every human is fallible. The difference between you and me in that is, it’s no threat for me to admit my fallibility, but I think it is a threat for you to admit yours.
We are initially saved by grace through faith and this is accomplished through Baptism.
Hi Howie,
I’m done trying to unravel your posts, and what point it is your trying to make, other than, protestants are bunch of idiots who won’t follow their own doctrine as Ferde defines it for them.
Ferde, your own church doesn’t’ claim that all truth is contained in Scripture; logically then, according to your statement, she too is a sham.
That’s not what SS teaches, Ferde. Too bad you’re so recalcitrant about reading the link I’ve provided.
Then you’ll continue to live by the straw man.
On whose definition are you relying then?
How are you able to find the edges of SS Ferde, let alone whether or not they’re being blurred, if you have no working definition of SS?
No one’s moving the goal posts, Ferde. The problem is, IMO, you’re not on the ball.
The Church teaches that you can’t merit the grace of initial justification; nevertheless, once you’ve been initially justified, you can, by your works, merit further grace, and an increase in justification; therefore, I do believe that your soteriology teaches salvation by works.
What do you mean, “they live as though salvation could not be lost?" I live as though salvation can’t be lost.
I don’t believe that salvation can be lost. Those God justified never become unjustified.
Correct.
Keeping it short, I don’t see this as supporting either your magisterium, or your papacy.
If anyone is oblivious to the fact of divisions within RCism, it’s you.
That would have relevance to this discussion only if I were I attempting to justify the many and varied denominations found within what is loosely called “Protestantism.” However, I’m not pointing out the divisions in RCism to justify the divisions in “Protestantism” so-called, but merely demonstrating that if, as you claim, SS is responsible for the rifts in Protestantism, the logical extension of your argument is, the magisterium and pope are responsible for the rifts in RCism.
As the magisterium and pope have likewise left RCism.
For the same reason Catholics are, as was demonstrated by the majority of them voting for a Pro-Choice, radical presidential candidate.
Well, if an “infallible” teaching magisterium and pope are so effective in promulgating unity, why did the majority of those who follow them ignore them, and vote for a Pro-choice, radical candidate?
Assumes I have never thought about that.
Yes.
Reformed churches.
Not really. Clearly, many who claim to be led by the Spirit are deceived.
There’s no luck involved, Randy. Scripture clearly states that there’s one Spirit, and at the time one believes he is sealed with that one Spirit, and placed into the body of Christ by Him.
You’re fallibly certain then.
You were, and are, most certainly dependent upon your personal interpretation of the Bible in allowing it to convince you to hand off your responsibility to the RCC. Are you who is so insistent upon your free will being free, now ignoring the role it played in your personal decision?
Protestants recognize that there is no such thing as an “infallible pope;” therefore to posit that they act as though they are “infallible popes” is absurd.
:nope: They don’t believe in an “infallible pope.”
Howie-
Your experience from Protestant thinking to Catholic thinking seems to be much more different then mine. I felt infurious when I found out that I was being misled. It also occur over a long period of time, not saying that I was constantly furious.Hi there everyone.
Anyway, to start off, I’ve been having some problems recently. Back nearly a year ago was when I decided to leave protestantism behind, and go towards Catholicism. (But, at the present time, I am unable to be baptized.Yet, that is.) The past few weeks, though, I realized that I hadn’t prayed and asked God if Catholicism is the way. (I feel as if I need that confirmation) Now I find myself afraid to ask for the truth, because Catholicism makes me so glad, and it’s so much… fuller. I don’t want protestantism to be true.
But now for my real question:
One of the obvious flaws Catholics point out in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (myself included) is that the Bible never says that the Bible alone is our authority.
Then I got thinking: Should the Bible say that? Why?
Let’s take Jesus (ie the gospels) and the Epistles, which never say anything explicit about Sola Scriptura. Scripture being our sole authority as opposed to something else was never a matter of debate among Christians then. Why should they have said anything about it? I mean, the epistles were written to address issues of the time (For instance, Paul’s talk of the Lord’s Supper didn’t say much explicit about how we should to it: It was to address the problem that people were eating their own meals during that time.).
So I’m unsure… The matter of authority was not a problem back then, and Scripture was quoted frequently and spoken of as “God-breathed”, the way one would speak of it if they held it as the sole authority. Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? Are the protestants right??
So confused…
God Bless.
