Sola Scriptura - The Bible and Logic (contra Catholics)

[Afra]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

So to be clear, your basis for believing that the words of tradition, which you presented as being that of Christ, is not that your church has told you so, or that you have come to have faith in your church and its claim of ensured infallibility?

What follows does not contradict what the CE said (the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) but explains that faith is a gift of God, for which "is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie," yet since according to Rome one cannot know what the word of God apart from faith in the intermediary authorities, but faith in God means faith in His instruments.

Yet in RC theology, in order to know and thus have faith from the word of God, faith in the instruments of it must come first. Thus as explained before the CE states that "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)

There is no dispute here that faith is a gift from God, yet contrary to atheistic charges, it is not blind faith, but has a basis of evidential warrant, and does not exclude faith in revealed truths also being based on appearing as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason. Relevant to this, your pasted article refers to "motives of credibility," and I suppose this is supposed to be your answer as to your basis for believing.

That while the Catholic position is that one cannot ascertain what Scripture consists of apart from an implicit act of faith in her, yet he can have faith in Rome based upon "motives of credibility," though to be logically consistent, since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17) but one needs faith in Rome to know and believe the word of God, then faith in the intermediary authorities must first be a faith that is based on historical evidences, by which the convert places submissive faith in the church of Rome as God's supreme instrument on earth to lead and guide him/her.

If so, then you must actually deal with our motives of credibility for rejecting Catholic distinctives, including the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, rather than blithely dismissing our reasoned rejection of this such since Rome rejects the possibility that Scripture can contradict her.

Which relates to the larger issue of why we should believe Rome when she, and thus you, tells us that something not in Scripture, and even foreign to it (from praying to created beings in Heaven to the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility), is the word of God.

Meanwhile you have left a multitude of questions unanswered which relate to faith in Rome telling us that something not in Scripture is the word of God, and thus why we are to reject SS in favor of SE.

You need to see that the basic problem is that you have "Bible Christians" who have realized a common regeneration/conversion with its basic transformative effects in heart and life of believing a Scripture-based gospel of heart-purifying justifying faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and which results in further confidence by the Spirit and His witnesses in Scripture.

And thus you have thus rejected an entire group of Christians here as being so, unless there is another class of true, non-Bible Christians. Shall I report you?

Meanwhile under the premise that Bible Christians arr only those that God has revealed as his word, which refer to the 73 book RC canon, then you must reject multitudes of RCs for most of Rome's history, from Jerome to Cajetan as being so, while the EOs must reject you.

You can report me if you believe that I have violated one of the forum rules. But certainly if I violated a rule you have violated the same rule, because at the outset you insinuated that Catholic Christians are not Bible Christians.

You do not have to believe anything that the Catholic Church says, of course. You have free-will to make your own decisions. I did not come here to attempt to convict you that what the Catholic Church says is true. But the Holy Spirit can convict you of the truth, if you ask God to show you to truth and are open to receiving it.

 

[Afra]

Afra, you are on a thread which Catholics attacks SS, and require us to reject Scripture as alone being the supreme infallible authoritative standard for faith, with its contents being the assured word of God, and to accept the church of Rome (or the EO) as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say is the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus equating herself with the inspired writers of Scripture and apostles who could speak as wholly inspired, even though her popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God.

That is not how I would characterize the thread.

For this reason and others already posted, we reject the presumption of Rome as unwarranted and refuted. Which refutation, as past pages attest (such as
as in here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) by the grace of God, other RCs have not been able to overcome.

None of those pages refutes any Catholic dogma.

Then you should read some of the last few pages of the thread before jumping in and requiring is to repeat the nonsense already refuted.

Reported for goading. There is no need to refer to what other people have written as nonsense. Please be civil.

As for what I should or should not do, I can decide that for myself. I do not need your assistance in this area, but thank you.

Actually you reject any and all Protestant Christians as Bible Christians who reject the Catholic deuteros, and thus reject an entire group of Christians here as being so.

I define a Bible Christian as a person who accepts all of the books of Sacred Scripture that I recognize. Would you consider someone as a Bible Christian who rejects books of the Bible that you recognize? For example, would you consider someone who rejects the gospel of Matthew to be a Bible Christian? If you consider the issue from that perspective, I think that you can see that my view is reasonable, from my perspective.

The hardness refers to the tone, which you do find hard.

I do not find the tone hard either.

 

[Afra]

Which "argument" is a poor apologetic, and is like another poster who resorts to the same, and thus affirms Quakerism.

