Protestants-biblically prove ONE Mediator

[myhopeisfound]

St Paul also murdered many Christians when he was Saul of Tarsus, we still call him Saint. St Peter denied knowing Our Lord on 3 occasions. Yes, Moses had anger issues, he was after all, human.

We all have issues, it's part of being human.

My point exactly. "There is no one who does good..."

It's not works alone, it goes hand in hand with faith as we know faith without works is dead.

O man, this is definately starting a different thread. We both know we disagree here...

As for how the Church defines Saints already in heaven. It is quite detailed, please check out the link at the end of the posting.

I appreciate the link, but the Bible already defines Saints. I'll give it a looker.

Some of the things the Church looks at are:

1. Miracles, many Saints raised the dead by the power of Christ. e.g. St Patrick, St Elizabeth of Hungary

2. Martyrs, many Saints laid down their lives for others e.g. St Maximillian Kolbe, a priest who volunteered himself in place of a Jewish father who was being taken away for extermination.

3. Many Saints chose a life of poverty often refusing material attachments or comforts.

4. A Saint is always someone through whom we catch a glimpse of what God is like -- and of what we are called to be. Only God 'makes' Saints, of course. The church merely identifies from time to time a few of these for emulation. The church then tells the story. But the author is the Source of the grace by which saints live. And there we have it: A saint is someone whose story God tells


God tells my story as well, that makes me a saint.

As an example, I would not rate myself on par with the Apostles or Moses. These guys were professionals, I'm an amateur.

God's grace is a wonderful thing.
(Can't wait to meet them when the Lord takes me.)

I can aspire to be like them, as young tennis players aspire to be like Roger Federer. I could also aspire to be like Jesus, but I know that I would go literally insane as he is perfect. Therefore, I make do with the Saints as a model.

I can understand what you are saying here. I would like to have the faith of the people listed in Hebrews 11. But then again, do I? Verse 1 as you know says "Now faith the assurance of things hoped for, for the conviction of things not seen." Then verse 11 says, " These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledeged that they were strangers and exiles on earth." I, believing that Christ suffered, died, and arose on the third day, for me, is faith in things not seen. I am going to die in that faith, believing the promise of eternal life with Christ my Savior. I will be home. A Christlike life is something I want accomplish, because He IS perfect. Why would I want to be anything less? (I realize this perfection will not come until I'm with Him in heaven, but the Bible tells me to press on toward the goal in Philippians 3, while I'm walking in Him (Colossians 2). Therefore, I use Christ as a model, not expecting to perfect this, but striving to be like Him.

Purgatory is not a place. The current Pope writes that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration. It may be someone one <experiences>, but experiences in a moment, rather than something one endures over time.

My Roman Catholic friends have steered me wrong, I guess.

We pray directly to God also, many also ask Saints to pray for them the same way I would ask a friend to pray for me.

I realize that a Roman Catholic believe that the Saints can hear them and yes, they are intercessors, not mediators, which I guess I could now bring up the Mediatrix, Mary, but that's a different subject, but you never answered my question as to how they can hear us pray?

I never said you said it was healthy, I was responding to INTJ-F. I don't believe I even responded to your posting.

Sorry, I think I was thinking out loud, I guess.

You are confusing mediator with intercessor.

No, I realize this part gets frustrating for a Roman Catholic.
I do wonder why I need to pray to a saint in heaven when God is there.

Saints intercede by praying for us.
Christians intercede by praying for others.
Angels intercede by bringing messages and battling demons.
Prophets intercede by giving us prophecies and warnings.
Pastors/priests intercede by counselling and preaching on the proper Christian behaviour etc.

This I know, but how do the Saints hear us?

They are not needed by God, yet here they are helping him.

Psalm 115 : 12- "The LORD has remembered us; He will bless us."
He is mindful of us. He does not need intermediaries to remind us of Him and what we need.
Verse 16 says, "the heavens are the LORD's heavens". God needs no "help".

How are they taking away from Christs role as the only mediator?