If we are justified, even initially, by grace, then it is not by works. Trent specifically anathematized the idea of justification by works.
And since salvation CAN be lost, quite a few people will be surprised to find themselves facing eternity in hell.
Well, if Jesus used the Septuagint (and 80% of the OT quotes in the NT are from that version), why don’t you?
Okay, I’ll have to live with that. However, it doesn’t support sola scriptura, either. You’ll have to live with that.
Uh…right. I’m completely ignorant of the challenges facing the Catholic Church today.
That is a non sequitur. The divisions within Protestantism result from the fact that everyone feels free to interpret the scriptures for himself or herself; thus, there is no unity because there is no infallible authority to establish what true doctrine is. This is precisely the problem of sola scriptura and even many Protestants acknowledge this.
Howie, this is simply wishful thinking. You NEED for Catholicism to be in shambles in order to feel good about the fact that you have denied the true faith. But in fact, the Church is stronger today than it has been in many decades. This website is just one example of that fact.
Since the Church does not tell anyone how they may or may not vote, this is dubious at best. However, Catholics did not vote for a particular candidate BECAUSE of his pro-abortion position but despite it. There was simply too much anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment driven home by a very liberal media. But again, this does not really answer the question of why Protestants can’t agree on whether babies should be baptized.
See above.
Hmmm…did I miss them? Give me a brief refresher please or point me to the posts.
Could you name a specific denomination? And are you not now making essentially the same claim for your denomination that Catholics make for ours? Namely, that we have all the doctrines figured out correctly? Except, of course, that you have no legitimate claim to Apostolic Succession whatsoever (and probably couldn’t care less that you don’t.) Isn’t it just a little bit troubling that the writings of the earliest Christians from the first, second and third centuries, etc. all exhibit distinctly Catholic characteristics…distinctives that are noticeably absent from your own faith community? Consequently, how can you claim to be “Bible Christians” when you have so little doctrine in common with those who were closest in time to Jesus and the Apostles?
They may not believe that the pope is infallible (despite scriptures which suggest otherwise), but that does NOT prevent them from acting as if they themselves are infallible. Given that you (and your co-religionists) recognize no legitimate authority on earth which can suggest to you that your personal interpretation of the Bible is errant, are each of you not, in fact, acting as if you are the head of your own infallible church of one?
The message you responded to is #526. If you read the first of my quotes, the one you say you can’t unravel, you’ll find most of it is ***your own writing ***which you complained I edited!! Which is why I wrote it all out! So what you’re saying is, you can’t understand your own writing. And you say I’m not on the ball???
You’re not following the conversation, Howie. I say SS is a sham IF it doesn’t hold that all Christian truths are found only in Scripture. My Faith doesn’t say that about Scripture so your accusation makes no sense and there is no logic to it at all.
I’m debating you, Howie, not Godfrey. I want to know what you think. Or are you telling me you simply accept Godfrey’s conclusions without understanding them?
I told you that, Howie. You even quoted it. Please refer to message #526.
I told you that, Howie. You even quoted it. Please refer to message #526. To repeat it. I rely on the definition of the protestants who told me what it means to them. If you and Godfrey have another definition, fine. There are many definitions of doctrine in protestantism, so it’s a given. What’s yours?
Please, Howie. I’m not the one who’s having trouble following a simple conversation.
If you can lose your salvation by being bad then your salvation is by works.
Trent also anathematized those who said that one’s works are only a demonstration of justification, and not a cause of the increase thereof—IOW, works = justification.
Salvation can’t be lose, Randy. Those God justified, never become unjustified.
Well, Jesus had long hair and a beard, and he walked everywhere He went in a long robe and sandals, and He didn’t own any stuff; why don’t you?
Dissent and rebellion are dissent and rebellion. They’re always against authority, in the one case it’s against the authority of the Scripture; in the other case it’s against the magisterium and the pope. No dif.
How pathetic it is for you to entertain that pathetic thought.
Excuse it in any way you’d like, but the fact remains, the “authority” and teaching of an “infallible” magisterium and pope went out the window on election day.
Babies shouldn’t be baptized, Randy. Salvation comes about by grace through faith. One must have the ability to understand the gospel before one can believe the Gospel, and it’s after the act of repentance and belief that baptism is commanded. It’s consistent in the book of Acts—Repent, believe, be baptized.
The Scripture doesn’t; why should I?
Sticks in your craw; don’t it?
Neither do you have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession, but only those who teach the truth from the scripture.
