N
NotWorthy
Guest
Wow, a low blow from out in left field!!!
Evidently the number 1.1 billion and still counting means nothing to you?
- Status
Evidently the number 1.1 billion and still counting means nothing to you?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Post number?
for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in teh Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.So still you are telling us that there is no real consensus as to what this fundamental protestant doctrine actually consists of, right?
So…Christ founded a church that is essentially superfluous. I don’t think that position is supported by the New Testament.
So…we find that in Romans 1 don’t we?
anything beyond Scripture.I wouldn’t’ve used that argument, though there is some merit to it.
Scripture contains everything necessary to know the truth of God for salvation.The problem here is that you try to tell us that your interpretation of scripture (including your interpretation of this particular doctrine) is correct and ours is wrong, yet you can’t prove that irrefutably.
According to what you have been taught…by men.
I know this passage quite well. What is actually says is, (2nd Timothy 3) 14: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15: and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. This does not say that the scriptures are materially sufficient for all things. Profitable…yes, no question there, but all sufficient…it’s not there.
Is it? If so why are there so many differing doctrines among the proponents of whatever variant of SS among n-Cs?
In your opinion…but I might make the very same observation concerning your beliefs and all those of the rest of n-C churches.
the church, the pope, mary, etc. Although those things may be helpful (well, the church at least), but Scripture alone is sufficient.I think that the New Testament disagrees with you. Hebrews 10:25: not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
I do understand it…that’s why I reject it.
C
Carol_Coombe
Guest
Jeremy made an insightful contribution, carefully argued.
I was working through the CCC today, trying to understand more clearly the concept of the informed conscience. That led me to sidebars into eternal law, sin, evil, etc etc.
I have to confess that it was hard going to put together a coherent understanding of what I was trying to understand; that there were definitions lacking which were required in order to understand various [verses?]; and that generally I have ended up with a scramble of ideas and concepts that I now have to fit together as well as Jeremy. It is clear one cannot do this for every major (never mind minor) issue which confronts a would-be Catholic.
There was a second matter that concerned me more however. And that was that the authors of CCC had immense freedom to take quotations from wherever, in order to support an argument. I agree, Guan, that matters of faith do not always respond to logic. On the other hand, the CCC insists on appealing to logic wherever required, by taking the obvious route of quoting authorities.
There are problems with this, two very obvious. The first is that (and I am aware of the matter of the Magisterium and divine guidance) one can find a quotation from anywhere to fill any need. I can prove you are green today, and tomorrow I can prove you are yellow if I find the appropriate quotations. That is how much information is available to us today.
The second is that, although the Magisterium is granted divine guidance and inspiration, its sources are not necessarily. References and quotations for one brief passage in CCC included the Bible, John Cardinal Newman, and St Augustine inter alia. I respect the latter two sources of course, but must ask whether their observations, opinions, concepts, and arguments are endowed with the same divine inspiration as the Magisterium because it chooses to quote them?
Finally, one might suggest that there is merit in the arguments (1) that individual faith and insight cannot be set aside entirely in reading scripture, and (2) that the Catholic Church does not have a lock on either interpretation or ownership of the scriptures. They are of Christ for all Christians, and those who would believe. They are also holy scripture for Muslims and Jews.
These points are made clearly in *The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, *Series Pastoral Action No 56, prepared by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, introduction by Pope John Paul II (Rome 1993, Imprimere). (I am appealing to logic here, not faith.)
Blessings
D
down_under
Guest
yea all 30,000 + of them who endlessly argue and bicker about what the book means with no athority between them to say who is right and who is wrong and so the argument just continues. all of them have there scripture versus to back there arguments up of course. but if that is enough then how come they all (quite well meaning honestly seeking god) come up with different conclusions that they all say the bible teaches. scripture is not enough.
C
Carol_Coombe
Guest
I agree with you completely on the issue of absurdity most foul.
However, there is the problem of the rest of your comments. I will deal with only one because it is one that comes up again and again.
The word catholic (catholic with a small c) means universal, not only in this one’s mind, but all over the place, in many people’s minds, inside and outside the Catholic Church.
The word Catholic (Catholic with a big C) means the Catholic Church (formerly the Roman Catholic Church), and this is understood by most people.