...Mary...?

If no Christian were to intercede for others Christianity would cease to exist.

Where does God's Word come into play here? I don't think I'm understanding your belief on that. Your putting trust in man's work as the source of your salvation?


Blessings




All About Saints - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online

Blessings to you, as well.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Please properly quote and respond to posts. Having to extricate your text from someone else's quote is tedious.

The explanation for how Saints "hear" people is found in the doctrine of theosis.

 

[myhopeisfound]

Please properly quote and respond to posts. Having to extricate your text from someone else's quote is tedious.

The explanation for how Saints "hear" people is found in the doctrine of theosis.

Dearest Dark Lite,

Who are you directing this post to? If it wasn't to me, I'm sorry for responding...I just didn't know what text of mine you'd be extricating from someone elses quote, but I DO have a question on theosis...I have never heard of that term until this thread, so I searched the Scriptures and have read about our "glorified state", "partaking in the divine nature", "becoming like Him", but none of the verses I read go into specifics. None of them say something like, "Beloved, now when saints on earth pray, they can pray to those Saints in heaven because they have taken on all of the attributes of God and can hear the prayers offered up." It almost sounds a bit Mormon-like. Like when we die we become little gods. I'm sorry if I sound unintelligent, I'm just trying to understand (I'm serious, no sarcasm). I have yet to find a quote in Scripture backing up praying to Mary and the Saints for help. And I have yet to find a quote in Scripture saying that when they die, Saints receive the ability to hear prayers of those still on earth and inturn can pray to God for us. That is all I want. Verses. I still think/feel the same as when I posted previously (post #10 or around there).

PS. Go easy on me, I'm really just trying to understand this part of the Roman Catholic faith. I'm not a theological genius, as you can see. Just someone who has a huge, gigantic amount of questions. Thanks

 

[Dark_Lite]

Dearest Dark Lite,

Who are you directing this post to? If it wasn't to me, I'm sorry for responding...I just didn't know what text of mine you'd be extricating from someone elses quote,

It was to you. I was talking about putting your text inside other people's quotes. When you press the quote button, the site removes any quotes in the post you are quoting, so all of your post content but the last little sentence will disappear. You can test that by pressing quote on one of your other posts in this thread. The proper way to respond to a post with quotes is to break up each part you want to quote using quote tags, and put your response beneath it.

but I DO have a question on theosis...I have never heard of that term until this thread, so I searched the Scriptures and have read about our "glorified state", "partaking in the divine nature", "becoming like Him", but none of the verses I read go into specifics.

Theosis is generally expressed more fully in Eastern Christianity than in Western Christianity, but it is a component of non-Protestant Western Christianity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes it thus:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81​

These quotes come from Athanasius and Thomas Aquinas. (footnotes 80 and 81). The basis of theosis exists in Scripture, but it has been expounded upon outside the Bible, explained by Tradition.

None of them say something like, "Beloved, now when saints on earth pray, they can pray to those Saints in heaven because they have taken on all of the attributes of God and can hear the prayers offered up." It almost sounds a bit Mormon-like. Like when we die we become little gods.

It is not at all similar to Mormonism. In Mormonism the soul ascends to the same ontological level as God, or at least to a level above what it was created with. Theosis is union with God's divinity. It is not becoming equal with God's power (and thus becoming a god in the traditional sense). Souls are created and have no powers of their own. Any "power" a Saint seems to have is not his/her own. It is a power of God, granted to the divinized soul for the express purpose of showing and pointing to his glory.

The wording of the quotes from Athanasius and Aquinas can be misleading, but the above paragraph is what they mean. It never, in any situation, means that man becomes equal to God or gains divine power of his own.

I'm sorry if I sound unintelligent, I'm just trying to understand (I'm serious, no sarcasm). I have yet to find a quote in Scripture backing up praying to Mary and the Saints for help. And I have yet to find a quote in Scripture saying that when they die, Saints receive the ability to hear prayers of those still on earth and inturn can pray to God for us. That is all I want. Verses. I still think/feel the same as when I posted previously (post #10 or around there).

