Sola Scriptura

[Montalban]

The Catholic teaching is that, in order to carry God in her womb, Mary had to be a pure vessel. Someone stained by original sin could not have borne God in her womb, so that she was conceived without sin.

The problem with this is then why wasn't Mary's mother then also a 'pure vessel', and so on, back to Eve.

Anyway, it'd make for an interesting topic.

 

[Montalban]

What you have said has not led me to think that you are any different than other Protestants who villify Catholicism based upon their perception of what it might be and the resulting paranoia.

Protestants only seem to exist as being what Catholics are not.

 

[dollarsbill]

As I say, if you can show how the bible came into being, other than relying on circular logic, then it would make for interesting discussion.

I believe the Bible is here by the hand of God. It is the words of God.

 

[steve_bakr]

I believe the Bible is here by the hand of God. It is the words of God.

Yes, but it was compiled and canonized by a council of Bishops--ie., by the authority of the Church.

 

[Montalban]

I believe the Bible is here by the hand of God. It is the words of God.

If you can tell me why (which is a question I asked a day ago) that would be great.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, but it was compiled and canonized by a council of Bishops--ie., by the authority of the Church.

That's the main thing here.

When Paul wrote an Epistle he handed it to someone. That someone bore witness to the fact the Epistle he carried was from Paul.

The church that received it then bore witness that the Epistle they had was from Paul.

If a letter turned up with Paul's name, it itself didn't prove itself to be of Paul.

Never did the gospels or epistles simply bear witness to themselves.

 

[dollarsbill]

If you can tell me why (which is a question I asked a day ago) that would be great.

I believe the Bible has proven itself to be the words of God. That's all that matters to me.

 

[Montalban]

So far there's only been reliance upon circular logic. People believe the books of the bible because they're in the bible. How do they know? They're in the bible!

I don't believe Jesus would have relied on circular logic. I don't know how he could have convinced people to believe in him if he did.

 

[Montalban]

I believe the Bible has proven itself to be the words of God. That's all that matters to me.

How has it 'proven itself'?

Does it have in big letters at the end of it "This really really really is from God. Honestly!" ???

As noted people can make the exact same circular argument about the Koran.

 

[dollarsbill]

How has it 'proven itself'?

The resurrection of the Nation of Israel. The Mark rising. The world falling apart.

 

[Montalban]

The resurrection of the Nation of Israel. The Mark rising. The world falling apart.

Your posts have moved from the fallacy of circular logic to the fallacy of non sequitur

 

[dollarsbill]

Your posts have moved from the fallacy of circular logic to the fallacy of non sequitur

The Bible is the words of God. No fallacy involved.

 

[Montalban]

The Bible is the words of God. No fallacy involved.

Now your post is on a straw-man fallacy.

No one here is arguing against the bible.

You may find people arguing against the 'reasons' in your posts. They are not the same thing!

 

[dollarsbill]

Now your post is on a straw-man fallacy.

No one here is arguing against the bible.

You may find people arguing against the 'reasons' in your posts. They are not the same thing!

And that's your opinion.

 

[Montalban]

And that's your opinion.

So you're equating your posts with the bible now.

As I said, I wasn't questioning the truth of the bible, but the logic of your posts.

You're now confusing the two

 

[steve_bakr]

That's the main thing here.

When Paul wrote an Epistle he handed it to someone. That someone bore witness to the fact the Epistle he carried was from Paul.

The church that received it then bore witness that the Epistle they had was from Paul.

If a letter turned up with Paul's name, it itself didn't prove itself to be of Paul.

Never did the gospels or epistles simply bear witness to themselves.

Exactly, and this points out the error of sola scriptura. The Bible didn't simply appear as it is now, and it does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[Albion]

I believe the Bible is here by the hand of God. It is the words of God.

Yes, but it was compiled and canonized by a council of Bishops--ie., by the authority of the Church.

Stand back from the talking points for a moment and ask yourself if that isn't about the weakest argument you've heard lately. I mean, I know you are only repeating a retort that many other Catholics are prepared to use on Bible-believers at any moment, but really?

The Bible is (allegedly) only the work of men, but legends turned into dogma by other such men is infallible and a second source of divine revelation?

At least the Bible purports to be from God. With that, we then have to decide if it's credible. But Tradition is composed of bits and pieces of disconnected data arbitrarily assembled by the same fallible men who pick and choose which of the bits of folklore they want to use. Then they deem it to be something that "it" never claimed to be.

 

[Montalban]

At least the Bible purports to be from God.

Same for the Koran

With that, we then have to decide if it's credible.

Based on what? Itself?

 

[Albion]

Same for the Koran

...which point was answered in the second sentence of that paragraph ("With that, we then have to decide if it's credible.").

Based on what? Itself?

No, I was referring to all the objective evidence. The Bible is, you know, probably the most scrutinized book in all of history and has withstood the doubts and objections of centuries of skepticism.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Exactly, and this points out the error of sola scriptura. The Bible didn't simply appear as it is now, and it does not exist in a vacuum.

1. As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule (The Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura) doesn't define what is and is not Scripture anymore that embracing the Law as the rule (The Rule of Law) doesn't define what is and is not the law. A practice doesn't define or teach anything, a practice does something, it doens't proclaim anything.


2. Yes, we all know that your denomination doesn't agree with ANY but it itself alone on what is and is not Scripture. It has a unity of none, an agreement with none on this. I can understand that this bothers you greatly, and perhaps it should, I don't know, but that trouble you feel should be taken to a thread about what is and is not Scripture. This one is about norming (the evaluation of correctness, validity) and specifically what is most sound as the embraced rule/norma normans.


3. I think that Scripture is a LOT easier to identify than "Tradition." If you entered a book store in Toyko and asked an employee (likely not even a Christian) to show you were the Christian Bibles are located, he/she would likely be able to take you there and hand you a Bible. Ask him to lead you to where "Christian Tradition" is.... and all you'd get is a blank look and a "what???" In fact, go to a Catholic bookstore ... and it would be the same. The Bible is more objectively knowable than specifically, particularly what is "Tradition."





.