Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Beyond that, he is also using this red herring to avoid providing CaliforniaJosiah with what was asked of him...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not a personal opinion.
That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.
And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????
Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, as the question of where matter came from presents to those who believe in evolution, yet do not believe in God.
If you believe in evolution, you have to believe the matter used in evolution came from somewhere. But, if there is no God, then where did matter come from? Big problem. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible – as to which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But, if there is no binding authority outside of the Bible, then where did this authoritative decision come from? Big problem.
In other words, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something that is logically inconsistent.
Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, as the question of where matter came from presents to those who believe in evolution, yet do not believe in God.
If you believe in evolution, you have to believe the matter used in evolution came from somewhere. But, if there is no God, then where did matter come from? Big problem. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible – as to which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But, if there is no binding authority outside of the Bible, then where did this authoritative decision come from? Big problem.
In other words, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something that is logically inconsistent. You believe the Bible is the sole authority in deciding Christian belief and practice; yet, you believe in a binding authority – whether you realize it or not – outside of the Bible which gave us the Bible in the first place. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the sole authority in matters of faith and morals. There is some authority outside of the Bible that we have to have in order to have the Bible in the first place!
I would like to add that as a Catholic I believe – and historical documentation backs up my belief – it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together as we have it today. There are many Protestants who disagree with me on that, but whether you agree that it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together or not, you have to agree that someone did. Someone with binding authority on Christians decided the disputes about which books should and should not be in what we now call the Bible. The Bible was not consulted in order to determine the question of which books should and should not be in the Bible.
In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the test of logic.
Using this line of reasoning with Sola Scriptura believers on this forum in the past, I have received several different responses. One response is: “God put the Bible together – He gave it to us.” Yes, He did. Catholics believe that God is the primary Author of Scripture. The question remains, however, as to exactly how God put the Bible together. Did he do it all by Himself and then the Bible just dropped down off of a cloud one day and all the people on the Earth heard a voice that said, “Here it is – read it and interpret it for yourselves," I don't believe that happened, but apparently that must be the way most of you understand it
Instead maybe He first use human beings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to write the Scriptures, and then He used human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit, to authoritatively decide the disputes as to which books were and were not written by Him? We Christians all agree that He used human beings to write the Scriptures, so it’s logical to assume that He also used human beings to authoritatively decide the disputes regarding Scriptures. The question is, which human beings did He use to decide these disputes? You as Sola Scriptura believers ultimately have no answer for this question.
Another response I've received is something like this: “We rely on the witness of the early Christians for our knowledge of what books should and should not be in the Bible. Do you know what we Catholics call the “witness of the early Christians?” Tradition. That’s a word that most of you Protestants will not use, when discussing your religious beliefs. All of your beliefs, you claim, come straight from the Bible and only from the Bible. Yet, when discussing where your beliefs about the Bible came from, you inevitably have to conclude that they came from tradition – whether you use the actual word, “tradition,” or not.
Also, if you respond that you rely on the witness of the early Christians for your knowledge of what is and is not Scripture, then we need to ask how is it that you non-Catholics know what the witness of the early Christians was. Is the witness of the early Christians on this matter written in the Bible? No. In other words, your knowledge of the witness of the early Christians comes from extra–biblical sources, also known as – tradition. Non-Catholic/Apostolics cannot get away from that word – tradition – no matter how hard you try.
__________________
Not a personal opinion.
That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.
And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????
Originally Posted by Albion
That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.
And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????
Great classic Disney movieThat may have been your understanding of what's actually been alleged, but with no direct quotes, it's your own black hole...
Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura
If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible
it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together as we have it today
At any rate, the official, formal, historic, confessional definition of sola scriptura offered to us here doesn't make any provision for your personal reading of the bible.
How can something that at it heart has no real meaning be absolutely defined
How can something that at it heart has no real meaning be absolutely definedDefining sola scriptura
How does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith 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 is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?
If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?
A similar thread about a term that has no meaning could be started, called "defining tradition".
I think you must realize this idea has been roundly falsified. As you've admitted yourself, the definition is quite well standardized across many multiple sources, and even across multiple denominations right here on CF. It isn't "in progress" it isn't "vague" it's well defined, and aside from a flurry of misrepresentations and strawmen, has stood up quite well.The topic title uses the present tense "defining" to indicate that it may be a work in progress.
I think you must realize this idea has been roundly falsified. As you've admitted yourself, the definition is quite well standardized across many multiple sources, and even across multiple denominations right here on CF. It isn't "in progress" it isn't "vague" it's well defined, and aside from a flurry of misrepresentations and strawmen, has stood up quite well.
Interesting opinion you've offered.
Are you seriously going to make me chase down your post where you admitted to the steadfastness of the definition of Sola Scriptura? -_-
What is the purpose of your post? I do not see a definition of sola scriptura in it nor any passages of scripture to support the definition nor any explanation of the doctrine using your own words. That's what I was asking. It's what I hoped would be given. But you may have your own approach and maybe it will get to a definition eventually. So I await your reply with some interest. I want to see where you're going with this.
Cognitive dissonance. I have posted the definition. Albion has posted the definition. CaliforniaJosiah has posted the definition. Multiple sources have been quoted with definition. All nearly word for word the same. The only way to not see them is to purposefully ignore them...
No need to start a new oneYou are welcome to start one
Holy Tradition is not the subject of this thread.
I quoted the below from another thread and thought it deserved it's own thread.
What exactly is Holy Tradition, and how many Christian denominations practice it, and how many different versions are there?
Sacred tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOriginally Posted by Albion
Oh, I don't think we can go that far. At least not if we're still discussing Tradition, and I think we are, since the Ever-Virgin doctrine is entirely based upon it.
And they might have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament writings. And those children might logically enough have been mentioned by name, too. Oh wait, they were.
No, I can hardly put my faith in a decision to deny the evidence, but that is how "Tradition" works--selectively. That's why I've said before that it isn't even true to itself.
And it's why every church body that says it believes in Holy Tradition uses a different version of what that Tradition is--doing which refutes the concept of Tradition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?