This is the root of your problem. If you attempt to understand historical (that is, Catholic/Orthodox) theology through the lens of Sola Scriptura you will always come up short. The Church came before the Bible, and the Bible was never meant to be excised from the greater Tradition of the Church.

Even the most minimalist definition of Sola Scriptura does this, and it is why Sola Scriptura is the fundamental divide between Protestantism and the rest of Christianity, above all other divisions.

Christianity has always been bigger than the Bible. If you want to fully understand the communion of Saints, how they become as they are, the foundations of the doctrines, etc you will have to turn to the Early Church Fathers and doctors of the Church (ex: Aquinas).

You may not agree with their conclusions or their reasoning, but that's where the answers to your questions lie. If you want to answer them that is where you will have to go.

 

[myhopeisfound]

1. Your own definition describes it as divination. This is not what praying to the saints is.

2. No one is trying to communicate with the dead in any case, so point is moot.

So this is a bit off from my conversation with "Dark Lite", but Incariol, what do you think of the story of King Saul asking the Witch/Medium of Endor to contact Samuel in 1 Samuel 28? I realize Saul was not praying to Samuel, but he was trying to contact him...is this not considered intercession because it is not saint to Saint praying?

 

[myhopeisfound]

It was to you. I was talking about putting your text inside other people's quotes. When you press the quote button, the site removes any quotes in the post you are quoting, so all of your post content but the last little sentence will disappear. You can test that by pressing quote on one of your other posts in this thread. The proper way to respond to a post with quotes is to break up each part you want to quote using quote tags, and put your response beneath it.


Okay Dark Lite, could you break away from Theology for a moment and help a fellow Christian learn how to multi-quote? I even looked up "how to multiquote" in the Forum How-to and saw YOU had posted the answer to the question. The problem is, I canNOT figure out how to do this. You are dealing with an amatuer, newbie, so forgive me for my previous posts. I'm here to learn about Theosis AND multiquoting! How do you use the Multiquote button? Do you highlight text and then press "Multiquote"? Do you press "Multiquote" first, then highlight? HELP!

 

[Dark_Lite]

So this is a bit off from my conversation with "Dark Lite", but Incariol, what do you think of the story of King Saul asking the Witch/Medium of Endor to contact Samuel in 1 Samuel 28? I realize Saul was not praying to Samuel, but he was trying to contact him...is this not considered intercession because it is not saint to Saint praying?

That would be necromancy, which is forbidden. It is not of God, and it is not merely praying to a Saint (which always, always means asking for their intercession).

Okay Dark Lite, could you break away from Theology for a moment and help a fellow Christian learn how to multi-quote? I even looked up "how to multiquote" in the Forum How-to and saw YOU had posted the answer to the question. The problem is, I canNOT figure out how to do this. You are dealing with an amatuer, newbie, so forgive me for my previous posts. I'm here to learn about Theosis AND multiquoting! How do you use the Multiquote button? Do you highlight text and then press "Multiquote"? Do you press "Multiquote" first, then highlight? HELP!

Multiquoting is for quoting multiple posts. If you click the MQ button on each post you want to quote and then hit Post Reply it will give you all the posts in the box. I did that for both of your posts.

What you need to try to do is break up individual posts into multiple quotes, where you just wrap different parts in quote tags. You almost had it for my post, but because you were missing [/quote], it obviously didn't take.

Anything you want to quote goes in [quote]quote tags[/quote]:

quote tags

You can also use [quote=Name]quote tags[/quote] to get:

quote tags

 

[myhopeisfound]

That would be necromancy, which is forbidden. It is not of God, and it is not merely praying to a Saint (which always, always means asking for their intercession).

Ok, that's what I thought...

Multiquoting is for quoting multiple posts. If you click the MQ button on each post you want to quote and then hit Post Reply it will give you all the posts in the box. I did that for both of your posts.

I hope I'm doing this correctly.

