Status
Not open for further replies.

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
How can something contain all teachings yet not be spelled out?

What you are in effect saying is those doctrines absent from the NT were later enacted and then used Scriptures to find some tangential mention. That is called eisegesis.
How do you know what is eisegesis, and what it the authentic interpretation of Scripture? Again, every time one reads Scripture, one has to process it through his/her fallen, endarkened intellect.
 
Upvote 0

EmethAlethia

Newbie
Oct 5, 2014
404
107
62
✟28,633.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You Stated: "Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and expose the error of Sola Scriptura and open people’s mind’s to the truth, of the Catholic Faith."

That's OK, neither am I, and most people aren’t. I guess my first question is, how do we get to the truth on any issue?

We all have beliefs. There are thousands of belief groups and thousands of variations in beliefs within the beliefs of individuals within all the major ones. We all “Believe” we believe the truth. For many of us, our core beliefs “ARE” truth. For many, we believe with all our heart, mind, soul and strength that our beliefs are “Fact”. But does that make e everything everyone believes truth?

So how do we get to truth, and how can we recognize lies?

Let’s consider other groups that we “believe” believe lies. If you are a Mormon you can look at the Moslems or Atheists, if you are an Atheist you can look at the Moslems or the Mormons or … Pick a bunch of groups you believe hold fast to lies as truth if you want. Doesn’t matter. Now consider what they do to believe what they believe with all their heart, mind soul and strength, that their beliefs are truth. What do they do?
1.) They gather facts, data, scriptures, traditions, writings, expert opinions … that they can “use” to prove their beliefs true.

2.) They gather facts, data, scriptures, traditions, writings, expert opinions … that they can “use” to prove all opposing beliefs false.

3.) They interpret their “selected” data in the light of their beliefs (Sometimes feelings as well)

4.) They interpret everything else in the light of the truth, and after the above 3 steps, their beliefs “Are” truth, ergo all correct interpretations must agree with their beliefs, and all data that does not seem to agree is either incorrect or misinterpreted.

The question is, does this methodology get ANYONE “to” the truth “From” an erroneous belief in lies? Think about it.

So, you gather more data, facts, verses … to prove your current beliefs true… if your beliefs were false is doing more of this going to get you to truth? No, right?

So, you gather more data, facts, verses, expert opinions … to prove an opposing belief false. If it really was truth, how long before gathering more data to prove it false actually reveals that it really is truth? Answer, that’s not your goal, right?

Same with the rest of them. The problem is, if this is what anyone does, was it their goal to get “To” the truth? No, right? The goal is to prove the beliefs true and hold fast to them, right?

Consider those who Jesus said had their eyes and ears closed, those He said were hard hearted … Were those people open to altering any of their core beliefs to see if Jesus really was the Messiah? What happened to the few that were open to considering that?

The point is this, if we really want the truth on the topic of sola scriptura we can’t use the methodology above. We have to do something differently, right? Otherwise what we need to decide is what is the truth going to be for me, pick what we want to believe and then set about gathering what we can use, rejecting and explaining away all opposing data and hold fast to what we want, right? At least that would be intellectually honest. By the way I found a bible passage that pretty much explains this. Everyone gets EXACTLY what they want/need to hold fast to their beliefs.


2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It starts out about the end times, “But” verse 13 starts with the word “But”. A comparison word indicating contrast of the characteristics of those prior to those following. Those following pass the test that those in verses 10-12 fail. This means that those alive when this was penned were given the same choices, BUT they passed this test. Thus this is a principle lasting throughout the centuries.

A good summary is, “God makes sure everyone gets exactly what they want.”, at least when it comes to beliefs/truth.

Why bring this up? Because when I was an evangelical atheist pulling those that believe that scripture is the sole guide for all truth/practice with regards to truth/belief, I had gathered a ton of scientific data / reports / “facts” to prove that we evolved and weren’t created (Yes, there are people who are “theistic evolutionists”, but those are rare.) plus, I had gathered over 10,000 errors in the bible. Remember the gathering of things to prove your beliefs true and things to prove all opposing beliefs false steps everyone follows if they want to hold fast to their beliefs “As” truth. That’s where I “was”.


Then someone took ALL of my data at once, added in ALL of the other data I had left out, and asked me to make an objective determination as to which of the beliefs really held water and which didn’t. To make a long story short, looking at ALL of the data, refusing to commit intellectual suicide by not making reasonable, rational, logical determinations based on all of the facts/data/scientific/scriptures/manuscripts/findings … I am now a bible believing Christian. Being willing to alter all of your beliefs, even your core ones, to fit the fullness of ALL the data that pertains to the topic at hand is like being willing to sacrifice your kids. It’s rough.

So back to your points:

“So Sola Scriptura, where shall I begin? I guess I’ll start with my own testimony. The first time I ever read a Bible, it was my mother’s King James Bible. In addition to trying to understand the archaic English, there were a number of things I was totally lost over, I was like: …”

You are in college. I am quite sure that we could find some classes there that you do not understand, and that would take you far more effort than you are willing to put out, to get to the point where you understood them. That said, barring mental limitations, if you made it your life’s sole dedication, I doubt there is a field or area you couldn’t eventually gain mastery of. Thus, it’s not inability to be able to understand scripture, figure everything out, put all of the pieces together … it is choice.

“… angels are appearing, out of nowhere, there’s no explanation as to what they are and where they came from! The Bible gives an account as of God creating all the plants and animals, but there are no accounts of angels, or devils for that matter, and what’s the deal with Satan? He just appears out of nowhere, as the serpent, tempts Adam and Eve, and then is gone. It doesn’t even explain that the serpent is Satan! Also what’s a Cherubim? I wish the Bible gave me more detail on that, because it sounds pretty cool with it’s flaming sword.”

There are answers to some of these questions in scripture … if you look. If you look you will find that God, specifically Jesus created all things. That the angels rejoiced when the foundations of the earth were laid, that Satan was created flawless and without sin. That he was so far above the rest of the angels that 1/3 of them thought he could take God…


“Apologies if that sounded irreverent, but that’s kind of what I was thinking as I read Sacred Scriptures for the first time. I was totally confused! I had no idea what any of it meant!”


Welcome to a fact… the bible / God’s word even the teachings of parables in scripture by Jesus Himself are not designed to be understood properly by everyone. Read the passages about why Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables? Not everyone wants to see or hear that their core beliefs, their babies, are rotten and dead. Some have closed their eyes and ears lest they see or hear. The question is, if you love truth, and not what you “want to believe “as” truth”, what must you do?

“That’s one of the many key problems with Sola Scriptura, it’s not how the Bible works. The Bible is meant for people who already know the basics of the Faith taught through Sacred Tradition.”

Here we have a belief. Is it true that we can accurately determine the meanings of most languages, or not? Answer: All languages have meaning. All have rules for interpretation... Yes, all of them evolve over time and so some meanings change, although usually very slightly over decades. That said, tradition does not determine word meaning in any language. (Although the traditions of those writing at the time are a part of the context that determines the meaning.) That the meanings may change slightly, is different than a discussion as to whether or not the meaning can be reliably and accurately determined. For those translating to get to the truth of a language and culture not their own, their personal traditions have nothing at all to do with getting to the truth of the meaning of any text. The meaning part is not based on tradition but rather careful diagnosis of the available facts, context, usage of words and phrases, historical and religious practices ....

Example: He kicked the bucket. What’s the meaning? Well, it could be that the man died, right? This “could” be a figure of speech. However, if he spent the next 4 hours cleaning paint out of his carpet, we would have to take it as a literal, rather than a figurative statement, right? But what about derivation. Where did this phrase develop from? Hanging, right? For a period of time, it meant only that a man was hanged/executed as a criminal. We have a broader meaning now. But the meaning, even of figurative language is gained from the context of the language used, not tradition.

One more, meaning of words. When trying to get the meaning of ANY ancient language/text it is important to understand the genre in the time period it is a part of. The word pneuma, for example, in secular Greek at the time had the meaning of breath or spirit(life) … we have an additional meaning common in only the scriptures (And in writings on those topics) of the Holy Spirit. This is a meaning specific to bible writings. If we see the word pneuma we need to look at the context it is in do determine which meaning to be applied, BUT WE ARE LIMITED TO THE AVAILABLE MEANINGS IN SCRIPTURE. I bring this up because we use the word pneuma in words like pneumatic (Air powered) today and we can’t shove modern meaning back into scripture. If we did we could ask how big a compressor does the Holy Spirit need? What are His power requirements to run that compressor? How long a hose does He have … So, if we want the real “meaning” we don’t go to tradition, we find every single place where the word/root word/phrase is used, examine the context, flow of thought, flow of discussion … and get the meaning in all of those places. This gives us the range of meaning available to the word/root word/phrase. It is also why we can’t shove the meaning of inappropriate contentography into the word inappropriate contentea … yes they are related, but we need to stick to the range of meaning available in scripture.

As a side note, Jesus and the disciples/apostles/writers of scripture quoted freely from the Septuagint. Given their acceptance of it, I accept it as well. Ergo we have a much larger source of Biblical Greek to go to, to determine what meanings bible writers attributed to their words.

