Sola Scriptura

[bjcros]

st_felicity:

geez… was just talkin’… …I will look at the site…I sort of like to reason out ideas that I think seem correct and then check my reasoning against Catholic teaching, rather than the other way around. If I’m off, then I work to understand where I went wrong and attempt to perfect my reasoning in that manner…at any rate…I’m not real fond of how you worded that last line–I’m not an automoton that must be programmed by the great Controller housed at the Vatican…

Actually, I was trying to understand your point of view in light of what I believe to be true. I was looking to understand your reasoning. But if you’d rather…I’ll assume I am dismissed from class.

Sorry if it seemed that I jumped on your back I really didn’t mean it like that. I don’t mind talking about what I believe and I can defend it if you want. If you want to talk about this I will be glad to talk to you.

 

[Ignatius]

bjcros:

I don’t mind talking about what I believe and I can defend it if you want.

You have not addressed my original query, here it is.

"Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?

Where (geographic location) was this done?

When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). "

C’mon, at least try to find the answers.

God Bless

 

[bjcros87]

Ignatius:

You have not addressed my original query, here it is.

"Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?

Where (geographic location) was this done?

When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). "

C’mon, at least try to find the answers.

God Bless

Look I know where your going with this. You can’t say that My New Testament is wrong. The books had to be written by an apostle or one who had close ties to a apostle. All of the books have been around before 100 A.D. The actual canon wasn’t decided on until the 300’s. The reason was is because Christianity wasn’t an accepted religion and Christians were persecuted. So they couldn’t have a church meeting. It is the same New Testament as the Catholic Church uses. I know what your going to say so don’t bother. I have heard it many a time.

 

[Philthy]

Hi bj :tiphat:

Ive been following your posts and I have to say that you have me very confused. You routinely contradict yourself and leave me scratching my head. It seems like skipping rocks on puddles - you dabble on the surface of a topic and then skip off in another direction with the first topic unresolved.

bjcros:

God does things to bring himself glory. Like I said I don’t know how it works, but I do know that it works.

Sorry buddy. “Trust me I know what Im talking about” doesn’t cut it with this crowd. Put up or shut up, but don’t just claim knowledge.

bjcros:

How can one love without God? If God is love, then how can we love?

bjcros:

We can love because we “are the temple of God and His Spirit dwells within us” 1Cor 3:16

bjcros:

The Gospel is fooly to other people. There is nothing any of us can do or say to anyone to convince them of the truth.

How odd that you would participate in a forum designed to exchange ideas in an interactive format. Just one example of the contradictory things you produce in this paragraph - and it doesn’t end here.

bjcros:

It must be revealed to them by God. God chooses chooses who he wants. God could do it on his own, it is amazing that God would involve us lowly sinners. But he does. He does it because he wants glory so we need to give him glory in our actions. Show him to the world through our actions. Talk is cheap. People take notice when we talk but don’t let our actions reflect what we say. So with God’s help show love to others. The Bible says they[non-Christians] will know us by our love.

You started off establishing that nothing we “say or do” will convince others of the Truth(see above) and finish with "show him(to them) with our actions, …“People take notice when we talk but don’t let our actions reflect what we say”, and “show love to others”. What happened to “nothing we say or do” can convince others of the truth?

Truly baffling…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Here is the point of unity among Protestant denominations. They believe that the Catholic Church is wrong on one or more issues(I say this half jokingly).

Actually it is the most insightful, coherent thing you have said to date! Stick with the part of your mind that produced this thought - ignore the other half that considers it “half jokingly”. And it totally gets you off the hook for actually dealing with the fundamental, essential elements of the faith that Protestants can’t unify on using Sola Scriptura.

bjcros:

If you don’t like the teaching of a Protestant church there is a number of churches that you could go to or you could start your own. I don’t suggest starting your own.

Im sure you meant that as a thoughtful piece of advise-thank you.

bjcros:

If you ask two different Catholics what they believe they prob would say different things. There are differing views within any denomination. The Catholic Church is no exception.

On the contrary it is the only exception. Peoples’ individual views have NO BEARING on the truths revealed by the Magisterium. There will be no popular vote to determine matters of faith and morals that have been decided upon by the Magisterium…

bjcros:
Now Protestants if they know what is taught by their church will be able to tell you that just as any Catholic.

Yes but will that Truth be found from the foundation of their Church through the present generation and on into the future without contradiction? Probably not.

bjcros:

Yeah there is kind of an agreement to disagree on some issues, but we get along with each other. You will notice that the things that Protestants disagree on aren’t really that important but are really trivial. And that is kind of sad.

