Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

That is probably a good idea. What makes you think you are familiar enough with Catholicism to comment?

They do have their ccc and numerous public teachings. You're not saying that what they say publicly is not what they say privately, right?

People read and comment. It's permitted, as long as you don't make it personal.

 

[Standing Up]

You're right. We seem to have drifted from the topic.

Regarding sola scriptura, it is the Catholic position that doctrinal truth is founded on not just Scripture alone, but the three pillars of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition (as handed down by apostolic succesion), and the teaching authority of the Church (Magesterium). It is also the Catholic position that sola scriptura cannot be proved Biblically. But my wife is sola scriptura, so what's a soul to do? I just take it as something she sincerely believes, and I respect that.

Work two different shifts?

How does she define SS?

 

[steve_bakr]

Work two different shifts?

How does she define SS?

Lol, actually our "mixed marriage" works pretty well cause we don't debate about religion. We stick to where we agree.

She doesn't refer to it as sola sciptura, but she believes the Bible is a sole authority for doctrine. But she does believe God communicates to us through means other than Scripture.

BTW, I'm going to bed, so I'll catch up with the thread in the AM. May God grant us all a peaceful night.

 

[Standing Up]

You're right. We seem to have drifted from the topic.

Regarding sola scriptura, it is the Catholic position that doctrinal truth is founded on not just Scripture alone, but the three pillars of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition (as handed down by apostolic succesion), and the teaching authority of the Church (Magesterium). It is also the Catholic position that sola scriptura cannot be proved Biblically.

Has anyone ever found where 1 of the 3 legs actually contradicts the other? What happens then?

 

[Albion]

You're right. We seem to have drifted from the topic.

Regarding sola scriptura, it is the Catholic position that doctrinal truth is founded on not just Scripture alone, but the three pillars of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition (as handed down by apostolic succesion), and the teaching authority of the Church (Magesterium). It is also the Catholic position that sola scriptura cannot be proved Biblically. But my wife is sola scriptura, so what's a soul to do? I just take it as something she sincerely believes, and I respect that.

This isn't going to help you much, but I once was a believer in Holy Tradition, too. Until I studied enough to realize one huge issue with it that we seldom talk about here. I refer to the fact that it's a myth. I don't mean that the idea isn't engaging--a consensus throughout church history showing that God was with and guiding his church.

I never bought into the purely unhistorical nonsense about Jesus founding one of today's denominations rather that what he obviously did--found a broad-based, non-denominational church that was more of a movement than anything else. And I didn't fall for the allegation that Tradition is literally a second kind of revelation equal to the Bible.

However, the Vincentian Canon seemed possible. If X was believed everywhere, always, and by all, that's truly catholic. Conclusive and tidy, too, I felt. In addition, I think I might have been intrigued by the observation some church historians have made that it is the Anglican (read Anglo-Catholic) churches that are the truest Traditionalists.

But upon closer examination, it can be seen that there is no such trail or consensus. The RCchurch simply designates some in order to justify the proclamation of any new dogma. The Early Church Fathers were not consistent or in agreement with each other and there is no way of establishing that there is any continuity from the Apostles forward. That's all just talk.

 

[Montalban]

No! The Holy Spirit through the writer said "In the beginning was the Word..." and proceed to be a witness.

How do you know though? Books not included also contained within themselves claims to being inspired.

 

[dollarsbill]

How do you know though? Books not included also contained within themselves claims to being inspired.

The Bible is 'the words of God'. Which cannot be disproved.

 

[Montalban]

The Bible is 'the words of God'. Which cannot be disproved.

You're exampling circular logic.

 

[dollarsbill]

You're exampling circular logic.

Are you saying the Bible is not 'the words of God'?

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying the Bible is not 'the words of God'?

I seek to know why you believe something, not what you believe. I know 99.99% of the people here on GT believe the Bible is the word of God.

Let me try another example. Say we both believe the sky is blue but you believe it's because ever morning trolls paint it that colour then the reasons why you believe something would interest me, even if you believe that the sky is blue, as I do.

So far as I can see, your reasoning for believing the bible is circular. It's 'the Word of God' because it's in the bible. How do you know? It's in the bible!

 

[dollarsbill]

I know 99.99% of the people here on GT believe the Bible is the word of God.

You actually know that?

Let me try another example. Say we both believe the sky is blue but you believe it's because ever morning trolls paint it that colour then the reasons why you believe something would interest me, even if you believe that the sky is blue, as I do.

So far as I can see, your reasoning for believing the bible is circular. It's 'the Word of God' because it's in the bible. How do you know? It's in the bible!

If the Bible is not 'the words of God' then what is it???

 

[Montalban]

You actually know that?

yes, I just phoned every GT member and did a straw-poll

If the Bible is not 'the words of God' then what is it???

Did I say that the bible is not the word of God? I don't believe I did. Your answer is not an answer to my question.

 

[Montalban]

We're still at the point of circular-logic.

Protestants know the books of the bible are inspired because those books are in the bible. If they weren't inspired they wouldn't be in it.

 

[dollarsbill]

yes, I just phoned every GT member and did a straw-poll

You shouldn't make statements you can't back up.

Did I say that the bible is not the word of God? I don't believe I did.

So which is it? The word of God or not?

 

[Montalban]

You shouldn't make statements you can't back up.

It's a requirement of being on GT to adhere to a set of beliefs. Check out the rules

So which is it? The word of God or not?

I'm more than happy to say that the Bible contains the word of God.

So, how do you know the bible contains the word of God?

 

[Montalban]

I accept that we should have faith in our beliefs, but it should be a reasoned faith.

Circular-logic is a 'reason', but not a good one.

 

[dollarsbill]

It's a requirement of being on GT to adhere to a set of beliefs. Check out the rules

It's?

I'm more than happy to say that the Bible contains the word of God.

Evasive!

So, how do you know the bible contains the word of God?

Because it says so.

 

[dollarsbill]

I accept that we should have faith in our beliefs, but it should be a reasoned faith.

Circular-logic is a 'reason', but not a good one.

Are you saying that you know more than the words of God, the Bible?

 

[Montalban]

How can I be evasive if I answered your question?

Because it says so.

Anyway, I appreciate that your argument rests on circular logic.

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying that you know more than the words of God, the Bible?

No