- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Vatican is Evil and it’s part
Posted on 12/21/22 at 3:20 pm to Zarkinletch416
Posted on 12/21/22 at 3:20 pm to Zarkinletch416
quote:Fair enough.
Anyway, when you drift off to sleep tonight, whisper a prayer for this weary voyager. I'll do the same for you.
Fair enough?
0
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, I don't think you understand what sola scriptura is about. It's about authority.
An authority the scriptures doesn't even subscribe to itself. It is the infallible word of God, to be sure, but the scriptures never existed as the ULTIMATE authority until much later in the history of Christendom.
quote:
If a preacher gives a sermon to the people and everything he says is faithful to the scriptures
But WHO determines what is faithful to the scriptures? A Baptist preacher giving a sermon on John 6 will claim that Christ is speaking metaphorically; a Lutheran preacher giving a sermon on the same passage will apply consubstantiation to John 6, while a Catholic priest will apply transubstantiation. Which is right? There can be only one true answer as the Holy Spirit doesn't divide truth into three different ways.
quote:
Sola scriptura is not defeated by illiteracy because principle is about authority.
Sola Scriptura is defeated by several different factors, one of which being illiteracy. The other being your guiding principle of authority. Who has the authority to interpret scripture and whose interpretation is the correct one?
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:How can you even say that? The scriptures refer to themselves as the very word of God. What's more authoritative than God's own word?
An authority the scriptures doesn't even subscribe to itself. It is the infallible word of God, to be sure, but the scriptures never existed as the ULTIMATE authority until much later in the history of Christendom
And like I've said other posts, the scriptures are the standard to judge by precisely because they are God's word. Jesus used them to condemn the Pharisees who propped up their traditions above them, and He rebuked Satan using only the scriptures.
Even in early church history, the Gnostics and other heretics of the day were refuted with scripture, not tradition.
quote:Ultimately God will judge the right division of His word, however it's incumbent on everyone to study the scriptures and hold those in authority accountable for what they are teaching.
But WHO determines what is faithful to the scriptures? A Baptist preacher giving a sermon on John 6 will claim that Christ is speaking metaphorically; a Lutheran preacher giving a sermon on the same passage will apply consubstantiation to John 6, while a Catholic priest will apply transubstantiation. Which is right? There can be only one true answer as the Holy Spirit doesn't divide truth into three different ways.
When it comes to major doctrinal disagreements (like about the sacraments), the divisions aren't usually due to a misinterpretation of a verse or two. It's usually due to a misunderstanding of how to approach the scriptural interpretation more broadly. There is an awful lot of eisegesis going on where people take their preconceptions and force them into the text rather than attempting to exegete the meaning of the text from its own context.
quote:Sola scriptura is certainly not defeated by illiteracy, because the scriptures are authoritative regardless of who can read them. The reason is because of whose word it is and what authority He has. It's not the words, but whose words they are.
Sola Scriptura is defeated by several different factors, one of which being illiteracy.
quote:God's word is authoritative and all people are held accountable to it. Everyone has the authority to rightly interpret scripture, because God's word has been given to His people, not just a special class of people. Christ raises up elders in particular to be teachers, and therefore they have the responsibility to devote themselves particularly to the study of the scriptures in order to rightly understand them and to teach them to others. However, the scriptures are plain enough for even the most lowly of people to be able to understand how to be saved and the basic obligations God requires of them.
The other being your guiding principle of authority. Who has the authority to interpret scripture and whose interpretation is the correct one?
Rome makes itself out to be God, with more authority than God's word. Rome says that only she can define what the scriptures are (rather than just receiving what God has provided); only Rome can interpret the scriptures; only Rome can define what is sacred tradition; and only Rome can interpret sacred tradition for the people. What all that means is that the Bible isn't the rule, Rome is. If Rome develops a tradition and the Bible seemingly contradicts that tradition, Rome will interpret the Bible by the tradition rather than the other way around. It's precisely why I've seen Catholics on this site use phrases like "Bible thumper", or disparaging or minimizing words about the Bible itself, because they see the Bible as just another means of doctrine, but probably not even the primary means. What matters most is what the Church of Rome says. What is true is what Rome says, and if anyone dares to pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it, Rome says that they can't because they need the context of tradition and the special authority of the Church to help them interpret it. All this does is subordinate God's own word to the Church of Rome.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:45 pm to CatholicLSUDude
quote:Then I'll respond to what you said to him and then pick up with your response to me.