I did not come here to apologize, so that is no particular concern of mine.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Sorry, this logic is quite horrible.

You do not prove anything. You present dogmatic truths that were established by ecumenical councils and say that you can arrive to the same conclusions on our own with the scriptures alone. But this is nothing; it is a bark as if from a little poodle. Show us your argument is true by proving it with deeds, which is something you certainly have not done. You presented an exegesis of a passage unrelated to dogmatic theology, unrelated to Christology, which is what all the ecumenical councils were centered on. Address something that matters rather than something so feeble; otherwise, your words are nothing and they hold no weight.

The poster was refuting the Cath argument that Scripture is insufficient since there are doctrines which are "not explicitly taught in Scripture, [yet] they are certainly implied by Scripture," and there are indeed Catholics (including one who was on this thread before) who reduce the sufficiency of SS to what is formally explicitly taught, thus excluding the establishment of a canon. And on that level the argument pf the poster has a valid proof that what Scripture implies is part of what it teaches.

As to proof of the veracity of dogmatic truths declared by ecumenical councils, what is the Catholic basis for assurance that something from Oral Tradition is True, as the Assumption?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Deuterocanonical Books are the inspired word of God. You have been told the truth. Whether you choose to accept it is entirely up to you.

When did Rome infallibly defined the whole canon, and can anyone who knows of the claims of Rome and her canon be considered a Christian if they do not wholly agree to it? If they can, of what import is your prior exclusion of them as Bible Christians? And what kind of Christians were those who did not concur with your canon before Rome presumed to indisputably defined it?

 

[Afra]

The poster was refuting the Cath argument that Scripture is insufficient since there are doctrines which are "not explicitly taught in Scripture, [yet] they are certainly implied by Scripture," and there are indeed Catholics (including one who was on this thread before) who reduce the sufficiency of SS to what is formally explicitly taught, thus excluding the establishment of a canon. And on that level the argument pf the poster has a valid proof that what Scripture implies is part of what it teaches.

As to proof of the veracity of dogmatic truths declared by ecumenical councils, what is the Catholic basis for assurance that something from Oral Tradition is True, as the Assumption?

What is the basis for your belief that Sacred Scripture is true?

 

[Afra]

When did Rome infallibly defined the whole canon,

I believe that the Council of Rome was held in 382, if that is what you are referring to. If not that, I do not believe that Rome has ever defined it.

and can anyone who knows of the claims of Rome and her canon be considered a Christian if they do not wholly agree to it?

Yes, of course. Protestants are Christians.

If they can, of what import is your prior exclusion of them as Bible Christians?

Please see the answer that I provided previously. Do you believe that Catholic Christians are Bible Christians? You do not seem to believe that, based on what you wrote above.

And what kind of Christians were those who did not concur with your canon before Rome presumed to indisputably defined it?

They were all kinds, I would imagine.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I did not require anything of you. You can do whatever you please, of course. Each person is judged by God and should follow his own well-informed conscience.

You are confusing what one can do, versus what one must do if he will obey well-informed conscience consistent with Rome. Which means accepting the church of Rome as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say being the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus requiring implicit faith in Rome as God's instrument with her ensured perpetual magisterial magisterium. Which is required for your position, but refuted in this thread.

 

[Afra]

You are confusing what one can do, versus what one must do if he will obey well-informed conscience consistent with Rome. Which means accepting the church of Rome as that supreme infallible authoritative standard, and with whatever she say being the the assured word of God is indeed so. Thus requiring implicit faith in Rome as God's instrument with her ensured perpetual magisterial magisterium. Which is required for your position, but refuted in this thread.

No, I have not confused anything. And I have not made any argument based on papal infallibility. Nor have you refuted any Catholic dogma.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Reported for goading. There is no need to insult me by calling my post preposterous. Please be civil.

People who cannot tolerate their arguments being called preposterous and sic mods on them are the ones not being civil, by attacking reproof as uncivil and issuing personal corrections.

By "give it a shot" I meant demonstrate that a dogma of the Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture. You did not do that. In fact, in your previous post you did not even recite any scripture at all (although you did mention Acts).

Then since you require actual substantiation against what you offered none for, then it has been provided, and more can be if you choose to contend against it, even though the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for Catholic belief in ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And I have not relied upon any claim of papal infallibility in any of my posts.

How can you not if you are defending Oral Tradition? You posted, "And in the context of discussing infallibility: Pastor aeternus.... the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter... that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error..

