John 16:12(Denys Sola Scriptura)

[GorrionGris]

If you are going to try and defame me how bout not just using a blanket statement?? cite some things I don't know about.

I am not trying to defame you, what is more I care about you one zillion times more than this thread, who's winning, losing or anything else.

What I say is that I think, based in our talk about Galileo (and what I learnt at the seminary: Inmaculada Concepción Diocesean Seminary in Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain) that you have not yet grasped the Catholic doctrine on infallibility. It's just my opinion, though.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't know what's worse, to be willing to believe a unsubstantiated claim or knowing you are peddling one.

Good question....


A Mormon may genuinely believe all that LDS Tradition says, even though the substantiation for the self-claims is completely lacking.

Now, he might say that he simply believes it to be true - in spite of no real evidence. He simply chooses to believe it is true. While I may not, I can affirm his honesty and accept his position as one of faith.

Ah, but when the Mormon shouts (as some do), but the Bible teaches that the LDS self-claims are true, then it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" Or when he says, "And history teaches that Jesus visited the Americas!" it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" When the Mormon says, "the LDS says it's true so that's proof!" or "The chosen Tradition of the LDS as the LDS itself so interprets and arbitrates so that's proof!" most of us would conclude that it's not. It's just self-authentication. And usually, in a moment of honesty, the Mormon will often admit that.

But which is worse? That is your question. To accept something as true while admitting one has no substantiation for it? Or insisting that one has substantiation for it but it's painfully obvious it's just circular, self-authenticating arguements based on the same self-claims?

I think the second is worse.






.

 

[GorrionGris]

Right on Sis, its about sincere and pure devotion to our Savior and Lord!!!

Who has said otherwise?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
simon, what do you mean by universal authority?

I have to run now, but later when I get back I will be happy to take this up with you once I understand what you are saying and you are open to having a reasonable discussion with an open mind, and I will do the same. ..

.

Very well...I'll place this challenge to you. Show us any early church writings whether those you consider fathers or heretics that will CONFIRM that first Peter was bishop/pope of Rome alone and that he was the head of the church and that he alone passed on said keys of authority over the entire church to the first/next bishop and that bishop in turn held that same UNIVERSAL authority...Your church claims this has been known for all ages, I say you'll see nothing until at least into the first parts of the 3rd century.
Anything you find even close, will be out of context, I'll show you...MY promise to you!

Promise?

 

[simonthezealot]

Gone for the night lets see if this thread'll split by the morning.
Good night.
In Him,
Simon

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes, we ALL KNOW that the RCC has appointed it and it itself as the SOLE interpreter of Scripture and it's own Tradition (as it itself defines and chooses).


And yes we ALL KNOW that it "interprets" God's Holy Word so that it is in full agreement with it and it itself alone - God is required to agree with the RCC, God's Word is subject to the words of the RCC, not the other way around. We know that.


The question is: is that good epistemology? Is that the best way to evaluate the correctness of the teachings of the RCC? Is it the best approach to norming for the teacher to be the SOLE arbiter for his own teachings according to the Rule of his own teachings (Sola Ecclesia)? Catholics insist that it is - in fact it's infallible, perfect and unaccountable (when it's done by it and it itself ALONE) but the very same thing is self-authenticating, circular and supremely dangerous if any other does what it itself insists is perfect, holy, infallible and unaccountable.



Thank you for this very important discussion.




Pax


- Josiah



.

got proof??

 

[Fireinfolding]

Right on Sis, its about sincere and pure devotion to our Savior and Lord!!!

Man Simon, you had to copy paste the typo one Dang bro I wasnt quick enough


YAH BABY!! Our LORD ROCKS this world and the NEXT Aint no man (or woman for that matter) then can tell me HE cant be trusted (and they can be)

NOKEY DOKEY I aint buying what your selling, ya know?

Buy the truth and sell it not

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Hentenza]

So truth is what ever we make of it?

or are you saying there is the truth out there and heck if any of us will be able to find it?

I think you made the best argument for why God gave us His Church to teach us and not just a book for us to teach ourselves.

You sure are hung up on the RCC truth, aren't you. Well, good for you because you chose that truth. It is you truth, not mine.

 

[simonthezealot]

.
Promise?

Yes, promise.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Anybody can pop up with a gospel and say, "hey, it's from Christ, believe it."

Exactly!!!!


It's one of the main reasons why I left the RCC.






.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Gone for the night lets see if this thread'll split by the morning.
Good night.
In Him,
Simon

Night Simon

Dont let the nightcritters bite (Sunlover will get a kick out of that one)

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[simonthezealot]

I am not trying to defame you, what is more I care about you one zillion times more than this thread, who's winning, losing or anything else.

