sola scriptura

[pablope]

Steve,

Secondly, the point at the heart of disagreement about the nature of revelation between Protestants and Catholics is not that the church preaches revelation but that revelation in the form of tradition contains information not contained in Scripture.

 

[pablope]

I don’t share your presupposition when you use the word church. Your viewpoint substitutes the word magisterium/bishops for the word church in passages like 1 Tim. 3:15. Wouldn’t know it is authoritative? I don’t agree.

I base my epistemological knowledge of Scripture’s inspiration on Christ,

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is where your folly is…the oral will not contradict the written.

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;10261542:

My point is not in whether it contradicts. My point is, if it does not appear in Scripture, then it must be shown to be an apostolic teaching.

That is not how evidence works, pablope. The one making the positive claim has the burden of providing evidence that supports the claim. If you want to claim any doctrine is apostolic, you have to show that it is.

The truth.

What, that you have to provide evidence for a truth claim?

Gaelic,

Not baptizing infants is an invention of man.

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and many Protestants follow the Apostolic Teaching…

Oh, but let’s pick up the book and tell everyone else they are wrong and say…Nahhhh you don’t baptize babies based on reading a book that we say does not provide reasons for baptizing babies…truth? nope, disobedience.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10261568:

Gaelic,

Not baptizing infants is an invention of man.

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and many Protestants follow the Apostolic Teaching…

Oh, but let’s pick up the book and tell everyone else they are wrong and say…Nahhhh you don’t baptized babies based on reading a book that we say does not provide reasons for baptizing babies…truth? nope, disobedience.

Infant baptism? Start a thread on it, provide your case, and I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

nope, disobedience.

Disobedience to a belief that is false is no vice. Obedience to that which is false is no virtue.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10261581:

Infant baptism? Start a thread on it, provide your case, and I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Revelation

 

[batman1973]

Infant baptism? Start a thread on it, provide your case, and I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

There was one a while back. Got ugly if memory serves.

 

[CopticChristian]

Disobedience to a belief that is false is no vice. Obedience to that which is false is no virtue.

Gaelic,

Disobedience to a belief that is believed to be false without an ability to infallibly prove it is false suggests stubborness of mind. The vice is within the confines of reason.

Obedience is obedience. To believe absolutely if something is false and profess it as false without certainty is madness.

I believe you are sincere and you are sincerely in error.

 

[batman1973]

Gaelic,

Disobedience to a belief that is believed to be false without an ability to infallibly prove it is false suggests stubborness of mind. The vice is within the confines of reason.

Obedience is obedience. To believe absolutely if something is false and profess it as false without certainty is madness.

I believe you are sincere and you are sincerely in error.

Likewise. But, we can still reach across the aisle and educate one another

 

[CopticChristian]

Likewise. But, we can still reach across the aisle and educate one another

Bat,

In many and various ways God spoke to us in part through His Prophets and in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son…all that we believe is based on Divine Revelation and can be found for erudition, education, learning, and enjoyment…there is wonderful music here as well…

US Catholic Catechism for Adults Audiobook

• 20 hours on CD summarizing the Catechism.
• I highly recommend it…
• Where: usccbpublishing.org/produ…ls.cfm?PC=1708

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

Disobedience to a belief that is believed to be false without an ability to infallibly prove it is false suggests stubborness of mind. The vice is within the confines of reason.

Obedience is obedience. To believe absolutely if something is false and profess it as false without certainty is madness.

I believe you are sincere and you are sincerely in error.

That isn’t a rational way to determine truth, Coptic. The obsession with infallibility in order to prove or disprove something is a standard that is simply illogical. One can think of some pretty bizarre scenarios that that kind of an argument can be made to apply to.

 

[PRmerger]

You generously lay out the invitation to explore your Catholic faith. Even when we keep rolling up the red carpet that you carefully laid out for us and hand it back to you.

Your persistent evangelization is a great thing to emulate.

Oh. Ok then. PRmerger likes.

 

[PRmerger]

1. What would I be were I to convert to Catholicism if I did not believe that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and was infallible ex cathedra? Other than dishonest, that is?

I believe you would be, frankly, illogical. If you were to become Catholic and profess that the Church got it right on doctrines A, B, C and D, which all derive from an infallible magisterium…it would be illogical to reject doctrine E (papal infallibility) which is derived from the same source.

1. Let’s say the OCA were to plop a parish near by backyard, and I were to join it, would I not still be in Schism?

I don’t think so. Our Catechism proclaims: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

Pope Eugene was NOT speaking about protestants, obviously, but Holy Orthodoxy (schismatics). How has my circumstances changed as a result?

Is this not a warning to those who have left the Catholic faith, rather than those who have never been fully in communion with us?

 

[PRmerger]

What does any other source tell me about Father, Son and Holy Spirit that Scripture does not?

It tells you how the Scripture is to be read and understood: through the lens of the Tradition which gave you these Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

There wasn’t a New Testament.

But there was a Church. And we still have that Church present today in our world.

What does apostolic oral teaching tell me, that I need to know, that Scripture doesn’t?

It tells you what the Scriptures mean. For example, what does 1 Peter 3:21 mean? We look to apostolic oral teaching to tell us.

And it tells you how to worship God through the Divine Liturgy.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking and then written.

Exactly.

And all that was spoken was not put to holy writ. That would be a man-made tradition to proclaim that it was all written down.

In fact, the Scriptures tell us that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months.

Of course we know from this that everything he taught could not have been put to writing–that would have been voluminous and impossible to be contained in the NT

But it would not have been impossible to be retained in the hearts and minds of the early Christians, who continued to proclaim the kerygma through their oral testimony.

 

[PRmerger]

I think it is rather that Scripture contains what the Church preaches since Scripture is a record of at least part of what the Church was preaching.

'zactly.

Of the over 400 extant Christian texts, the Church distilled 27 books by discerning which of those texts contained what the Church had been preaching, and rejecting those texts which contained superfluous or heretical teachings.

That’s Oral Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

It is authoritative because it’s ultimate author is God, not because it was written by “the church.”

Indeed.

That’s exactly why the Church retains its authority today: because its ultimate author is God.

There is no other Church that claims this authority for itself, save the Orthodox Church.

All other churches do not even claim to have any authority.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Because that’s not what sola scriptura means. The “sola” in sola scriptura indicates that scripture is - alone - the final norm. Councils, creeds and confessions are not equal to scripture but secondary to it. It does not mean other things are not useful, important, even critical.

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church (Lutheran, in my case) of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogma accountable.
It does not, therefore, exclude teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma. It does not exclude the pulpit or the mass, be it Lutheran or Catholic.
Further, scripture gives the Church the authority to teach, and teaching comes from the pulpit (and other places).

Jon

So what about the norm itself? Where does that come from? Is that in the Bible? Did someone make it up ?