Why I reject sola scriptura

[CCWoody]

Alright, what's the correct interpretation?

Well, first of all, if Sola Scriptura was really about a "subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding him" then I would reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Fortunately, this is not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura at all, but a kind of subjective intuition called Solo Scriptura. You know, that warm fuzzy that certain "Protestant" Christians get when they have that Bible in their hand and know that they alone are right and the rest of Christendom are doctrinal nitwits.

It also has an odd variant when certain people read the confessions and writings of true Protestants, force their own definitions into the text, and even though they have no authority or ability to infallibly interpret Scripture and their own faith on their own they are somehow batting 1000 when it comes to other people's faith.

Now, what does it mean when we Calvinists say "... our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts?" (WCF Ch 1.5) What should be key here is that it is the work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word of God. This is far different than some kind of warm fuzzy subjective feeling or experience that pervades many people who are no more Protestant than I am Roman Catholic.

I don't have to rely on a subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding me. Intuition has nothing to do with it. It is explicitly declared to us in the Word of God:

Joh 16:13 GB
(13) Howbeit, when he is come which is the Spirit of trueth, he will leade you into all trueth: for he shall not speake of himselfe, but whatsoeuer he shall heare, shall he speake, and he will shew you the things to come.

1Co 2:10-16 GB
(10) But God hath reueiled them vnto vs by his Spirit: for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deepe things of God.
(11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, saue the spirite of a man, which is in him? euen so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God.
(12) Nowe we haue receiued not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit, which is of God, that we might knowe the thinges that are giuen to vs of God.
(13) Which things also we speake, not in the woordes which mans wisedome teacheth, but which the holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spirituall things with spirituall things.
(14) But the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishnesse vnto him: neither can hee knowe them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(15) But hee that is spirituall, discerneth all things: yet he himselfe is iudged of no man.
(16) For who hath knowen the minde of the Lord, that hee might instruct him? But we haue the minde of Christ.



​

 

[Catholic Dude]

CaliforniaJosiah-

Again, Sola Scriptura has to do with norming.
It has to do with how teachings will be constructed and especially evaluated.
How do we know what is true or false?
What will serve as the Final Authority, the norma normans?
That's the subject here.

Ok, lets say I agree with your view, I turn to 2nd Maccabees12:46

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


​

Im glad we both agree the Bible says this.

Issues of the Canon, Tradition and hermanuetics are all relevant, but different issues. The question before us is this: What is our Final Authority? To what is our teachings subject? Sola Scriptura is about norming.

Ok, lets say I agree its the norma normata, do you belive what my signature says about Baptism really washing away sins?

A thread about the Canon would be interesting. We all know the story and we all know there are a few DC books about which not all Christians agree. We all know that. Regardless of how a person regards them, the principle of Sola Scriptura is the same. The issue is norming. The issue is what will serve as the norma normans? The issue is by what will we evaluate what is and is not true? Sola Scriptura says by the Bible. It's a principle.

If some can choose to reject books so can I, lets say I only consider 2nd John Scripture. Now when we talk about Scripture Im only bound to the 200 or so words of 2Jn.

Yes, not all Christians 100% agree on exactly what the Bible should or should not contain. Having studied the books in question, having learned that the contexts of which almost never come up in Catholic or Orthodox theology, realizing that with the possible exception of two verses and Purgatory (very, very weak ones in my opinion), it's pretty moot. Frankly, in terms of theology, I doubt it would make any difference whether these books are "in" or "out." And the point about the LDS is also moot, the LDS does not consider the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C to be a part of the Biblical Canon, they consider them to be additional and equal to the Bible - rather like Roman Catholics consider their denomination's Tradition. And the LDS books are not historic ones ever regarded to be a part of the Bible.

Lets see what the lds consider "Scripture": http://scriptures.lds.org/
It makes a big difference if those books are included and nobody in these forums would disagree with me.

I think you can see the "speck" in the eye of the Protestant and not the "log" in your own. As I pointed out, as is always the case, our norma normans is always an agreed upon assumption that can't be PROVEN without an appeal to your norma normans, thus creating a circular arguement. You just did it to support your view of the Authority of Tradition - you simply used the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination to substantiate the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination. You ASSUMED it true and then, using that understanding and interpretation, revealed such.