Getting to the meaning of what the words say and mean is possible for everyone apart from tradition. As a matter of fact, every belief group that interprets scripture in the light of their beliefs is holding to a traditional view, so to speak. In other words, what they want it to mean takes precedence over what it really means if we do all of the homework and we make an objective determination of meaning. Like was mentioned earlier, if your beliefs “are” “truth” than the only correct interpretation of any trustworthy data must align with, or at least not contradict the truth. Which gives you the path those trying to hold fast to beliefs are going to follow to refute data they don’t like. Unreliable, untrustworthy, modified by evil monks, doesn’t really mean that. All of our selected data over here proves this can’t be … any way to add, subtract or distort the meaning that really is there to allow for their beliefs.

“…Sacred Scripture is profitable for the “man of God” for someone who already knows the basics of the Faith.”

I would phrase that a little differently, "It is easier to distort to make it fit the belief groups beliefs if they already have a foundation in the teachings, practices and traditions of that belief group.". I believe this would be a more accurate sentence. Every belief group that uses the bible can agree with that. By the way, if you do a more thorough study on the topic, you will find that “Salvation comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Of course, receiving a love of the truth so as to be saved is a prerequisite to that step as many have closed their eyes and ears to anything other than what they believe before hearing.

“Where did this person get the basics of the Faith? it’s got be from Sacred Scripture, because, as St. Paul just said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Sacred Scripture is meant for someone who has already become a man of God! Where did he get it? From Sacred Tradition via the Church, this where the person got the teaching to be a man of God and receive the profitability’s of Sacred Scripture.”

That's not what it says or means. That would be a traditional view in keeping with your belief groups beliefs. Timothy learned the Pentateuch, as all Jews did. They ALL had the entire Pentateuch memorized word for word. It’s a historical context thing. All of the real experts, in Judaism in the day, had absolutely all of the O.T. memorized word for word in the original language. Timothy learned the sacred scriptures, and had them memorized as a young child, just like everyone else did.

Since that is what the text says, that he learned the Holy Scriptures, that means that you replaced the meaning of scripture with a meaning that fits your groups traditional view. You have interpreted the passage in the light of your beliefs/traditions adding, subtracting and distorting the meaning that is present in the text to make it fit what you want to believe, just like all groups that have unquestionably true core beliefs. What it really says and means is different. Here's the passage:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“After all, which of you Protestants would ever just hand a Bible to some random person on the street, tell them to just read it, and pray to the Holy Spirit, leave him alone completely, and never have any contact with him to help him out in anyway, and then expect him to just eventually figure out the Bible, support your ecclesial community, and show up at your congregation!?! No, Sola Scriptura is not how the Bible works!”

If you are stating, people do not become members of “belief” groups by simply "studying the scriptures" on their own, I agree. Belief groups focus on the belief group's beliefs. The “Belief” group states the core belief(s) and then lists all of the data they have gathered to prove that belief/those beliefs true and all of the data that proves the opposing beliefs false. Then the belief group gives all of the reasons why all their groups “traditional” interpretations are the correct ones. They explain away all of the objections that are presented using their "selected" data and their interpretations and explanations. But that’s only with those whose core beliefs and truth are interchangeable. i.e. those with unquestionably true core beliefs that are not focused on getting to truth because their core beliefs are truth. Getting to truth is far different from proving one's beliefs true and holding fast to them. This is not the methodology you use if you really love and want truth no matter how it destroys your beliefs and your current life. (Yes, destroy the core beliefs and everything changes.) That requires that you AVOID this process like the flag. But then there aren't a lot of people who are even aware that there are two different processes, one designed to teach, promote and cement people into a belief groups beliefs, the other designed to get to the truth no matter what beliefs are destroyed.

Like I said, when it comes to “belief” groups, wherever the core beliefs are considered absolute, unquestionable, truth, I agree with your statements above. All interpretations of all “valid” data must align with the truth, since our core beliefs “are” truth, the meaning of ______ has to be _____. Kind of like what you did by replacing the "Holy Scriptures" with your groups traditional view in that passage above. (Some data is rejected as accurate by belief groups solely because of the danger to the beliefs. Yes, there are valid reasons for rejecting some data. For example: If the passage isn’t in any of the documents or fragments of scripture prior to 300 AD, then it shouldn't be included. That would be a valid reason for discrediting data.) The point is this, if your goal is to prove a belief true, prove all opposing beliefs false, and interpret everything in the light of your beliefs, then yes, this is the ONLY methodology your “belief group” can use. The "other" methodology is destructive to beliefs of every belief group. Either the beliefs become pliable and changeable or the data, facts, passages, interpretations ... are. Depends on what really is important.

“Objection 1: No Protestant believes that one can just whip through the Bible and just know the Faith!”

I agree. The scriptures do not teach that we can know and understand all of the scripture simply by reading it through. There is a ton of data on the topic of salvation, believing you are saved and doing signs and wonders, believing Jesus is your Lord and Savior, and still being headed for hell and never really having been a Christian at all. Shoot, by Jesus’ figurative language used, the difference in the numbers of real Christians verses the “Many” who believe He is their Lord is like the difference between those that enter through the main gates of the city verses those that shimmy through a hole in the wall. The word meaning “to groan” as you are squeezing through is used. Of course, that begs the question, “Does Jesus really understand how few that really is?” perhaps He used the wrong illustration. You can pass 4 carts side by side through the city walls. The only ones who shimmied through a hole in the wall were those caught outside the gates after dark or doing illegal activities, right? A thousand might go through the gates for every one groaning their way through the hole in the wall, right? Most can think up illustrations that are far more inclusive that would mean far more people will be real Christians, right?

Hmmm … from scriptures standpoint most protestants aren’t going to make it either. But again, we are talking about “belief” groups, those that hold fast to their core beliefs “as” truth. That gather what they can use to prove their beliefs true, gather what they can use to prove opposing beliefs false and interpret everything in the light of their beliefs. You can’t get “to” truth “from” any belief group using that methodology, right? All you can do is harden yourself into those beliefs, right? The question is, do you love and really want truth no matter what beliefs it destroys and how it screws up your current life, or do you want to just hold fast to a belief groups beliefs? The same question applies to everyone regardless of belief group.

To give an idea of where we are at, on the topic of salvation, there are about 450 PASSAGES of scripture in the New Testament alone, about 1500 -1700 verses that pertain. Topics like: who really is saved, how they are saved, details of what is believed, whether they are predestined "to believe" or whether the group that does believe(The foreknown) was predestined to do, be, receive, become ... certain things, the characteristics of those in each group(Saved, religious lost, non-religious lost), what the process of salvation is, what God gives all men, the responses men give, God's responses to their responses ... where the religious lost miss the boat …

Most belief groups have “selected” out about 50-75 VERSES that they use to prove their beliefs true and all opposing beliefs false. And yes, when the beliefs of different belief groups differ, they “select” "different" verses, and where their beliefs align they have selected the same verses. Same with interpretations. Where the beliefs align, interpretations will be the same. Where they differ either the interpretations will differ, or they will have figured out a way to discredit the passage/data altogether.

If you want to hold fast to your beliefs you grab the data your group uses and interpret it to fit.

If you want truth you “Might” want to get and use ALL of the data and you “Might” want to find an objective way to determine the meaning of all passages/words/phrases/verses … that will prevent the methodology that allows everyone to prove whatever belief they want true while everyone else proves the same belief false.

But then I am writing a book, or rather 2 books on the topic. The first: “Truth vs. Beliefs” and second: “Salvation by the Book”. If you are interested in a pre-release copy, let me know. I still have a lot to go to finish up, and they haven't gone to the editor yet ... But you can have what I have so far.

Yes, I will have all the data your belief group uses and all the data every other belief group uses on the topic. I will also have a TON of data no belief group uses. Why? Simply because some of the data left out would destroy most of belief groups core beliefs. (A summary of the rules for objectively determining the meaning of all ancient documents, with a focus on scripture, will be included with the, “Salvation by the Book” title as well, so you can see the rules I am striving to follow, along with what I am seeking to avoid.

“Nor does Sola Scriptura teach that Bible clearly states that everything in it. Sola Scriptura simply states that it’s the infallible authority.”

And that the man of God is complete, fully equipped, with just scripture. Yep. I agree. That’s what the scriptures say about themselves. You don't need me. You don't need anybody else. You don't need a pope. Yep. That's what the bible says about itself.

“I Reply: Here’s the problem, if only the Bible is infallible, and nothing else is, how can one possibly interpret it.”

Like I said, two ways: First way: pick the beliefs you want, gather the passages you can “use” to prove your beliefs true, the passages you can use to prove all opposing beliefs false, interpret your selected data in the light of the beliefs you pick, and then add, subtract, distort, ignore, discredit … all of the data that doesn’t seem to fit very well

OR

Second Way: Figure out a way to "avoid everything pertaining to the methodology just mentioned", (The one that allows you to believe anything out there are truth and anything out there as lies, depending on the view you want.), and do the work, labor, sweat of your brow, ... pain in the butt "effort" to get to the truth, for yourself and by yourself. Note: The books “might” help if you really want to make the effort. You can't trust me anyway, but so far I have about 450 passages I have been seeking to cut-straight, mine the facts out of, combine the meanings that are there without adding, subtracting or distorting any of it to hold fast to a belief … that's a lot for you to go through, and you need to do your own study anyway. that's a damn lot of effort, trust me.

