You can't have it both ways.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hebrews 5:12
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.

This one would suffice Jimmy. Why is this verse included and what do you believe are the differences between Fundamentalists and Catholics concerning it?
 
I am not familiar with a verse speaking about inspired interpretation: what verse would you like to discuss?
The ones that you think are not relevant to this discussion… Or, any verse(s) that you feel support’s Sola scriptura. 🙂
 
I am not familiar with a verse speaking about inspired interpretation: what verse would you like to discuss?
Rightlydivide I really am trying to see things from your perspective.

So, if the bible does not speak of an inspired interpreter then there is no inspired interpreter for the **inspired word of God? ** :confused:
 
Hebrews 5:12
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.

This one would suffice Jimmy. Why is this verse included and what do you believe are the differences between Fundamentalists and Catholics concerning it?
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
👍
 
Rightlydivide I really am trying to see things from your perspective.

So, if the bible does not speak of an inspired interpreter then there is no inspired interpreter for the **inspired word of God? ** :confused:
Correct. Do you believe there is a verse that speaks of an inspired interpreter? I know of a few verses that people use but I figured I would let you speak for yourself.
 
these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures.
Yes

We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own.
Of course not.

We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
Divenly appointed? I am not sure what exactly they believe that means.
 
these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures.
Yes

We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own.
Of course not.

We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
Divenly appointed? I am not sure what exactly they believe that means.
The Church is divinely appointed…as per the Scriptures
 
Hebrews 5:12
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.

This one would suffice Jimmy. Why is this verse included and what do you believe are the differences between Fundamentalists and Catholics concerning it?
Hebrews 5:12

Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.
1 Corinthians 3:1, 2

1 2 Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,


Saint Augustine: Confessions 371

Confessions (Latin: Confessiones) is the name of an autobiographical work, consisting of 13 books, by St. Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Hippo (/ɒˈɡʌstɨn/; Latin: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis😉 (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430),

146 (1Co 3,2, and He 5,12 He 5, allusion in our text is to what is called the Disciplina Arcani of the early Church. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, enters at large into the matter of esoteric teaching, and traces its use amongst the Hebrews, Greeks, and Egyptians. Clement, like Chrysostom and other Fathers, supports this principle of interpretation on the authority of St. Paul in He 5,and vi., referred to by Augustin above. He says *He *, “Babes must He be fed with milk, the perfect man with solid food; milk is catechetical instruction, the first nourishment of the soul; solid food, contemplation penetrating into all mysteries (hJ ejpoptikhV qewria), the blood and flesh of the Word, the comprehension of the Divine power and essence.” Augustin, therefore, when he speaks of being “contented with the light of the moon and stars,” alludes to the partial knowledge imparted to the catechumen during his probationary period before baptism. It was only as competentes, and ready for baptism, that the catechumens were taught the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. We have already adverted to this matter in note is 4 on p. is 89, and need not now do more than refer the reader to Dr. Newman’s Arians. In ch. 1,sec. Dr 3 of that work, there are some most interesting pages on this subject, in its connection with the Catechetical School of Alexandria. See also p. Dr 118, note Dr 8, above; Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, 4,sec. Dr 7, and note Dr 1, below).

147 Those ready for strong meat were called “illuminated” (See p. 118, note 4, above), as their eyes were “enabled to look upon the Sun.” We have frequent traces in Augustin’s writings of the Neo-Platonic doctrine that the soul has a capacity to see God, even as the eye the sun. In Serm. lxxxviii. 6 he says: “Daretne tibi unde videres solem quem fecit, et non tibi daret unde videres eum qui te fecit, cum te ad imaginem suam fecerit?” And, referring to 1Jn 3,2, he tells us in Ep. xcii. 3, that not with the bodily eye shall we see God, but with the inner, which is to be renewed day by day: “We shall, therefore, see Him according to the measure in which we shall be like Him; because now the measure in which we do not see Him is according to the measure of our unlikeness to Him.” Compare also Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, c. 4: “Plato, indeed, says, that the mind’s eye is of such a nature, and has been given for this end, that we may see that very Being who is the cause of all when the mind is pure itself.” Some interesting remarks on this subject, and on the three degrees of divine knowledge as held by the Neo-Platonists, will be found in Jn Smith’s Select Discourses, pp. 2 and 165 (Cambridge 1860). On growth in grace, See note 4, p. 140, above).
 