Christians were around before the "Bible" existed. We both accept the Bible (for the most part). NOW, looking at these factors we see that the people who wrote the books of the Bible didnt use the Bible as the Final Authority, what did they use? Tradition is the only explaination for that gap between Jesus and completed "Bible" as we know it.
Is there anything circular about this?
Catholics believe that Tradition was never supplanted, Protestants do believe it was. When asked to explain how Tradition was pushed aside Protestants must turn to circular arguments, while Catholics maintain the original position.

The Roman Catholic Denomination has decided what teachings, etc. it regards as Tradition (Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, Protestant Christians don't always agree). The Roman Catholic Denomination has created this Tradition and then has declared that this Tradition is the norma normans - the norm that will norm their Tradition. Sure seems self-authenticating to me.

"A house divided can not stand". You mention other groups in this situation "dont always agree", they are not supposed to agree thats why they are divided. Either one of these groups is correct in their teachings or else the one true Gospel is lost. Which group is it?

The group that is correct clearly means that their Tradition is the ONLY correct Tradition with the other groups being wrong (to one degree or another). For the correct group there is no deciding what bits of traditions to accept or reject here, that would imply that the correct group never really was holding the full Truth the entire time.

I know, I see it consistently, this Tradition is very, very engrained into Catholic theology and thinking, so much so that it's "seen" everywhere - it's just imputed into lots of Scriptures and historical statements. It's just I've found few Catholics seem to be aware that the "lenses" they are proud to say they wear are 1) Their creation, and 2) They've made it the "rule," the norma normans, by which they evaluate their own teachings. There's a very obvious reason why Catholic theology is seen as so true by Catholics!!!!!

Its not a matter of Catholics claiming that they are the sole holders of the truth, in the case of Protestants is a twisted form of denial. They refuse, refuse to openly say, "My church is correct and all you others are wrong (to one degree or another)" BUT they attend a SPECIFIC denomination and believe in SPECIFIC things BELIEVING that people who DONT adhere to these SPECIFIC things are not holding to the truth. Its all denial on the part of protestants that has been engrained into their teachings.

Your the one turing this into a dice game, Protestants have no problem saying they are not infallibe as a psychologial excuse and mental escape hatch. They dont want to be left holding the bag, BUT the entire time they believe what they want to believe and believe everyone else is wrong.
Rather Jesus says to whom much is given much is expected. The Catholics Church openly claims to be the city on the hill.

If you believe there is one truth, and if you believe you have found it then sure your going to see things in a different light.

It's "off topic" and I tried to address it quickly and get back to the subject of the thread, but again, yes, I believe the Bible is from God, not the institution of the Roman Catholic Denomination. I agree with Roman Catholic Denomination did, at a historical point in time, acknowledge this (as have many other denominations) but that's not the issue at hand.

Here is an example of protestants not wanting to commit to one side or another and that not wanting to be left holding the bag. I was talking with someone else here a few months ago who did admit it was the church that assembled the Bible into what it is today, but at the same time believed the church became basically powerless after the Bible came around. I asked them "How much faith do you have in the church?", the reply was "Honestly, I have no faith in the church".

Ah, I'm not assuming all that Tradition the Roman Catholic Denomination has declared to be True and the Final Authority for norming the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination.

Again, the principle of Sola Scriptura does not depend on whether the DC books are included or not. The principle of norming we are discussing here is the same either way.

What IS important is if our own particular Denomination's teachings are used as the norma normans for our own particular Denomination's teachings - EQUAL to the Bible (whether that includes the DC books or not). Sola Scriptura has to do with norming. It deals with the issue of what is our norma normans.

The Catholic Church could claim everything you claim about SS and nothing would change. Why? Because people still would disagree with the Church's interpretations.
(cont)

 

[Catholic Dude]

(cont)

All this diversion about the DC books is contributing to the problem I suspect you are having in understanding the norming process.

Again, the LDS doesn't accept Sola Scriptura, they firmly reject it - they share the same basic epistemology that Roman Catholics have. And the LDS does not consider the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C as a part of the Bible.

