You can't have it both ways.

[Dokimas]

I’m sorry if you find this difficult. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. However, I am far easier to deal with then many, many, many people out there. I have debated Scripture with atheists… with hard-core haters of the Christian faith. That’s a lot harder to deal with.

So. Do you believe Scripture alone is enough for a Christian who is seeking to live a fully Christian life? Is Scripture alone enough for Salvation?

I’d say no to Salvation because Scripture does not save us.

I’d also say no to the first because if we do not understand what we’re reading how can it help us to grow as Christians? “How can I know if no one teaches me?”

Scripture alone has what it takes to understand salvation and instructs us on how to exercise faith in Jesus for that salvation. It teaches us how to live, what to avoid and how to interact with other, inside and outside the Family of God. It is enough.

The Bible aslo teaches us the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation. Without the Trinity, there is no salvation.

 

[Dokimas]

Hello Dokimas,

“…an organism of living stones”

I don’t know if I’ve never heard this phrase before. What does it mean?

Thanks.

1Peter 2:5 “you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

IMO, Peter ‘defines’ the church here. ‘You’ is all true believers.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Wow.

1. The Holy Trinity concept is NOT clear in Scripture. .

A belief in the Holy Trinity is central to Christianity. I rejection of this most basic and important Christian truth, is a rejection of Christ Himself.

What do you think Jesus was referring to in Matthew 28:18-20… specifically, Matthew 18:19, when He said the following (below)?

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit," (Matthew 18:19)

 

[Jimmy_B]

1Peter 2:5 “you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

IMO, Peter ‘defines’ the church here. ‘You’ is all true believers.

I like that verse, thank you.

 

[nickybr38]

A belief in the Holy Trinity is central to Christianity. I rejection of this most basic and important Christian truth, is a rejection of Christ Himself.

What do you think Jesus was referring to in Matthew 28:18-20… specifically, Matthew 18:19, when He said the following (below)?

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit," (Matthew 18:19)

I believe in the Trinity.

It’s not Scripture that brought me to this belief.

When I read Scripture I don’t understand ANY of it. It’s not that the Holy Spirit is not with me, I have experienced other gifts of the Spirit, it’s just that understanding Scripture is not one of the gifts that I have been given.

I’m sorry I confused everyone with that statement.

 

[Dokimas]

Hello Dokimas,

Your comments are in blue.

I speak for me … The Bible isn’t like any other book. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is the Holy Spirit alone that is able to righty interpret God’s Word.

I agree

The authority belongs to Jesus and those He calls into His service. The authority lies within His church

I agree… His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

which is far bigger than the CC.

There may be truth in this, in that all properly baptized Christians, are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

IMO, as God looks down at us as we partake of communion (eucharist) His sees our hearts

I agree

and sees past whether we think it’s literally the Body and Blood of Jesus or a symbol of remembrance.

I don’t know about that… a denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is a rejection of a Christian truth, is it not?

It’s what you believe, but I don’t believe the Bible teaches that the Wine is literally transformed into the Blood of Jesus nor does the Bread literally transform into the Body of Christ.

.
He knows who are truly His children by adoption, part of the Bride of Christ.

I agree

*Let me ask you a question, please. What if it is proven that Mary had biological children from her own womb after Jesus? *

Do you have any evidence of this?

No more evidence from the first century that Mary was perpetually a virgin. My question was, at this point, a ‘what if’ question.

*Will you totally give up on the CC because it was wrong on one issue? *

I’m sure they are not wrong on this issue. The Perpetual Virginity of the Mary, the blessed mother of God, is a Catholic belief and therefore a Christian truth.

Here’s where I have a little problem: you’re stating that if it’s a catholic belief then it’s a Christian truth. IMO, that’s backwards.

I sure hope not. I hope you’d realize there is NO perfect church, just Christian churches with people whose hearts are after Jesus

Jesus said*-**"*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) and I believe Him.

Peter’s statement is not about perfection, IMO. I still sin, but that doesn’t mean the devil has me in his kingdom if I’m a child of God.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dokimas]

I like that verse, thank you.

You’re welcome and God be with and bless you and yours.

 

[PRmerger]

I can thank you for praying but you said “if I got the parking place to thank you.”

Did you see the little winky icon after my comment?

 

[Jimmy_B]

You’re welcome and God be with and bless you and yours.

May God be with and bless you and yours, as well.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello Dokimas,

Here is my response to your post (#445)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**2033 **The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

**86 **“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

**84 **The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”

**97 **“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

**256 **St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight…

 

[joe370]

I speak for me … The Bible isn’t like anyother book. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is the Holy Spirit alone that is able to righty interpret God’s Word.

Well then, the HS is not doing a very good job for there are many different interpretations given by people.

The authority belongs to Jesus and those He calls into His service. The authority lies within His church which is far bigger than the CC.

To say that authority lies within His church which is far bigger than the CC doesn’t help resolve doctrinal disputes.

IMO, as God looks down at us as we partake of communion (eucharist) His sees our hearts and sees past whether we think it’s literally the Body and Blood of Jesus or a symbol of remembrance. He knows who are truly His children by adoption, part of the Bride of Christ.

OK…

Let me ask you a question, please. What if it is proven that Mary had biological children from her own womb after Jesus? Will you totally give up on the CC because it was wrong on one issue? I sure hope not. I hope you’d realize there is NO perfect church, just Christian churches with people whose hearts are after Jesus.

I will answer your question even though you did not answer mine. No! But, if the CC got it wrong about that teaching then they certainly could have gotten it wrong about the bible as well. Would you totally give up on the sola scriptura if it included books in it, that were not inspired or lacked certain inspired books?