I tell ya, if you love your core beliefs, and KNOW that your core beliefs are FACT, there is no way I’d put in the time and effort even to read such a thing. Yes, I am telling you that if this is you, it really is a waste of your time and money to buy the book. It won't change a thing. Other than possibly make you mad. We aren't even using the same methods so we really won't even have common ground to discuss anything. Besides you already know your core beliefs are truth, right? No, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are or what your belief group is, if you know your core beliefs are right, it offers nothing for you.

“One memorize the Bible perfectly, verse for verse, word for word, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can learn, and be a master of Biblical Greek, that doesn’t make one infallible.”

Nope. No one has perfect beliefs. Especially not me. Even once this book is done, I may still have some core beliefs that are off, passages I missed, places where I violated the rules of objective study to get the meaning… Even if you read my book, you can't trust me. I'm not trustworthy. That’s what I have my readers for … to help me get to the truth on the things I still missed. (Note: If you love truth, if you convince me I am wrong and I can exchange a lie for truth I win. If you are using the methodology all the belief groups are using to hold fast to a belief/belief set and you can’t objectively make your “selected” passages mean what you claim, then my beliefs remain intact. Again, I win. If anyone loves their beliefs and not truth, and their beliefs get threatened, we are going to see responses like Mat. 7:6)

“…Objection 2: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly says that scripture is sufficient! …I Reply: Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. …Objection 3: There’s no way, those scripture passages refer to the Papacy, devotion to Mary, Purgatory, etc!”

Already dealt with.

The purpose of this debate is to show that Sacred Scripture functions with Sacred Tradition, and not Sola Scriptura. This debate is not about determining whether or not the various Catholic proof-texts, prove Catholic doctrines. Stay on topic!”

That is the topic! If our goal is to hold fast to our beliefs “as” “truth”, we MUST hold to interpretations that fit our belief groups beliefs/traditions. That’s all we can do. And if we do use that methodology, we can die with our core beliefs intact. No, it doesn’t matter what the belief group is. It works for everybody 100% of the time. If our core beliefs “are truth”, no matter what our beliefs are or our belief group is, there is no other way but to interpret everything in accordance with our belief groups traditions, views and beliefs. No other way allows everyone to get 100% verification of every belief groups core beliefs every single time. That's why they use it... plus it saves a ton of time and effort. Find an expert with the belief you want and he can hand you all the data on both sides along with the interpretations.

Truth is different: Doing what it takes to get to the actual meaning of “every single passage” that “might” apply to the topic at hand, putting “all” that “meaning” together, with all the other meanings, so that everything fits / is 100% consistent with everything else, and no meaning is left out, added to, subtracted from or distorted … AND God/God’s people/God’s Word is assumed to be 100% correct AND consistent (Includes: When men aren’t correct, or consistent, God consistently corrects them in scripture.), DESTROYS beliefs… AND is a ton of work.

That said, everyone habitually does one or the other.

What you do, the methodology you use, as a habit and way of life, proves what you really love ...

and what you hate.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the correct interpretation of Divine Revelation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well, then Christianity is finished! It is as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman said, it’s either Catholicism or Atheism! If one rejects Catholicism and follows this rejection of Catholicism to it’s logical conclusion, one will become an Atheist.”

If you don’t eat pizza you will starve. If you don’t follow my beliefs you will go to hell. If it isn’t black it’s green… If it isn’t the Roman Catholic interpretation Christianity is finished! Really? Church tradition "HAS TO BE" in charge? and it has to be your belief group? And the Mormons believe this, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Baptists ... apart from accepting their beliefs as fact you will never be able to get to heaven ... or the highest heaven as the case may be. I'm starving for pizza.... not the same thing ... and it's a figurative statement, not literal. LOL Sorry...

No Roman Catholicism and there is no truth, no God everyone becomes an Atheist. OK ... If you really want your belief on this topic, great. You’ve got it. I am not here to take anyone’s beliefs away. Besides I can’t. And it's not my job.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and according to 2 Thes. 2:10-13, God is the one giving everyone EXACTLY what they need to hold fast to whatever they want. Hint: I am not here to mess with what God is doing. "Squash, just like grape." So, if you respond like those in Mat. 7:6 I will obey and we won’t discuss anything anymore. Besides, if I don’t obey His commandments (Like Mat 7:6) it proves I don’t love Him.

Assuming you, or someone out there reading this really does love, want, and is willing to dedicate the rest of His life in pursuit of truth, (Not proving their beliefs true), then if the bible “is the truth” and “is the standard” and “is reliable, trustworthy and accurate”, and if “languages have meaning”, and if that “meaning can be understood” … then … “a man can be complete, fully equipped JUST WITH the word of God”. And yes, every single step in there is something that I continue to try and gather all of the data, facts, information, passages … on … cut them all out straight, continuously proving “all” things over and over again as a habit and way of life, altering my beliefs and my life to fit what is good/true. So yes, if you really do want to start at the beginning, like I did as an evangelical Atheist pulling Christians from their faith, there is no harm in that. The same rules apply.

“…Now in regards to one can know if the Catholic Church has the correct understanding of Divine Revelation? … First I’ll see whether or not there is a God, I examine the arguments for and against God, I find that without God, reality doesn’t make any sense. Next, I see whether or not Jesus Christ really existed, and I find that Jesus Christ truly was an historical character. … For that, I turn to the writings of the early Christians, what did they believe Our Lord’s message was? I find that they believed quite a number of things:…”

Problem: Even during the time scriptures were being written tons of heresies came up and were then refuted in scripture. Even during that time there were churches splitting off that were believing heresies … These things were corrected in scripture. I would have added a study as to the reliability, accuracy, trustworthiness … of scripture to your list of things studied in your list. I get it. It has to be truth and you can find a verse that you can say says what you believe, and we need it so it's truth. Who will correct all of those things if there isn't apostolic succession?

But here’s the thing, how are errors in beliefs to be corrected if the scriptures aren’t authoritative? Then each group gets to do as they please, right? If there is a disagreement between scripture and the teachings, traditions, opinions, commands of religious leadership … who do we go with scripture or religious leadership? Scripture, and the actions of the disciples, says we go with scripture. You see there’s the problem. Let’s go ahead and accept this part because we like it, “Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church …” But we don’t include this part, “Get thee behind me Satan …” which would mean that that his church is founded on Satan himself., obviously some churches might want to include it. Yours ... not so much. I get it. So let's look at some facts. Truth never contradicts itself. Yes, you can have a car, it can be a red car, it can be a red convertible car ... these are not contradictions, they are clarifications. They are details. It an even be a car and a plane or a car and a submarine ... thank you James Bond.)

If truth contradicts itself (Fulfillment is different), then it isn’t truth. If there is a contradiction, one or the other, or both are wrong. 2 + 2 can’t equal 6 and 2 + 2 can’t = 8 and both be true at the same time. They can both be wrong. There are all kinds of things that aren’t truth. There is only one truth, max. 2 +2 = 4.(Again, red, he owns a mustang convertible and He owns a red convertible are not necessarily contradictions. Nor is, "he owns a red mustang convertible and he owns a red corvette. He could own both. You just can't say he owns both right now and at the same time he doesn't own a thing. Yeah, the bank owns them... I get it.)

So … if the bible is reliable and accurate and trustworthy … and the bible really does make Peter the head of the church, carrying on apostolic succession, then it is true. HOWEVER, we can’t pick and choose WHERE the bible is completely reliable, accurate and trustworthy. If one piece is assumed 100% true ALL of it is. (Again, the issues with things that we have no manuscript evidence for prior to 300 AD excepted. My bible notes aren’t scripture either, Why? Because I wrote them in 2000 years later.) So, either Peter got the authority FROM scripture making it the primary authority over Peter, or the bible never had the authority to delegate any authority in the first place and thus can't delegate any authority to Peter. Then also has no authority at all. You have to pick one. You can't pick and choose and say Mary was assumed bodily into heaven when scripture says only one was. You can't say Mary had no other kids when Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside... Is the passage on Peter being given that role trustworthy or not. If so all the other passages are reliable and trustworthy TO THE SAME EXTENT. If so the primary responsibility for correct doctrine, for the correct gospel ... lies with scripture. If not, throw it all out

You will note that I just did EXACTLY what you did. I only brought it back one level before yours. The bible is the authority or it isn't and we scrap Christianity, INCLUDING Roman Catholicism.

If the bible is the highest authority, and if that passage on Peter doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, and it is not consistent with what was done in scripture, and what is said in the scriptures themselves, then the pope has no more authority, or less authority, than I do. We can discuss interpretations later on if we can agree on the ground rules for determining truth, If not ... we can still hold to our beliefs. But we can’t pick and choose the places where the bible has authority, and is reliable and trustworthy and where it isn't and we need to go with tradition. Just like, if we want truth, we can’t pick and choose whatever meaning for words that we want in each passage to make it conform to what we want to believe.

