J
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
I hope I came to your rescue soon enough so you didn’t have to hold your breath too long.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Jimmy B, didn’t anyone tell you smoking is bad for your health.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
I suspect most defenders of Sola Scriptura would say the only thing you need for salvation is an abiding faith that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Everything else is just commentary. The atonement and resurrection are sufficiently and plainly revealed in scripture.
J
joe370
Guest
**Dokimas [/quote said:
J
joe370
Guest
Are you one of those defenders? All that other stuff found in the bible is nothing more than extraneous commentary? If you are then I won’t bother you anymore with my questions.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Good point.
The Bible speaks of two types of traditions: ones to follow and ones to avoid.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dok, you said:
Is it the bible that determines which traditions are apostolic and which traditions are not, or is it Jesus’ established church?
So you are not a die-hard sola scriptura advocate after all? You embrace Apostolic tradition and reject man made tradition?
Is it the bible that determines which traditions are apostolic and which traditions are not, or is it Jesus’ established church?
D
Dokimas
Guest
The problem for me is which tradition is directly from God’s people as they were inspired by God and which where man made no matter how good the intention.
IMO, it’s potentialy very dangerous to add to or subtract from the Gospel what’s not or what is intended by God. That’s why sticking to the written Word seems far safer.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
When you say the “written Word”, you still don’t get it. You’re talking about a book, the Bible that was approved by the Catholic Church and Catholic Popes, a thousand years before any Protestant denomination. So… The Bible, by your definition was “man made”. Moreover ,you said, “it’s potentialy (sic) is very dangerous to add to or subtract from the Gospel”. The Gospels are four New Testament books, out of a total of 73 books (Catholic Bible). Do you except all of the books in the Bible and all of the books in the Catholic Bible? If not, then why not? Do you see my point here?
Your thoughts?
S
schaick
Guest
I still don’t think you understand what I am saying.Hey Schaick…
different, but still true, then logically speaking, there can be 2 applications/interpretations, which of course is impossible, if in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist. For the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC is not the church founded by God. Let’s assume what most protestants believe; let’s assume that Jesus left the world with ONLY His authoritative word of God for each and every Christian to authoritatively interpret as they see fit, as opposed to His authoritative church, forever guided by the HS. This will be a very helpful starting point.
It isn’t that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus built it is simply one more denomination of the Church Jesus built. I say that because from the one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church.
There are also extra applications stemming from?? that have been added to the Catholic experience.
There is one interpretation.
Jesus wanted all of us who accept HIM as our Saviour to be baptized.
There can be multiple applications.
Some baptize as adults, children, some dunk some sprinkle.
There have been people reading the Bible for the first time in foreign and hostile to Christianity countries that have been lead to Christ.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. To some, the Eucharist is nothing more than mere bread, a symbol of Jesus’ body, (talk about adding to scripture…) - and if this bread is wrongly worshiped then the person worshiping the bread is rightfully guilty of idolatry, which means every Christian belonging to the CC, EOC (and most Lutheran churches) - for the last 2000 years, is in big trouble, if you are correct.On the other hand if the bread truly becomes Jesus’ body - “my flesh is true food,” then you are wrong my friend, which is why I am asking you a very straightforward question:
I have actually already discussed this on another thread:
Interpretation:
We are to partake in the Eucharist.
Eat both the bread and fruit of the vine in rembrance of Jesus.
HIS Blood is a New Covenant.
Spirit is life flesh is death and His flesh is the bread of life
Different aplications:
Body and Blood present in, under and with the Bread and Fruit of the Vine
Only partake of the Bread[Catholics now take both]
Bread and Wine transformed into Body and Blood of Christ.
Grape juice used in place of the Wine for the Fruit of the Vine.
Some believe the Bread and Wine are Jesus Spiritual Body and Blood- not to be confused with a symbolic flesh and blood.
Some believe it is human flesh and blood and divine flesh and blood.
Some say it is the ressurrected Body and Blood of Christ.
?? applications:
Merely symbolic*
Transported back to the original crucifixion.*
S
schaick
Guest
Actually it is the prophecies fufilled that prove the Holy Bible is from GOD.
We are discovering more information through archealogy that it is historically accurrate.
You really have no idea here what sola scriptura means. It isn’t a bad to follow a tradition, even a man-made one if you realize that your salvation doesn’t depend on you following it.
All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
“Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed”
**
Telling us What?