You are completely oblivious and rambling here. I specifically listed 5 FUNDAMENTAL (that means "really important, NOT trivial) doctrines of Christian faith that Protestants disagree on:
Existence of Sacraments, Baptism, Real Presence, OSAS, etc.
Remember? And you replied by stating that Protestants agree that the Catholic Church is wrong and skate the issue until this last ridiculous statement which simply ignores the very post that generated your response.

Truly bewildering…

Phil

 

[Ignatius]

bjcros87:

Ignatius:

Originally Posted by Ignatius

*You have not addressed my original query, here it is.
*
“Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?
Where (geographic location) was this done?
When (approximate dates) was this done?
Who (what Church body) determined this?
*(Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). *”

C’mon, at least try to find the answers.

God Bless
Look I know where your going with this. The actual canon wasn’t decided on until the 300’s.

I will accept your approximate date, you get partial credit.

Now Where was it done and what Church body did it?
(Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).

Yours in Christ.

 

[gusano]

WILKM:

Hi Everyone

I need your help. I’ve been trying to defend why we Catholics do not just rely on the Bible alone but also Sacred Tradition.

I received this response from someone and would be grateful for any help in answering this.

Why does the RCC insist that they know better than God? Relying on the traditions of men rather than God’s own Word is in essence saying you know more or better than God. Men have proved to be corrupt. The church has proved to be corrupt on and off over the years. God’s Word is inerrant. Why would anyone want to rely on fallible traditions of men when they can rely on Holy Scripture breathed from God himself?

Many thanks
Kathy
**

**

Men have proved to be corrupt…yes.
What happens when Corrupt men and corrupt women get ahold of the inerrant Word ?
Will men corrupt the Scripture as men corrupt everything else men touch ?

unless we are influenced by some power in addition to the scripture.

Scripture without tradition undermines the essence of scripture.
see Exodus 12:24…No tradition …means you hand nothing down… (perpetuate nothing) to your descendants.

If someone who does not believe in sacred tradition…teaches their non-reading children the rudiments of Christianity, they are practicing what they speak against.

gusano

 

[bjcros87]

Philthy:

Ive been following your posts and I have to say that you have me very confused. You routinely contradict yourself and leave me scratching my head. It seems like skipping rocks on puddles - you dabble on the surface of a topic and then skip off in another direction with the first topic unresolved.

That’s great that your confused. You are the first person to say they can’t follow my writing. So I think it is that you don’t know how to follow my train of thought. I don’t think I have contradicted myself, especially not on a routine basis.

Philthy:

Sorry buddy. “Trust me I know what Im talking about” doesn’t cut it with this crowd. Put up or shut up, but don’t just claim knowledge.

I’m curious, do you disagree with my statement? I was claiming ignorance of how it works. You want some evidence of God doing things for his Glory read exodus. God dealt with Pharoah to bring Glory to himself. Do you have problems with what I say or just how I say it?

Philthy:

bjcros:

How can one love without God? If God is love, then how can we love?

bjcros:

We can love because we “are the temple of God and His Spirit dwells within us” 1Cor 3:16

That’s confusing… It doesn’t answer the question. The Holy Spirit is God. I know we are able to love. I was asking how it was possible if you don’t have God. The answer is you can’t.
Lets try it this way. A person doesn’t have God because they haven’t accepted Christ. They don’t have love because they don’t have God, and God is love. Therefore they can’t love anyone not even God.

Philthy:

How odd that you would participate in a forum designed to exchange ideas in an interactive format. Just one example of the contradictory things you produce in this paragraph - and it doesn’t end here.

You started off establishing that nothing we “say or do” will convince others of the Truth(see above) and finish with "show him(to them) with our actions, …“People take notice when we talk but don’t let our actions reflect what we say”, and “show love to others”. What happened to “nothing we say or do” can convince others of the truth?

Truly baffling…

Phil
Actually what is baffling is your ignorance. What I said is true. I made absolutely no contradiction. I didn’t say that our love would convert the people. I said that we sould show love to people. The truth I was referring to is the Gospel. People won’t believe it without God revealing it to them. The most well versed theologian couldn’t convince an atheist that God exists, despite having evidence.
You draw alot of conclusions from my writing, except most of them are wrong. Go back and check them out they have an order to them and absolutely none of the things you brought off contradicts something else I said.
Your post was very hard to read because of all the ignorant and false conclusions you drew.
How about adressing the issues instead of insulting the writing. I can sit here and pick apart your writing and say that you can’t write, but I got better things to do. I think you should concentrate on the issues. I will stick to the issues.