“They believed in praying for the dead; they believed in having authority figures over their communities called “bishops;” they believed in worshiping Jesus in very special way, headed by a consecrated priest, and that when that priest spoke special words over the bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the really became the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ truly present under the guise of bread and wine! Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches, and thus the Catholic Church, is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. (Albeit, is the question of the Orthodox Churches, and other Churches that accept Sacred Tradition, but that’s a whole other topic for another time.)”

Yes, after a couple of hundred years of getting away from the scriptures all kinds of different beliefs cropped up. They were cropping up as the scriptures were written. But again, the issue isn’t how many new beliefs and traditions have popped up over the years, that has no bearing. There are over 500 “brands” of Baptists in the Americas alone from what I here. There are beliefs beyond count. BUT, the source of those "New" changes wasn't the word of God, it's the people interpreting the word of God in the light of their beliefs, plus not even knowing, or caring what scriptures really do say. We could get into when the emperor declared that everyone was Christian and made them rename all of the temples, temple of Zeus became Joseph, Athena, Mary ... an honest art historian looking at art from that time period can't really tell you whether it was art made for a Greek God or Christian at that time... everybody Christian by decree... you think some heresies might have cropped in?

Let's put it this way, for most of what you stated immediately prior, if we hold to meaning of words, context, flow of thought … and so so for all of the passages that might apply to the topic, and don’t force the meaning found in each to fit what we want to believe, ignoring, adding, subtracting and distorting meaning as we go, those beliefs will be found not to hold much water.

All of that said, if we do not have the same standard, we have no common ground for discussing truth. If the bible isn’t the ultimate authority, then it had no authority to pick Peter as pope either. If it isn't reliable, accurate and trustworthy neither is that passage. Only if the bible is reliable, accurate, trustworthy ... is there any chance that your belief groups interpretations / traditions "could" be correct, and even then, they are still subject to the word of God. You can't pick and choose.

I am not picking on Roman Catholicism by the way. It’s any different in any other belief group with infallible, unquestionably true core beliefs. Everyone either loves the truth or their beliefs. That which we love least will always be forced to conform to that which we love most. What you habitually do, the methodology you use, proves what you really love, truth or your beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Off-topic, and a complete and total strawman! If you must know what Vatican II really teaches, see the following: Fr. Smith's Vatican 2 Series | Christian Forums
https://www.christianforums.com/blogs/fr-smiths-vatican-2-series.54449/

There is nothing off-topic here nor any strawman, but something being avoided. You asserted what Bible translations you used and denigrated the NAB, while presenting yourself as a faithful RC, and thus the fact that it is your pastors that gave you the NAB, and do not sanction your preferred translations, is relevant.

Seeing as you basically excommunicate Catholics (or otherwise disallow them as being so) whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, then we should know what kind of Catholicism you are defending.

As for Vatican 2, why do I need to hear a long series of unofficial teaching by some priest who likes the Latin Mass in order to get an answer as to what kind of RC you are? Who knows if he overall concurs with how Pope Francis interprets it, but I am sure there are other priests who differ with him, while I still do not know if you consider all that V2 taught to be binding on Catholics.
But you don't recognize these things as infallible.

Why is it so hard to get you to plainly answer "where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How do you know what is eisegesis, and what it the authentic interpretation of Scripture? Again, every time one reads Scripture, one has to process it through his/her fallen, endarkened intellect.
So your argument is that an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God, and understanding it?

And I presume that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You Stated: "Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and expose the error of Sola Scriptura and open people’s mind’s to the truth, of the Catholic Faith."

That's OK, neither am I, and most people aren’t. I guess my first question is, how do we get to the truth on any issue?

We all have beliefs. There are thousands of belief groups and thousands of variations in beliefs within the beliefs of individuals within all the major ones. We all “Believe” we believe the truth. For many of us, our core beliefs “ARE” truth. For many, we believe with all our heart, mind, soul and strength that our beliefs are “Fact”. But does that make e everything everyone believes truth?

So how do we get to truth, and how can we recognize lies?

Let’s consider other groups that we “believe” believe lies. If you are a Mormon you can look at the Moslems or Atheists, if you are an Atheist you can look at the Moslems or the Mormons or … Pick a bunch of groups you believe hold fast to lies as truth if you want. Doesn’t matter. Now consider what they do to believe what they believe with all their heart, mind soul and strength, that their beliefs are truth. What do they do?
1.) They gather facts, data, scriptures, traditions, writings, expert opinions … that they can “use” to prove their beliefs true.

2.) They gather facts, data, scriptures, traditions, writings, expert opinions … that they can “use” to prove all opposing beliefs false.

3.) They interpret their “selected” data in the light of their beliefs (Sometimes feelings as well)

4.) They interpret everything else in the light of the truth, and after the above 3 steps, their beliefs “Are” truth, ergo all correct interpretations must agree with their beliefs, and all data that does not seem to agree is either incorrect or misinterpreted.

The question is, does this methodology get ANYONE “to” the truth “From” an erroneous belief in lies? Think about it.

So, you gather more data, facts, verses … to prove your current beliefs true… if your beliefs were false is doing more of this going to get you to truth? No, right?

So, you gather more data, facts, verses, expert opinions … to prove an opposing belief false. If it really was truth, how long before gathering more data to prove it false actually reveals that it really is truth? Answer, that’s not your goal, right?

Same with the rest of them. The problem is, if this is what anyone does, was it their goal to get “To” the truth? No, right? The goal is to prove the beliefs true and hold fast to them, right?

Consider those who Jesus said had their eyes and ears closed, those He said were hard hearted … Were those people open to altering any of their core beliefs to see if Jesus really was the Messiah? What happened to the few that were open to considering that?

The point is this, if we really want the truth on the topic of sola scriptura we can’t use the methodology above. We have to do something differently, right? Otherwise what we need to decide is what is the truth going to be for me, pick what we want to believe and then set about gathering what we can use, rejecting and explaining away all opposing data and hold fast to what we want, right? At least that would be intellectually honest. By the way I found a bible passage that pretty much explains this. Everyone gets EXACTLY what they want/need to hold fast to their beliefs.


2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It starts out about the end times, “But” verse 13 starts with the word “But”. A comparison word indicating contrast of the characteristics of those prior to those following. Those following pass the test that those in verses 10-12 fail. This means that those alive when this was penned were given the same choices, BUT they passed this test. Thus this is a principle lasting throughout the centuries.

A good summary is, “God makes sure everyone gets exactly what they want.”, at least when it comes to beliefs/truth.

Why bring this up? Because when I was an evangelical atheist pulling those that believe that scripture is the sole guide for all truth/practice with regards to truth/belief, I had gathered a ton of scientific data / reports / “facts” to prove that we evolved and weren’t created (Yes, there are people who are “theistic evolutionists”, but those are rare.) plus, I had gathered over 10,000 errors in the bible. Remember the gathering of things to prove your beliefs true and things to prove all opposing beliefs false steps everyone follows if they want to hold fast to their beliefs “As” truth. That’s where I “was”.


Then someone took ALL of my data at once, added in ALL of the other data I had left out, and asked me to make an objective determination as to which of the beliefs really held water and which didn’t. To make a long story short, looking at ALL of the data, refusing to commit intellectual suicide by not making reasonable, rational, logical determinations based on all of the facts/data/scientific/scriptures/manuscripts/findings … I am now a bible believing Christian. Being willing to alter all of your beliefs, even your core ones, to fit the fullness of ALL the data that pertains to the topic at hand is like being willing to sacrifice your kids. It’s rough.

So back to your points:

“So Sola Scriptura, where shall I begin? I guess I’ll start with my own testimony. The first time I ever read a Bible, it was my mother’s King James Bible. In addition to trying to understand the archaic English, there were a number of things I was totally lost over, I was like: …”

You are in college. I am quite sure that we could find some classes there that you do not understand, and that would take you far more effort than you are willing to put out, to get to the point where you understood them. That said, barring mental limitations, if you made it your life’s sole dedication, I doubt there is a field or area you couldn’t eventually gain mastery of. Thus, it’s not inability to be able to understand scripture, figure everything out, put all of the pieces together … it is choice.

“… angels are appearing, out of nowhere, there’s no explanation as to what they are and where they came from! The Bible gives an account as of God creating all the plants and animals, but there are no accounts of angels, or devils for that matter, and what’s the deal with Satan? He just appears out of nowhere, as the serpent, tempts Adam and Eve, and then is gone. It doesn’t even explain that the serpent is Satan! Also what’s a Cherubim? I wish the Bible gave me more detail on that, because it sounds pretty cool with it’s flaming sword.”

There are answers to some of these questions in scripture … if you look. If you look you will find that God, specifically Jesus created all things. That the angels rejoiced when the foundations of the earth were laid, that Satan was created flawless and without sin. That he was so far above the rest of the angels that 1/3 of them thought he could take God…


“Apologies if that sounded irreverent, but that’s kind of what I was thinking as I read Sacred Scriptures for the first time. I was totally confused! I had no idea what any of it meant!”


Welcome to a fact… the bible / God’s word even the teachings of parables in scripture by Jesus Himself are not designed to be understood properly by everyone. Read the passages about why Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables? Not everyone wants to see or hear that their core beliefs, their babies, are rotten and dead. Some have closed their eyes and ears lest they see or hear. The question is, if you love truth, and not what you “want to believe “as” truth”, what must you do?

