You can't have it both ways.

[PRmerger]

As I said before; there were no Protestants but there were Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Confucius, Hindus and pagans who worshipped many gods (Africans, Egyptians) I’m sure I haven’t included everyone. **These were all excluded from salvation. **

Absolutely not! They could not be saved, except through the Catholic Church.

The Vatican II Catechism offers hope of salvation to all the above and Protestants.

Indeed. The Church, because of the Reformation, needed to refine and define its doctrine, EENS. Now that there were Christians who had separated themselves from the visible body of the CC, there needed to be a refining of the teaching.

 

[schaick]

The Scripture cannot be properly described as "infallible’ because this term applies to actions. Books do not act of themselves. The scriptures are considered inspired, and inerrant, but the gift of infallibility belongs to the Church. Actions only include the possibliity of error (fallibility). Actions involve movements of the intellect and will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. Scripture does not have these traits - only person’s do.

This is why it is inappropriate to try to force the Scriptures into the position of “authority”. The exercise of authority is something that requires persons. Books cannot act, since they don’t have intellect, will, and ability to take responsibility for the consequence of one’s actions.

I have heard my separated brethren say all kinds of things about SS, including that Scripture is a “fallible collection of infallible books”. Som of our Reformed brethren do not want to have the discussion at all, so they just stipulate that an infallible canon exists.
They refuse to have any discusssion about where it came from. They try to start with “well be both agree on the canon…”

in·fal·li·ble   
–adjective

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
   –noun
5. an infallible person or thing.

 

[PRmerger]

in·fal·li·ble   
–adjective

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
   –noun
5. an infallible person or thing.

Exactly.

And, if you’re following your pastor, who’s fallible–meaning not exempt from liability to error–then you ought to be very, very careful about taking his words to heart.

 

[schaick]

This is a Blog post showing why Sola Scriptura ultimately fails.

Those people are fooling themselves, justice love according to scripture? I don’t think so!!!

Matthew 19
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Genesis 2
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

1 Timothy 3
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,**

 

[schaick]

Exactly.

And, if you’re following your pastor, who’s fallible–meaning not exempt from liability to error–then you ought to be very, very careful about taking his words to heart.

Someone said that Scripture could not be infallible this definition says differently.

Yes like every human even the Pope and magistrum.

 

[schaick]

And why would they have taught it? There were no Protestants, yes?

LOL! There were “heretics” though way before the reformation.

 

[ron77nyc]

As I said before; there were no Protestants but there were Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Confucius, Hindus and pagans who worshipped many gods (Africans, Egyptians) I’m sure I haven’t included everyone. These were all excluded from salvation.

Absolutely not! They could not be saved, except through the Catholic Church.

This is where we get into that “Who’s On First” Abbott and Costello routine. The Council of Florence and other infallible statements made it clear that one had to be living within the Church to obtain eternal life or in submission to the Roman Pontiff which means the same thing.

The Vatican II Catechism offers hope of salvation to all the above and Protestants

Indeed. The Church, because of the Reformation, needed to refine and define its doctrine, EENS. Now that there were Christians who had separated themselves from the visible body of the CC, there needed to be a refining of the teaching.

The refinement of the doctrine was not exclusive to Protestants. It offers the hope of salvation to non-Christians as well.

 

[1holycatholic]

From Barnes NT Notes:
[deleted piffle]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura what are you doing appealing to someone else’s notes?

It’s evident from your actions that even you reject the Bible alone.

 

[schaick]

I have given this analogy before, but I’m repeating as I think it’s apropos. While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it makes the point of how doctrine develops but does not “change”.

Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

[SIGN1]Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.[/SIGN1]

And if we said, “Hey! We’ve always said the guy was in a drunken fight at a bar; we never said he was attacked by a wild animal”, then, you would have a valid criticism of the CC.

Two things need to be considered:

Where is the further information coming from? The man himself, eyewitnesses, or is it just a rumor?

In this example there is no gap of hundreds of years.

 

[LutheranDK]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

Wrong. My gosh, Jimmy, how many times have you been told by now, and yet you KEEP posting the same bait-questions…

 

[Dokimas]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura what are you doing appealing to someone else’s notes?

It’s evident from your actions that even you reject the Bible alone.

Gee, you got me. I feel silly. Oh what shall I do?

Oh yes, the Bible speaks of teachers of the Scriptures that study so they can rightly divide the Word of God. It’s a good idea to get help with difficult things always remembering that NO person or church is 100% correct (Jesus being the only exception).

 

[PRmerger]

Someone said that Scripture could not be infallible this definition says differently.

This definition lists “things” as capable of being infallible. Can you give an example of this, besides the Bible? Or do you think this dictionary was thinking of only One Thing?

Yes like every human even the Pope and magistrum.

Then you are considering the possibility that the canon of Scripture is in error? Are you entertaining the fact that, perhaps, Revelation is not inspired? Did the Church err in considering it theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! There were “heretics” though way before the reformation.

Yes. And to the degree that they reject Christ and His Body is the degree that they could not be saved.

Do you really believe differently?

Let’s take a heretic who states, “I was once Christian and now I say that Satan is my Lord and Savior.”

You believe that without repentance he’s destined for Eternal Life?

 

[PRmerger]

This is where we get into that “Who’s On First” Abbott and Costello routine.