It is like Big C communism (the Communist parties of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the Peole’s Republic of China, as were); and small c communism, which is an economic and political philosophy.
When we say the Nicene Creed, we talk about the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is small c catholic, and it means universal.
And yes, the universal and catholic church of Christ includes many denominations, including the Catholic Church.
I have argued elsewhere that there is strength in diversity with regard to denominations within a universal church of Christ, as long as there is a commonly-held deposit of faith. Is that the CC’s mission?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Precisely what Jesus gave to her…infallible teaching authority.
Oh, and the means for implementing the sacraments which He instituted.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Why don’t you provide the quotation in context instead of cherry picking the way your source did.
Pick it up here.
939 Helped by the priests, their co-workers, and by the deacons, the bishops have the duty of authentically teaching the faith, celebrating divine worship, above all the Eucharist, and guiding their Churches as true pastors. Their responsibility also includes concern for all the Churches, with and under the Pope.This is your final citation of CCC, to which I will respond. And indeed they do. And in my experience, very very well.
So… you have not actually read these citations of yours, or you would not have offered them. I suggest that you read and study them (and don’t neglect the footnotes, some of which your lazy source gave you as evidence.) you might actually begin to get a glimmer of understanding of what we Catholics actually believe.
D
down_under
Guest
I am sorry but you are entirely misenformed about this point and need to go back to the history books here. Because there was a tremendous amount of debate right up till the 315-340 when the debate started to die down. and that is just the new testemant the old testament debate went on for another 600 years or so. Rough guess you will have to look it up for exact dates. we do know that the actuall 4 gospels were debated quickly and then agreeded upon almost universally by 150 or so. but that still leaves a 60 year gap between from the death of the last apostile. besides there is historical letters that prove that people went to rome to settle matters not to the last living apostle. that is easy to verify. the 1st letter of clement was very early and a perfect example of what I am talking about. but I digress. the bible was debated heatedly for 300 years give or take. there was not quick consensus.
K
kleary
Guest
:banghead:
No one wants to answer the one truth that disproves Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura states, “All revealed truth is contained in Scripture Alone”.
The list of what books are in the New Testament is Infallible Divine Revelation that is not found in Scripture.
Therefore Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, a tradition of men, and must be, must be rejected.
Go ahead and argue all about the bad popes, the crusades, “three popes at once” and all you can… not one thing proves Sola Scriptura true.
You can argue the list of books was known to Christianity from the beginning, or that “Born Again Christians” recognized the books that were Scripture from the beginning, but that fact alone proves Sola Scriptura false- for even the knowledge of what books are to be Scripture is Divine Revelation- and that divine revelation was never, ever written down in Scripture. Since it does not exist in Scripture how on earth can it be argued that the totality of Divine Revelation exists in Scripture alone?
Ken
No one wants to answer the one truth that disproves Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura states, “All revealed truth is contained in Scripture Alone”.
The list of what books are in the New Testament is Infallible Divine Revelation that is not found in Scripture.
Therefore Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, a tradition of men, and must be, must be rejected.
Go ahead and argue all about the bad popes, the crusades, “three popes at once” and all you can… not one thing proves Sola Scriptura true.
You can argue the list of books was known to Christianity from the beginning, or that “Born Again Christians” recognized the books that were Scripture from the beginning, but that fact alone proves Sola Scriptura false- for even the knowledge of what books are to be Scripture is Divine Revelation- and that divine revelation was never, ever written down in Scripture. Since it does not exist in Scripture how on earth can it be argued that the totality of Divine Revelation exists in Scripture alone?
Ken
M
MountainBoy11
Guest
protestant doctrine actually consists of, right?]
Okay…we’re missing each other. I have defined, qualified, stated, and explained this as clearly as possible. If you disagree with what I’m saying, that’s fine…but please at least grant that I’ve said something
Would you mind taking a crack at my question about whether it is possible for the unconverted -those without the Holy Spirit- to accurately interpret Scripture?