1. My response to Leotiger is just about sufficient to respond to your response to question one.
quote:Sola scriptura is about authority. What authority do we submit ourselves to ultimately? What authority do we use to understand truth? The scriptures not only tell us that only they are God-breathed (as opposed to human tradition), but even the early church fathers only appealed to the authority of scripture to respond to heresies and unorthodox teaching in the Church. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras, to name a few, appealed to scripture to decide theological disputes. If there were a greater authority, you would think these men would have appealed to that instead.
1. None of what you cite indicates Sola Scriptura without passing it through the opinion of the reformers or modern protestant pastors. It's just not there. It requires one to adopt a particular opinion about what those writings mean--and that particular opinion is born of other men rather than the scripture you claim is the only authority.
quote:But Christ did, when He rebuked Satan's temptations: But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4)
I'd argue that if Christ meant for written scripture to be the only form of authority for thousands of years, he definitely would have stated that plainly. He did not do so. Instead, he spent his time teaching men how to pray and giving them authority to run his church when he died.
God's word is the standard that all will be judged by, and it really is a shame that professing Christians go out of their way to minimize it so that they can prop up the doctrines of men. It's precisely the sort of thing Christ preached against when the elders of Israel held the Korban above the scriptures.
quote:I don't think you're understanding this. It's the very reason why I compared it to the doctrine of the Trinity. The word "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible, but the doctrine, itself, is derived entirely from the Bible. Likewise, the Latin phrase sola scriptura is not found in the Bible, but it is a phrase that is used to identify a doctrine derived from the Bible.
You're admitting Sola Scriptura is not explicitly stated. I agree. But I think that makes it's true origin very obvious: it was a doctrine invented by the reformers.
There have been entire books written on the doctrine of sola scriptura because there is so much that can be said about it. I gave you a very, very brief overview of the reasoning behind the doctrine and where it is derived and supported in practice, from scripture itself. You didn't comment on anything I said there, but have just said that it's my interpretation. Well, yeah, it's my interpretation, based on a clear reading of scripture. I didn't provide unclear and perplexing passages. What I provided is very clear to even the untrained lay person. Also notice that I didn't quote a single Reformer in my response.
quote:That's patently false and absurd, if I may be so blunt.
I'd argue that you only believe it because very fallible men have told you that it is so. Scripture has been passed through their opinion and interpreted a particular way and you have accepted their interpretation as fact. This is exactly what protestants dislike about Catholics.
I see the doctrine taught plain as day in the scriptures. I understand both the rationale for it and the practical implications of it as it has been borne out in history. At the end of the day, I'm trying to glorify God, and I don't see a way to reject sola scriptura and glorify God, because it is a rejection of God's own word as the ultimate authority for doctrine and life.
Please don't make the mistake of telling me what I believe and why I believe it when I've spent decades studying the scriptures and hearing arguments against every doctrine I hold to, only to be more convinced that it is God's word that is the ultimate authority.
quote:I believe the Holy Spirit leads His people into understanding, even if not perfect understanding in all things. I believe the things of God are spiritually discerned. Ultimately I'm trusting God that His word is true and that He will give His people enough understanding by His Spirit to know how to be saved. When the lay person has the access to the scriptures and the ability to understand it (thus the doctrine of the perspicuity of the scriptures), then they can hold their leaders accountable for error and heresy. The lay person can say with Peter "we must obey God rather than men" when there are wolves trying to devour the flock.
The truth is there is no escaping this. There is no getting out of trusting someone to help you understand the Bible. It's just a matter of who you trust.
quote:Like I said, we don't know the will of God unless He reveals it to us, and all we know is that He chose weak and fallible men to be the messengers of His revelation to the people. However we do know that the human authors of the scriptures were carried along by the Spirit of God. So why does it matter if Jesus wrote the scriptures Himself or if He sent the Spirit to inspire men to write in His stead? Either way, it is God's word being delivered to the people.