“That’s one of the many key problems with Sola Scriptura, it’s not how the Bible works. The Bible is meant for people who already know the basics of the Faith taught through Sacred Tradition.”

Here we have a belief. Is it true that we can accurately determine the meanings of most languages, or not? Answer: All languages have meaning. All have rules for interpretation... Yes, all of them evolve over time and so some meanings change, although usually very slightly over decades. That said, tradition does not determine word meaning in any language. (Although the traditions of those writing at the time are a part of the context that determines the meaning.) That the meanings may change slightly, is different than a discussion as to whether or not the meaning can be reliably and accurately determined. For those translating to get to the truth of a language and culture not their own, their personal traditions have nothing at all to do with getting to the truth of the meaning of any text. The meaning part is not based on tradition but rather careful diagnosis of the available facts, context, usage of words and phrases, historical and religious practices ....

Example: He kicked the bucket. What’s the meaning? Well, it could be that the man died, right? This “could” be a figure of speech. However, if he spent the next 4 hours cleaning paint out of his carpet, we would have to take it as a literal, rather than a figurative statement, right? But what about derivation. Where did this phrase develop from? Hanging, right? For a period of time, it meant only that a man was hanged/executed as a criminal. We have a broader meaning now. But the meaning, even of figurative language is gained from the context of the language used, not tradition.

One more, meaning of words. When trying to get the meaning of ANY ancient language/text it is important to understand the genre in the time period it is a part of. The word pneuma, for example, in secular Greek at the time had the meaning of breath or spirit(life) … we have an additional meaning common in only the scriptures (And in writings on those topics) of the Holy Spirit. This is a meaning specific to bible writings. If we see the word pneuma we need to look at the context it is in do determine which meaning to be applied, BUT WE ARE LIMITED TO THE AVAILABLE MEANINGS IN SCRIPTURE. I bring this up because we use the word pneuma in words like pneumatic (Air powered) today and we can’t shove modern meaning back into scripture. If we did we could ask how big a compressor does the Holy Spirit need? What are His power requirements to run that compressor? How long a hose does He have … So, if we want the real “meaning” we don’t go to tradition, we find every single place where the word/root word/phrase is used, examine the context, flow of thought, flow of discussion … and get the meaning in all of those places. This gives us the range of meaning available to the word/root word/phrase. It is also why we can’t shove the meaning of inappropriate contentography into the word inappropriate contentea … yes they are related, but we need to stick to the range of meaning available in scripture.

As a side note, Jesus and the disciples/apostles/writers of scripture quoted freely from the Septuagint. Given their acceptance of it, I accept it as well. Ergo we have a much larger source of Biblical Greek to go to, to determine what meanings bible writers attributed to their words.

Getting to the meaning of what the words say and mean is possible for everyone apart from tradition. As a matter of fact, every belief group that interprets scripture in the light of their beliefs is holding to a traditional view, so to speak. In other words, what they want it to mean takes precedence over what it really means if we do all of the homework and we make an objective determination of meaning. Like was mentioned earlier, if your beliefs “are” “truth” than the only correct interpretation of any trustworthy data must align with, or at least not contradict the truth. Which gives you the path those trying to hold fast to beliefs are going to follow to refute data they don’t like. Unreliable, untrustworthy, modified by evil monks, doesn’t really mean that. All of our selected data over here proves this can’t be … any way to add, subtract or distort the meaning that really is there to allow for their beliefs.

“…Sacred Scripture is profitable for the “man of God” for someone who already knows the basics of the Faith.”

I would phrase that a little differently, "It is easier to distort to make it fit the belief groups beliefs if they already have a foundation in the teachings, practices and traditions of that belief group.". I believe this would be a more accurate sentence. Every belief group that uses the bible can agree with that. By the way, if you do a more thorough study on the topic, you will find that “Salvation comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Of course, receiving a love of the truth so as to be saved is a prerequisite to that step as many have closed their eyes and ears to anything other than what they believe before hearing.

“Where did this person get the basics of the Faith? it’s got be from Sacred Scripture, because, as St. Paul just said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Sacred Scripture is meant for someone who has already become a man of God! Where did he get it? From Sacred Tradition via the Church, this where the person got the teaching to be a man of God and receive the profitability’s of Sacred Scripture.”

That's not what it says or means. That would be a traditional view in keeping with your belief groups beliefs. Timothy learned the Pentateuch, as all Jews did. They ALL had the entire Pentateuch memorized word for word. It’s a historical context thing. All of the real experts, in Judaism in the day, had absolutely all of the O.T. memorized word for word in the original language. Timothy learned the sacred scriptures, and had them memorized as a young child, just like everyone else did.

Since that is what the text says, that he learned the Holy Scriptures, that means that you replaced the meaning of scripture with a meaning that fits your groups traditional view. You have interpreted the passage in the light of your beliefs/traditions adding, subtracting and distorting the meaning that is present in the text to make it fit what you want to believe, just like all groups that have unquestionably true core beliefs. What it really says and means is different. Here's the passage:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“After all, which of you Protestants would ever just hand a Bible to some random person on the street, tell them to just read it, and pray to the Holy Spirit, leave him alone completely, and never have any contact with him to help him out in anyway, and then expect him to just eventually figure out the Bible, support your ecclesial community, and show up at your congregation!?! No, Sola Scriptura is not how the Bible works!”

If you are stating, people do not become members of “belief” groups by simply "studying the scriptures" on their own, I agree. Belief groups focus on the belief group's beliefs. The “Belief” group states the core belief(s) and then lists all of the data they have gathered to prove that belief/those beliefs true and all of the data that proves the opposing beliefs false. Then the belief group gives all of the reasons why all their groups “traditional” interpretations are the correct ones. They explain away all of the objections that are presented using their "selected" data and their interpretations and explanations. But that’s only with those whose core beliefs and truth are interchangeable. i.e. those with unquestionably true core beliefs that are not focused on getting to truth because their core beliefs are truth. Getting to truth is far different from proving one's beliefs true and holding fast to them. This is not the methodology you use if you really love and want truth no matter how it destroys your beliefs and your current life. (Yes, destroy the core beliefs and everything changes.) That requires that you AVOID this process like the flag. But then there aren't a lot of people who are even aware that there are two different processes, one designed to teach, promote and cement people into a belief groups beliefs, the other designed to get to the truth no matter what beliefs are destroyed.

Like I said, when it comes to “belief” groups, wherever the core beliefs are considered absolute, unquestionable, truth, I agree with your statements above. All interpretations of all “valid” data must align with the truth, since our core beliefs “are” truth, the meaning of ______ has to be _____. Kind of like what you did by replacing the "Holy Scriptures" with your groups traditional view in that passage above. (Some data is rejected as accurate by belief groups solely because of the danger to the beliefs. Yes, there are valid reasons for rejecting some data. For example: If the passage isn’t in any of the documents or fragments of scripture prior to 300 AD, then it shouldn't be included. That would be a valid reason for discrediting data.) The point is this, if your goal is to prove a belief true, prove all opposing beliefs false, and interpret everything in the light of your beliefs, then yes, this is the ONLY methodology your “belief group” can use. The "other" methodology is destructive to beliefs of every belief group. Either the beliefs become pliable and changeable or the data, facts, passages, interpretations ... are. Depends on what really is important.

“Objection 1: No Protestant believes that one can just whip through the Bible and just know the Faith!”

I agree. The scriptures do not teach that we can know and understand all of the scripture simply by reading it through. There is a ton of data on the topic of salvation, believing you are saved and doing signs and wonders, believing Jesus is your Lord and Savior, and still being headed for hell and never really having been a Christian at all. Shoot, by Jesus’ figurative language used, the difference in the numbers of real Christians verses the “Many” who believe He is their Lord is like the difference between those that enter through the main gates of the city verses those that shimmy through a hole in the wall. The word meaning “to groan” as you are squeezing through is used. Of course, that begs the question, “Does Jesus really understand how few that really is?” perhaps He used the wrong illustration. You can pass 4 carts side by side through the city walls. The only ones who shimmied through a hole in the wall were those caught outside the gates after dark or doing illegal activities, right? A thousand might go through the gates for every one groaning their way through the hole in the wall, right? Most can think up illustrations that are far more inclusive that would mean far more people will be real Christians, right?

Hmmm … from scriptures standpoint most protestants aren’t going to make it either. But again, we are talking about “belief” groups, those that hold fast to their core beliefs “as” truth. That gather what they can use to prove their beliefs true, gather what they can use to prove opposing beliefs false and interpret everything in the light of their beliefs. You can’t get “to” truth “from” any belief group using that methodology, right? All you can do is harden yourself into those beliefs, right? The question is, do you love and really want truth no matter what beliefs it destroys and how it screws up your current life, or do you want to just hold fast to a belief groups beliefs? The same question applies to everyone regardless of belief group.

