Why sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjohnson said:
If that ever does happen, just remind yourself that Orthodox and Lutherans do somewhat ok without it and march back into your Catholic church even if.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity…how is it Lutherans are doing ok…when you have some Lutherans who have started ordaining women?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Naturally, I’m eager to see what you want to present.
Click to expand...
Pressed for time now but i am kinda thinking you have heard it all before
Not if you consider the scriptures as a whole, no.
Click to expand...
Sadly I believe you mean it that there is no surety of His salvation in “scripture as a whole”.
 
Contarini said:
I believe that, in fact, the bishops of Rome are infallible under the very narrow limits set forth in Catholic doctrine. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the overly confident and simplistic ways you and others speak of this difficult doctrine, and the epistemological comfort that many Catholics falsely draw from it.

Edwin
Click to expand...
This is why there is not a list.
 
pocohombre said:
That is why he gave us the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
What is your interpretation of truth?

There is not one Church I have been to that doesn’t claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Even when they have many different interpretations of what the Holy Spirit is “telling” them.

Which is correct? Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?
 
**Contarini

If you have complete, demonstrative certainty that the NT is inspired by God, you have something that St. Thomas believed impossible (and so, as far as I know, did every other great Doctor of the Church, though I may be wrong on that point). **

Here again we are at odds. You seem to know more about Thomas Aquinas than I do. Please cite the passage where St. Thomas says it is impossible to have “complete, demonstrative certainty” (whatever that means).

If you are talking about St. Thomas the Apostle, I get you. But we know how Jesus handled him, don’t we, AFTER he offered him the “complete, demonstrative certainty”?

Blessed rather are those who have not seen, and believe.
 
JonNC said:
By similar comparative, some of the Old Catholics have started ordaining women.

Jon
Click to expand...
But the difference is…we can tell the real one from those who had left the fold of Catholicism.–via communion with the bishop of Rome.

I do not think you can say the same for Lutherans who had gone their own way…🤷
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
What is your interpretation of truth?
There is not one Church I have been to that doesn’t claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Even when they have many different interpretations of what the Holy Spirit is “telling” them.
Which is correct? Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?
Click to expand...
The ministry of the Holy Spirit still stands, and can not be abrogated because of our “flaws”. It only shows the necessity of Him even more. Cain and Abel were both ministered to by our Lord and His Word and by their parents. It resulted quite differently for each brother. They did not receive contradictory signals. Did God then have to institute something different ? Did the Promise change or His administration of it after the murder ? The Holy Spirit is God’s answer to unification and hope for truth held universally, not making a church infallible. He didn’t make Adam infallible. He didn’t make circumcision infallible, nor the Jewish nation infallible, not the twelve apostles infallible, nor any local congregation, regional or worldwide infallible. For sure the Bride will be presented perfectly to the Lord in His time. She is not fully prepared yet, as you and I are not yet.
 
benjohnson said:
Finally…and here’s the important bit… If we Lutherans are in error, we invite correction, and would give you thanks.
Click to expand...
Haven’t we been trying to give you that correction for 500 years? :sad_yes:
 
pocohombre said:
Pressed for time now but i am kinda thinking you have heard it all before
Sadly I believe you mean it that there is no surety of His salvation in “scripture as a whole”.
Click to expand...
“Once saved, always saved” or eternal security?

No. The Bible does not support this. It is possible for someone to lose his or her salvation.
 
pocohombre said:
Pressed for time now but i am kinda thinking you have heard it all before
Sadly I believe you mean it that there is no surety of His salvation in “scripture as a whole”.
Click to expand...
If you are going to go on using the phrase “His” salvation, answer me this question:

In your view, is an unbeliever saved?

If not, then kindly stop pretending that your view of salvation is all about Jesus and not anything we do. If it were just “His salvation,” it would apply to atheists, Hindus, etc., just as much as to Christians. If it only applies to people who hold particular beliefs and/or go through a particular kind of conversion experience, then it’s “our” salvation also and you need to use language that honestly reflects that fact.

Indeed, Scripture as a whole does not support the new-fangled idea that our salvation is assured by a single moment of conversion.

Edwin
 
pablope said:
But the difference is…we can tell the real one from those who had left the fold of Catholicism.–via communion with the bishop of Rome.

I do not think you can say the same for Lutherans who had gone their own way…🤷
Click to expand...
Start with, if they have women clergy, they are not abiding by scripture and the confessions.