Tx
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I understand what you mean, but what we have here is me asking if your definition of SS is universal to all n-Cs. It doesn’t appear to be.Okay…we’re missing each other. I have defined, qualified, stated, and explained this as clearly as possible. If you disagree with what I’m saying, that’s fine…but please at least grant that I’ve said something
I will happily acknowledge that I understand what you have stated as your (or at least that of a group of like-minded non-Catholics that includes you) definition of Sola Scriptura. Will that move us forward?
Since this is a discussion of Christian doctrine, wouldn’t that be outside the scope of relevance?
IOW, since we are discussing something that some Christians believe, would that not be irrelevant because it is a given belief that Christians have the Holy Spirit, making the question moot? I’m simply being honest and logical here.
What I am hoping to see sooner or later is your full proofs that SS is found in the New Testament. Hopefully you have the time to engage that.
N
Nazianzen
Guest
This is why he prayed that we would be one. Because he knew that division would arise.Carol_Coombe said:
Actually, they have been pretty well ironed out (despite the dissenters who were in the small minority until 500 years ago) for roughly 1900 years.Carol_Coombe said:
While I agree that the violence promulgated by Islam (or in the name of any other religion) is terribly unfortunate, I have to say that the truth is always worth fighting for (thought not necessarily by violence). Christ came to reveal the truth about God, not a bunch of sentiments that might or might not be held by his followers. There is strength is truth. Otherwise, why did Christ come? I fear that your word “diversity” really equates to “division.” After all, if we can disagree about justification, why can’t we disagree about the triune nature of God? Or even the existence of God?Carol_Coombe said:
I think work in the community is certainly a good thing, but it is merely social work if the worker is not concerned with the truth of God. If we love others out of mere sentiment, and not because God is Love (because he is a Family in Himself) and loved us first (because He made us in His image), while the work may be good, it is not the SAME work as Christian work of agape.Carol_Coombe said:
What you are suggesting might be an admirable sentiment from a human perspective, but it is not Christianity. I do not say that in rancor. I’m only interested in hard definition here.
C.S Lewis was interested in this idea of making sure we know what we are talking about. He used this method in his essay on female priests (which is well worth reading; you can find it here.)
J
jemfinch
Guest
I’ve not yet finished reading it, but JPII’s encyclical Fides et Ratio seems appropriate to quote here. At the very beginning, the Holy Father said:
Oftentimes (most or all of the time, I would say) faith is preceded by logic and reason in the order of salvation. That’s why Peter told us to have a ready answer for the hope we have, and that’s why Paul reasoned with the Thessalonicans from Scripture.
It is faith that leads both Catholics and Protestants to the belief that God has spoken through the Scriptures but it is reason and logic by which they derive true doctrine from those Scriptures. It’s that latter portion which my post was concerned with. For Sola Scriptura-believing Protestants to undermine Catholicism, they must prove either:
- There is only one interpretation of Scripture that does not contradict itself (i.e., that is internally logically consistent), and that interpretation is not the Catholic interpretation, or
- The Catholic interpretation of Scripture contradicts itself (i.e., it’s internally logically inconsistent).
We also believe we are right because we don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura, so we have additional evidence to examine: Sacred Tradition. Even if Protestant interpretations of Scripture are internally logically consistent, they are inconsistent with the whole of apostolic Tradition, and so we reject them.
Jeremy
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
Dear Readers,
Evidently from my previous thread, “What Can We Say About The Virigin” has become a never ending saga between the so called “Apologists” verses the “Misinformed” Protestants of Scripture. As James White pointed out, we need to “cut through the fog”. So let’s begin with a simple one on one understand of what Sola Scriptura Means and what it doesn’t. For most Catholics, they tend to believe the water-downed version of it, believing that most Protestants have no conceptual notion of it.
If I were to be as stupid to follow what they claim to be as true, then I would be on the doorsteps of a local parish. Sadly, most Catholics are unwilling to comprehend the straw man arguements they use against. So, what’s there left for me to say? Well here’s what SS doesn’t mean.
**Rule #1: Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible contains all knowledge: It’s not a scientific textbook, phone book, cook book, car manual etc.
Rule #2: Even though there is a lot of information for the reader to comprehend about the past, present, and future, the Bible will not tell you all religious knowledge. It’s not going to tell you about Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism etc. Yes, it’s true, there are a lot of things that Jesus did but I will discuss that later on.