Again, the norma normans is an agreed upon assumption that can't be proven without an appeal to one's own norma normans. Yes, the world's two billion Christians (including the LDS, if so considered, since you seem obsessed with them) accept exactly the same OT and NT - EXACTLY; although about half of Christians accept some additional ones. And the LDS considers their Tradition (found in part in those books) to be equal in Authority to the Bible, just as Roman Catholics so consider their Tradition. Alright. Can we get back to the issue of this thread?

No your separating the inseprable in order to give your unfounded position the slightest bit of credence.
The LDS DOES NOT SEPARATE what it considers "Scripture". Go to that link I posted above.

The are an example of openly claiming to be the one true Church, we are free to disagree with them, but they dont pretend to be doing what Protestants do by OPENLY NOT claiming to be the one true church.

I accept Sola Scriptura as my norma normans. That does not mean that I discount Tradition at all!! In my testimony (link in the signature line in all my posts), I begin my statement of faith with the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I totally appreciate that my understanding of the Trinity, Two Natures of Christ and much more are largely issues of Tradition which I share with my unseparated brothers and sisters, my fellow catholics, who happen to belong to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations.

Do you consider the DC books Scripture?
Do you include the Filioque in the Creed?
Where did the Bishops at Nicea and Constantinople get their authority?

Sola Scriptura simply says that teachings are normed by the Bible. I disagree with the Roman Catholic Denomination that has decided that the teachings of their particular denomination are to be normed by the teachings of their own particular denomination; it just seems a tad self-authenticating to me. I see it even more in the LDS (funny you keep bringing them up since they object to Sola Scriptura as loudly as the RC denomination does; and evaluate their own teachings in the same manner).

How do you define "normed"? If someone asked you about the origins of the term "Trinity" what would you say?

Lost me there...

What I think I said is that in epistemology, the question of the value of a "norma normans" is in what is least likely to be self-authenticating. Usually, a norma normans is sought that is OUTSIDE oneself. It is MY personal opinion that subjecting our teachings to the Bible is less likely to be self-authenticating than subjecting our teachings to the Norm of our teachings.

There you go again, "less likely". Thats the odds I was talking about. The Catholic Church doesnt go by whats "likely" to be correct, thats not how the Gospel is preached and preserved.

Catholics also must interpret the Bible - as well as their own Tradition that they have declared to be equally the norma normans. They are BOTH interpreted and applied, just as Protestants do. But Sola Scriptura embraces that we are to subject own teachings to the Bible, not place them equal to the Bible (thus insuring their confirmation).

This means nothing here. As you have said previously for Catholics Scripture and Tradition are in agreement.

This conflict of Tradition vs Scripture is an invented phantom used by Protestants. At the end of the day interpretation is the key, protestants are going to conclude what they want regardless, while trashing Catholics by claiming that the CC confuses tradition and scripture in forming their conclusions.

But, yes, this does seem to be a major issue for many Roman Catholics. They see Protestantism as choatic ("God is not a God of confusion"). They want to be TOLD what is True and false by Someone who claims for themselves to just "know." I can appreciate that. And someone can certainly choose that. And in a day when few people could read and all they knew about religion is what the preist told them, this worked well. Now, I hear Catholics wondering why God have us a Bible at all, if the RC Denomination just "knows."

You mistakenly think Catholics blindly follow a leader. Thats the most unfounded story in town, we have plenty of sources to draw information from in forming our informed conclusions.

Protestants struggle because we can't claim to be correct just 'cuz we are. We have to answer to an Authority OUTSIDE ourselves, thus the debate. Thus how Protestants keep driving each other back to the Word of God - not to just blindly accept what we said 'cuz we just know.

With such an outlook it would seem denominations would be JOINING together in agreement after agreement of their new found truth. BUT in reality people dont want to rejoin, they dont want to agree, and at the end of the day they go on claimint they are right 'cuz they are.

What you just described is NOT at all how things work.

