Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

The explanation is important. It's why they had an Ecumenical Council to affirm the teaching as the church always taught.

No dobut the Anglican church accepts both this explanation and the council that gave it.

Agreed, the explanation we have of the dogma of the Trinity by the Ecumenical Councils is very important to assist our correct understanding and to prevent heresies.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Not quite. They may give a totally new reading of an existing text - which is a 'new' revelation.

I think you need to read a commentary to understand what I am saying. They do not give out new revelation.

That's back to circular reasoning because your reading is - as you think - what scripture REALLY says, as opposed to an interpretation of it

I'm not even going to ask how that's circular reasoning but a different interpretation of the Scripture is not a new revelation. The revelation might be "new" to the person learning it, but it's always been there, if indeed the interpretation is accurate and doesn't contradict Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Saying "The Trinity is in the Bible" is meaningless

What's your point there. To a person who thinks everything in the Bible is meaningless, this is just part of the whole.

it gives credence to different notions of the Trinity such as the Arian notion, etc.

That's nonsense. The Nicene Council decided on the Trinity and against the Arians ON THE BASIS OF SCRIPTURE.

The teaching "Your church must be headed by the Queen of England" is absent from the bible

I'll leave you to wrestle with that one, since she is the Queen of YOUR country but not mine.

 

[Montalban]

I think you need to read a commentary to understand what I am saying. They do not give out new revelation.

That's not so. 'Prosperity gospel' for example is a new revelation of how to read the bible.

I'm not even going to ask how that's circular reasoning

It's 'cause you've assumed your reading of it is how it's writen and not an interpretation of what's written

but a different interpretation of the Scripture is not a new revelation.

That's not so.

If I read scripture and come to a new understanding and claim to understand truths long hidden - that's a new revelation

 

[Montalban]

What's your point there. To a person who thinks everything in the Bible is meaningless, this is just part of the whole.

Your posts continue with this distortion of what I have consistantly said

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Agreed, the explanation we have of the dogma of the Trinity by the Ecumenical Councils is very important to assist our correct understanding and to prevent heresies.

I'm pretty sure the verses in the Scripture is the "very important" part to assist the church in understanding the dogma to prevent heresies.

Man can lie, Scripture will not.

If someone says "The Savior will be female"....you look for the Scripture to confirm or deny it. It ALL comes back to Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That's not so. 'Prosperity gospel' for example is a new revelation of how to read the bible.

Prosperity gospel is not a "new revelation" it is a false teaching and they do that by twisting Scriptures.

It's 'cause you've assumed your reading of it is how it's writen and not an interpretation of what's written

I don't follow.

That's not so.

If I read scripture and come to a new understanding and claim to understand truths long hidden - that's a new revelation

The new revelation would be something completely different that no one have yet to know about. You might have come to an understanding that everyone else had understood but because you now go into the meat of the gospel because you no longer need milk only meant that you're maturing in Christ.

The interpretation, which is done by the Holy Spirit, helps you understand the Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Prosperity gospel is not a "new revelation" it is a false teaching and they do that by twisting Scriptures.

It is a new revelation, and a false teaching.

I don't follow.

Every time you read something you interpret it. You can get to a different conclusion that I.

The new revelation would be something completely different that no one have yet to know about.

That's what prosperity gospel is!

 

[daydreamergurl15]

It is a new revelation, and a false teaching.

Every time you read something you interpret it. You can get to a different conclusion that I.

That's what prosperity gospel is!

Prosperity gospel is not a "new revelation" it's a false teaching.

That's like Paul telling the Galatians that the different gospel being preached is a new revelation, it's not and that's not what he said. He flat out said that it's wrong and that those who preach "let them be accursed".

And I guess I should say that "new revelation" must be "true revelation" and not contradict Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Prosperity gospel is not a "new revelation" it's a false teaching.

It is both.

That's like Paul telling the Galatians that the different gospel being preached is a new revelation, it's not and that's not what he said. He flat out said that it's wrong and that those who preach "let them be accursed".

It was a new revelation - what they understood from the OT wasn't what they understood from the NT - else we'd all be Jews

 

[daydreamergurl15]

It is both.

It was a new revelation - what they understood from the OT wasn't what they understood from the NT - else we'd all be Jews

For the love of God...
There is a difference between false teachings and new/true revelation.

Something that is false cannot be a true revelation from God. Have you ever read of the Apostles telling the disciples "hey, flee from this new revelation which also happens to be false teaching?" No, you do not. You want to know why, because it's false and they don't speak to it as it if's revelation at all.

You can't have someone preaching "God wants everyone to be rich and have everything you ever wanted" and then read Scripture that states:
Luke 12:15

And He said to them, “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.”​

The teaching is false. It's not a new revelation about God because the revelation in itself is false.

As for this continued topic, it's only distracting us from what we're actually speaking about, which is "Sola Scripture".

 

[Montalban]

For the love of God...
There is a difference between false teachings and new/true revelation.

They're are not mutually exclusive.

One can have a false teaching that is old.

One can have a false teaching that is new.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

One can have a false teaching that is old.
One can have a false teaching that is new.

