Sola Scriptura...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aidanbradypop said:
You have heard of the invisible church or church invisible before. Reformed theology is a tad different but for someone like a Southern Baptist, the believers are the body of Christ, not the RCC.
Click to expand...
Indeed,but the words in red was believed long before Southern Baptist were even a thought. 😉
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Yes, it’s a concept that was invented in the 16th century out of necessity after breaking ranks with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
The when, who and where is not the issue here for many.
Nicea325 said:
Indeed,but the words in red was believed long before Southern Baptist were even a thought. 😉
Click to expand...
Indeed…indeed. As you and I believe in a OHCAC, many do not. Just trying to help explain why it is hard for some to view the CC as having the ultimate authority.
Nicea325 said:
Oh but they will tell you otherwise. :whistle:
Click to expand...
I thought Jesus was a baptist? :confused:
 
FathersKnowBest said:
No, but the fact that it is a man-made doctrine IS an issue.
Click to expand...
If it were a doctrine, that might be true. In a true sense, it is not a doctrine, because it does not bind the conscience of the believer to it. Catholics, for example, are not at risk of condemnation simply because their communion practices a different way of norming.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
If it were a doctrine, that might be true. In a true sense, it is not a doctrine, because it does not bind the conscience of the believer to it. Catholics, for example, are not at risk of condemnation simply because their communion practices a different way of norming.

Jon
Click to expand...
:hmmm:👋
 
JonNC said:
If it were a doctrine, that might be true. In a true sense, it is not a doctrine, because it does not bind the conscience of the believer to it. Catholics, for example, are not at risk of condemnation simply because their communion practices a different way of norming.

Jon
Click to expand...
Right. There is no “doctrine” of even Scripture Alone in the Southern Baptist faith. They believe it because they believe in it.

FathersKnowBest:
Just as you believe in the doctrines of the CC, they also believe in the teachings of their faith. When you say that they believe in man-made doctrines…that does not help your argument because they also believe the CC to be a man-made Church with man-made doctrines. Not all Protestant but the majority do.
 
Nicea325 said:
Oh trust me, I know Jesus was from Judah,nonetheless, THE priest. Again, Jesus does not eradicate the ministerial priesthood. Who performed the Passover meals? Can you provide one name of a lay Christian performing the Lord’s Supper and the early church okay with it?
Click to expand...
Let’s see Three thousand were saved divided by twelve .That is 250 parishioners, excluding other family members per apostle .And the church grew daily , they met daily and broke bread in people’s homes. Of course they appointed helpers. Not sure they were "ordained’. I really think the remembrance can be orderly without ordained priest. .The earliest mention I see in early fathers is that obviously there should be a president of the "meeting’ officiating remembrance. After that we see admonition to do it orderly,worthily. No mention of priest needed. Later on we see a church father say the bishop should minister the communion (2nd century ?) Can you show me where it says you must be ordained to perform the remembrance other than OT rite carryover?
 
pocohombre said:
Let’s see Three thousand were saved divided by twelve .That is 250 parishioners, excluding other family members per apostle .And the church grew daily
Click to expand...
There are 1000 people at my church’s Masses, every Sunday, poco.

So 250 is…not that overwhelming to a priest.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Right. There is no “doctrine” of even Scripture Alone in the Southern Baptist faith. They believe it because they believe in it.

FathersKnowBest:
Just as you believe in the doctrines of the CC, they also believe in the teachings of their faith.
Click to expand...
Ummm … “teachings of their faith” = doctrines.
Doctrine comes directly from Latin doctrina “teaching, body of teachings, learning,”
When you say that they believe in man-made doctrines…that does not help your argument because they also believe the CC to be a man-made Church with man-made doctrines. Not all Protestant but the majority do.
Click to expand...
Yes. But “beliefs” that contradict historical reality should be discarded.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Ummm … “teachings of their faith” = doctrines.
Doctrine comes directly from Latin doctrina “teaching, body of teachings, learning,”
Click to expand...
No doctrines and dogmas are bound belief one must have. Can a Catholic be a Catholic if they think the RP is hogwash? Probably not.

Many Protestant churches have confessions or statements of faith. Rarely do you see a non Catholic faith with established doctrines that demand belief by all the followers.
Yes. But “beliefs” that contradict historical reality should be discarded.
Click to expand...
Says the faithful Catholic. 😉

Not everyone is a faithful follower of the OHCAC. 🙂
 
JonNC said:
If it were a doctrine, that might be true. In a true sense, it is not a doctrine, because it does not bind the conscience of the believer to it. Catholics, for example, are not at risk of condemnation simply because their communion practices a different way of norming.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon-

Call it what you will, a Protestant Christian of any variety has to believe in an invisible church to explain the splintering of the Church since the 16th century.

Otherwise, that person will be forced to conclude that either his church is the TRUE church (and we see that from some here, don’t we?) or that……maybe the Cath…no…maybe……
 
JonNC said:
They can “have it both ways” because what you describe is a caricature of sola scriputra, not a description of the practice.
The “sola” in sola scriptura is precise and narrow. It means that only scripture is to be the final norm, which norms all teachings and doctrines. Effectively - only scripture=final norm. The sola does not mean nothing else may be considered.
Click to expand...
And this is what falsfies Sola Scriptura. The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because while the Bible is the Heart of Tradition, it, just like a heart, cannot stand alone.

The less poetic way of saying that is to use the rules of formal linguistics. “Signs [words] have no intrinsic meaning. All signs are interpreted. This interpretation must be taught, and this teaching is the fundamental act of semiosis.”

It is Holy Mother Church that teaches how to read (IE interpret) the Bible. She knows what and how to teach us by Tradition and Authority.

Holy Mother Church uses the Bible as it was intended to be used, and in accordance with the very teaching of how to use Scripture found in the Bible: as a logical cross check, and as a form of information hygiene.

In short, the “Rule of Faith” is found in Tradition, which includes the Bible, but is not limited to the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top