2. Like Leotiger's response, I don't really understand how yours answers my question. We aren't talking about OT prophets, we are talking about God himself coming down to earth. He could have easily written instructions for years before leaving, but he didn't. Why?
quote:I don't disagree that Jesus was founding and building His Church, and a Church with authority. We are supposed to honor the elders placed over us. We are supposed to submit ourselves to teaching and correction. Protestants don't typically argue that there is no visible church or leaders in the church. The question is, are those leaders an authority to themselves, or are they, too, subject to the word of God? Are the elders an alter Christus, or are they under shepherds of Jesus Christ, given His authority to rule according to His word, and with the responsibility to tend to His sheep? Sola scriptura allows for actual reformation because it allows people to see when their leaders are violating the authority granted to them and leading the people astray.
I suppose it's not a question many people ask themselves, and I've honestly never heard a protestant offer a response to it. The Catholic response is pretty simple: He was establishing a church of men and preparing them for the authority he would give them, and there's something about such a church of men that's necessary for his Church to endure through the ages. Is there not a comparably comprehensive answer from the protestant side of the aisle?
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:22 pm to Liberator
quote:
Jesus Christ. Crucified with SPIKES. NOT to a "tree". It was a wooden CROSS. Who is this "we"? And wait a minute -- by citing the Pharisees actions against Jesus Christ, did you actually just compare the righteous criticism and condemnation of Pope Francis and Vatican TO...Criticism & condemnation of Jesus Christ? Absolutely stunning. (also another stunning / absurd position to believe -- poster Foo is a target to be taken to task on Gospel truth?) Exactly who is "clueless" again??
Talk about gaslighting and straw man arguing
I said that the poster saying Catholics are evil because of his astonishing misunderstanding of our faith is like those during Christ’s time
Again, the pope is not God this he is fallible. I disagree with a lot that comes from the pope. He is NOT the Church.
I am Catholic because I recognize that only Christ saves. I understand that few of you understand our faith- most Catholics are confused themselves- but I believe Christ created 1 church. We screwed it up yet He is capable of making good out of any wrong. If Jesus meets you in a different denomination’s church and you get to know him there then God bless you. You are a Christian same as me. He cures all
Posted on 12/21/22 at 8:04 pm to Quatre Pot
quote:
If Jesus meets you in a different denomination’s church and you get to know him there then God bless you. You are a Christian same as me. He cures all
Posted on 12/21/22 at 9:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Well, yeah, it's my interpretation, based on a clear reading of scripture.
I considered writing a detailed response to your response, but it doesn’t seem necessary considering you clearly admit to this here. You are undermining your own argument. Everything you say is just your interpretation. You are bringing in idea after idea that are not conveyed in scripture. You claim you see sola Scriptura clearly throughout scripture: that’s such a cop out. You read it in there because the reformers and your Protestant leaders tell you it’s in there. No other reason. Let’s just take one example:
quote:
But Christ did, when He rebuked Satan's temptations: But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4)
How in the world can you tell me that without any help, you’d ever think the above verse is Jesus claiming scripture is the sole authority? You think that because your Protestant teachers have told you it is so. Not because you are reading scripture “clearly”.
You are relying on a particular interpretation. That interpretation comes from fallible men. End of story. You aren’t just reading the Bible better than everyone else, man. You are reading it through a particular prism.
Here’s the thing you are missing: Catholics think they have a clear understanding of scripture too. The difference is we know that we are looking at it through a particular prism (the one Jesus gave us). You are looking at it through the reformers prism but must necessarily not admit it because doing so undermines your argument.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 10:42 pm to CatholicLSUDude
quote:The words of scripture are not a puzzle. They are not different depending on who is reading them. They were written in a language that regular people could understand.
I considered writing a detailed response to your response, but it doesn’t seem necessary considering you clearly admit to this here. You are undermining your own argument. Everything you say is just your interpretation.
For instance Paul wrote letters to be read directly to the congregations. He didn’t have them filtered through the interpretations of the elders first. Why would he do that if he didn’t intend his letters to be understandable to the lay people of the church?
quote:Not true. Anyone who can read and has a basic grasp of reading comprehension can understand the gist of what is being said. The problem of interpretation usually boils down to preconceptions and biases that cause us to ignore the context of what we are reading—either the immediate context or the greater context of the chapter, book, and Bible as a whole—and insert those biases into the text to make it say something that it doesn’t.
You are bringing in idea after idea that are not conveyed in scripture.
quote:I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself before you’ll believe me, but I see it there because it is there, not because I believe every word of the Reformers. I believe the Reformers only as far as what they say is faithful to the scriptures.