What you need to try to do is break up individual posts into multiple quotes, where you just wrap different parts in quote tags. You almost had it for my post, but because you were missing

, it obviously didn't take.

Now, I'm trying this one.

Anything you want to quote goes in [quote]quote tags[/quote]:

A told B and B told C, I'll meet you at the top of the coconut tree.
I'm going to press "preview post" now and hope for the best...


AHHHH! Why are my Quotes inside Quotes?! I will get this Dark Lite...I'm sorry I'm wasting debate time...

 

[Dark_Lite]

Your post should look like this:

-------------------------------

[quote]That would be necromancy, which is forbidden. It is not of God, and it is not merely praying to a Saint (which always, always means asking for their intercession).[/quote]

Ok, that's what I thought...

[quote]Multiquoting is for quoting multiple posts. If you click the MQ button on each post you want to quote and then hit Post Reply it will give you all the posts in the box. I did that for both of your posts.[/quote]

I hope I'm doing this correctly.

[quote]What you need to try to do is break up individual posts into multiple quotes, where you just wrap different parts in quote tags. You almost had it for my post, but because you were missing[/quote]

, it obviously didn't take.

 

[xfisherman]

Who started all these practice of praying to Mary and Saints,I think its misleading and drawing people away from praying directly to God or Jesus Christ.I can only think of one and thats the great deceiver.

 

[myhopeisfound]

Incariol, Why would I back up something with verses?! Instead of using logic? Abortion is logical to some...Cheating is logical to some...Lying is logical to some...etc...never once have I read to pray to anyone but God through Christ.

dark Lite, I am using my post to learn how to qoute people and respond, while debating praying to the Saints with you, so I don't waste your time.

I still agree with myself here. Although, praying directly to God is logical to me instead of to a Saint in heaven who can't hear me. So, in that way I would be using logic. I guess I understand 2Peter differently than you.

I want verses that specifically tell me to pray to Mary. I would like to see a verse or ten that tells me to ask saints in heaven to pray for me.

I would like specific verses in the Bible that say things like, "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." If the Spirit is intercedeing for the saints because they are weak, then they can't be glorified saints in heaven. I just can't find anything in the OT or NT that says to pray to Mary or a saint in heaven, BUT I do find places where Jesus teaches us to pray and never once does He mention to ask saints in heaven to pray and never once does He or any of the Books of the Bible tell me to pray to Mary. I never read of Jesus sitting down with His disciples and asking a person in heaven to help them pray. He always went directly to the Father. There are many prayers in the OT and all are directly addressed to God.

You said the Bible came after the church. I agree. The compiled canon of Scriptures (OT and NT) came after the Church was established, obviously b/c the Church council decided through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what books went in, but the OT Scriptures were there before the church that Christ established through the apostles was actually called the "Church", right? And the letters of the apostles and the gospels were there as reference to what Christianity was and should be, correct? So, I don't see why I can't take 2Timothy3:16-17 and arrive at the conclusion that ALL of Scripture is useful for understanding what I am to believe as a Christian. I firmly believe that if God wanted me to pray to Saints in heaven and to Mary, instead of going directly to Him, He would have said it in His Word and Christ would have told us to when He taught us how to pray and the apostles would have included that in their letters in some way.

Also, how do you know who to pray/talk to? What if the person you are praying/talking to is in Purgatory, not in his/her perfect/glorified state yet. Is your prayer/talk in vain?

This is still a question that has not been answered. (My Roman Catholic friends believe their in-laws can hear them, so they ask them to pray for them. But, what if they are in purgatory? Is that still an option for my friends?)



(...alright, let's see if I did this correctly.)