Rule #3 & 4 The authority of the church is not to be denied or that to say that the word of God hasn’t been spoken. **
Hopefully, nearly half of what the Roman Church charges will eventually fall flat on it’s nose because these were the definitions of SS from the beginng. Luther wasn’t trying to invent a church but he was trying to reform it using this priniciple. If what is said from above is true, then here’s what SS means:
**-Scriptures are regula fidei or the infallible rule of faith something James Whites puts bluntly. You can’t say it’s not sufficient because we look to scriptures to find out how to get saved.
-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.
-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it. **
What’s written here is the general definition of Sola Scriptura sufficient enough to begin another subject. I hope you read this well and I will counter my arguments from here. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
Parker
Evidently from my previous thread, “What Can We Say About The Virigin” has become a never ending saga between the so called “Apologists” verses the “Misinformed” Protestants of Scripture. As James White pointed out, we need to “cut through the fog”. So let’s begin with a simple one on one understand of what Sola Scriptura Means and what it doesn’t. For most Catholics, they tend to believe the water-downed version of it, believing that most Protestants have no conceptual notion of it.
If I were to be as stupid to follow what they claim to be as true, then I would be on the doorsteps of a local parish. Sadly, most Catholics are unwilling to comprehend the straw man arguements they use against. So, what’s there left for me to say? Well here’s what SS doesn’t mean.
**Rule #1: Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible contains all knowledge: It’s not a scientific textbook, phone book, cook book, car manual etc.
Rule #2: Even though there is a lot of information for the reader to comprehend about the past, present, and future, the Bible will not tell you all religious knowledge. It’s not going to tell you about Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism etc. Yes, it’s true, there are a lot of things that Jesus did but I will discuss that later on.
Rule #3 & 4 The authority of the church is not to be denied or that to say that the word of God hasn’t been spoken. **
Hopefully, nearly half of what the Roman Church charges will eventually fall flat on it’s nose because these were the definitions of SS from the beginng. Luther wasn’t trying to invent a church but he was trying to reform it using this priniciple. If what is said from above is true, then here’s what SS means:
**-Scriptures are regula fidei or the infallible rule of faith something James Whites puts bluntly. You can’t say it’s not sufficient because we look to scriptures to find out how to get saved.
-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.
-Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it. **
What’s written here is the general definition of Sola Scriptura sufficient enough to begin another subject. I hope you read this well and I will counter my arguments from here. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
Parker
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Identical topic merged to this thread on Sola Scriptura already in progress.
MF
MF
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
Aren’t those heretics? I thought the Nicean council was held to refute the heretics? Why would you be looking for proof from heretics?
**I meant Ante-Nicean. Sorry.**
Mary was the very first Christian. She believed in Him since before He was conceived.
Bologna.
Mary is the woman who crushes the serpant, made so by God. Her seed destroys satan.
Key word, “her seed” nothing else. Mary doesn’t crush anything.
What are you saying?! The Holy Spirit raped Mary?
No.
You don’t think “let it be done to me” relates to choosing?
**Nope. Nada. Doesn’t sound like that to me. **
I guess God can assume whomever he wants! Now, or later! Don’t you ever wonder what happened to the other people who were raised from their tombs when Jesus was?
**No because it’s not important. End of story. Stick to this thread.
Parker **
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Please confine your posts to the topic of SS. Off topic posts have been been pruned.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
OK, so what is the topic again?!? I kid, I kid!
Anyway, I’m going to try it one more time, because, believe it or not, there is a point I’m trying to make.
o4g,
How does SS relate to embryonic stem cell research, or the killing of embryos for the purpose of finding cures?
How does SS deal with contraception?
I kid, I kid!Anyway, I’m going to try it one more time, because, believe it or not, there is a point I’m trying to make.
o4g,
How does SS relate to embryonic stem cell research, or the killing of embryos for the purpose of finding cures?
How does SS deal with contraception?
H
HailMary
Guest
Here you go:
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
Christian Soul! Consider the above link the first effort to challenge your faith and see antoher point of view.
Mary free will was very important when the Holy Spirit courted her. Otherwise, why would your free will be important about containing your salvation? Going down that road, you might closer to Calvinism then you want to be.
- Status