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.
Have you found any contradictions? New thread perhaps?
You're going to have to bring that up with the author of post #11. According to him, 'scripture interprets scripture' is not part of the definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura.
Ok. Please explain to me why this post #11 is so important that it is brought up incessantly threw out the entire thread?
Ok... I'm still trying to figure out why this post #11 is being referred to like scripture itself. It seems like the answer to any question is found in THE Post #11.
For it is written in; Post#11, What it is NOT: verse 2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. ........
Just tell me the point your trying to make please.
You know, since I've become the topic of so many posts I've thought that I should start a thread about me, but in lieu of that let me just say the Catholic Church agrees with my personal reading of scripture 100%.
Ok. Please explain to me why this post #11 is so important
Ok... I'm still trying to figure out why this post #11 is being referred to like scripture itself. It seems like the answer to any question is found in THE Post #11.
For it is written in; Post#11, What it is NOT: verse 2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. ........
Just tell me the point your trying to make please.
[9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.
Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down? Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?
Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should teach a different Gospel ... let him be accursed".
Holy tradition is not a higher authority above holy scripture. Both are revealed by God and both have that authority which every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God has. The hyperbole in the things you've said does not help to advance the discussion. All it does is make things unclear so that the facts cannot be examined without first removing the misconceptions that obscure truth.
Very contrary to Catholicism; quite the antithesis of the RCC....
A Catholic entirely, wholly, completely IGNORES the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (as does the RC Denomination). WHAT MAKES THEM CATHOLIC is that they swallow whole whatever the singular, exclusive, unique, particular, individual RC Denomination currently says BECAUSE it itself individually and currently is saying it and because it itself alone tells them to do that. Doing it is what makes them Catholics. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself # 87. The one, holy, catholic church has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it - it is to be completely and entirely ignored - the RCC is the only one the RCC sees and the only one all others are to see, obey, submit to, and what alone can tell them what to swallow.
And this IS the reason for the passionate PROTEST of this practice:
Originally Posted by Josiah
Why does the RCC so passionately reject this practice?
Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually.
From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: He who hears you, hears me, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."
Since it itself declares that it itself individually and exclusively is unaccountable and that whatever it itself exclusively and currently says is just to be swallowed because it itself individually and currently is saying it, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) has simply been denied (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to the unmitigated power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively). THIS is why Catholics will never engage in the issue but rather run to defend this unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like POWER that the RCC claims for itself exclusively that "trumps" the issue of truth and accountability, they claim.
You know, since I've become the topic of so many posts I've thought that I should start a thread about me, but in lieu of that let me just say the Catholic Church agrees with my personal reading of scripture 100%.
So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things SPOKEN to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")
.
Then you must be 100% in favor of sola scriptura testing of RCC doctrine and tradition against the actual Bible.
nice to meet you.
So, where did you get the idea that sola scriptura included the concept that scripture interprets scripture?
I think you are a little to intellectually inclined to try and explain a denominational explanation of the concept of Sola Scriptura. As always, when ever man gets involved with religion, they make adaptations that suit their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs to suite the Word of God.
Forget the semantics. Can God Interpret himself? Yes or no. What mankind terms as sola scriptura may or may not be real. But the simple implication of it is very real.
Can God interpret himself?
I say yes.... that being said I believe scripture can interpret scripture, because scripture comes form the Word of God, God is the Word, and God is the only one who can explain him self to us.
All the religious stuff doesn't matter.
So, you define sola scriptura as a concept in that scripture interprets scripture. Duly noted.
(emphasis mine)
Actually, it demonstrates the oral Sacred Tradition working in tandem with the written Sacred Tradition just like it does today.
Nowhere in the bible does it say anything remotely indicating that written words self-interpret. The very concept is nonsensical.
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?