You claim you see sola Scriptura clearly throughout scripture: that’s such a cop out. You read it in there because the reformers and your Protestant leaders tell you it’s in there. No other reason.
I already provided a succinct argument for my reasoning behind my belief. From Paul saying all scripture is God-breathed (and nothing else is referred to that way), to the Bereans, to Christ Himself chiding the leaders of Israel for their placement of man made laws and traditions being set over the very word of God.
In addition, the early church fathers and apologists defended orthodox teaching against heretics by using the scriptures, not tradition, as their authority. I’m not making this up and neither did the Reformers. What Rome teaches today has developed over time, but tmot wasn’t what was taught in the beginning.
quote:When does Jesus appeal to authority other than the Father, Himself, or the scriptures?
Let’s just take one example:quote:
But Christ did…Matt. 4:4
How in the world can you tell me that without any help, you’d ever think the above verse is Jesus claiming scripture is the sole authority? You think that because your Protestant teachers have told you it is so. Not because you are reading scripture “clearly”.
If God is God, then there is no greater authority than Himself. That is what sola scriptura acknowledges. The highest authority there is is God’s word because that is His revelation.
What authority is higher than God?
quote:We all read everything through a prism. You just think the Catholic Church’s fallible men are better than any other fallible men when it comes to interpretation. It’s why I appeal to scripture and Catholics appeal to Rome. I believe in sola scriptura and Catholics believe in sola ecclesia. I put my trust in God above all else and Catholics put their trust in the fallible men of the Church above all else. It’s why the word of God being the highest standard for Protestants is actually mocked by Catholics.
You are relying on a particular interpretation. That interpretation comes from fallible men. End of story. You aren’t just reading the Bible better than everyone else, man. You are reading it through a particular prism.
quote:I just said that everyone looks at the world (including what is read) through a prism. What you fail to get is that I don’t put my trust in men for truth like Catholics have to. I read the scriptures and draw my conclusions from what I’m reading.
Here’s the thing you are missing: Catholics think they have a clear understanding of scripture too. The difference is we know that we are looking at it through a particular prism (the one Jesus gave us). You are looking at it through the reformers prism but must necessarily not admit it because doing so undermines your argument.
I can’t tell you how many people I know who have come to the Reformed faith after reading the book of Romans without having read the Reformers. They weren’t biased by the Reformers but came to the same conclusion. That should be impossible if your view is correct, since you apparently think that no one could possibly internet the scriptures in that way if not for a bias towards them in the first place. M
The bottom line is this: if your final authority is man instead of God, you are an idolater and should repent. If your trust is in the Church above Christ who founded the Church, you are not joined to Christ.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 5:32 am to FooManChoo
quote:
When does Jesus appeal to authority other than the Father, Himself, or the scriptures?
Jesus gives authority to men, and it’s quite clear that he does so.
quote:
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
I could post more scripture to support the point, but this one is illustrative enough. Take this one example and explain to me how you use nothing but the Bible to understand this as anything but Jesus giving men authority.
quote:
The words of scripture are not a puzzle. They are not different depending on who is reading them. They were written in a language that regular people could understand.
Demonstrably false. How many Protestant denominations are there? Translation alone causes this problem.
quote:
In addition, the early church fathers and apologists defended orthodox teaching against heretics by using the scriptures, not tradition, as their authority. I’m not making this up and neither did the Reformers. What Rome teaches today has developed over time, but tmot wasn’t what was taught in the beginning.
Well, Catholics do believe it’s the Word of God. It’s just that we disagree on what God is saying in it. Of course people would use it.
As far as doctrine developing-it’s generally because it’s necessary. Nothing of the fundamental teachings have changed. The truth is unfolding and becoming more evident through time. As a simple example, take internet porn. Big problem today (hope we agree on that). Jesus didn’t discuss it or go into detail about why it’s bad, but it’s necessary today and in the years ahead the Church formalize teaching on it. So you’ll see that in the years ahead. But what the church doesn’t do is alter fundamental teachings. Generally, teaching develops because it’s necessary to combat some sort of heresy that can’t go unchecked.
quote:
The bottom line is this: if your final authority is man instead of God, you are an idolater and should repent. If your trust is in the Church above Christ who founded the Church, you are not joined to Christ.