I ask again:

Since the bible is a collection of books, like any other book, it needs an authoritative interpreter, and ultimately, interpreting scripture comes down to a question of authority and who has it, which means that anyone and everyone who does so is putting him/herself in a position of authority.

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly? For example, again, someone is 100% wrong about their interpretation of the Eucharist and someone is 100% right about their interpretation of the Eucharist, and the bible is of no help at all in settling this dispute, so help me find that person or people, in a position of authority, who can settle this dispute once and for all? **To say that authority lies within His church, does not answer the question unless you identify Jesus’ church. For example, are you talking about the Baptist church which denies the real presence or the Lutheran church which embraces the real presence. Speaking in generalities gets us nowhere I 'm afraid, except more confused about who was entrusted with the authority to interpret scripture. Let’s see if we can resolve this issue!
**

 

[Jimmy_B]

I will answer your question even though you did not answer mine. No! But, if the CC got it wrong about that teaching then they certainly could have gotten it wrong about the bible as well. Would you totally give up on the sola scriptura if it included books in it, that were not inspired or lacked certain inspired books?

I ask again:

Since the bible is a collection of books, like any other book, it needs an authoritative interpreter, and ultimately, interpreting scripture comes down to a question of authority and who has it, which means that anyone and everyone who does so is putting him/herself in a position of authority.

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly? For example, again, someone is 100% wrong about their interpretation of the Eucharist and someone is 100% right about their interpretation of the Eucharist, and the bible is of no help at all in settling this dispute, so help me find that person or people, in a position of authority, who can settle this dispute once and for all? To say that authority lies within His church, does not answer the question unless you identify Jesus’ church. For example, are you talking about the Baptist church which denies the real presence or the Lutheran church which embraces the real presence. Speaking in generalities gets us nowhere I 'm afraid, except more confused about who was entrusted with the authority to interpret scripture. Let’s see if we can resolve this issue!

*Another excellent Post! And, you used one of my favorite arguments/expressions here (below). I have been saying this for years here and I am still waiting for a response. *
“if the CC got it wrong about that teaching then they certainly could have gotten it wrong about the bible as well”
God Bless!**

 

[Dokimas]

May God be with and bless you and yours, as well.

Thanks again, Jimmy.

 

[Dokimas]

I will answer your question even though you did not answer mine. No! But, if the CC got it wrong about that teaching then they certainly could have gotten it wrong about the bible as well. Would you totally give up on the sola scriptura if it included books in it, that were not inspired or lacked certain inspired books?

I ask again:

Since the bible is a collection of books, like any other book, it needs an authoritative interpreter, and ultimately, interpreting scripture comes down to a question of authority and who has it, which means that anyone and everyone who does so is putting him/herself in a position of authority.

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly? For example, again, someone is 100% wrong about their interpretation of the Eucharist and someone is 100% right about their interpretation of the Eucharist, and the bible is of no help at all in settling this dispute, so help me find that person or people, in a position of authority, who can settle this dispute once and for all? **To say that authority lies within His church, does not answer the question unless you identify Jesus’ church. For example, are you talking about the Baptist church which denies the real presence or the Lutheran church which embraces the real presence. Speaking in generalities gets us nowhere I 'm afraid, except more confused about who was entrusted with the authority to interpret scripture. Let’s see if we can resolve this issue!
**

I believe I did answer your statements.

I said the Bible is NOT like any other book. I said it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and only He is able to rightly interpret it. All true believers have the authority and ability within them which is hampered by self, sin, levels of learning and understanding ability.

 

[joe370]

I believe I did answer your statements.

I said the Bible is NOT like any other book. I said it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and only He is able to rightly interpret it. All true believers have the authority and ability within them which is hampered by self, sin, levels of learning and understanding ability.

Dok, you feel that your response sufficiently answers this question:

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly?

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, you feel that your response sufficiently answers this question:

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly?

Sorry I missed that question. It’s an easy one too.

No one. No one is infallible except God.

 

[PRmerger]

A Catholic would know this better then me but it is some of the things about the Catholic heirachy, Pope and Mary that are Tradition and not Scripture based.

As is your belief that the book of Titus is inspired. That’s not found in there. And even if it did say, “This letter to Titus is inspired by God” how would you know that it actually is? You only know that it was inspired because of Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know about every denomination but in mine the seminary students learn greek, hebrew and aramaic. They then translated the Bible from those languages into english. They also learn how to appropriately apply this knowledge to everyday life and the worship services and how to pass this on to the congregation.

One couldn’t just read the Bible? Isn’t it your claim that it’s all sufficient? It seems that your seminary students need something besides the Bible.

The need for a “list” of Books was seen up after the death of the eyewitnesses and their students to guard against false teachings.

Yes. For 400 years the Catholic Church, with its bishops and leader, was there to proclaim the teachings of the Apostles and guard against false teachings. There was no other way to guard against false teachings in the early years of Christianity–the Bible was *not *sufficent, eh?

The church simply recognized which books were already known as Scripture. The truth made it’s own way by widespread usage of the early Church Fathers.

Ok. But you needed this Church to tell you what was “recognized”. Were these early Christians infallible? Or do you think the writings that were “recognized” could have been false?

 

[Dokimas]

As is your belief that the book of Titus is inspired. That’s not found in there. And even if it did say, “This letter to Titus is inspired by God” how would you know that it actually is? You only know that it was inspired because of Tradition.

Is Titus inspired by God?

If not, how do you know?

If so, how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

Is Titus inspired?

If not, how do you know?

If so, how do you know?

I know because of Sacred Tradition.

And you know it too because of Sacred Tradition.

Which is why it’s so puzzling that non-Catholics disparage ST.