To give an idea of where we are at, on the topic of salvation, there are about 450 PASSAGES of scripture in the New Testament alone, about 1500 -1700 verses that pertain. Topics like: who really is saved, how they are saved, details of what is believed, whether they are predestined "to believe" or whether the group that does believe(The foreknown) was predestined to do, be, receive, become ... certain things, the characteristics of those in each group(Saved, religious lost, non-religious lost), what the process of salvation is, what God gives all men, the responses men give, God's responses to their responses ... where the religious lost miss the boat …

Most belief groups have “selected” out about 50-75 VERSES that they use to prove their beliefs true and all opposing beliefs false. And yes, when the beliefs of different belief groups differ, they “select” "different" verses, and where their beliefs align they have selected the same verses. Same with interpretations. Where the beliefs align, interpretations will be the same. Where they differ either the interpretations will differ, or they will have figured out a way to discredit the passage/data altogether.

If you want to hold fast to your beliefs you grab the data your group uses and interpret it to fit.

If you want truth you “Might” want to get and use ALL of the data and you “Might” want to find an objective way to determine the meaning of all passages/words/phrases/verses … that will prevent the methodology that allows everyone to prove whatever belief they want true while everyone else proves the same belief false.

But then I am writing a book, or rather 2 books on the topic. The first: “Truth vs. Beliefs” and second: “Salvation by the Book”. If you are interested in a pre-release copy, let me know. I still have a lot to go to finish up, and they haven't gone to the editor yet ... But you can have what I have so far.

Yes, I will have all the data your belief group uses and all the data every other belief group uses on the topic. I will also have a TON of data no belief group uses. Why? Simply because some of the data left out would destroy most of belief groups core beliefs. (A summary of the rules for objectively determining the meaning of all ancient documents, with a focus on scripture, will be included with the, “Salvation by the Book” title as well, so you can see the rules I am striving to follow, along with what I am seeking to avoid.

“Nor does Sola Scriptura teach that Bible clearly states that everything in it. Sola Scriptura simply states that it’s the infallible authority.”

And that the man of God is complete, fully equipped, with just scripture. Yep. I agree. That’s what the scriptures say about themselves. You don't need me. You don't need anybody else. You don't need a pope. Yep. That's what the bible says about itself.

“I Reply: Here’s the problem, if only the Bible is infallible, and nothing else is, how can one possibly interpret it.”

Like I said, two ways: First way: pick the beliefs you want, gather the passages you can “use” to prove your beliefs true, the passages you can use to prove all opposing beliefs false, interpret your selected data in the light of the beliefs you pick, and then add, subtract, distort, ignore, discredit … all of the data that doesn’t seem to fit very well

OR

Second Way: Figure out a way to "avoid everything pertaining to the methodology just mentioned", (The one that allows you to believe anything out there are truth and anything out there as lies, depending on the view you want.), and do the work, labor, sweat of your brow, ... pain in the butt "effort" to get to the truth, for yourself and by yourself. Note: The books “might” help if you really want to make the effort. You can't trust me anyway, but so far I have about 450 passages I have been seeking to cut-straight, mine the facts out of, combine the meanings that are there without adding, subtracting or distorting any of it to hold fast to a belief … that's a lot for you to go through, and you need to do your own study anyway. that's a damn lot of effort, trust me.

I tell ya, if you love your core beliefs, and KNOW that your core beliefs are FACT, there is no way I’d put in the time and effort even to read such a thing. Yes, I am telling you that if this is you, it really is a waste of your time and money to buy the book. It won't change a thing. Other than possibly make you mad. We aren't even using the same methods so we really won't even have common ground to discuss anything. Besides you already know your core beliefs are truth, right? No, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are or what your belief group is, if you know your core beliefs are right, it offers nothing for you.

“One memorize the Bible perfectly, verse for verse, word for word, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can learn, and be a master of Biblical Greek, that doesn’t make one infallible.”

Nope. No one has perfect beliefs. Especially not me. Even once this book is done, I may still have some core beliefs that are off, passages I missed, places where I violated the rules of objective study to get the meaning… Even if you read my book, you can't trust me. I'm not trustworthy. That’s what I have my readers for … to help me get to the truth on the things I still missed. (Note: If you love truth, if you convince me I am wrong and I can exchange a lie for truth I win. If you are using the methodology all the belief groups are using to hold fast to a belief/belief set and you can’t objectively make your “selected” passages mean what you claim, then my beliefs remain intact. Again, I win. If anyone loves their beliefs and not truth, and their beliefs get threatened, we are going to see responses like Mat. 7:6)

“…Objection 2: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly says that scripture is sufficient! …I Reply: Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. …Objection 3: There’s no way, those scripture passages refer to the Papacy, devotion to Mary, Purgatory, etc!”

Already dealt with.

The purpose of this debate is to show that Sacred Scripture functions with Sacred Tradition, and not Sola Scriptura. This debate is not about determining whether or not the various Catholic proof-texts, prove Catholic doctrines. Stay on topic!”

That is the topic! If our goal is to hold fast to our beliefs “as” “truth”, we MUST hold to interpretations that fit our belief groups beliefs/traditions. That’s all we can do. And if we do use that methodology, we can die with our core beliefs intact. No, it doesn’t matter what the belief group is. It works for everybody 100% of the time. If our core beliefs “are truth”, no matter what our beliefs are or our belief group is, there is no other way but to interpret everything in accordance with our belief groups traditions, views and beliefs. No other way allows everyone to get 100% verification of every belief groups core beliefs every single time. That's why they use it... plus it saves a ton of time and effort. Find an expert with the belief you want and he can hand you all the data on both sides along with the interpretations.

Truth is different: Doing what it takes to get to the actual meaning of “every single passage” that “might” apply to the topic at hand, putting “all” that “meaning” together, with all the other meanings, so that everything fits / is 100% consistent with everything else, and no meaning is left out, added to, subtracted from or distorted … AND God/God’s people/God’s Word is assumed to be 100% correct AND consistent (Includes: When men aren’t correct, or consistent, God consistently corrects them in scripture.), DESTROYS beliefs… AND is a ton of work.

That said, everyone habitually does one or the other.

What you do, the methodology you use, as a habit and way of life, proves what you really love ...

and what you hate.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the correct interpretation of Divine Revelation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well, then Christianity is finished! It is as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman said, it’s either Catholicism or Atheism! If one rejects Catholicism and follows this rejection of Catholicism to it’s logical conclusion, one will become an Atheist.”

If you don’t eat pizza you will starve. If you don’t follow my beliefs you will go to hell. If it isn’t black it’s green… If it isn’t the Roman Catholic interpretation Christianity is finished! Really? Church tradition "HAS TO BE" in charge? and it has to be your belief group? And the Mormons believe this, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Baptists ... apart from accepting their beliefs as fact you will never be able to get to heaven ... or the highest heaven as the case may be. I'm starving for pizza.... not the same thing ... and it's a figurative statement, not literal. LOL Sorry...

No Roman Catholicism and there is no truth, no God everyone becomes an Atheist. OK ... If you really want your belief on this topic, great. You’ve got it. I am not here to take anyone’s beliefs away. Besides I can’t. And it's not my job.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and according to 2 Thes. 2:10-13, God is the one giving everyone EXACTLY what they need to hold fast to whatever they want. Hint: I am not here to mess with what God is doing. "Squash, just like grape." So, if you respond like those in Mat. 7:6 I will obey and we won’t discuss anything anymore. Besides, if I don’t obey His commandments (Like Mat 7:6) it proves I don’t love Him.

Assuming you, or someone out there reading this really does love, want, and is willing to dedicate the rest of His life in pursuit of truth, (Not proving their beliefs true), then if the bible “is the truth” and “is the standard” and “is reliable, trustworthy and accurate”, and if “languages have meaning”, and if that “meaning can be understood” … then … “a man can be complete, fully equipped JUST WITH the word of God”. And yes, every single step in there is something that I continue to try and gather all of the data, facts, information, passages … on … cut them all out straight, continuously proving “all” things over and over again as a habit and way of life, altering my beliefs and my life to fit what is good/true. So yes, if you really do want to start at the beginning, like I did as an evangelical Atheist pulling Christians from their faith, there is no harm in that. The same rules apply.

“…Now in regards to one can know if the Catholic Church has the correct understanding of Divine Revelation? … First I’ll see whether or not there is a God, I examine the arguments for and against God, I find that without God, reality doesn’t make any sense. Next, I see whether or not Jesus Christ really existed, and I find that Jesus Christ truly was an historical character. … For that, I turn to the writings of the early Christians, what did they believe Our Lord’s message was? I find that they believed quite a number of things:…”

Problem: Even during the time scriptures were being written tons of heresies came up and were then refuted in scripture. Even during that time there were churches splitting off that were believing heresies … These things were corrected in scripture. I would have added a study as to the reliability, accuracy, trustworthiness … of scripture to your list of things studied in your list. I get it. It has to be truth and you can find a verse that you can say says what you believe, and we need it so it's truth. Who will correct all of those things if there isn't apostolic succession?