See we kind of agree here. I agree with the first part. Are you aware that Catholics say that Christ is the head of the church? Not the pope. Not Rome. Christ. Everything is subject to Jesus. You just disagree with me about what that looks like. We trust the church because Christ gifted it to us. We don’t trust Christ because the church says so. See what I mean?
This was my whole gripe in the beginning and it always is in threads like this. People attack Catholics and say things like the Pope or Mary or something is who we ultimately put our trust in, that’s just not true. Catholics believe Christ is at the top. Our whole Sunday mass is centered around the Eucharist (which I see you deny transubstantiation and would love to understand how you clearly read John 6:35-59 and deny it). It’s one thing to disagree with the Catholic position here, but you are blatantly misrepresenting it if you say that anything or anyone other than Christ is the head of the church.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 11:07 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:Jesus gives authority to types of people, yes: husbands over wives; managers over employees; rulers over citizens; and elders over congregations. However, all authority has been given to Jesus Christ, and no human authority is higher than that of the Triune God. That's been my entire point: sola scriptura is about ultimate authority. That was the point of Peter telling the leaders of Israel that he must obey God rather than men, not because he didn't ever have to obey human authorities, but because when there was a conflict between man and God, that God was the higher (ultimate) authority.
Jesus gives authority to men, and it’s quite clear that he does so.
quote:I'm not sure how this defeats my point that scripture is the ultimate authority and the final rule.
I could post more scripture to support the point, but this one is illustrative enough. Take this one example and explain to me how you use nothing but the Bible to understand this as anything but Jesus giving men authority.
When I say that the Bible is the only rule for faith and life, what I mean is that only the Bible can bind the consciences of men, setting forth rules that must be followed and truth that must be believed. If men have authority, then it is a derived authority from God, and they must rule according to God's word. If an elder or priest came to a congregation and told the people that they had to wear green shirts every week or else they would be damned, then they would be in violation of God's word and should be rebuked for it. Their authority doesn't supersede God's word but is derived from it.
quote:Sin causes division and misunderstand, not the word of God. There is a difference between the Bible communicating clearly and the readers understanding it clearly. Communication is always a two-way street.
Demonstrably false. How many Protestant denominations are there? Translation alone causes this problem.
Translation doesn't cause this problem, either. For one, pretty much all faithful translations (unlike the Jehovah Witnesses' translation, as an example) of the Bible say the same thing in meaning if not in word. Translation is not the issue. Interpretation is. Due to sin, no one is going to understand the scriptures 100% accurately until all sin is removed in Heaven. That being said, there are basic principles of hermeneutics that reduce the amount of eisegesis that exists in interpretation, which is at the heart of a lot of differences.
quote:The fathers using the Bible because Catholicism teaches it is the word of God wasn't my point. This is an issue of authority. If tradition were on equal footing with the scriptures in terms of authority, the fathers could have pointed to that instead to defend the doctrine of Christ, or the Trinity. Instead, they used the scriptures exclusively because only the scriptures are God-breathed and authoritative for the Christian.
Well, Catholics do believe it’s the Word of God. It’s just that we disagree on what God is saying in it. Of course people would use it.
quote:I would have preferred you expand on the Marian dogmas rather than internet porn if you were going to use an example of doctrinal expansion, because internet porn actually isn't an example of that. Lust has always been condemned as a sin in the Church, and internet porn is just a different expression of that sin rather than an expansion on the doctrine of sin, itself.
As far as doctrine developing-it’s generally because it’s necessary. Nothing of the fundamental teachings have changed. The truth is unfolding and becoming more evident through time. As a simple example, take internet porn. Big problem today (hope we agree on that). Jesus didn’t discuss it or go into detail about why it’s bad, but it’s necessary today and in the years ahead the Church formalize teaching on it. So you’ll see that in the years ahead. But what the church doesn’t do is alter fundamental teachings. Generally, teaching develops because it’s necessary to combat some sort of heresy that can’t go unchecked.
The Marian dogmas, on the other hand, are claimed by the Roman church to have always been believed, but in seed form, and that they've developed to full bloom over the course of 2,000 years. However, none of the early church fathers mentioned anything about Mary as a co-redeemer, co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, bodily assumed, or anything else that has developed over time. They were pure inventions, not from scripture, and not even known at the beginning of the church. You can mount a strong argument for the Trinity from only the scriptures (and men like Athanasius) that you can't even touch on for the Marian dogmas without first having an extra-biblical tradition to interpret from.