What I say is that I think, based in our talk about Galileo (and what I learnt at the seminary: Inmaculada Concepción Diocesean Seminary in Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain) that you have not yet grasped the Catholic doctrine on infallibility. It's just my opinion, though.

Never said it was infallible, it wasn't the point...Though I could lay down a strong argument for it.
Gotta go. I love you 2 brother!

 

[GorrionGris]

Exactly!!!!


It's one of the main reasons why I left the RCC.


I chose to embrace accountability instead.






.

Yet, how do you know the Bible is true?

 

[simonthezealot]

Night Simon

Dont let the nightcritters bite (Sunlover will get a kick out of that one)

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Trento]

follow no church...but rather follow Christ


and the RCC is certainly not the true Church. The true Church is made up of people from all denominations that follow Christ.


There is exactly zero proof in Scripture to support the claim that the RCC is the true church.

In regards to the Bible Can you tell me who these canonists were and what Church they belonged to?
Also, were they part of some organization that had the authority to make such a profound determination? Did they write down their determinations and decisions, and, if so, where would I be able to get a copy? What criteria did they use to pick the twenty-seven books? Why do we accept their determination as binding on us today? How do we know they were right?”

How do we know what books are inspired and therefore infallible? If so much was riding on this collection of books, why didn’t the apostles clarify it for us? John lived to almost 100 a.d. (into the reign of Trajan, 98-117 a.d.). By this time the New Testament documents had all been written and passed around for years. If the apostles understood the matter to be as crucial as sola Scriptura Protestants do, why didn’t John select the canon for the Church and leave the infallible rule (canon) before he died? John should have done so to give us assurance of the books and to do so quickly so people didn’t have to remain uncertain for another 293 years. Wasn’t it his duty. as the last living apostle—the last chance at a clear revelatory canon. Why did he leave it up the Church?
For that matter, why didn’t Jesus close the Old Testament canon when he had the opportunity, to avoid all the confusion in later years? If the Book was the final word, let’s establish its boundaries and announce its intent. Why did he leave it up to his Church? Did he trust his Church to make such a binding decision, not only of what the canon would be, but also that there would be a canon. A reading of the New Testament, and the writings of the early Church, demonstrates that Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, neither did the apostles, nor did they seem to apprehend or comprehend a canon, nor mention it. They did both promise an authoritative Church though. The canon of Scripture was not the means of combating heresy in the first centuries of the Church: apostolic tradition and succession were the means. Tertullian stated that the heretics use the Scriptures to defend their heresies, but the Church based her defense on the tradition and succession passed down from the apostles.

 

[GorrionGris]

by the way I don't agree with the OP

 

[mont974x4]

I have faith (from Him) in Him and His Word.

 

[Benedicta00]

Good question....


A Mormon may genuinely believe all that LDS Tradition says, even though the substantiation for the self-claims is completely lacking.

Now, he might say that he simply believes it to be true - in spite of no real evidence. He simply chooses to believe it is true. While I may not, I can affirm his honesty and accept his position as one of faith.

Ah, but when the Mormon shouts (as some do), but the Bible teaches that the LDS self-claims are true, then it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" Or when he says, "And history teaches that Jesus visited the Americas!" it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" When the Mormon says, "the LDS says it's true so that's proof!" or "The chosen Tradition of the LDS as the LDS itself so interprets and arbitrates so that's proof!" most of us would conclude that it's not. It's just self-authentication. And usually, in a moment of honesty, the Mormon will often admit that.

But which is worse? That is your question. To accept something as true while admitting one has no substantiation for it? Or insisting that one has substantiation for it but it's painfully obvious it's just circular, self-authenticating arguements based on the same self-claims?

I think the second is worse.






.

And remember when you said you never compare Catholicism to Mormonism??

CJ, you have absolutely no credibility if you aren't going to produce evince that supports your claims.

You post outlandish opinions as if they are intelligent arguments but offer not a stand of reputable evidence to back up a word of it.

I'm over this CJ. Time to get on another kick, the Mormon one and the self authority one has gotten stale.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Exactly!!!!


It's one of the main reasons why I left the RCC.


I chose to embrace accountability instead.






.

AMEN!!! STUDY to shew YOURSELF APPROVED unto GOD (not men) a workman that needs not be ashamed who rightly divides the word of truth.

ACCOUNTABILITY GOOD WORDS!!

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[GorrionGris]

I have faith (from Him) in Him and His Word.

I have it too.