Another thing. One of the issues for Protestants is how Roman Catholics seem to them to make stuff Doctrines. For example, in another forums, I discussed at length several issues relating to Mary in the RC Denomination. I personally have no real problem with any of them (although I consider little of it to be biblical) - I could discuss as "it's possible, it's not unbiblical." My Protestant unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ, my fellow cathoics in whatever denominations they may or may not be a part of, mostly objected not to the opinion but do it being Doctrine. This is something Catholics fail to appreciate. Oh, and when my father (a pastor) preaches, we ALL believe that the only Authoritative part of that is when he is quoting the Bible - verbatum, the rest is HIS intepretation and application and is subject to the Bible. When I was taking religion from my dad (my homeschool religion teacher), he would tell me much - and demand that I challenge it all. VERY, VERY different than what I encountered in my Catholic Catechism class...

Does the CC EVER say that one of its teachings is unBiblical? Thats a serious error in your claims right there.

Look at what you said above, you all believe that only the Bible is the ONLY Authoritative part??? Then why do you need someone to go interpreting it for you knowing full well that his interpretation is just as fallible as yours?

Thats the real irony here, you accuse Catholics of blindly following a leader, but then turn around and have a pastor giving a fallible sermon based on an infallible text.

Exactly...
Thus the self-authenticating...
And the opinion many Protestants have of supreme ego and power grabs...

And it kinda makes you wonder why God bothered with the Bible at all...

"If a blind man leads another blind man wont they both fall into a pit?"

Keep claiming to be the blind man and see how many people want to follow your lead. The CC claims to be the city on the hill, the foundation and pillar of truth, thats nothing to be ashamed of. You on the otherhand refuse to reveal your denomination, so much for leading people to the truth.

My cards are on the table, if anyone has questions about what Catholics believe there are plenty of OFFICIAL documents you can look to.

Show youself if your really that confident in your position. Or else dont go off on how Im going on a power grab. Its hit and run tactics like those that I consider unfair.

Jesus says "Christians are the light of the world, a city on a hill cannot be hid"
Im proud to say that the CC has arms open to anyone who seeks answers.

Thanks for the discussion...
It is totally NOT my interest if you accept Sola Scriptura or not - as a unseparated catholic that has chosen to be a part of the Roman Catholic Denomination, I totally doubt that you will.
My ONLY goal is that you understand the principle. I've found few Catholics do.
And after 4+ years being involved in BOTH a Protestant and Catholic church, I've found that understanding our different epistemologies is key to understanding how we talk past each other and often fail to understanding each other.

While I do believe there is a lot of talking past eachother, the time has come where easy access to information should cause a change in things. Free access to the Ecumenical Councils and Church Fathers are leading to more and more informed people coming to more sound conclusions. If those two historical factors were really examined in protestant seminaries there would be a major change in the future or Protestantism. As an ex protestant Cardinal once said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".

 

[A. believer]

As an ex protestant Cardinal once said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".

Actually, Cardinal Newman never regarded himself as a Protestant, even during his Tractarian days in the Anglican Church because he always held to certain non-Protestant presuppositions. Those well-known, but incessantly misleadingly quoted words you've posted do not represent some epiphany he had that led him from Protestantism to Romanism. Rather, they were his starting presuppositions prior to his settling on the RCC as the "One True Church".

And my realization of this truth a few years ago when I read more of Newman was just another confirmation of the sadly misleadingly dishonest state of Roman pop-apologetics.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Why I put my Bible ahead of traditions:

Matthew 15:3
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah-





Ok, lets say I agree with your view, I turn to 2nd Maccabees12:46

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.




​

Im glad we both agree the Bible says this.

I didn't agree, you somehow want to discuss a topic other than the one of this thread.

But, IF Second Maccabees is a part of the Bible, then you beginning to understand the principle. Now it's a different issue if this verse teaches Purgatory or not - that's a hermaneutics question, one different than the subject of this thread.

Ok, lets say I agree its the norma normata, do you belive what my signature says about Baptism really washing away sins?

Personally, I accept the following:

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven."

Acts 22:16, "Be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Lets see what the lds consider "Scripture": http://scriptures.lds.org/
It makes a big difference if those books are included and nobody in these forums would disagree with me.