With that said, I agree that doctrine does develop in fullness over time. The fullness of how we understand the biblical teaching of Christ's full divinity and full humanity needed to be fleshed out, but the groundwork was already in the scriptures. Usually such clarification comes as a response to heresy, but as I mentioned, heresies were defeated by the authority of scripture, not tradition.
quote:The Pope has an official title as the "Vicar of Christ". A vicar is a substitute, and the Pope claims authority as a head over the entire Church. Whether you deny that it means he is really the head of the church or not, he is functionally the head of the Church in Catholicism. He has all power and authority to rule. He has the keys to the kingdom and the sole authority to bind and loose. That's why you and other Catholics put a premium on Matthew 16:18-19 as being about Peter (and not the other apostles), and his direct successors. You believe that the Pope is Christ's representative on earth with all power and authority that Christ has, yet you have no way to know whether or not he is abusing that power, because you have no authority to challenge or question him, and you have no authority to interpret the scriptures on your own to see if he is a wolf over the sheep.
See we kind of agree here. I agree with the first part. Are you aware that Catholics say that Christ is the head of the church? Not the pope. Not Rome. Christ. Everything is subject to Jesus. You just disagree with me about what that looks like. We trust the church because Christ gifted it to us. We don’t trust Christ because the church says so. See what I mean?
quote:When you pray to Mary instead of Jesus, you are functionally saying that you trust Mary to intercede for you in a way that Christ won't. When you allow the Pope to receive the title of 'Vicar of Christ' and act on His behalf regardless of what the scriptures say, you are functionally making the Pope the head of the Church instead of Christ. It's easy to say, "...but I don't actually believe that", but it seems like double speak when the logical conclusion is the same as the "misrepresentation", as you describe it.
This was my whole gripe in the beginning and it always is in threads like this. People attack Catholics and say things like the Pope or Mary or something is who we ultimately put our trust in, that’s just not true. Catholics believe Christ is at the top. Our whole Sunday mass is centered around the Eucharist (which I see you deny transubstantiation and would love to understand how you clearly read John 6:35-59 and deny it). It’s one thing to disagree with the Catholic position here, but you are blatantly misrepresenting it if you say that anything or anyone other than Christ is the head of the church.
Regarding John 6: here is my previous post that touched on it.
LINK
Posted on 12/22/22 at 3:32 pm to FooManChoo
I suppose this thread got anchored (that what it’s called?), so maybe it’s just the two of us now. Feels lonely.
Honestly there are almost too many things in your response that I think are off to delve into each. I could write for a long time on any one of these, but I’m not going to since (1) I have a bunch of kids and it’s almost Christmas and (2) I don’t think doing so is a worthwhile endeavor for either of us—what’s worthwhile is the discussion of authority. If I’m right about authority, all your points about the Pope and Mary and the Church are wrong. If you’re right about authority, I’m damned for believing in idols. Agreed?
For that reason, let’s focus on authority. Let’s leave the many other issues aside.
I think your attempt to convey your opinion on authority is very vague and far too malleable. It‘s conveniently nebulous for one arguing for Sola Scriptura, but it’s not convincing. And am I understand you correctly that people misread the Bible because of sin, but somehow you and yours are clean and pure as the wind driven snow and can read it “the right way” while all the other Protestants and the Catholics are wrong? That doesn’t exactly come across well.
I suppose you can answer that question, then I’ll extend an olive branch. Since I’m pretty confident no internet debate has ever solved the Catholic/Protestant divide, let’s at least see if we can clearly identify the points of disagreement on authority.
1. We both think God is the highest authority.
2. I think God gave us the church (guided by the Holy Spirit) and scripture as authority to work together. But you think God only gave us scripture as authority.
3. I think the Catholic Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Bible’s intended meaning. But You think the Church does so because its reading of scripture is tainted by ?sin?.
4. I think the Bible is an enigma that most people can’t hope to comprehend taken in a vacuum (part of why the Church and scripture must work together). You think people can derive truth from it in a vacuum absent sin.
How’d I do? Feel free to amend.