This to me sure sounds like you relied upon a claim of papal infallibility, and indeed, where does the authority of the bishops flow from, by whom and with the pope, the revelation of God in its "full purity" "full integrity" is passed on, with it "authentically interpreting" the same?

Which resulted in just some of my unanswered questions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You can report me if you believe that I have violated one of the forum rules. But certainly if I violated a rule you have violated the same rule, because at the outset you insinuated that Catholic Christians are not Bible Christians.

Indeed, but my definition does not exclude those who differ with me on the canon, nor exclude all Catholics.

You do not have to believe anything that the Catholic Church says, of course. You have free-will to make your own decisions. I did not come here to attempt to convict you that what the Catholic Church says is true. But the Holy Spirit can convict you of the truth, if you ask God to show you to truth and are open to receiving it.

If all you want to do is make assertions then that is you, but this is a forum debate, which includes the issues as stated.

 

[Afra]

People who cannot tolerate their arguments being called preposterous and sic mods on them are the ones not being civil, by attacking reproof as uncivil and issuing personal corrections.

Then since you require actual substantiation against what you offered none for, then it has been provided, and more can be if you choose to contend against it, even though the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for Catholic belief in ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

How can you not if you are defending Oral Tradition? You posted, "And in the context of discussing infallibility: Pastor aeternus.... the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter... that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error..

This to me sure sounds like you relied upon a claim of papal infallibility, and indeed, where does the authority of the bishops flow from, by whom and with the pope, the revelation of God in its "full purity" "full integrity" is passed on, with it "authentically interpreting" the same?

Which resulted in just some of my unanswered questions.

I cited Pastor Aeturnus to correct another poster’s misunderstanding that Sacred Tradition encompasses the promulgation of new doctrines. I have made no argument in any of my posts that “you should believe it because the Catholic Church tells you so” or “you should believe it because the pope is infallible.”

I already posted here why I believe Sacred Tradition to be true. Because of prayer, my faith in God, and to a lesser extent, reason. These are the same reasons why I believe Sacred Scripture to be true.

Why do you believe that Sacred Scripture is true?

 

[Afra]

Indeed, but my definition does not exclude those who differ with me on the canon, nor exclude all Catholics.

Which Catholics are Bible Christians and which Catholics are not Bible Christians?

If all you want to do is make assertions then that is you, but this is a forum debate, which includes the issues as stated.

This is a “general theology” forum, not a debate forum. I would like to do more than make assertions. I would like to ask and answer questions, and to discuss issues in a civil manner without insults.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That is not how I would characterize the thread.

Then all you have is opinion, versus what page after page testifies to.

None of those pages refutes any Catholic dogma.

It refutes arguments for a dogma.

Then you should read some of the last few pages of the thread before jumping in and requiring is to repeat the nonsense already refuted.

Reported for goading. There is no need to refer to what other people have written as nonsense. Please be civil.

Then you have warranted being marginalized on my list as unable to handle criticism of content and who abuses the rules. Which state, "Address only the content of the post and not the poster." Which is what I did. When CF excludes calling arguments absurd, preposterous, or nonsense then it will mean the forum has become more like liberal "snowflake" universities.

As for what I should or should not do, I can decide that for myself. I do not need your assistance in this area, but thank you.

The context is what faith requires, and being consistent with your position.

I define a Bible Christian as a person who accepts all of the books of Sacred Scripture that I recognize. Would you consider someone as a Bible Christian who rejects books of the Bible that you recognize? For example, would you consider someone who rejects the gospel of Matthew to be a Bible Christian? If you consider the issue from that perspective, I think that you can see that my view is reasonable, from my perspective.

You made no provision of any other kind of Christian than Bible Christians, and the context was that of books which for most of your history could be doubted or rejected as Scripture proper, while the EO canon is slighter larger. Thus you must reject as Bible Christians Catholic saints who disagree with what was only infallibly defined after the death of Luther.

I do not find the tone hard either.

Only as "goading!"

 

[Afra]

Then all you have is opinion, versus what page after page testifies to.

It refutes arguments for a dogma.

Then you should read some of the last few pages of the thread before jumping in and requiring is to repeat the nonsense already refuted.

Then you have warranted being marginalized on my list as unable to handle criticism of content and who abuses the rules. Which state, "Address only the content of the post and not the poster." Which is what I did. When CF excludes calling arguments absurd, preposterous, or nonsense then it will mean the forum has become more like liberal "snowflake" universities.

The context is what faith requires, and being consistent with your position.