 

[bjcros87]

Philthy:

Actually it is the most insightful, coherent thing you have said to date! Stick with the part of your mind that produced this thought - ignore the other half that considers it “half jokingly”. And it totally gets you off the hook for actually dealing with the fundamental, essential elements of the faith that Protestants can’t unify on using Sola Scriptura.

This is another instance of your ignorance. Half of my brain didn’t think that this was joking. I said “half jokingly” so I don’t offend anyone, and because it is a funny thing.

Philthy:

On the contrary it is the only exception. Peoples’ individual views have NO BEARING on the truths revealed by the Magisterium. There will be no popular vote to determine matters of faith and morals that have been decided upon by the Magisterium…

Yes but will that Truth be found from the foundation of their Church through the present generation and on into the future without contradiction? Probably not.
I know people’s views don’t affect the Magisterium. However, my point was that there isn’t unity. They don’t have the same views. It doesn’t change what their Church teaches. It is the same for Protestant churches the patrons don’t agree on every issue and on some issues they see fit to leave the church.

Philthy:

You are completely oblivious and rambling here. I specifically listed 5 FUNDAMENTAL (that means "really important, NOT trivial) doctrines of Christian faith that Protestants disagree on:

Existence of Sacraments, Baptism, Real Presence, OSAS, etc.
Remember? And you replied by stating that Protestants agree that the Catholic Church is wrong and skate the issue until this last ridiculous statement which simply ignores the very post that generated your response.

Truly bewildering…

Phil

Once again, I use the word trivial to describe things that are not essential for salvation. Which Protestants disagree on Baptism? I know my Church recognizes it. I know of Churches disagreeing on infant Baptism. As far as I know those issues, other than Baptism, won’t decide if I am going to Heaven or Hell.

 

[Tom]

Boys, boys, boys, the rope is getting very wet. Can we discuss without the fuss?

 

[Tom]

BJ, welcome back. The Catholic Church has all of its teachings written down, pretty clearly, very well explained and very well grounded in Scripture. Are there ignorant Catholics? Certainly, but that does not negate the true teaching of the Catholic Church. If I told you that the Catholic Church teaches cows were sacred it would be absolutely false, but you could prove it was false by referring to the canon, the teaching of the magisterium and the CCC. Where can we go to verify any protestant teaching? Is there a list anywhere that says protestant teaching is “this”? Protestants can’t even agree with interpretation of Scripture. And “NO” all Protestants don’t believe baptism is the same thing. Some think it’s simply symbolic, some think you can’t be saved without it, some say it must be full immersion, some say sprinkling, some say it’s the imparting of the Holy Spirit, some say it’s not. The Catholic Church teaches one thing. Are their Catholics who don’t know the official teaching? Sure. Are there Protestants who don’t know official Protestant teaching? Yes, every one of them, since there is no “official” teaching. There is only one truth, how can there be ten different teachings on Baptism? Nine of them must be wrong. Which Church did Jesus say He would send the Holy Spirit to, to lead them to all truth? Which Church is “one, Holy, Apostolic” Church? It’s the Catholic Church.
Please, please, please, do historical research on Christianity. The majority of Protestant “teachings” are late 19th thru 20th century. God didn’t reveal anything new did He? Where were these teachings for the first 1800 years? Protestants are the ones who follow man made traditions.

 

[kepha1]

The false charge of “man made traditions” in the Catholic Church is the epitomy of ignorance. They confuse this with rubrics.

The Bible itself is Tradition.
The Christian Rule of Faith included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and the Canon of the Bible. All that and others, pre-existed the Canon of the Bible, and the historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

The LIVING TRADITION of the Church does not compete or supplant the Written Word, they exist in harmony and complimentarity. Just because one is a different mode of transmission from the other does not mean one is inferior to the other. God is not so confined as to limit Divine Revelation to a book.

Sola scriptura did not exist anywhere on the planet before it was invented in the 16th century. It is clearly a man-made tradition. The same goes for sola fide. Yet followers of these heresies claim Catholicism to have “man-made traditions”. It is insane.

Their ultimate recourse is to re-write history, and twist obscure opinions of a few Church Fathers.

If a relativist hedonist says, “There are no moral absolutes." The hedonist is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.”

This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture.
Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

Most of Protestantism is in a logically invalid position.

 

[kepha1]

All Catholic Traditions and teachings can be directly inferred, or indirectly inferred, explicitly or inexplicitly referred, to scriptures.