Interesting how you are so obessed with the Mormons...
What I said (and meant) is that the LDS does not consider the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C to be part of the Bible. We were discussing the Canon of the Bible. They certainly do consider them to be Scirpture and the Word of God - but not a part of the Bible. They have made their denomination's Tradition (which includes those books, but limited to them) as part of their "norma normans" - their Norm that norms, just as the Roman Catholic Denomination has made their denomination's Tradition a part of their "norma normans" - in both cases EQUAL to the Bible. Same thing, different Traditions and denominations. Both therefore reject Sola Scriptura.

The group that is correct clearly means that their Tradition is the ONLY correct Tradition with the other groups being wrong (to one degree or another). For the correct group there is no deciding what bits of traditions to accept or reject here, that would imply that the correct group never really was holding the full Truth the entire time.

To the Roman Catholic, their Tradition will always be correct because it is the Norm which determines correctness.

they believe what they want to believe and believe everyone else is wrong.

Jesus' log and speck illustration comes powerfully to mind...


The Roman Catholic Denomination determines it's own Tradition, declares it to be True, and then makes it the Final Authority to determine if it's true - then declares that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It's what happens when you make your own teachings the "norma normans" for your own teachings. It's why I embrace Sola Scriptura.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There you go again, "less likely". Thats the odds I was talking about. The Catholic Church doesnt go by whats "likely" to be correct, thats not how the Gospel is preached and preserved.

In any norming process, the question is which is less likely to be self-authenticating. The more self-authenticating, the less effective the norm will be.

All must conclude for themselves which is less likely to be self-authenticating when evaluation the teachings of our denomination:

The Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) or
The Bible + Our own Denomination's teachings - BOTH, EQUALLY.
Which is less likely to be self-authenticating?


Your call...
I'm not here to convert anyone to my position.
I'm just expressing my view and why I support it.

This conflict of Tradition vs Scripture is an invented phantom used by Protestants. At the end of the day interpretation is the key, protestants are going to conclude what they want regardless, while trashing Catholics by claiming that the CC confuses tradition and scripture in forming their conclusions.

It would be soooooo helpful if we could stay on topic...

It's not my intent to discuss any particular Catholic Doctrine, rather the thread is about the norming process we use.
If you want to discuss a particular Doctrine, begin a thread.
This thread is about the norming process we use in theology.

Does the CC EVER say that one of its teachings is unBiblical? Thats a serious error in your claims right there.

I never claimed that the Roman Catholic Denomination says that their teachings are unbiblical, Ive been stressing very much the opposite! Ive shown how they are 100% sure that the Bible teaches EXACTLY what the Roman Catholic Denomination teaches; no conflicts whatsoever. It's an insured result of the norming process they've chosen to use. Kinda my point.

Show youself if your really that confident in your position. Or else dont go off on how Im going on a power grab. Its hit and run tactics like those that I consider unfair.

?

Not a clue what you're talking about...

I state my age and real name.
My beliefs are posted with a link at the bottom of very single one of my posts.
If you want or feel a need for this to be personal, that's what a PM is for.
I'm TRYING to discuss the issue of the thread.


- Josiah



.

 

[CCWoody]

All must conclude for themselves....

Perzackly. Yet, somehow one group who does this is wrong for doing it yet the other is right for doing it.

 

[knownbeforetime]

I'm a firm believer in SS. However, there's a question that's been rattling in my mind the last few days. How do we know that the Bible is finished?

 

[Catholic Dude]

I'm a firm believer in SS. However, there's a question that's been rattling in my mind the last few days. How do we know that the Bible is finished?

Good question

 

[Benedicta00]

And you know this how exactly?

Did you decide that this is true or did someone decide it for you?

Woody, we can use our reason and our intellect to decide between a Church who can trace itself back to Jesus and a man from the 16 th century who claimed that the Church who traces itself back to Jesus got it all wrong.

God didn’t make us imbeciles.

This argument really isn’t as slick as you think it is. Why do you believe the bible even is from God? Why do you believe in anything Woody? Because of faith.

The fact remains quit clear and evident that if there were no heretics and no reformation and no schisms, challenging the Church, no choice would need to be made, we would be able to know truth easy because there would be no one putting doubt in our minds but since there are heretic, reformers, schisms challenging the Church, we have to chose who to believe.