What does this even mean, when coupled with a doctrine that allows personal interpretation of the Bible?
I guess it all depends on who you talk to… right?
Knowing this, how is it possible that this statement is true?
Some have interpreted the Bible to “say”, don’t celebrate Christmas, homosexual marriages are ok, multiple marriages are ok, artificial birth control is ok… one doesn’t need to go to Church, that’s ok; no baptism required… that’s ok , because “I’ve determined that the Bible says so” and so on… And yet, the Catholic Church and early Christians don’t believe any of these modern interpretations of the Bible.
So, the Bible is "telling us " what? This is the big question and the truth does and will influence our salvation.
Your thoughts?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I get it but I get it differently than you.
Please don’t tell me what you think my definition of the Bible is. You obviously have no clue about where I’m coming from if you think I think the Bible is ‘man made’. For you to say the CC is responsible for the Bible is to say it is man made. Interesting how this works.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello again Dokimas,I get it but I get it differently than you.
Please don’t tell me what you think my definition of the Bible is. You obviously have no clue about where I’m coming from if you think I think the Bible is ‘man made’. For you to say the CC is responsible for the Bible is to say it is man made. Interesting how this works.
The Bible is a collection of writings, which the Catholic Church and Catholic Popes have solemnly recognized and approved as being inspired by God. This all occurred a thousand years before any Protestant denomination and without any Protestant help.
Do you disagree with the above comment?
Your thoughts?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick… You said:
When Jesus said, I will build my church, what He really meant was: I will build my church which will be comprised of many denominations? I absolutely promise you that I mean no sarcasm; just attempting to understand clearly, what you mean, for I once use to share your proclivities regarding the bible alone belief.
Schaick, I agree with you: from one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church, but I am talking about the actual interpretation of a teaching stemming from the early church that is starkly and contrastly different from the interpretation of churches stemming from later churches, founded by man as opposed to God. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the founder of the CC then you are right and the interpretation of the CC cannot be trusted, and of course the same logic would apply to the rest of the non-Catholic churches, as well, which is the very reason why protestants rely solely on the word of God as their pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to any one church, which begs the question, why did Paul call the church the pillar and foundation of truth? I really do get the logic of the premise but the premise is terribly flawed, unless of course you can satisfactorily answer my question, a question to which I had no answer, as a former protestant. With that said, I ask again, if you don’t mind:
If in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, *(or multiple applications, without actually changing, in its entirety, the interpretation of any one teaching) - * - regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist, then please use the bible alone application as the Christians final authority to resolve our debate, once and for ALL, as to whether Jesus was speaking in metaphor or not, regarding the Eucharist?
The credibility of Sola Scriptura is not to be questioned, if in fact you can provide an answer to the preceding question that will be satisfactory to all Christians, regardless of denomination, as well as resolving all of the other differences that exist in Christianity, due to Sola Scriptura, if in fact the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, which of course it truly is! This teaching is critical to Christianity according to the bible.
Again, for the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC, (as well as all PC’s) - is not the church founded by God. Why would His established church, or any church for that matter (authoritatively speaking only) - even matter, if in fact, God left the world with His authoritative word to mold, shape and guide each and every Christian into all truth as opposed to varying degrees of truth or opposing truths? Let’s assume what most non-Catholics believe; let’s assume that Jesus left each and every Christian, regardless of denomination) - with ONLY His authoritative word, and the ability, via the guidance of the HS, in perpetuity, to authoritatively interpret His word. At this point in our discussion, there is no longer any need to mention any churches, regardless of denomination. Let us focus on the bible alone (SS) - as the Christians final means of accessing truth, regarding the Eucharist or any other teaching found in the Christians supposed sole source of divine knowledge and final authority regarding said sole source of divine knowledge!
I think, leaving all churches, (regardless of denomination) - out of the discussion of sola scriptura and the efficacy of SS, is good jumping off point from which to start. :newidea:
You said:I think that I do; tell me if I am wrong, just in case I missed the boat? The bible, as opposed to any one denomination, comprising Jesus’ one church, is the Christians only source of divine knowledge, and the Christians only authority for resolving the differences that have cropped up or might crop up in the future? If I am wrong then please accept my apologies for there are a few different interpretations of sola scriptura.
When Jesus said, I will build my church, what He really meant was: I will build my church which will be comprised of many denominations? I absolutely promise you that I mean no sarcasm; just attempting to understand clearly, what you mean, for I once use to share your proclivities regarding the bible alone belief.