But here’s the thing, how are errors in beliefs to be corrected if the scriptures aren’t authoritative? Then each group gets to do as they please, right? If there is a disagreement between scripture and the teachings, traditions, opinions, commands of religious leadership … who do we go with scripture or religious leadership? Scripture, and the actions of the disciples, says we go with scripture. You see there’s the problem. Let’s go ahead and accept this part because we like it, “Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church …” But we don’t include this part, “Get thee behind me Satan …” which would mean that that his church is founded on Satan himself., obviously some churches might want to include it. Yours ... not so much. I get it. So let's look at some facts. Truth never contradicts itself. Yes, you can have a car, it can be a red car, it can be a red convertible car ... these are not contradictions, they are clarifications. They are details. It an even be a car and a plane or a car and a submarine ... thank you James Bond.)

If truth contradicts itself (Fulfillment is different), then it isn’t truth. If there is a contradiction, one or the other, or both are wrong. 2 + 2 can’t equal 6 and 2 + 2 can’t = 8 and both be true at the same time. They can both be wrong. There are all kinds of things that aren’t truth. There is only one truth, max. 2 +2 = 4.(Again, red, he owns a mustang convertible and He owns a red convertible are not necessarily contradictions. Nor is, "he owns a red mustang convertible and he owns a red corvette. He could own both. You just can't say he owns both right now and at the same time he doesn't own a thing. Yeah, the bank owns them... I get it.)

So … if the bible is reliable and accurate and trustworthy … and the bible really does make Peter the head of the church, carrying on apostolic succession, then it is true. HOWEVER, we can’t pick and choose WHERE the bible is completely reliable, accurate and trustworthy. If one piece is assumed 100% true ALL of it is. (Again, the issues with things that we have no manuscript evidence for prior to 300 AD excepted. My bible notes aren’t scripture either, Why? Because I wrote them in 2000 years later.) So, either Peter got the authority FROM scripture making it the primary authority over Peter, or the bible never had the authority to delegate any authority in the first place and thus can't delegate any authority to Peter. Then also has no authority at all. You have to pick one. You can't pick and choose and say Mary was assumed bodily into heaven when scripture says only one was. You can't say Mary had no other kids when Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside... Is the passage on Peter being given that role trustworthy or not. If so all the other passages are reliable and trustworthy TO THE SAME EXTENT. If so the primary responsibility for correct doctrine, for the correct gospel ... lies with scripture. If not, throw it all out

You will note that I just did EXACTLY what you did. I only brought it back one level before yours. The bible is the authority or it isn't and we scrap Christianity, INCLUDING Roman Catholicism.

If the bible is the highest authority, and if that passage on Peter doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, and it is not consistent with what was done in scripture, and what is said in the scriptures themselves, then the pope has no more authority, or less authority, than I do. We can discuss interpretations later on if we can agree on the ground rules for determining truth, If not ... we can still hold to our beliefs. But we can’t pick and choose the places where the bible has authority, and is reliable and trustworthy and where it isn't and we need to go with tradition. Just like, if we want truth, we can’t pick and choose whatever meaning for words that we want in each passage to make it conform to what we want to believe.

“They believed in praying for the dead; they believed in having authority figures over their communities called “bishops;” they believed in worshiping Jesus in very special way, headed by a consecrated priest, and that when that priest spoke special words over the bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the really became the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ truly present under the guise of bread and wine! Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches, and thus the Catholic Church, is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. (Albeit, is the question of the Orthodox Churches, and other Churches that accept Sacred Tradition, but that’s a whole other topic for another time.)”

Yes, after a couple of hundred years of getting away from the scriptures all kinds of different beliefs cropped up. They were cropping up as the scriptures were written. But again, the issue isn’t how many new beliefs and traditions have popped up over the years, that has no bearing. There are over 500 “brands” of Baptists in the Americas alone from what I here. There are beliefs beyond count. BUT, the source of those "New" changes wasn't the word of God, it's the people interpreting the word of God in the light of their beliefs, plus not even knowing, or caring what scriptures really do say. We could get into when the emperor declared that everyone was Christian and made them rename all of the temples, temple of Zeus became Joseph, Athena, Mary ... an honest art historian looking at art from that time period can't really tell you whether it was art made for a Greek God or Christian at that time... everybody Christian by decree... you think some heresies might have cropped in?

Let's put it this way, for most of what you stated immediately prior, if we hold to meaning of words, context, flow of thought … and so so for all of the passages that might apply to the topic, and don’t force the meaning found in each to fit what we want to believe, ignoring, adding, subtracting and distorting meaning as we go, those beliefs will be found not to hold much water.

All of that said, if we do not have the same standard, we have no common ground for discussing truth. If the bible isn’t the ultimate authority, then it had no authority to pick Peter as pope either. If it isn't reliable, accurate and trustworthy neither is that passage. Only if the bible is reliable, accurate, trustworthy ... is there any chance that your belief groups interpretations / traditions "could" be correct, and even then, they are still subject to the word of God. You can't pick and choose.

I am not picking on Roman Catholicism by the way. It’s any different in any other belief group with infallible, unquestionably true core beliefs. Everyone either loves the truth or their beliefs. That which we love least will always be forced to conform to that which we love most. What you habitually do, the methodology you use, proves what you really love, truth or your beliefs.
You have much patience and I suspect, very fast typing skills, or at least much faster than my arthritic fingers do.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Does it mean annulment?
"opposed to YHWH's WORD"...... (mankind, society, religions of the world)

To be separate from God's Word is death.

To be in union with God's Word is LIFE ABUNDANT !

The Bible is called a lot of things on earth,
but it is never called catechetical by those who only read the Bible, (unless someone tells them to call it that )

The Bible is YHWH'S communication to men. Not all men accept this. Thus divorce, annulment, apostasy, falling away, and so on......

The Bible is LIFE, JOY, STRENGTH, PEACE, WHOLENESS, WHOLESOMENESS, and the AROMA of LIFE to all who are appointed for the resurrection.
The same message, the GOSPEL , is the aroma of death to all who are destined for judgment.

Born again people LOVE GOD, they LOVE HIS WORD !
They read it often, and dwell on it.

They hate anything that God hates,
the pride of man, the pride of life, the lusts of mankind/society.

They have a pure heart, so they may see God (today). (or)
They have a pure heart today, so they may see God.

So for some people alive, the Bible might be called catechetical...
as long as it doesn't contradict God's Purpose and Plan in Jesus.

For most, it doesn't matter what others call it -
it is WONDERFUL, LIFE, JOY,
and
...................... LIGHT !
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I'm going to ignore all the strawmans and such, and just focus on the important things in this post:
Actually is is irrelevant, since SS does not mean all Scripture is easily understood, but that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession, cp. 1)

And a Reformed site states,

Question 88 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?” Answer:

The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

And,
What the church does when it gathers on the Lord’s Day is not incidental; it is vital for the salvation and sanctification of God’s people. The Word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer are, after all, Christ’s ordinances.

Since your premise of what SS means is false, then so is your argument.

Which again, it because that is not what SS means.


That is a poor imitation of the style of Aquinas, and your description is still is not SS, but which is basically defined as meaning,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Westminster Confession , cp. 1)


There are even SS continuationists (who believe all spiritual gifts can still be in use, including the word of wisdom, etc.)

What kind of argument is that? SS does not believe interpreters of Scripture must possess some charism of infallibility, but that souls "may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" by study.

Where do we see an infallible magisterium being essential in order to know and understand what is of God? Don't try to extrapolate it out of "guide thee into all Truth" because the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not there.

Actually, SS does not hold that all that is necessary for the life of faith obvious, but it holds that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" is either clearly propounded or by one may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them in a due use of the ordinary means. Which includes the church.

Westminster also says:

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4] (Chapter XXXI)
Sola Scriptura means "Scripture Alone" which means Scripture must stand on its own, as the only infallible authority.

Sacred Scripture is a gift of God, one must receive, it does not rely us for its own infallibility. However God gave us Sacred Scripture to be used, and the only way to use the Scriptures is by interpreting it, you can't read the Bible without interpreting it. Now the audience of the Bible is fallible, the Bible is infallible, when one approaches the Bible and interprets it, that interpretation has been processed through a fallible being. How do we know that an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures, that has been processed through an fallible being, retains the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture?

As I've said elsewhere, Sola Scriptura weakens the authority of God. Sola Scriptura places the authority of God, on equal grounds with the fallible opinions of Man, and the wiles of the Devil.

Wrong again, you already argued for the necessity of Sacred Tradition as the alternative to (your strawman) SS, but the veracity of Sacred Tradition is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of autocratic ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
My argument is that a tradition, is a necessary alternative to Sola Scriptura, not the Sacred Tradition which is found in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox etc. Now obviously, Sacred Tradition is the only clear candidate for the alternative here, but that's not what we're debating here, what we're debating here, is whether or not, Sola Scriptura works, can Sacred Scripture stand on it's own without any traditona or magisterium? So far, very few people have made an effort to defend Sola Scriptura, the vast majority Protestants here, including you, have instead attacked the Catholic Faith rather than defend Sola Scriptura, which heavily implies that Sola Scriptura cannot be defended.

At the very least, you have heavily reinforced my faith, and probably the faith of my fellow-Catholics here, in infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

Alright, I am confident I have covered everything -apart from the strawman attacks- in this post with these two responses. If I haven't -again, provided it's not a strawman or something irrelevant to this debate- please let me know.
 
