Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[FathersKnowBest]

We’re talking about the text, however. Not revelation in and of itself. You’re correct that the church existed prior to the revelation being written. But we’re talking about the writing.

Exactly! That’s the Catholic point. The revelation is not fully contained within scripture, but also in the Apostolic paradosis. Scripture itself witnesses to that fact.

Glad to see you’re coming around!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If you can point to someone without sin, please do.

Easy enough.

My co-worker’s wife just had a baby yesterday. She’s without sin.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

God knows everyone. And God says that all have sinned.

Your personal, fallible interpretation of scripture has led you to something untrue.

If the Blessed Virgin were without sin, then we know that because of revelation. Which would mean that God has informed us that she is sinless.

I’m always amazed that Lutherans can blatently contradict the beliefs of their founder.

All have sinned. All means all.

And if I said it was raining cats & dogs, would you think that animals were dropping from the sky?

Do you also bellieve that the entire Jewish population was baptized by John?

Mr 1:5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

All means all, right?
OR, as is more likely, your interpretation is faulty. Another “fruit” of sola-scriptura (see, this is on topic!)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The reason it is not stated is because that conclusion stands outside of reason, and more importantly, Christ’s promise.

Please, rather than just asserting this, try to support your mistaken belief.

Amen. And the EO, and Lutheranism, and others, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

True, but Catholic Church is the one that Christ started, and to whom He promised to guide. So the others may be interesting, but it is the Catholic Church’s existance that is divinely protected.

I know you have to say that, and should as a Catholic. You know I as a Lutheran will respectfully disagree, for even though we may not phrase 4 of them as “sacrament”, we still have them, and the grace they bring.

Would that it were so, but alas, it is not. Not having valid orders, you don’t have the real presence.

Exactly the problem the Church has faced for a thousand years.

How so?

Citation.

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

But many of the Bishops are missing. Without the other patriarchs, authority is dispersed.

Sorry, this does not logically follow.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, but they do have the fulness of the sacraments, although not the fullness of the truth.

However, the differences between our faiths are very few and they are in error about very little.

Tell them that and you’re likely to be viewed as having fighting words.

But I find this argument extremely disingenuous. Protestants will always use the existance of the Orthodox as a way to justify any splinter group. IF you were to be Orthodox, then we’d have something to discuss. As it is, you are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and thus your church is not of divine origin, but rather man-made.

Triumphalism aside, we bring it up as any of the arguments you could use to justify the view of your communion can be used to justify the EO position. It doesn’t have to do with it being a splinter group.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Exactly! That’s the Catholic point. The revelation is not fully contained within scripture, but also in the Apostolic paradosis. Scripture itself witnesses to that fact.

Glad to see you’re coming around!

Prove that the paradosis,* in content*, is different than what is inscripturated. No one is denying the paradosis. What we’re denying is that there is something in one that is not in the other.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Easy enough.

My co-worker’s wife just had a baby yesterday. She’s without sin.

So I’m assuming that you deny the creedal statement on baptism then? She’s without actual sin. Still a sinner.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And if I said it was raining cats & dogs, would you think that animals were dropping from the sky?

Can you demonstrate (infallibly no doubt), that St. Paul’s statement was an idiom?

 

[eddie_too]

i think the protestant position that there is no way for the faithful christian to have confidence that what they are being taught comes from Jesus is self-evidently erroneous.

we have absolute evidence that the protestant position has created extreme division and uncertaintly among christians.

i cannot believe that Jesus wanted over 30,000 different sects claiming to speak for Him.

i guess that is why i am not a protestant. i believe Jesus created a Church to ensure that there would be One source of His authority in the world.

 

[eddie_too]

we know that the Jesus’ Church can exist without the Bible.

we also know that the Bible cannot exist without the Church.

 

[eddie_too]

what kind of person would Jesus be if He left those who trusted in Him uncertain as to what He taught the apostles during the three years of His public ministry?

we have ample evidence that resorting to the Bible for resolution of differences within the christian community has been completely unsuccessful. ergo, over 30,000 different protestant sects.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Prove that the paradosis,* in content*, is different than what is inscripturated.

I think you’re attempting to reverse the burden of proof, my friend.

But scripture itself is witness to this idea:

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Also, Jesus did and taught many things that weren’t written down, such as His teachings on the Road to Emmaus.

And, of course, the 40 days that Jesus spent with the Apostles after His resurrection. We nowhere see the things that He taught specifically in scripture.

Ac 1:3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

No one is denying the paradosis. What we’re denying is that there is something in one that is not in the other.

And, other than your own man-made tradition, where do you get this belief?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Can you demonstrate (infallibly no doubt), that St. Paul’s statement was an idiom?