You know, Paul said that immediately upon his departure from Ephesus, savages wolves would come into the church not sparing the flock, and there would arise from within the church men who would speak perverse things. I think infant baptism is an error of the 2nd century church, and also the early church’s notion of supercessionism and replacement theology to be another error that affected the church into the last century.
You’re working from the notion that everything the church has done is the truth on the basis of the church having done what it’s done. That’s how one observes what the church has truly done; that’s not how you get at the truth. The truth is in God’s revelation, and the only reliable source for that revelation is in God’s written word.
Is this the new sola scriptura? I ask because originally sola scriptura was a negative statement against the authority of the Oral Tradition and thus the authority of the Catholic Church. By rejecting the authority of Oral tradition the only remaining authority was scripture thus the “Sola” part of sola scriptura and the original meaning that only scripture was authoritative. The ‘scriptura’ part is, I think, self explanatory. Why has sola scriptura been redefined to something other than its original definition? And who has the authority to make the definition or redefinition? I don’t recall scripture giving us any definition of sola scriptura. But the biggest problem with sola scriptura, at least for me, is the problem of immutability. Neither God nor His word change. So a doctrine should be present in the church from the first century onward. I do not see sola scriptura in the early church. Instead I see an appeal to both scripture as well as the Oral Tradition. If sola scriptura is a valid doctrine then the church got it wrong from the start and hell prevailed over the church. That was something that Jesus said would not happen. And if the church got that wrong how can we even think that the canon of scripture which was determined by the church is correct? Sola scripturists could very well be using writings that are not authoritative as authority.
That’s something that puzzles me. When he was in his prime on television, I’m sure Jimmy Swaggart thought he was justified and I’m sure the people who sent him money thought he was justified. Then he got caught coming out of (or going into) a motel with a hooker. Was he still justified? Was he ever justified?
I don’t know the status of Jimmy Swaggart regarding his justification. But I do know that those justified by God do not become unjustified.
Folks, is any of this even worth a response?If you can lose your salvation by being bad then your salvation is by works.
Trent also anathematized those who said that one’s works are only a demonstration of justification, and not a cause of the increase thereof—IOW, works = justification.
Salvation can’t be lose, Randy. Those God justified, never become unjustified.
Well, Jesus had long hair and a beard, and he walked everywhere He went in a long robe and sandals, and He didn’t own any stuff; why don’t you?
Jesus referred to the scriptures as “Moses, the Law, and the Prophets.” The writers of those 7 books were none of those.
Dissent and rebellion are dissent and rebellion. They’re always against authority, in the one case it’s against the authority of the Scripture; in the other case it’s against the magisterium and the pope. No dif.
How pathetic it is for you to entertain that pathetic thought.
Oh well.
Excuse it in any way you’d like, but the fact remains, the “authority” and teaching of an “infallible” magisterium and pope went out the window on election day.
Babies shouldn’t be baptized, Randy. Salvation comes about by grace through faith. One must have the ability to understand the gospel before one can believe the Gospel, and it’s after the act of repentance and belief that baptism is commanded. It’s consistent in the book of Acts—Repent, believe, be baptized.
The Scripture doesn’t; why should I?
Sticks in your craw; don’t it?
Neither do you have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession, but only those who teach the truth from the scripture.
You know, Paul said that immediately upon his departure from Ephesus, savages wolves would come into the church not sparing the flock, and there would arise from within the church men who would speak perverse things. I think infant baptism is an error of the 2nd century church, and also the early church’s notion of supercessionism and replacement theology to be another error that affected the church into the last century.
You’re working from the notion that everything the church has done is the truth on the basis of the church having done what it’s done. That’s how one observes what the church has truly done; that’s not how you get at the truth. The truth is in God’s revelation, and the only reliable source for that revelation is in God’s written word.
Bye.
Yes, that’s what you said. What I’m getting at is, how do we know when we are justified?
I think you’re begging the question there. “Justified” means sinless in the eyes of God. It cannot be that David, have committed a grave sin, was justified in the eyes of God. It follows that “after God’s own heart” can’t mean justification. The text doesn’t say David was justified. You added that.
Yes. Sin led him into a graver sin. Sin upon sin. It hardly describes a justified man.
Worse and worse!
Does God thus punish those who are justified?
You tell me. It’s your position that a man’s justification cannot be taken away from him and his salvation, once won, cannot be lost.