I chose to believe because this Church we call the Catholic Church can trace itself back to Peter and on THIS ROCK Peter, Jesus built his Church.

For me it’s the logical choice, for others obviously it isn’t but what I am saying here, that based on facts and evidence one can chose who to believe is telling the truth. It is not the same as trying to determine for yourself what that truth is. You have no such power or authority to do so.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Actually, Cardinal Newman never regarded himself as a Protestant, even during his Tractarian days in the Anglican Church because he always held to certain non-Protestant presuppositions. Those well-known, but incessantly misleadingly quoted words you've posted do not represent some epiphany he had that led him from Protestantism to Romanism. Rather, they were his starting presuppositions prior to his settling on the RCC as the "One True Church".

And my realization of this truth a few years ago when I read more of Newman was just another confirmation of the sadly misleadingly dishonest state of Roman pop-apologetics.

In general is that statement false?

Simple logic would say, Calvin was not around during the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Yet is there are group of people who not only call themself "Calvinist" but insist it is the correct Gospel.

Then if we took this on a historical perspective going back in time there came a point where Calvinism DIDNT EXIST, BUT non-Calvinist Christianity DID EXIST. Hence the saying "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant".
Its a basic fact, protestantism is simply nothing more than ignoring history.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Heb 1:1-3 GB
(1) At sundry times and in diuers maners God spake in the olde time to our fathers by the Prophetes: in these last dayes hee hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne,
(2) Whom he hath made heire of al things, by whome also he made the worldes,
(3) Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, and bearing vp all things by his mightie worde, hath by himselfe purged our sinnes, and sitteth at the right hand of the Maiestie in the highest places,....

The NT is a record of eyewitness events and the eyewitnesses themselves. When the last eyewitness was received into glory, the Special Revelation of God to man was ended. There are no more prophets speaking as this was the way God spoke in the past.

BTW, I suppose that my recent posts on this thread must not be answerable by Roman Catholics. I haven't seen any effort yet.

Thats not really an answer at all. Nowhere do you explain how you know that no more books belong in the Bible.

You cited Hebrews, but do you even know who the author of Hebrews is?

How do books like Philemon and 2Jn fit into the Bible, would you have read them and said "yep these go in the Bible"?

Im not sure what "earlier posts" your talking about, but I have a lot of stuff I posted here that hasnt been responded to either.

 

[holeinone]

Mans 'intelligence' profits him NOTHING

The greeks were 'bright" too. What did Paul say?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.



1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


It is time to trust Christ and the word of God and not your "intelligence" and not a church but He that was a propitiation for your sin.

 

[Benedicta00]

Mans 'intelligence' profits him NOTHING

The greeks were 'bright" too. What did Paul say?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.



1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


It is time to trust Christ and the word of God and not your "intelligence" and not a church but He that was a propitiation for your sin.

So I'm wrong?

Oh, will y’all make up your minds please?!?

You tell me why do we Catholics choose the Church over Protestantism?

Is it because God gave us the irresistible grace to, is it because were blind, stupid fools led by Satan or it is because the reformation gave us a choice so we look at it’s arguments and decided they have no merit and go with the Church?

Which on is it IYO?

 

[daveleau]

Closed for staff review.

[bible]James 1:26[/bible]


[bible]2 Timothy 4:2[/bible]

 

[daveleau]

Cleaned out rule issues in last few pages.

 

[daveleau]

Mod Hat On^
My fellow Christians who read this thread and plan to post,
This thread, nor any other, are places where you can feel free to lambast another's faith with harsh words and flames. You may discuss with respect anothers' Christian beliefs, but you may not use sharp, harsh or disruptive words in your posts.

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

These passages inspired the rules that say:

You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site.

You will not post, attach, use or send any posts, PMs, links, images or files:
puts down or belittles Christianity as a whole, a Christian group or denomination or God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible or any other Christian objects of significance (as this is a Christian website after all).

When you speak harshly, you destroy your own ability to testify to the glory of God because your mouth is defiled. People are not going to listen to someone that speaks offense with one side of their mouths (even if the speech is correct but said offensively) and speaks to the glory of God with the other. Speak kindly with each other, or this thread will again be closed and will be dealt with again.