 

[Dark_Lite]

You said the Bible came after the church. I agree. The compiled canon of Scriptures (OT and NT) came after the Church was established, obviously b/c the Church council decided through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what books went in, but the OT Scriptures were there before the church that Christ established through the apostles was actually called the "Church", right? And the letters of the apostles and the gospels were there as reference to what Christianity was and should be, correct? So, I don't see why I can't take 2Timothy3:16-17 and arrive at the conclusion that ALL of Scripture is useful for understanding what I am to believe as a Christian.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is often cited in support of Sola Scriptura. But I think that the Sola Scriptura interpretation of that passage is based on an equivocation fallacy: where the definition of words change in the sentence, or the incorrect definition is applied to words. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says this:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

Nowhere in that sentence is the notion of a final or supreme authority raised. "Thoroughly equipped" doesn't mean "fully equipped," and "good work" doesn't mean doctrine.

I firmly believe that if God wanted me to pray to Saints in heaven and to Mary, instead of going directly to Him, He would have said it in His Word and Christ would have told us to when He taught us how to pray and the apostles would have included that in their letters in some way.

This kind of logic can get out of hand very quickly: if God wanted us to use the Internet, it would be in the Bible. If God wanted us to fly in planes, it'd be in the Bible. So on and so on. You are still coming at this from a Sola Scriptura mindset. The Bible is not all that the apostles did. Undoubtedly they wrote more letters and preached many sermons that were not written down.

The book of John explicitly says that everything Jesus did was not written down. It's certainly no stretch to conclude that not everything the apostles did was recorded either. For example, extrabiblical evidence tells us that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and both were martyred there.

This is still a question that has not been answered. (My Roman Catholic friends believe their in-laws can hear them, so they ask them to pray for them. But, what if they are in purgatory? Is that still an option for my friends?)

If their in-laws are there, then such a thing can happen yes. If they're not in heaven, well, oh well. The Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, might recognize that certain people have made it to heaven. These are called Saints, which is different from saints. We are all saints, but only some are Saints.

I'm not aware of any prohibition of asking any person who has passed from this mortal coil to intercede to God. It may be that the person we are asking to intercede is not in heaven, but it's not in vain to pray for those people or even assume they are in heaven. It's an act of faith.

 

[myhopeisfound]

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Nowhere in that sentence is the notion of a final or supreme authority raised. "Thoroughly equipped" doesn't mean "fully equipped," and "good work" doesn't mean doctrine.

I just looked up "thoroughly" in the dictionary and it said:

1. extremely careful
2. done fully
3. absolute

Then I looked it up in my thesaurus and it said: (synonyms)

completely, absolutely, totally, utterly, from top to bottom


...as far as "every good work" is concerned I believe the passage is saying that a person has everything he needs to preach, teach, etc, salvation and eternal life to others and to edify their own spiritual life. I will be as the Bereans...

This kind of logic can get out of hand very quickly: if God wanted us to use the Internet, it would be in the Bible. If God wanted us to fly in planes, it'd be in the Bible. So on and so on. You are still coming at this from a Sola Scriptura mindset. The Bible is not all that the apostles did. Undoubtedly they wrote more letters and preached many sermons that were not written down.

But this kind of logic (the Bible doesn't contain everything)can be used the same way.

The book of John explicitly says that everything Jesus did was not written down. It's certainly no stretch to conclude that not everything the apostles did was recorded either. For example, extrabiblical evidence tells us that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and both were martyred there.

Extrabiblical evidence tells us historical facts...but the Bible is sufficient for doctrine.

(Do you really believe that God would have steared the Church wrong and had them put in Books that are incorrect in doctrine and inturn do you think He would have let them keep out MAJOR doctrinal issues when He directed them in compiling the canon of scriptures?)

So, let's set aside Christ and His lesson on prayer and let's set aside the disciples and apostles and the important things they wrote down. Let's look at the OT for references regarding Mary as Mediatrix and praying to Saints...

 

[Dark_Lite]

I just looked up "thoroughly" in the dictionary and it said:

1. extremely careful
2. done fully
3. absolute

Then I looked it up in my thesaurus and it said: (synonyms)

completely, absolutely, totally, utterly, from top to bottom

...as far as "every good work" is concerned I believe the passage is saying that a person has everything he needs to preach, teach, etc, salvation and eternal life to others and to edify their own spiritual life.