Infallibility of the Catholic Church is a gift from God, she needed it to compile the Bible. How can the Church be right about the New Testament books, and be wrong about everything else?

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, etc?

Were there two Holy Spirits, one for the Bible, and a different one for everything else?

 

[bjcros87]

Tom:

BJ, welcome back. The Catholic Church has all of its teachings written down, pretty clearly, very well explained and very well grounded in Scripture. Are there ignorant Catholics? Certainly, but that does not negate the true teaching of the Catholic Church. If I told you that the Catholic Church teaches cows were sacred it would be absolutely false, but you could prove it was false by referring to the canon, the teaching of the magisterium and the CCC. Where can we go to verify any protestant teaching? Is there a list anywhere that says protestant teaching is “this”? Protestants can’t even agree with interpretation of Scripture. And “NO” all Protestants don’t believe baptism is the same thing. Some think it’s simply symbolic, some think you can’t be saved without it, some say it must be full immersion, some say sprinkling, some say it’s the imparting of the Holy Spirit, some say it’s not. The Catholic Church teaches one thing. Are their Catholics who don’t know the official teaching? Sure. Are there Protestants who don’t know official Protestant teaching? Yes, every one of them, since there is no “official” teaching. There is only one truth, how can there be ten different teachings on Baptism? Nine of them must be wrong. Which Church did Jesus say He would send the Holy Spirit to, to lead them to all truth? Which Church is “one, Holy, Apostolic” Church? It’s the Catholic Church.
Please, please, please, do historical research on Christianity. The majority of Protestant “teachings” are late 19th thru 20th century. God didn’t reveal anything new did He? Where were these teachings for the first 1800 years? Protestants are the ones who follow man made traditions.

Thank you, it is good to be back.
First I want to say this I agree with the Catholic Church on a great majority of things. I would also say that alot of other Protestants do aswell. However, there are the things I disagree on. Those things are the reasons I don’t follow Catholicism.
In this case you are using the broad term “Protestants.” In that last post I was using a more closer definition. As you hopefully know there are many Protestant denominations. However, each denomination believes the same things. or they wouldn’t be in that denomination. I don’t like the fact that churches split over those issues, but it happened. There are some disagreements among protestants. However, from what I see the protestants have a better relationship and like each other more than the Catholic Church. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I think all of us agree on more than any of us is willing to let on. There are protestants who know what their denomination teaches though. That is what has caused splits is disagreements on the teachings of a certain church. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to all those who accept him and follow him. I know what you are saying(people in this forum have said it alot). I’m not saying that all tradition is evil. All I say is that it isn’t on the same level as Scripture. I say the same thing of any teaching Protestant or Catholic.

 

[bjcros87]

kepha1:

Sola scriptura did not exist anywhere on the planet before it was invented in the 16th century. It is clearly a man-made tradition. The same goes for sola fide. Yet followers of these heresies claim Catholicism to have “man-made traditions”. It is insane.

A little piece of advice, don’t make statements like “did not exist anywhere on the planet.” I have made this type of mistake and been slammed for it.
I will agree that it was not a prominent idea until the 16th century. However, it could have been around. It was not able to spread and take root before the 16th century. There probably were people before Luther. However, they were suppresed by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church didn’t want the Bible to spread because they knew that what they were doing was unbiblical. I am not speaking of the Catholic Church in present times, buyt rather in the past at the timem of the reformation. There was alot of corruption in the Catholic Church. Luther struggled with splitting with the Church. However, he saw that he couldn’t change the church from the inside so he broke away.

kepha1:

Their ultimate recourse is to re-write history, and twist obscure opinions of a few Church Fathers.

If a relativist hedonist says, “There are no moral absolutes." The hedonist is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

I know what you are trying to say. However, I don’t think saying “There are no moral absolutes”, is a moral absolute. This is a better issue “There is no absolute truth.”

kepha1:
Most of Protestantism is in a logically invalid position.

Actually, it depends on your point of view. If your a non-Christian then all of Christianity is illogical. From my point of view, on some issues the Catholic position is illogical.
I have a logical basis for all of my beliefs. However, you don’t see it as logical. I don’t see logical basis for your beliefs, but you think you have it.
It works all ways. No position has logical basis to all groups of people.

 

[bjcros87]

kepha1:

All Catholic Traditions and teachings can be directly inferred, or indirectly inferred, explicitly or inexplicitly referred, to scriptures.

