sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter tweetiebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore said:
I this is a false statement. EIther that, or your definition of “intuition” is different.

Because you might be absolutly amazed by the amount of things we know by intuition in “the real world”.
Click to expand...
Not to get in to debate here, but the idea that Revelation or even something elementary as “God exists” is considered not intuitive knowledge in the strict sense. You can find a more elaborate discussion of this in Summa Theolgica by St. Thomas Aquinas.

What he states, and what the Church states, is that people have an intuitive understanding that there is something greater than themselves. The details are not clear. That is why they need Revelation. What is revelation can therefore not be intuitive.
 
SteveVH said:
We have the teachings of Christ given to us by the Apostles, both orally and in written text. The Church never contemplated people taking the written text and excluding all else that was taught by the Apostles. They never intended for the New Testament to be an exhaustive list of all that was taught. This is a very modern and erroneous notion.

Why do you imagine that the Church, from the earliest of times, has celebrated the Mass and believed the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ? The schism didn’t change that. Not even the Lutherans or the Anglicans wanted to change that. Yet you reject it because you cannot find it specifically spelled out for you in the scriptures (though it is spelled out very well). Shouldn’t one think twice before throwing away that which the Church has held sacred since its inception?
Click to expand...
Steve, the statement that you have teachings from Christ passed on orally to the apostles that are not contained in Scripture is an assertion, not an argument. If you want to discuss the real presence in exegetical and historical grounds I’m game! Not here though because I don’t have time to respond to 4 or 5 people at a time on different subjects 🙂
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Fractured all over the place. To look at any one institution present today and say…thats the early church! is just an anachronism. Aside from the fact that the early church was never monolithic on anything.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re saying there is no single church that possesses the fullness of the Truth. Instead - bits and pieces of the Truth can be found here and there… some at the Baptist church, some Truth at the SDA church, some Truth at the LDS church, etc.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
You missed my point on this. My point is that we cannot arrive at things by reason apart from revelation. My point is not that reason is not required in revelation, but that reason cannot alone suffice to come to conclusions on spiritual matters. To do so will result in speculation or at worst idolatry.
Click to expand...
Wow, why are you so stubborn?

I told you that the only revelation we know is that of Christ rising from the dead. What can we conclude from that? Apart from the fact that Christ has authority over the transcendent, NOTHING ELSE!!!

Your mistake is that somehow you accepted the Bible because that is what whoever converted you told you to believe as the “Word of God”. The problem here is that you never asked how any one can arrive at such a bold conclusion from the death and resurrection of Christ.

Now you are trying to defend all of this somehow using the Bible i.e. REVELATION! Do you see the problem? Now please answer my second post.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Steve…okay, not according to the OCA website…heck they’re still undecided whether you have sacramrnts, but I am not going to argue the East/West differences. Let the EO do that. Regardless, differing dogma is differing dogma. I could go through the minutiae of describing just how similar Baptists and Presbyterians and Anglicans are, too. The point still stands. You have a double standard. One for self asserted apostolic churches and one for Protestants. You allow that the Spirit is leading them but not us because we disagree, even though yours disagree just as vociferously, if not more so. That’s your right, of course. I’m just pointing out that the statement doesn’t carry much consistent weight.
Click to expand...
Well one thing that needs to be cleared up is my opinion of Protestants. Some of my best friends are Protestants. 😃 Seriously, I have never said the Spirit is not leading Protestants. If one is drawn to Christ it is because one is being lead by the Holy Spirit. If one is Baptized, then one is part of the Body of Christ. I believe God pours his grace out upon those who truly seek him. But Christ started a Church, a visible Church, for a reason and certainly did not intend for us to go about with our own individual opinions of how it should operate. Some of those who God is calling are standing out on the front porch and are afraid to come in and sit at the table.
 
stewstew03 said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re saying there is no single church that possesses the fullness of the Truth. Instead - bits and pieces of the Truth can be found here and there… some at the Baptist church, some Truth at the SDA church, some Truth at the LDS church, etc.
Click to expand...
No…I’m talking on an institutional level. If you want to talk about bits and pieces of truth and falsehood, the early church would be the place to go.
 
stewstew03 said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re saying there is no single church that possesses the fullness of the Truth. Instead - bits and pieces of the Truth can be found here and there… some at the Baptist church, some Truth at the SDA church, some Truth at the LDS church, etc.
Click to expand...
What I would like to know is how this man/woman has come to know such profound truths on the nature of the truth and how much truths each possess when s/he can’t seem to show how one comes to accept that the Bible is the Word of God.
 