That's generally what most Protestants say. But I find that to be stretching the word "works" into meaninglessness. It is more eisegesis. Good works has specific meaning in the Bible, and that isn't it. When works is mentioned in James 2:24, do you interpret it that way? How about Romans?

As for the definition of thorough, it does apparently have some synonymy with "fully," but consider the following.

What is in question for Sola Scriptura is whether or not the Bible is sufficient for all salvific doctrine. Even if we are to take "thoroughly" as equaling "fully," it is not enough. You can be fully equipped to fight a war. You can be fully equipped to go spelunking. You can be fully equipped to build a nuclear reactor.

But if you don't know how to do those things, you're not going to get anywhere fast. In the worst case, you could injure or kill yourself! So it is with theology. The Scriptures might be able to fully equip you, but you still need to be trained. That is, you still need an external interpretive authority, and that authority is the Tradition of the Church.

So, I maintain that the equivocation fallacy stands, although not necessarily on "thoroughly" vs "fully." The equivocation is more like "thoroughly equipped" equals "sufficient knowledge."

Now, you might say "the Holy Spirit can teach me." But how often have we heard that argument? If that argument is true, the Holy Spirit just might be schizophrenic. We have Baptists being led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that infants shouldn't be baptized. We have Lutherans being led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that infants should be baptized. Others are led to the truth of no sacraments, while others are led to the truth of sacraments!

I will be as the Bereans...

Oddly enough, probably one of the worst examples to cite for Sola Scriptura. This is a favorite of Protestants, because it apparently shows Sola Scriptura in the New Testament. But really, it is the opposite. If anything, the whole story is a lesson against Sola Scriptura.

The Thessalonians argued with Paul as he taught. Guess what they argued with? Scripture (Old Testament)! The Bereans just so happened to agree with Paul, and were receptive to his oral teachings. They made sure what he said lined up with Scripture (Old Testament). But that doesn't mean Scripture is the ultimate authority. It means what we teach cannot contradict Scripture. That doesn't mean everything is in the Bible.

The Thessalonians do exactly what Protestants do today: argue against the teachings of the apostolic Churches and other Protestants with Scripture.

But this kind of logic (the Bible doesn't contain everything)can be used the same way.

The other way around is far less vulnerable to this than the way you originally proposed. Tradition is the carrying of teachings through the ages. It is accountable to the historical teachings of the Church. So, there is a defined limit to the source. Go outside the historic teachings, and you have left orthodoxy.

With Sola Scriptura, no such boundary exists, or the boundary is too loose to matter. Even with the minimal definition of Sola Scriptura, which takes tradition into account (but limits its authority), has far too loose of a boundary. When the external interpretive authority (i.e. Tradition) is limited or completely removed, there is a void. And that void can be filled with pretty much anything. The lesser of a role Tradition plays, the greater the void becomes, and the chance of new theology being invented increases.

(Do you really believe that God would have steared the Church wrong and had them put in Books that are incorrect in doctrine and inturn do you think He would have let them keep out MAJOR doctrinal issues when He directed them in compiling the canon of scriptures?)

You have discovered the paradox of Sola Scriptura. The canon was compiled via Church Council. But Sola Scriptura necessarily limits the authority of Councils. The historic Church views Ecumenical Councils to be infallible. Protestantism does not. So, you are left with the requirement of an infallible Council to get Sola Scriptura, but are unable to fill it under Sola Scriptura theology.

So, let's set aside Christ and His lesson on prayer and let's set aside the disciples and apostles and the important things they wrote down. Let's look at the OT for references regarding Mary as Mediatrix and praying to Saints...

The discussion is necessarily about Sola Scriptura. I already told you where to find the answers to your questions. The doctrines about the Saints and Mary are only alluded to in the Bible. They are not described fully. Much of the content of those doctrines comes from outside the Bible.