Schaick, I agree with you: from one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church, but I am talking about the actual interpretation of a teaching stemming from the early church that is starkly and contrastly different from the interpretation of churches stemming from later churches, founded by man as opposed to God. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the founder of the CC then you are right and the interpretation of the CC cannot be trusted, and of course the same logic would apply to the rest of the non-Catholic churches, as well, which is the very reason why protestants rely solely on the word of God as their pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to any one church, which begs the question, why did Paul call the church the pillar and foundation of truth? I really do get the logic of the premise but the premise is terribly flawed, unless of course you can satisfactorily answer my question, a question to which I had no answer, as a former protestant. With that said, I ask again, if you don’t mind:
If in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, *(or multiple applications, without actually changing, in its entirety, the interpretation of any one teaching) - * - regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist, then please use the bible alone application as the Christians final authority to resolve our debate, once and for ALL, as to whether Jesus was speaking in metaphor or not, regarding the Eucharist?
The credibility of Sola Scriptura is not to be questioned, if in fact you can provide an answer to the preceding question that will be satisfactory to all Christians, regardless of denomination, as well as resolving all of the other differences that exist in Christianity, due to Sola Scriptura, if in fact the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, which of course it truly is! This teaching is critical to Christianity according to the bible.
Again, for the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC, (as well as all PC’s) - is not the church founded by God. Why would His established church, or any church for that matter (authoritatively speaking only) - even matter, if in fact, God left the world with His authoritative word to mold, shape and guide each and every Christian into all truth as opposed to varying degrees of truth or opposing truths? Let’s assume what most non-Catholics believe; let’s assume that Jesus left each and every Christian, regardless of denomination) - with ONLY His authoritative word, and the ability, via the guidance of the HS, in perpetuity, to authoritatively interpret His word. At this point in our discussion, there is no longer any need to mention any churches, regardless of denomination. Let us focus on the bible alone (SS) - as the Christians final means of accessing truth, regarding the Eucharist or any other teaching found in the Christians supposed sole source of divine knowledge and final authority regarding said sole source of divine knowledge!
I think, leaving all churches, (regardless of denomination) - out of the discussion of sola scriptura and the efficacy of SS, is good jumping off point from which to start. :newidea:
J
joe370
Guest
Dok, you said:
You then said:
Dok, of two types of traditions, what are the traditions, coming directly from God’s people, as they were inspired by God, that one can safely follow, **that are not found in scripture? **
R
Roy5
Guest
When it comes down to it, I sometimes wonder if the choice isn’t between these four alternatives - well, at least for me.
Code:
(1) **Traditional and quite strict Catholicism**, where one has to accept all the doctrines, where the Pope and the hierarchy rule the church and decide all important issues, and where heresy is a dirty word and likely to lead to damnation for all who specifically reject Catholicism.
(2) **Cafeteria Catholicism,** very strong in the USA and Europe, an identification with the church for family, cultural or other reasons but picking and choosing what one will believe, focusing on what one accepts, discarding or ignoring the rest.
(3) **Sola Scriptura Protestantism**, where the Bible trumps everything, ranging from moderate evangelicals to vehement fundamentalists, leading to many divisions and squabbles.
(4) **Mainline Protestantism**, encompassing the older denominations - Episcopal,. Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc. - where considerable latitude in theology and liturgy generally exists and is accepted, whose members range from mild evangelicals to those who hold on to Christianity by a thread.
The older I get the more attractive #4 becomes. I guess that study, meditation, and absolute honesty have led me to believe that human beings are unlikely to understand this mammoth, majestic, marvelous, mysterious and miraculous universe. One result is that my personal faith in God is deep, while I have considerably less faith in the myriad of doctrines that divide us. I'm content to have a simple faith - "walk by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7) - and respect those who agree with me and also those who find it possible to subscribe to a more circumscribed religious affirmation. I wish I could join them but I've concluded that our awesome God is far beyond human comprehension. I join with Wesley in saying "think and let think" and "if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together."
I hope and pray that religion will become a bridge instead of a barrier. Christ would want that.
Someday I suspect that we shall really know the truth and probably all of us will have missed it by a mile. But God is loving and just so I don't fret. "To God be the glory...."
G
guanophore
Guest
Then there is the Sunday observance…
- Status