You made no provision of any other kind of Christian than Bible Christians, and the context was that of books which for most of your history could be doubted or rejected as Scripture proper, while the EO canon is slighter larger. Thus you must reject as Bible Christians Catholic saints who disagree with what was only infallibly defined after the death of Luther.

Only as "goading!"

I am fine with being marginalized by you. Our Lord Jesus loves me so much that he suffered and died for me.

All of the saints are Bible Christians because all of them accept all of the books of Sacred Scripture. There may have been points in time where they did not, but they all accept them now.

Why do you believe that Sacred Scripture is true?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Which Catholics are Bible Christians and which Catholics are not Bible Christians?

"Bible Christians" denotes those who hold to Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, and hold to it as the supreme authority, which I did as a Catholic during the 6 years I remained a weekly and holy day RC after I had become truly born again, with its profound basic changes in heart and life. But the term is actually often used by RCs as,
"Bible Christians," based on their tradition, study the Bible with these premises:

• There is no binding authority but the Bible alone.
• There is no official binding interpretation or interpreter.
• The Bible is perspicuous (i.e., easy to understand) and can be interpreted and understood by anyone.
• An individual can and should read the Bible and interpret it for himself. Should Catholics Go to Non-Denominational Bible Studies? | Catholic Answers

Thus you would disagree with them.

This is a “general theology” forum, not a debate forum. I would like to do more than make assertions. .

A general theology” forum is not opposed to debate, and if you read the prior pages you could see it was./

I would like to ask and answer questions, and to discuss issues in a civil manner without insults

It is you who posted a "for the sake of argument, I will give you a short example" or oral tradition being the word of God. Which position, that a whole body of extraBiblical teachings are the word of God/equal in authority to Sacred Scripture is certainly provocative, and thus sees debate. Which should be expected.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I cited Pastor Aeturnus to correct another poster’s misunderstanding that Sacred Tradition encompasses the promulgation of new doctrines. I have made no argument in any of my posts that “you should believe it because the Catholic Church tells you so” or “you should believe it because the pope is infallible.”

You did not mention who you were responding to, but regardless, you can hardly claim to not affirm papal infallibility as a RC, and your premise that there are the words that the Lord Jesus spoke which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture and equal in authority to Sacred Scripture must have a basis more than I prayed and feel this is the case.

I already posted here why I believe Sacred Tradition to be true. Because of prayer, my faith in God, and to a lesser extent, reason. These are the same reasons why I believe Sacred Scripture to be true.
Why do you believe that Sacred Scripture is true?

Because its gospel was the basis for my faith regeneration with its effects which correspond to its promises, and which correspondence has continued, plus there are other evidences.

And thus I contend for Scriptural Truths which we both agree on, and on that basis I disagree with Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I am fine with being marginalized by you. Our Lord Jesus loves me so much that he suffered and died for me.

Being so loved does not mean you cannot be marginalized due to your responses. David would not kill the Lord's anointed that was.

All of the saints are Bible Christians because all of them accept all of the books of Sacred Scripture. There may have been points in time where they did not, but they all accept them now.

Which is mere presumption. And which means that Prots can be Christians now? Yet by your measure the EOs must reject RCs as Bible Christians since you all do not accept all that they hold to be Scripture.

Why do you believe that Sacred Scripture is true?

See last post.

 

[Afra]

Being so loved does not mean you cannot be marginalized due to your responses. David would not kill the Lord's anointed that was.

Which is mere presumption. And which means that Prots can be Christians now? Yet by your measure the EOs must reject RCs as Bible Christians since you all do not accept all that they hold to be Scripture.
See last post.

I already wrote that I consider Protestants to be Christians. If the Eastern Orthodox or anyone else does not consider me a Bible Christian, that is perfectly fine by me. I am judged by God, not by the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Afra]

You did not mention who you were responding to, but regardless, you can hardly claim to not affirm papal infallibility as a RC, and your premise that there are the words that the Lord Jesus spoke which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture and equal in authority to Sacred Scripture must have a basis more than I prayed and feel this is the case.

Because its gospel was the basis for my faith regeneration with its effects which correspond to its promises, and which correspondence has continued, plus there are other evidences.

And thus I contend for Scriptural Truths which we both agree on, and on that basis I disagree with Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).

You asked me for the reasons for my belief, and I told you the reasons. You can choose to believe me or not believe me. That is entirely up to you. I am not going to attempt to convince you of it.

Thank you for answering my question. You believe in Sacred Scripture because the gospel described therein was the basis for your faith regeneration. If Sacred Tradition is the basis for another person’s faith regeneration, then he should believe in Sacred Tradition, by the same principle.