BUt from what I understand, Protestants would not say that the bible is a complete teaching on faith and morals. They too, interpet the Bible.I’m not sure if I agree with the fundamentals of your post. The Pope’s infallibility applies to the teachings of faith and morals - and not bible interpretation. (And I don’t think it’s right to assume that we all can understand a Papal interpretation of the bible. For example, this whole original sin thing, and how we are all descendants of Adam and Eve… I gotta tell ya - I don’t get it. Anyway…)
And I don’t think you’ll find a responsible Catholic who says the bible is complete for our teachings on faith and morals. This is where we differ from Protestants.
:twocents:
But the question is, why should the belief that the Catholic Church is the only authority capable of interpeting bible verse, be more valid than the belief that any other denomination’s clergy is capable of interpeting bible verse?One more thing I’d like to add…
The Catholic Church came first, and she authorised which books make up the bible. It would seem strange then that the bible would carry more authority than the authority which authorised it. Unlike the Church, the bible is not a living thing.
Because the doctrines of the Catholic Church are all consistent with Scripture. Whereas, reformed Christian doctrine, such as Scripture alone, contradicts Scripture.But the question is, why should the belief that the Catholic Church is the only authority capable of interpeting bible verse, be more valid than the belief that any other denomination’s clergy is capable of interpeting bible verse?
Because the doctrines of the Catholic Church are all consistent with Scripture. Whereas, reformed Christian doctrine, such as Scripture alone, contradicts Scripture.
Easily dismissing another’s faith suggests that you do not understand it. I once heard that even in the science of physics, two apparently contradictory models can hold equal validity in portraying truth. Light can be modeled as waves or particles. Both are accurate but these two models cannot be combined.
I think we would all agree that the truths of God are extremely complex and that our finite brains are not capable of understanding them totally. Sometimes different doctrines can provide fresh views of the same concept. The positions of predestination and man’s free will is one example. There is Scriptural validity to both positions. Although they appear contrary to mere mortals, they are somehow complementary in God’ plan of redemption- otherwise the Bible would contradict itself, which is impossible.
Why do we always feel the need to adopt “either-or” approaches to theology? I accuse myself in this as well. Sometimes doctrines cannot be validated. Some contain no Biblical substance. But an easy dismissal of the positions of others suggests a lack of research and consideration by the one doing the dismissing.
BUt from what I understand, Protestants would not say that the bible is a complete teaching on faith and morals. They too, interpet the Bible.
I think it comes back to the Papal office. Catholics believe that St Peter had a special role in their church, a role that has been inherited by the Popes.But the question is, why should the belief that the Catholic Church is the only authority capable of interpeting bible verse, be more valid than the belief that any other denomination’s clergy is capable of interpeting bible verse?
You give no proof for your assertion here. Anyone can say this but that doesn’t make it true.Because the doctrines of the Catholic Church are all consistent with Scripture. Whereas, reformed Christian doctrine, such as Scripture alone, contradicts Scripture.
In fact, and with all due respect, any doctrine, Jewish, Christian or otherwise, which contradicts Catholic Teaching also contradicts Scripture (I’m including the Tanach in the word Scripture.)
I know that sounds provocative, but we believe that the Catholic Church knows the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews themselves.
St. John 5:37 And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. 39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. 40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Then you have just denied the fulfillment of the OT prophecies and the establishment of a New Covenant with all the nations.You give no proof for your assertion here. Anyone can say this but that doesn’t make it true.
What i’m referring to is your assertions about the catholic church.Rbt Southwell;3303708]Then you have just denied the fulfillment of the OT prophecies and the establishment of a New Covenant with all the nations.
correctjustasking4it, you are a Christian, right?
Robert
Your understanding, JesseW, contradicts the common one that has been put forth for about 450 years.Sola Scriptura is a very confusing term. As I understand it, it does not state that Scripture is the only source of truth, but it is the primary source.
Jesse,Hmm, I would respond more intelligently from one Protestant to another if I knew what you were talking about! Revisit the writings of Luther and you’ll find that Tradition is still held up, although it is not placed on equal footing with Scripture.
After the ‘here-we-go-again’, let me say it this way for a change:But the question is, why should the belief that the Catholic Church is the only authority capable of interpeting bible verse, be more valid than the belief that any other denomination’s clergy is capable of interpeting bible verse?
Jesse,
Robert,What writings are you referring to? The ones where Luther intended to rearrange Scripture by leaving out certain letters and Revelations?
I was actually referring to where Luther gives validation to the creeds, thus supporting my stand regarding Sola Scriptura and Tradition- although you bring up topics that are worthy of looking into. Let’s just make sure that we keep the concepts of Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura separate. There seems to be a tendency to meld them together in these threads.
Which assertion? That the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures better than the Jews? I’ll discuss that with a Jew if you don’t mind.You give no proof for your assertion here. Anyone can say this but that doesn’t make it true.
Really? Then do you care to prove that Sola Scriptura is in Scripture. I’ll give you the same challenge I give all Protestants.Easily dismissing another’s faith suggests that you do not understand it.
But we aren’t speaking about theoretical science but about absolute truths revealed by God. The fact is that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. I can prove that using Luther’s definition, the definition posted by CARM or any definition that I already know about. The reason I haven’t done it in this message is because Protestants are quick to accuse me of creating a straw man. That is why I leave the defining to them. But guess what, their definitions all contradict Scripture. Its that nasty “alone” word. Scripture never combines “Scripture and alone” in any phrase.I once heard that even in the science of physics, two apparently contradictory models can hold equal validity in portraying truth. Light can be modeled as waves or particles. Both are accurate but these two models cannot be combined.
I think we would all agree that the truths of God are extremely complex and that our finite brains are not capable of understanding them totally.
I have to admit, that is a difficult doctrine, predestination.Sometimes different doctrines can provide fresh views of the same concept. The positions of predestination and man’s free will is one example. There is Scriptural validity to both positions. Although they appear contrary to mere mortals, they are somehow complementary in God’ plan of redemption- otherwise the Bible would contradict itself, which is impossible.
Two contradictory statements can’t both be true at the same time. If someone comes to me telling me that their Sola Scriptura belief is true and my Catholic belief is false, I know precisely how to show them their error. And I can do it without getting upset.Why do we always feel the need to adopt “either-or” approaches to theology?
I’ve been doing this nigh on ten years. I’ve looked at every Protestant doctrine which contradicts Catholic doctrines and in every case, that Protestant doctrine also contradicts Scripture.I accuse myself in this as well. Sometimes doctrines cannot be validated. Some contain no Biblical substance. But an easy dismissal of the positions of others suggests a lack of research and consideration by the one doing the dismissing.