SteveVH said:
Well one thing that needs to be cleared up is my opinion of Protestants. Some of my best friends are Protestants. 😃 Seriously, I have never said the Spirit is not leading Protestants. If one is drawn to Christ it is because one is being lead by the Holy Spirit. If one is Baptized, then one is part of the Body of Christ. I believe God pours his grace out upon those who truly seek him. But some of those who God is calling are standing out on the front porch and are afraid to come in and sit at the table.
Click to expand...
Okay, so why the statement 80 (lol) posts ago about the Holy Spirit?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
No…I’m talking on an institutional level. If you want to talk about bits and pieces of truth and falsehood, the early church would be the place to go.
Click to expand...
HOW DO YOU KNOW? Like how on earth do you know of a concept of a Church even? You have to stop reading the Bible back to history. All you have after the death of Christ is Apostles. All you have now are… well writings people claim to be from Apostles but we don’t even have original manuscripts dating back to the time they lived. So it seems to me like you still at least have to accept others who claim that it is the original deal.

EVEN MORE PROBLEMATIC!!! There was no Bible in the time of the early Apostles and certainly no clear idea as to what or what not is the inspired word of God. You seem to be oblivious to history that many books had to be suppressed by the Church because Christians at the time kept thinking of them as part of the Canon. You should take a look at the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon to get a better idea of why your claims that there was such a book called the Bible as you know it is way out of line.

But please, present to us how one goes from accepting the historical fact that Christ rose from the dead to accepting the Bible. If it is not based on reason, regardless of whether the Catholic position is true or false, YOUR position must be abandoned because it is unreasonable.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I totally didn’t expect this question.
Click to expand...
Yes I can see that because up until now, you have not presented a single coherent argument as to how we go from the risen Christ to accepting any of the fancy things you want to say like “Bible is the Word of God” or “Early Church” or “Charisms” etc.

So please, do help us out here and tell us how we arrive at these things. While you are at it, please also tell us why the idea of accepting the authority of a teacher being propagated to a student and so forth needs to be preceded by a teaching that such a thing is possible. I thought it was common sense because I don’t know of any University that first teaches the idea before it gives a Phd.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Steve, the statement that you have teachings from Christ passed on orally to the apostles that are not contained in Scripture is an assertion, not an argument. If you want to discuss the real presence in exegetical and historical grounds I’m game! Not here though because I don’t have time to respond to 4 or 5 people at a time on different subjects 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, I truly feel for you at times. 🙂
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I appreciate the sympathy Lol
Click to expand...
We have a tendency to “gang up” on evangelicals, but it’s not a coordinated attack or anything. I should also mention that I’m glad you’re here to engage in dialogue and sincerely hope you stick around. More importantly, I hope you learn something about Catholicism.
 
stewstew03 said:
We have a tendency to “gang up” on evangelicals, but it’s not a coordinated attack or anything. I should also mention that I’m glad you’re here to engage in dialogue and sincerely hope you stick around. More importantly, I hope you learn something about Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I don’t complain. It’s my burden to bear. Like, if Jacob Marley were Baptist.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
The one about the Spirit leading 2 Protestants who disagree.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that. What I mean is that God draws all men (and women) to himself through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, so in that way they are being lead. He is not guiding people into error, however. So if two disagree, we can be certain that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit in reaching their erroneous conclusion. That has come from themselves. I believe that insofar as one rejects what the Catholic Church teaches, they are not being lead by the Holy Spirit, but rather by their own beloved notions or, in some cases, by another spirit. There is much good and much truth in all Christian faith traditions, but Christ started only one Church and the promise to guide it into all truth was made to only to that one Church which is alive and kicking today.
 
SteveVH said:
Oh yeah, that. What I mean is that God draws all men (and women) to himself through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, so in that way they are being lead. He is not guiding people into error, however. So if two disagree, we can be certain that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit in reaching their erroneous conclusion. That has come from themselves. I believe that insofar as one rejects what the Catholic Church teaches, they are not being lead by the Holy Spirit, but rather by their own beloved notions or, in some cases, by another spirit. There is much good and much truth in all Christian faith traditions, but Christ started only one Church and the promise to guide it into all truth was made to only to that one Church which is alive and kicking today.
Click to expand...
Okay. There’s nothing here I really disagree with other than your identification of it as the Latin communion. No…I do not believe that everyone is being lead into mutually exclusive truths. I don’t for a moment think that, say, Presbyterians are being lead by the Spirit into practicing infant baptism. They’re dead wrong. When Catholics ask us that question, about the Spirit, it’s based on an assumption that we do actually think the Spirit is doing that. We are not relativists (ok, liberal Protestants are, as well as liberal Catholics, but they’re irrelevent). I’m glad you’re not a relativist either.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Okay. There’s nothing here I really disagree with other than your identification of it as the Latin communion. No…I do not believe that everyone is being lead into mutually exclusive truths. I don’t for a moment think that, say, Presbyterians are being lead by the Spirit into practicing infant baptism. They’re dead wrong. When Catholics ask us that question, about the Spirit, it’s based on an assumption that we do actually think the Spirit is doing that. We are not relativists (ok, liberal Protestants are, as well as liberal Catholics, but they’re irrelevent). I’m glad you’re not a relativist either.
Click to expand...
Now I’m confused. So, you agree with this?
SteveVH said:
… Christ started only one Church and the promise to guide it into all truth was made to only to that one Church which is alive and kicking today
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top