If you're trying to build a basis for the doctrines and practices based on the Bible alone, you won't be able to. But then again, Christianity was never meant to be built on the Bible alone.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you're trying to build a basis for the doctrines and practices based on the Bible alone, you won't be able to. But then again, Christianity was never meant to be built on the Bible alone.

So, if I may ask, upon what was Christianity meant to be built? How do you know this to be the case?

 

[myhopeisfound]

Dark Lite,

The Greek word canon means "measuring rod". If the church compiled the canon of scriptures to be used as a measuring rod of what is truth and what is not, and if the council acted infallibly according to the Roman Catholic Church, then aren't you NOT trusting the church that you are SUPPOSED to have full trust in?

 

[myhopeisfound]

As for the definition of thorough, it does apparently have some synonymy with "fully," but consider the following.

What is in question for Sola Scriptura is whether or not the Bible is sufficient for all salvific doctrine. Even if we are to take "thoroughly" as equaling "fully," it is not enough. You can be fully equipped to fight a war. You can be fully equipped to go spelunking. You can be fully equipped to build a nuclear reactor.

I really think this is a terrible argument. But I guess if you trust in yourself for your salvation, you have a valid one...

Now, you might say "the Holy Spirit can teach me." But how often have we heard that argument? If that argument is true, the Holy Spirit just might be schizophrenic. We have Baptists being led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that infants shouldn't be baptized. We have Lutherans being led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that infants should be baptized. Others are led to the truth of no sacraments, while others are led to the truth of sacraments!

There is just as much dissention (google it) in the Roman Catholic Church (by the way the name is an oxymoron) than there is on the Protestant side because, guess what, WE ARE SINNERS. It was because popes and councils erred that caused us to see the supremacy of GOD's word as opposed to MAN's word.

Oddly enough, probably one of the worst examples to cite for Sola Scriptura. This is a favorite of Protestants, because it apparently shows Sola Scriptura in the New Testament. But really, it is the opposite. If anything, the whole story is a lesson against Sola Scriptura.

The Thessalonians argued with Paul as he taught. Guess what they argued with? Scripture (Old Testament)! The Bereans just so happened to agree with Paul, and were receptive to his oral teachings. They made sure what he said lined up with Scripture (Old Testament). But that doesn't mean Scripture is the ultimate authority. It means what we teach cannot contradict Scripture. That doesn't mean everything is in the Bible.

You just won the argument for me by contradicting yourself. "They made sure what he said lined up with the Scripture(OT)." ????

If you're trying to build a basis for the doctrines and practices based on the Bible alone, you won't be able to. But then again, Christianity was never meant to be built on the Bible alone.

I will always test man's word by God's...Always. Man's word can change, God's Word stands forever.

 

[myhopeisfound]

I'm quoting in quotes again...sorry.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So, if I may ask, upon what was Christianity meant to be built? How do you know this to be the case?

Christianity is built on the faith that the apostles handed down from Christ, preserved by the Church. It is evident from the history.

It is historical fact that the contents of the canon was a disagreement among the early Church.
It is historical fact that the Bible did not exist for 400 years.
It is historical fact that the 66 book Protestant canon did not exist until after the Reformation.
It is historical fact that the Christian Church used the Councils to promulgate and decide upon doctrinal issues.

The Greek word canon means "measuring rod". If the church compiled the canon of scriptures to be used as a measuring rod of what is truth and what is not, and if the council acted infallibly according to the Roman Catholic Church, then aren't you NOT trusting the church that you are SUPPOSED to have full trust in?

What? The way you have phrased this statement doesn't make sense. But it does highlight the innate paradox of Sola Scriptura, which I already explained. It's not like once the Bible it was compiled, it automagically replaced the conciliar epistemology of the Church. It supported it, and cemented the conciliar foundations of Christianity.

I really think this is a terrible argument. But I guess if you trust in yourself for your salvation, you have a valid one...