We just showed you many times that it wasn’t absolute.
I also showed you similar idioms regarding John’s baptizing.

Further, this was an OT reference which clearly shows it to not be absolute.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I think you’re attempting to reverse the burden of proof, my friend.

Yep, because you have the burden of proving the positive statement “tradition contains dogma not contained in Scripture.”

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Also, Jesus did and taught many things that weren’t written down, such as His teachings on the Road to Emmaus.

And, of course, the 40 days that Jesus spent with the Apostles after His resurrection. We nowhere see the things that He taught specifically in scripture.

So what are the words and actions of Jesus that exists in tradition that does not exist in Scripture, and where does the Catholic church claim to have them?

 

[Per_Crucem]

We just showed you many times that it wasn’t absolute.
I also showed you similar idioms regarding John’s baptizing.

Further, this was an OT reference which clearly shows it to not be absolute.

What in the context of Paul’s statement indicates he is making an idiomatic comment?

 

[eddie_too]

whatever the RCC teaches “de fide” that is not contained in sacred scripture is an example of Christ’s teachings being made present to His Church.

for the most part, the Church has found support for all of its “de fide” teachings in sacred scripture.

it does seem that to some extent, the two predominant sides of the preceding discussion are talking past each other.

what the protestants reject is not so much that the RCC teaches things not found in sacred scripture, but that the true meaning of sacred scripture can only be discerned through the magisterium that Jesus created for that very purpose.

for example, many protestants, if not most, reject the RC doctrine of purgatory. i think, and i welcome correction on this point, the protestants’ rejection of this doctrine is based upon its lack of scriptural support.

the RC response is that Jesus Himself taught us that there would our sins in this world could be forgiven in the world to come. He does this when He speaks about all sins, except the sin against the Holy Spirit, being forgivable, but that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgivable either in this world or the world to come.

also, we know that there exists a jewish tradition of praying for the dead. this is supported in sacred scripture also.

if i am mistaken about why protestants reject the doctrine of purgatory, please correct me.

however, the doctrine does have support in sacred scripture if sacred scripture is correctly interpreted.

sacred scripture without the correct interpretation can more easily lead souls to hell than it can to heaven.

that is one of the reason i reject both sola scriptura and prima scriptura. without the correct interpretation, scripture is, at best, a weak aid in being christian.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

What in the context of Paul’s statement indicates he is making an idiomatic comment?

I really wish you’d sometimes address my comments rather than just birdwalking away to change the subject.

Why doesn’t “all” mean “all” in idioms regarding John’s baptizing?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yep, because you have the burden of proving the positive statement “tradition contains dogma not contained in Scripture.”

Re-phrasing the question doesn’t change the burden of proof. The title of this thread indicates the subject being discussed. Since we’re talking about Sola Scriptura, then scripture should indicate that all the paradosis has been inscripturated, or else sola scriptura refutes itself.

So what are the words and actions of Jesus that exists in tradition that does not exist in Scripture, and where does the Catholic church claim to have them?

Thanks, eddie too, for your correct answer.

Further, besides “de fide” statements, what the Church calls “Apostolic Tradition” reflects the teachings of Christ. We can believe the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Fathers.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I really wish you’d sometimes address my comments rather than just birdwalking away to change the subject.

Why doesn’t “all” mean “all” in idioms regarding John’s baptizing?

The writer is trying to emphasize the large crowds that are going out to hear John’s preaching and to be baptized by him. In the case of Paul’s statements in Romans, prior to his “all,” he has already made the case that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that no man may be justified through the law, because the law reveals sin, and that the world is shut up before God and must acknowledge their sin. Now what, in the case of Paul, indicates he is really saying “only some have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”?

 

[marywarfield]

The writer is trying to emphasize the large crowds that are going out to hear John’s preaching and to be baptized by him. In the case of Paul’s statements in Romans, prior to his “all,” he has already made the case that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that no man may be justified through the law, because the law reveals sin, and that the world is shut up before God and must acknowledge their sin. Now what, in the case of Paul, indicates he is really saying “only some have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”?

The word “have” and tenses in the word sin. If he had said “all have sin”
I could make a case for your literal claim of the use
of “all”.
But because he said “All have sinned” this indicates
that all have actually already actualized a sin, committed
such rather than inherited, and even you have agreed
there are too many instances in which that just
does not appear to be true such as the Downs baby.

The only way for the phrase to even begin to be
sensible for most people would be to
change “all” to more of the Greek pas of “most” or just about everyone.

Or to drop the past tense on sinned.

If it said Most have sinned. Yes that’s entirely likely in the
literal sense.
Or if it said “all have sin” then yes literal makes sense.

But literally “all have sinned”? No not in the literal
sense.