Jon
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**Contarini

If you have complete, demonstrative certainty** that the NT is inspired by God, you have something that St. Thomas believed impossible (and so, as far as I know, did every other great Doctor of the Church, though I may be wrong on that point).

Here again we are at odds. You seem to know more about Thomas Aquinas than I do. Please cite the passage where St. Thomas says it is impossible to have “complete, demonstrative certainty” (whatever that means).
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the issue in a number of places–perhaps the clearest is Summa Contra Gentiles, Part 1, chaps. 2-9. See especially this passage from chap. 9 (the “two kinds of divine truth” are truth which can be proven by reason, such as the existence of God, and truth which “surpasses human reason,” such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.) The bolded emphasis is mine:
Now, to make the first kind of divine truth known, we must proceed through demonstrative arguments, by which our adversary may become convinced. However, since such arguments are not available for the second kind of divine truth, our intention should not be to convince our adversary by arguments: it should be to answer his arguments against the truth; for, as we have shown, the natural reason cannot be contrary to the truth of faith.
The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles. For that which is above the human reason we believe only because God has revealed it.
Nevertheless, there are certain likely arguments that should be brought forth in order to make divine truth known. This should be done for the training and consolation of the faithful, and not with any idea of refuting those who are adversaries. For the very inadequacy of the arguments would rather strengthen them in their error, since they would imagine that our acceptance of the truth of faith was based on such weak arguments.
Click to expand...
That last sentence succinctly summarizes the problem I have with your posts and those of a lot of other folks on this forum. You are strengthening Protestants in their error, because they imagine that Catholics accept the truth of the Faith based on very weak arguments.

Question 1 of the Summa Theologiae also deals with this issue, but more briefly–the SCG is more focused on apologetics than the ST.

Aquinas’s discussion of faith in ST II/II sheds further light on the subject. For the relationship of faith to knowledge on the one hand, and opinion on the other, see Question 2, Article 1:
Accordingly, if “to think” be understood broadly according to the first sense, then “to think with assent,” does not express completely what is meant by “to believe”: since, in this way, a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he knows by science [Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration.], or understands. If, on the other hand, “to think” be understood in the second way, then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who “doubts”; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who “suspects”; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who “opines.” But this act “to believe,” cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.
Click to expand...
Articles 3-4 of the same question further clarify the distinction between truths above reason and truths attainable by reason. Question 4, Article 8 addresses the question of certitude directly, admitting that on our side faith is less certain than knowledge.

Edwin
 
**Contarini

That last sentence succinctly summarizes the problem I have with your posts and those of a lot of other folks on this forum. You are strengthening Protestants in their error, because they imagine that Catholics accept the truth of the Faith based on very weak arguments.**

What you are saying here does not make any sense. According to Aquinas, the arguments of Scripture should convince the faithful even when they cannot convince the adversaries of the faithful. Do you regard yourself as an adversary of the faithful? :confused:

“The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles.”

The second quote you cite does not refer to the infallibility of Christ’s Church. It ends with this sentence.

**Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false. **

What has that got to do with infallibility of the teachings of our faith? We believe, we assent, we know the Holy Spirit guides us infallibly in the teachings of the Church or else all is lost. We might as well doubt or disbelieve all the teachings on the ground that we cannot make out of them a demonstrable science.

Moreover, just before Aquinas died he is reputed to have said concerning his own writings:

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

If this is not an affirmation of the infallible teachings of the Church, what is? :confused:

Correct me if I mistake your argument. Do you believe that Lutheran teachings might be false? If you do, then why are you arguing for something that is doubtfully true? If you do not believe they are in error, then you must believe they are infallibly true. How do you know they are infallibly true when you deny that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches God’s truth? Why is the Lutheran truth infallible because it comes from Luther, whereas the Catholic truth is false because it claims to come from the Holy Spirit? :confused:.
 
Contarini

Sorry, I got you mixed up with somebody else who is Lutheran. But the same questions I’ve just asked you would apply to an Episcopalian as well.

And while we’re on the subject, is the titular head of your Church the same as the titular head of the Anglican Church: the reigning King or the Queen of England?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Contarini

Sorry, I got you mixed up with somebody else who is Lutheran. But the same questions I’ve just asked you would apply to an Episcopalian as well.

And while we’re on the subject, is the titular head of your Church the same as the titular head of the Anglican Church: the reigning King or the Queen of England?
Click to expand...
There hasn’t been a Queen of England since Queen Anne, and the 1707 Act of Union. The sovereign is today the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top