God bless you and keep your words as they are prescribed in Scripture.
daveleau
CF Staff
Mod Hat Off^

 

[A. believer]

In general is that statement false?

Simple logic would say, Calvin was not around during the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Yet is there are group of people who not only call themself "Calvinist" but insist it is the correct Gospel.

Then if we took this on a historical perspective going back in time there came a point where Calvinism DIDNT EXIST, BUT non-Calvinist Christianity DID EXIST. Hence the saying "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant".
Its a basic fact, protestantism is simply nothing more than ignoring history.

Protestantism doesn't pretend to presuppose that the church has been theologically infallible throughout history (or that it is now). That doesn't mean that we weren't and aren't still the church. Newman, though, like Roman Catholicism, did presuppose that theological errors negated the validity of the church, and hence he looked for some vestige of theological perfection throughout history. He was quite frustrated in this attempt until he came up with his Aristotelian theory. By my lights, though, it's apparent that to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic, not because Roman Catholicism doesn't live up to Protestant presuppositions, (unlike you, I don't judge a system by a standards foreign to the system) but because it doesn't live up to Roman Catholic presuppositions.

 

[A. believer]

I could have sworn you posted a response to my question where I asked,

How do you know why the Church was given to us? How do you know that the Church was given to us? How do you even know what the Church is?


​

but since I can no longer find your post, I'll respond to this one where you answered a similar question.

Woody, we can use our reason and our intellect to decide between a Church who can trace itself back to Jesus and a man from the 16 th century who claimed that the Church who traces itself back to Jesus got it all wrong.


God didn’t make us imbeciles.

This argument really isn’t as slick as you think it is. Why do you believe the bible even is from God? Why do you believe in anything Woody? Because of faith.

That we believe something "by faith" is irrelevant. In fact, it's a tautology, because ultimately faith means the same thing as belief.

The fact remains quit clear and evident that if there were no heretics and no reformation and no schisms, challenging the Church, no choice would need to be made, we would be able to know truth easy because there would be no one putting doubt in our minds but since there are heretic, reformers, schisms challenging the Church, we have to chose who to believe.

I chose to believe because this Church we call the Catholic Church can trace itself back to Peter and on THIS ROCK Peter, Jesus built his Church.

For me it’s the logical choice, for others obviously it isn’t but what I am saying here, that based on facts and evidence one can chose who to believe is telling the truth. It is not the same as trying to determine for yourself what that truth is. You have no such power or authority to do so.

You clearly are missing the implications of the question. Your epistemological basis for knowing that God gave us a church is the same basis we Protestants have for our belief. You know because it's in Scripture. God's self-revelation in Scripture is a sure foundation for belief because reality is incoherent apart from the truths it contains. On that we agree.

But among those who've assented to the truth of God's self-revelation in Scripture, there are different understandings of certain particulars, and our ecclesiological differences are among those differences. It's unhelpful in the extreme, not to mention unspeakably arrogant, for people on either side of the debate to say that we know our interpretation is correct because "we have brains" or "we're not imbeciles." Although I don't have much respect for the critical thinking abilities of many of the Roman Catholics I encounter on the internet, I'm certainly not so arrogant as to think that there haven't been some great minds through history and into today who hold to a Roman Catholic ecclesiology. In fact, there are some competent and even some sharp thinkers here on CF who reject Protestant ecclesiologies, and these people are recognizable by a certain intellectual humility. They firmly believe they're correct, but they give due consideration to the support for alternative beliefs as well.

I'm also aware of the fact that there are some Protestants who speak in the same manner as you do. "I know I'm right and you're wrong because I'm not an idiot," (with the implication that "you are") is too common an attitude among professing Christians from every tradition. But you would do well, Michelle, to consider the possibility that not everything you believe is somehow self-evident. You, yourself, said that Biblical interpretation is not "cut and dry." But then you turn around and pretend that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of ecclesiology is either dishonest or stupid. Let's all keep in mind that blind arrogance isn't the exclusive domain of any single tradition.