UniversalistGuy;7016690:
…I must be missing what your point is. There are probably thousands of books written by Catholics. I could say to you hey where are those books found in the Bible? And when you say they’re not (as you would cos they actually ain’t in the Bible but it is in the Bible that you ought to tell the truth) I say so that cancels your point? How would that help?
Hello again UniversalistGuyThat’s ok, because we as Catholics believe in Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Holy Church. Therefore, we are allowed to go to other sources that strengthen our Catholic faith and increase our knowledge about Catholicism, so that we can understand and defend our own Catholic faith.
Right.
We are not the ones who hold to the errant belief in Sola scriptura and are not bound by Protestant law. So, a Protestant rule, like Sola scriptura, cannot not be use against a Catholic. That wouldn’t make any sense.
Right.
My point is that there are Protestants here, who claim to believe in Sola scriptura and complain when Catholics use sources outside the Bible, like the Catechism and extra-biblical documents from Catholic Popes and Church Fathers and so on, but then they will refer to documents written by Martin Luther and others, which is also extra-biblical. Catholics don’t go by Protestant rules but Protestants should obey their own rules… right?
Right.
If I believed in Sola scriptura, which I don’t, I would use Bible verses only, here at CAF to support any Protestant arguments.
Are you sure? If you believed in Sola scriptura how would you dialogue with a Catholic who you believed was holding errant beliefs? You’d have to meet that Catholic where he is, right? So you’d probably have to move away from your sola scriptura otherwise the Catholic would just continue not listening to you and saying you were absurd and ridiculous. And when you stuck with the Bible it wouldn’t much matter what you actually said because the Catholic would just tell you that there were a gazillion denominations and that proved that Protestants were all idiots.
As it is, even as a Catholic I try to prove most of my points here using Bible verses, as you can tell from my previous posts on this thread, even though as a Catholic, I am not restricted to the Bible.
Right.
Finally, I enjoy using the Bible to support and defend Catholicism, because the Bible is a Catholic book and everything in it, in one way or another, supports Catholicism, if read and understood in context.
I’m glad you enjoy it.👍
I hope this helps, thank you for your post.
And thank you for your post.
Your thoughts?
Yes I’ve a thought and a question. You said earlier that you tried to prove your points using Bible verses. I think it’s a mistake to think you can actually prove any of this stuff whatever you use. If it could be proved there would be no room for faith, would there? The people who think they can prove what they believe are only proving it in their own minds. And all that happens is that they get mad and call people names.

Why is that?
 
Jimmy
I still do not know how you think that shows a difference between Fundamentalists and Catholics.
Could you elaborate in your own words?
Thanks
 
Correct. Do you believe there is a verse that speaks of an inspired interpreter? I know of a few verses that people use but I figured I would let you speak for yourself.
Rightlydivide, well, I really tried to understand things from your perspective friend. 👍

If you are right then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that they meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

**Is this your contention???
**
 
Jimmy
I still do not know how you think that shows a difference between Fundamentalists and Catholics.
Could you elaborate in your own words?
Thanks
Sorry, I must have missed something…How do I think what, “shows a difference between Fundamentalists and Catholics”?
 
UniversalistGuy, let’s assume that you are right about SS. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His inspired word - yes or no?

If yes, then can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

If no, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that Jesus meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

Is this your contention as well?
 
=Jimmy B;7011328]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?
Wrong, Jimmy, and sorry for the late entry.
The practice of sola scriptura does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition.
It is important to note that the very first section of the Lutheran Confessions, The Book of Concord, is not any writing from anyone from the 1600’s, but instead the three ecumenical creeds.
Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?
Extra-biblical does not mean wrong, necessarily.
If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?
Because they are not, and those who claim they are are mistaken.
“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.” - Sceond generation Lutheran, Martin Chemnitz
If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?
Not necessarily, unless you are willing to say that there would be only one Church that relies of Scripture and Tradtion, which isn’t the case.
Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism?
That there is any division in Christianity is the result of human sin.
Your thoughts?
Blessings to you, Jimmy.

Jon
 
Hey Jon, how ya doing… 👍 You said to Jimmy:
The practice of sola scriptura does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition.
Rightlydivide and UniversalistGuy do not agree with you. How would you convince them that SS does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition?
 
Sorry, I must have missed something…How do I think what, “shows a difference between Fundamentalists and Catholics”?
You posted a number of scriptures. I then asked for how those verses specifically applied to differences between us. You asked me to pick a verse. I did, Hebrews 5:12. You then gave the scripturecatholic rerence to that verse and I am again specifically asking what it is about the word teaches, we have teachers, heard, we do try to hear, or any of those that point to particular differences between us.
You posted a lot of verses Jimmy but you have not really said what they mean as to specifically what you believe they mean in regards to our differences.
And that is where we are right now.
We have teachers. The Bible tells us to.
We hear.
We proclaim
etc etc
 
Hey Jon, how ya doing… 👍 You said to Jimmy:

Rightlydivide and UniversalistGuy do not agree with you. How would you convince them that SS does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition?
No. A Luther uses scripture as the primary truth but tradition is the structure and framework in which they approach their hermenutical framework from a historical perspective…I think. I dont know for sure I guess.
 
Jon you said, “That there is any division in Christianity is the result of human sin.”

**If nothing is impossible for God, **then certainly God could maintain the doctrinal unity of the church He founded in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, in spite of human sin - maybe, maybe not? :confused:
 
Jon you said, “That there is any division in Christianity is the result of human sin.”

**If nothing is impossible for God, **then certainly God could maintain the doctrinal unity of the church He founded in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, in spite of human sin - maybe, maybe not? :confused:
It’s amazing how God could preserve scripture and yet He couldn’t preserve the Church… now isn’t it? 🤷
 
Rightlydivide, well, I really tried to understand things from your perspective friend. 👍

If you are right then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that they meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

**Is this your contention???
**
Can we slow down and go back to your original presupposition.
Does the Bible contain a passage that says that we have an infallible interpreter of scripture?
What do you believe it (they) is/are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top