Upvote 0

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There is nothing off-topic here nor any strawman, but something being avoided. You asserted what Bible translations you used and denigrated the NAB, while presenting yourself as a faithful RC, and thus the fact that it is your pastors that gave you the NAB, and do not sanction your preferred translations, is relevant.

Seeing as you basically excommunicate Catholics (or otherwise disallow them as being so) whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, then we should know what kind of Catholicism you are defending.
I am not defending Catholicism, I am attacking Sola Scriptura. You need to defend Sola Scriptura, everything else is irrelevant, and weakens your defense.

As for Vatican 2, why do I need to hear a long series of unofficial teaching by some priest who likes the Latin Mass in order to get an answer as to what kind of RC you are? Who knows if he overall concurs with how Pope Francis interprets it, but I am sure there are other priests who differ with him, while I still do not know if you consider all that V2 taught to be binding on Catholics.
As I've explained above, this is off-topic, but I will say one more thing, Vatican II. As far as I can tell, and I could be wrong on this as I am only a layman, Vatican II is only infallible where it affirms the infallible Traditions of the Faith, which is, the vast majority of the V2 documents. I, and the vast majority of Traditional Catholics now-days, affirm and are obedient to Vatican II, while Modernists and cafeteria-catholics disobey Vatican II!

Why is it so hard to get you to plainly answer "where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?"
So your argue is that an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God, and understanding it?

And I presume that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
Yes, basically.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh cool! So some Protestants are open having more added to Divine Revelation, and yet we Catholics get accused of adding to Divine Revelation?

Still don't see the problem with Sola Scriptura here?

The whole Catholic religion is based on addition to the Word of God and the traditions of men..

May I also say to you that Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men.

Mark 7:7 (ESV)

"in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. The issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical or is it a man made teaching.

Salvation:.............
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Assurance of salvation:...........
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

Good Works:............
The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism:..........
In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.

Prayer: .........
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

Priesthood:...........
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments:.........
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: ............
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).

Mary:..................
The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

After all of that and there is more by the way, you state that Catholic get accused of adding to the Scriptures. It is NOT AN accusation at all. IT IS A FACT!!!!!!!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you know what is eisegesis, and what it the authentic interpretation of Scripture? Again, every time one reads Scripture, one has to process it through his/her fallen, endarkened intellect.
We can start with definitions:

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am defending Catholicism, I am attacking Sola Scriptura. You need to defend Sola Scriptura, everything else is irrelevant, and weakens your defense.


As I've explained above, this is off-topic, but I will say one more thing, Vatican II. As far as I can tell, and I could be wrong on this as I am only a layman, Vatican II is only infallible where it affirms the infallible Traditions of the Faith, which is, the vast majority of the V2 documents. I, and the vast majority of Traditional Catholics now-days, affirm and are obedient to Vatican II, while Modernists and cafeteria-catholics disobey Vatican II!



Yes, basically.

Listen.....I really do not care at all if you continue with your comments. I actually hope that you do because honestly, the more YOU post the worse the Catholic Church looks.

IMO opinion the Catholic teachings can not be defended at all. They are all to them selves and are totally outside of the Word of God as found in the Bible.

Then, "Sola Scriptura" can of course be attacked, but it does not have to be defended.

Now, the bottom line in all of this conversation is actually easy to define. YOU and the Catholic church do not accept Sola Scriptura because YOU do not accept the Scriptures. That leaves you with only one option............Reject Sola Scriptura" because we do not accept the Bible.

As a Catholic, you already know that it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible with the Trinity and Rapture being two of those things. Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways.

One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” as seen in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, which supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.

St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons:......
first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We can start with definitions:

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

Yep..........correct again my brother!
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Okay, I'm going to ignore all the strawmans and such, and just focus on the important things in this post:

Sola Scriptura means "Scripture Alone" which means Scripture must stand on its own, as the only infallible authority....can Sacred Scripture stand on it's own without any traditona or magisterium?

Ignore strawmans? Then you must be ignored, since as has been shown and ignored, you depend on such, for SS as defied by Westminster no less, does not mean "nothing else but the Bible is needed," as excluding the magisterial office, but besides affirming the need for the illumination of the Spirit of God reason, the light of nature, and Christian prudence, etc., it affirms.

" The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate..."

"It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (CHAPTERs 30, 31)

What Scripture provides is one thing; what is how it provides it and how one may apprehend it is another. Scripture provides what is essential for the life of faith, but not simply in the plain formal sense, though one may see what is needed for salvation as plainly stated, but that what is necessary is often realized by deduction, and via a "in a due use of the ordinary means," and Scripture materially provides for reason, teachers, etc.

Sacred Scripture is a gift of God, one must receive, it does not rely us for its own infallibility. However God gave us Sacred Scripture to be used, and the only way to use the Scriptures is by interpreting it, you can't read the Bible without interpreting it. Now the audience of the Bible is fallible, the Bible is infallible, when one approaches the Bible and interprets it, that interpretation has been processed through a fallible being. How do we know that an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures, that has been processed through an fallible being, retains the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture?

As I've said elsewhere, Sola Scriptura weakens the authority of God. Sola Scriptura places the authority of God, on equal grounds with the fallible opinions of Man, and the wiles of the Devil.

My argument is that a tradition, is a necessary alternative to Sola Scriptura, not the Sacred Tradition which is found in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox etc. Now obviously, Sacred Tradition is the only clear candidate for the alternative here, but that's not what we're debating here, what we're debating here, is whether or not, Sola Scriptura works, can Sacred Scripture stand on it's own without any traditona or magisterium? So far, very few people have made an effort to defend Sola Scriptura, the vast majority Protestants here, including you, have instead attacked the Catholic Faith rather than defend Sola Scriptura, which heavily implies that Sola Scriptura cannot be defended.

At the very least, you have heavily reinforced my faith, and probably the faith of my fellow-Catholics here, in infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

Alright, I am confident I have covered everything -apart from the strawman attacks- in this post with these two responses. If I haven't -again, provided it's not a strawman or something irrelevant to this debate- please let me know.

Let you know? you failed to even deal with most of what I wrote to you, and your argument that you convinced yourself with relies on a strawman, and a false premise, which would made manifest if you would only plainly answer my questions I have asked you.

Why is it so hard to get you to plainly answer "where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?"

And does being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is the topic! If our goal is to hold fast to our beliefs “as” “truth”, we MUST hold to interpretations that fit our belief groups beliefs/traditions. That’s all we can do. And if we do use that methodology, we can die with our core beliefs intact. No, it doesn’t matter what the belief group is. It works for everybody 100% of the time. If our core beliefs “are truth”, no matter what our beliefs are or our belief group is, there is no other way but to interpret everything in accordance with our belief groups traditions, views and beliefs. No other way allows everyone to get 100% verification of every belief groups core beliefs every single time. That's why they use it... plus it saves a ton of time and effort. Find an expert with the belief you want and he can hand you all the data on both sides along with the interpretations.

Truth is different: Doing what it takes to get to the actual meaning of “every single passage” that “might” apply to the topic at hand, putting “all” that “meaning” together, with all the other meanings, so that everything fits / is 100% consistent with everything else, and no meaning is left out, added to, subtracted from or distorted … AND God/God’s people/God’s Word is assumed to be 100% correct AND consistent (Includes: When men aren’t correct, or consistent, God consistently corrects them in scripture.), DESTROYS beliefs… AND is a ton of work.
Very clear and accurate. A wonderful exhibition of the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Listen.....I really do not care at all if you continue with your comments. I actually hope that you do because honestly, the more YOU post the worse the Catholic Church looks.
It would not be the first time the argumentation of a Catholic is actually an argument against being one (though that also can be the case with some from Prots) . May God "give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You quoted two verses and gave no indication what your point was.
My point is, Our Lord, through the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, gives us an important moral command, he says that divorcing someone, except on the grounds of "fornication" is an act of adultery, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments! It is crucial that understand what is the correct interpretation of the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, and yet the many ecclesial authorities have completely different interpretation of this passage, which one is the correct one? What does Our Lord mean by "fornication?" in this passage?

I've gotta go, dinner is being served, but I'll be back shortly.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I agree with that thought. However, that is exactly what the RCC in fact does.

God says in Exodus 20:4-5............
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me".

But every time you go into your church you do exactly that.

God says in 1 Timothy 3:2............
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

But the RCC does not allow the bishops and priests to marry.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:9............
"And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

But ALL Catholic call their priests "FATHER".

Now YOU will of course have an excuse so as to allow you to continue to do those things and when YOU do .......YOU are ignoring God!

100% true Major but when your beliefs are built on sinking sand all you can do is heap on more sand to try and keep the edifice standing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point is, Our Lord, through the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, gives us an important moral command, he says that divorcing someone, except on the grounds of "fornication" is an act of adultery, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments! It is crucial that understand what is the correct interpretation of the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, and yet the many ecclesial authorities have completely different interpretation of this passage, which one is the correct one? What does Our Lord mean by "fornication?" in this passage?

I've gotta go, dinner is being served, but I'll be back shortly.
Fornication is illicit sex. Adultery falls into that category.

Anything outside of the concrete definition of marriage given by Christ (which He substantiated with quoting Genesis 2) in Matthew 19 is illicit sex or fornication.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.