Protestants agree. Which is why there is an embrace of accountability. But THAT is the point where the RCC so passionately objects to Sola Scriptura. Accountability. It is passionately insistent upon it in EVERY OTHER case, with EVERY OTHER teacher/denomination/organization) but it itself makes one (just one) remarkable, complete, total, whole, absolute exception: itself. It itself insists that it itself alone can't be wrong and ergo is exempt from accountability and ergo from ANY rule/canon/norma normans (thus it's rejection of Scripture as such - The Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura).


Yes, it has a norma normans for EVERY OTHER teacher: itself. If others are in full, complete agreement with itself - they are determined to be correct, otherwise they are wrong. But it has no norma normans for itself since it itself insists that it itself can't be wrong (at least in its dogmas), all are to docilicly submit to it itself alone, insists it itself alone, not hold it accountable (to anything); the issue is submission not accountability.


But I AGREE WITH YOU: teachers can be wrong. Even if a teacher insists on making one exception to such a possibility: self.







.

 

[steve_bakr]

Protestants agree. Which is why there is an embrace of accountability. But THAT is the point where the RCC so passionately objects to Sola Scriptura. Accountability. It is passionately insistent upon it in EVERY OTHER case, with EVERY OTHER teacher/denomination/organization) but it itself makes one (just one) remarkable, complete, total, whole, absolute exception: itself. It itself insists that it itself alone can't be wrong and ergo is exempt from accountability and ergo from ANY rule/canon/norma normans (thus it's rejection of Scripture as such - The Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura).

Yes, it has a norma normans for EVERY OTHER teacher: itself. If others are in full, complete agreement with itself - they are determined to be correct, otherwise they are wrong. But it has no norma normans for itself since it itself insists that it itself can't be wrong (at least in its dogmas), all are to docilicly submit to it itself alone, insists it itself alone, not hold it accountable (to anything); the issue is submission not accountability.

But I AGREE WITH YOU: teachers can be wrong. Even if a teacher insists on making one exception to such a possibility: self.

.

Josiah, I think that you are presenting a very Protestant viewpoint of the Catholic Church. Who the Church is accountable to is God, and to the sacred oral Tradition, the Sacred Scriptures, and to the responsibility of the Magesterium (teaching authority, collectively, of those Bishops who are in full communion with the Roman Bishop). It is the combination of those three pillars which serve as the foundation for truth.

 

[HisKid1973]

Tradition, .

What Tradition apart from from the sacred scriptures do I need to know to find Christ and mature in the faith? It was a few verses in a chick track that the Holy Spirit used for me to become born anew that hot august night in 73. What did the original apostles forget?

 

[steve_bakr]

What Tradition apart from from the sacred scriptures do I need to know to find Christ and mature in the faith? It was a few verses in a chick track that the Holy Spirit used for me to become born anew that hot august night in 73.

If you feel completely fulfilled with the understanding that you now have, then you can do no more than follow the truth as you understand it. BTW, I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal church around the same time period. After the service, the minister handed me a track and said, "This will explain what happened to you."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[HisKid1973]

If you feel completely fulfilled with the understanding that you now have, then you can do no more than follow the truth as you understand it. BTW, I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal church around the same time period. After the service, the minister handed me a track and said, "This will explain what happened to you."

I feel absolutely fulfilled,over 40 years now. Some incredible answers to prayer/miraculous events that God has done/accomplished in my life. I didn't get any booklets, but I got a fire inside..Personally I think Rome went wrong and you see the results today. Even the OC adds to what you have to do to be a member of the church..You just can't walk in and share how you become born anew and be part of their church..

 

[steve_bakr]

I feel absolutely fulfilled,over 40 years now. Some incredible answers to prayer/miraculous events that God has done/accomplished in my life. I didn't get any booklets, but I got a fire inside..Personally I think Rome went wrong and you see the results today. Even the OC adds to what you have to do to be a member of the church..You just can't walk in and share how you become born anew and be part of their church..

You are right that you don't just walk in, share your story, and become a Catholic. Becoming a Catholic is meant to be a lifetime commitment, so it takes some instruction of about 10 months, sometimes longer, for an adult convert. The process is called RCIA, but it is meant to follow the process practiced by the Early Church. But anyway, I am happy for your 40 years of blessings, and I hope you have many more.

 

[Albion]

I feel absolutely fulfilled,over 40 years now. Some incredible answers to prayer/miraculous events that God has done/accomplished in my life. I didn't get any booklets, but I got a fire inside..Personally I think Rome went wrong and you see the results today. Even the OC adds to what you have to do to be a member of the church..You just can't walk in and share how you become born anew and be part of their church..

I tend to agree with that, with some caution. We should not think of joining the "church" as if it were seeking entrance into some lodge or club. But baptism is the entrance into the church of Christ, and some instruction in the faith is appropriate if needed by the individual. What's more, steve is correct that the churches of the first century did require considerable preparation before a newcomer were admitted to the holy mysteries, i.e. the Lord's Supper. But that doesn't mean that extensive preparation in the denominational distinctives of whatever local church one is interested in associating with is a good idea.