Ok, well it's nice that you think it's a terrible argument, but how about attempting to refute it? It also looks like you may have misunderstood what I was saying. It's an argument against Sola Scriptura. It states that saying 2 Timothy 3:16 supports the Bible as the supreme doctrinal authority/standard/only source/whatever other definition you want to think of is a logical fallacy. More specifically, it is an equivocation fallacy. The equivocation fallacy is the assumption that "equipped" equals "training" (that is, correct interpretation).

There is just as much dissention (google it) in the Roman Catholic Church

Such as? I've heard this claimed before, and it's always either a faulty assumption or a misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology. This argument almost always takes one of two forms:

1. Assuming that because there are individual Catholics who disagree with what the Church says, the Catholic Church is in the same state of division as the Protestant denominations. This is incorrect because we are talking about official teachings of denominations, not what individual believers think. The Catholic Church has one set of teachings. Protestant denominations, on the other hand, have continually splintered over the centuries over various doctrinal issues. Disagree? Just start a new denomination.

2. Assuming that because the Catholic Church has 23 different particular Churches under its umbrella, that these are the same as denominations, and therefore the Catholic Church has the same type of division as the Protestant denominations. This is also incorrect. The 23 different Churches under the Catholic Church all have exactly the same beliefs. Different liturgical expressions and administrative structures has always been allowed and encouraged in Christianity. Division of doctrine has not.​

(by the way the name is an oxymoron)

The Catholic Church generally refers to itself as the Catholic Church. "Roman" is prefixed to mean one of several things, depending on who is talking:

1. Used to refer to Roman Rite parishes under the Latin Church.
2. Used to refer to the fact that all members of the Catholic Church are in communion with the Pope, who is based in Rome.
3. Used by people who respectfully disagree with Catholicism to categorize the Catholic Church according to its Roman roots. Basically the same as #2.
4. Used by certain people who disrespectfully disagree with Catholicism as a subtle pejorative term. In this context, it's similar to calling President Obama "Barack Hussein Obama" in a context where his full name wouldn't be used. The wording is used to subtly poison the well, casting doubt on the opposition's credibility.

It was because popes and councils erred that caused us to see the supremacy of GOD's word as opposed to MAN's word.

No, it was Luther's arbitrary knee-jerk reaction to abuses in the Catholic Church that caused Sola Scriptura to come to the forefront. Luther was willing to remain Catholic, until they wouldn't give in to his doctrinal demands. So, what did he do? Why, start a new denomination of course! And from there it has spiraled out of control since.

You just won the argument for me by contradicting yourself. "They made sure what he said lined up with the Scripture(OT)." ????

Perhaps you forgot to read the last part of that paragraph:

But that doesn't mean Scripture is the ultimate authority. It means what we teach cannot contradict Scripture. That doesn't mean everything is in the Bible.​

Just because something cannot contradict something else does not mean that something else is a supreme authority. It simply means that something cannot contradict something else.

The main problem with Sola Scriptura is its removal of the external interpretive authority (Tradition). Many Sola Scripturists are fond of claiming that Scripture is the ultimate divine measuring stick, and simply limits the authority of Tradition.

Not only is this in disagreement with historical Christian epistemology, but it also opens the floodgates for any and all beliefs. The original Sola Scripturists more or less adhered to Tradition where it fit their beliefs. But with Tradition "limited," more "exotic" beliefs began to spring up. Like the original Sola Scripturists, these people just claimed that Tradition was wrong on that particular point, threw out the historical belief, and replaced it with their own.

This has continued in varying degrees over the centuries. Some Protestant denominations are closer to historical Christianity than others, but all are at least one step removed from it.

I will always test man's word by God's...Always. Man's word can change, God's Word stands forever.

By all means, continue to do so. Problems arise when:
1. You assume that God's word is contained entirely within the Bible.
2. You assume that you don't need an external interpretive authority to do so.

I'm quoting in quotes again...sorry.

You have the ability to edit your post and fix it.

 

[xfisherman]

Dark lite,you and your church claimed so many things but which are not substantiated.Sorry I don't buy your claims.Its still one way to the Father thru Lord Jesus Christ with me.All other way are false way.