Yes. Like the hypothetical conversation I delineated between you and a fundamentalist Muslim. He has the inability to think in the abstract and look beyond this fact embedded in his brain: there is only One God.

The Council of Florence and other infallible statements made it clear that one had to be living within the Church to obtain eternal life or in submission to the Roman Pontiff which means the same thing.

Please define, according to the Catholic Church, where it says that “living within the Church” (what is that?) means the same thing as being in submission to the Roman Pontiff.

The refinement of the doctrine was not exclusive to Protestants. It offers the hope of salvation to non-Christians as well.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Two things need to be considered:

Where is the further information coming from?

From the source himself, from those he spoke with and from witnesses coming forward

In this example there is no gap of hundreds of years.

Ok.

 

[ron77nyc]

Yes. Like the hypothetical conversation I delineated between you and a fundamentalist Muslim. He has the inability to think in the abstract and look beyond this fact embedded in his brain: there is only One God.

Reading english does not require abstract thinking unless you’re reading poetry. If we’re going to apply abstract thinking to defined dogma then the sky is the limit. We might as well say atheists can be saved. I think that’s already been done.

This is from a Catholic website. Is this a legitimate teaching today?

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0254.htm
“Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”

Please define, according to the Catholic Church, where it says that “living within the Church” (what is that?) means the same thing as being in submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Submission to the Roman Pontiff means you obey the pope’s teaching. You get baptized, go to mass, receive the sacraments, observe holy days and required fasting days, etc. How do you do that without being a member of the Church?

 

[guanophore]

If I said the very same thing about the CC, I’d be called anti-catholic. Funny how that works. BTW, that’s exactly what I think because all humans understand, at best, in part and unclearly.

Yes, I see your point. However, your last statement sums up why you would not do this. You believe that no one has the fullness of truth, and that we all see through a glass darkly. No other Church claims to have the “fullness of faith”, so no one else is held to such a high standard.

There is a mindset that comes with being a loyal Catholic, which I do not have. It says that the Church cannot teach error so if I see an error I must be wrong because the Church cannot err. So if the Church teaches only Catholics can be saved and then changes that teaching by inventing the “invisible church” which by the way never existed in all of Catholic history, that’s OK but it’s not OK for any other religion to discover or develop a truth that never existed before.

Yes you are right about that mindset.

However, the Church has always had visible and invisble aspects. The Church Triumphant are not visible to us (or rarely so), and yet, we believe they are as much present in the Church as we are (if not more so because they are perfected). The Church Suffering is also not visible to us, and the Church has always affirmed that we have no idea who is among those being purified.

Jesus taught us to leave the tares until the harvest because tares look very much like wheat, and if one tries to pull out the weed (unbeliever) then the wheat will be torn up as well. This is a parable that instructs us not to try to discern who is weed, and who is wheat, but to let them both grow unitl the harvest. What seems to look to us like a weed may actually be a wheat stalk, and vice versa. We are not to judge the soul of any man, because we cannot discern the heart from God’s point of view. These have been the constant teachings of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

The trinity was not clearly defined for centuries but “none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” was clearly defined and then undefined. I don’t have a problem with the change. I have a problem when there is a denial of the change.

Please think about what you are saying, Ron. A Pagan does not worship the One God and Father of our Lord Jesus, but many gods and goddesses. Jews, if they finally and fully reject Christ will bear the consequence He prophesied to them “you will all die in your sins if you do not come to Me”. A schismatic, according to the Apostles, is intractibly refusing to accept Apostolic authority and doctrine.

Nothing has changed. All that has changed is our understanding of these groups of people. We know that there are people in all these categories which, when face to face with Christ, will choose Him, and some that will refuse. When that moment comes, if they choose Him, they will be part of His One Body, the Church.

God does not save anyone against their will.

 

[guanophore]

The Church of the middle ages did not teach this:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

No, of course not! Because for all they knew, there was no one who, through no fault of their own, did not know. In the Middle Ages, the Western Church was completely insular. They even forgot that the Easter Church existed! They were focused on matters of politics, economics, and health in Europe. They did not think about the pagan cannibal tribes in the jungle basins in Brazil, because did not even know Brazil existed. They did not think about the indiginious peoples of Africa, Asia, or the Arctic. It was not until exploration and travel developed after the Middle Ages that the Church found it necessary to consider these aspects of doctrine. We have to be careful to consider their world view when we read their writings.

I am doing some study now on Hildegard of Bingen, who was born around 1098. It is appalling how insular and ignorant the culture was in which she lived. However, I am looking at it through 20th century experience and education.

 

[guanophore]

As I said before; there were no Protestants but there were Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Confucius, Hindus and pagans who worshipped many gods (Africans, Egyptians) I’m sure I haven’t included everyone. These were all excluded from salvation.

No one has ever been excluded from salvation. But God does not save those who reject Him. Do you honestly believe, like the Calvanists, that each of these people don’t have a choice to recognize God and His Church for who they are?

Do you really believe that, if a Hindu meets his Maker, and realizes that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which one may be saved, and delightfully chooses Him, that he will not be saved?

The Church has always taught that ever human being is given enough light to choose. If these people choose against Christ, they cannot be saved.

The Vatican II Catechism offers hope of salvation to all the above and Protestants.

It clarifies the hope that has always been present.