I don’t agree with this statement. Neither would most Protestants. I just want to voice my disagreement with this because this isn’t the time or place to discuss the issues I have.

kepha1:

Infallibility of the Catholic Church is a gift from God, she needed it to compile the Bible. How can the Church be right about the New Testament books, and be wrong about everything else?

I hold that the Catholic Church is not infallible(once again not the time or place to discuss). I think that most Protestants don’t disagree with “everything else.” I know I don’t. We disagree with a minority of the teachings of the church.

kepha1:

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, etc?

Were there two Holy Spirits, one for the Bible, and a different one for everything else?

Firstly this is not my opinion. We have heard it said on this forum that the spirit leading the church wasn’t exactly Holy(I don’t hold this and I don’t think the majority of protestants hold this). Once again I don’t think that the tradition is bad. I do think that it isn’t on the same level as Scripture. I think that this would be a accepted belief among Protestants.

 

[bjcros87]

Tom:

Boys, boys, boys, the rope is getting very wet. Can we discuss without the fuss?

I didn’t mean to fuss. I would love to discuss the issues. Thats why I am here. I was fed up with reading his complaining about my writing. Rather than discussing the issues.

 

[Tom]

bjcros87:

First I want to say this I agree with the Catholic Church on a great majority of things. I would also say that alot of other Protestants do aswell. However, there are the things I disagree on. Those things are the reasons I don’t follow Catholicism.

As you’ve seen in the past many of the things you thought the Catholic Church taught were misconceptions. All I ask you to do is find out the true teachings of the Church, not what you’re told by an anti-Catholic, by yourself. Anti-Catholics spread misinformation about the Catholic Church to discredit it. BJ, I am going to give you my personal opinion of why as you said all Protestants agree on one thing, that the Catholic Church is wrong. The answer is they must! If the Catholic Church is not wrong, then their church is wrong, or it would have re-joined the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it? To prove the Catholic Church is wrong they go to some very strange lengths. You’ve heard them I’m sure. When you find a teaching you disagree with, research first if, and then why the Church teaches it. I’m sure you’ll find most of your objections are unfounded based on misconceptions or you’ll find a very logical, and Scriptural reason for the teaching.

 

[Tom]

bjcros87:

In this case you are using the broad term “Protestants.” In that last post I was using a more closer definition. As you hopefully know there are many Protestant denominations. However, each denomination believes the same things. or they wouldn’t be in that denomination. I don’t like the fact that churches split over those issues, but it happened.

Here in lies a problem, people “shopping” for a church they agree with. You see a problem with that? They aren’t seeking the truth, they’re seeking something they’re comfortable with. Hint, the truth makes you uncomfortable because of our sin, if you’re not uncomfortable you’re not hearing the truth. Again, there is only one truth.

bjcros87:

There are some disagreements among protestants. However, from what I see the protestants have a better relationship and like each other more than the Catholic Church.

Again they all share the same goal, to discredit the Catholic Church, why? If the Catholic Church is right we’re (protestant church) wrong! So we have to find something wrong. Amazing they only choose the Catholic Church to publicly slam. They know the others are false as well, why bother?

 

[bjcros87]

Tom:

As you’ve seen in the past many of the things you thought the Catholic Church taught were misconceptions. All I ask you to do is find out the true teachings of the Church, not what you’re told by an anti-Catholic, by yourself. Anti-Catholics spread misinformation about the Catholic Church to discredit it. BJ, I am going to give you my personal opinion of why as you said all Protestants agree on one thing, that the Catholic Church is wrong. The answer is they must! If the Catholic Church is not wrong, then their church is wrong, or it would have re-joined the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it? To prove the Catholic Church is wrong they go to some very strange lengths. You’ve heard them I’m sure. When you find a teaching you disagree with, research first if, and then why the Church teaches it. I’m sure you’ll find most of your objections are unfounded based on misconceptions or you’ll find a very logical, and Scriptural reason for the teaching.

I understand what your saying. You know what I have said in the past. My major struggle/problem with the Catholic Church right now is over the teachings on salvation. I don’t like the definition given at the Council of Trent that those outside the Catholic Church are outside of Salvation. This doesn’t seem to have scriptural evidence. However, the idea that there is no salvation outside of Christ is Scriptural. I know the church preaches the latter now. However, they must also hold to the first one. They have declared me an anathema. I and all protestants are cursed. Not just those who knowingly left the good graces of the church but anyone who believes these things. That has absolutely no scriptural evidence. It isn’t up to the church to decide if I go to heaven or hell. It is up to God and God alone.