Honestly there are almost too many things in your response that I think are off to delve into each. I could write for a long time on any one of these, but I’m not going to since (1) I have a bunch of kids and it’s almost Christmas and (2) I don’t think doing so is a worthwhile endeavor for either of us—what’s worthwhile is the discussion of authority. If I’m right about authority, all your points about the Pope and Mary and the Church are wrong. If you’re right about authority, I’m damned for believing in idols. Agreed?
For that reason, let’s focus on authority. Let’s leave the many other issues aside.
I think your attempt to convey your opinion on authority is very vague and far too malleable. It‘s conveniently nebulous for one arguing for Sola Scriptura, but it’s not convincing. And am I understand you correctly that people misread the Bible because of sin, but somehow you and yours are clean and pure as the wind driven snow and can read it “the right way” while all the other Protestants and the Catholics are wrong? That doesn’t exactly come across well.
I suppose you can answer that question, then I’ll extend an olive branch. Since I’m pretty confident no internet debate has ever solved the Catholic/Protestant divide, let’s at least see if we can clearly identify the points of disagreement on authority.
1. We both think God is the highest authority.
2. I think God gave us the church (guided by the Holy Spirit) and scripture as authority to work together. But you think God only gave us scripture as authority.
3. I think the Catholic Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Bible’s intended meaning. But You think the Church does so because its reading of scripture is tainted by ?sin?.
4. I think the Bible is an enigma that most people can’t hope to comprehend taken in a vacuum (part of why the Church and scripture must work together). You think people can derive truth from it in a vacuum absent sin.
How’d I do? Feel free to amend.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:27 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:I believe you are in error about authority. I don’t believe that is heretical (damnable) by itself.
If you’re right about authority, I’m damned for believing in idols. Agreed?
My salvific concern for all Catholics is in regards to the gospel. I believe that Catholics who understand Rome’s teaching on justification being of faith and works is damnable because it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is that He alone saves, and we receive salvation as a gift rather than as a wage or reward. I believe the root cause of this heresy and all other errors is based in the Catholic teaching of the authority of the Church over the scriptures, but my main concern is the gospel.
quote:Not exactly. The noetic effects of sin affect our ability to think and reason perfectly, and our natural sinful desire to be autonomous means that we have a tendency to want to determine truth by ourselves apart from scripture and then try to force those beliefs into the text (eisegesis) rather than seeking to get the truth from God from within scripture and pull it out for us to believe (exegesis).
And am I understand you correctly that people misread the Bible because of sin, but somehow you and yours are clean and pure as the wind driven snow and can read it “the right way” while all the other Protestants and the Catholics are wrong? That doesn’t exactly come across well.
This is a struggle that everyone has, including me and the denomination I belong to, but for some, they don’t think about or fight against that struggle and wind up interpreting scripture very wrongly as the result.
I can all but guarantee that there are some secondary doctrines that I believe that I will be corrected on by God in Heaven, but I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, meaning that it’s teachings on core doctrine (creedal issues that are necessary to believe) are clear enough for anyone to understand, but we may need assistance from the church (elders especially) to understand them to their fullest.
I believe this is supported by the OT teachings on the clarity of scripture (the people were constantly condemned for not believing what God had said); that Jesus held people accountable for not understanding the scriptures (He assumed them to be clear); and as I mentioned before, the Apostles penned their scriptures that were to be read to the entire congregation as-is (which assumes they are clear enough to understand from their being read aloud).
The reason why elders (especially teaching elders/pastors) should be able to teach is because they are expected to be studying the word of God at a greater level than the lay people, drawing out the contexts and making the connections that God has laid out for us in the various books, and bringing out that fullness of understanding to the people. That doesn’t mean lay people can’t also make those connections and understand the context more fully, though.
The church (elders) is supposed to preserve the purity and peace of the Church, so they guide the people according to God’s word and execute discipline against those In unrepentant sin or those seeking to lead the flock astray through heretical teaching.
quote:Yes, perhaps at least in confession but perhaps not in application.
1. We both think God is the highest authority.
quote:I believe that the church has authority (the keys of the kingdom belong to each congregation of elders, and those keys are the gospel and church discipline), but the church’s authority is derived from and subservient to the authority of God’s word, not equal to it.
2. I think God gave us the church (guided by the Holy Spirit) and scripture as authority to work together. But you think God only gave us scripture as authority.
Rome teaches that it’s authority is equal to scripture, so when the church says something that seemingly contradicts scripture, she can appeal to herself as the arbiter of truth and say that she alone has the correct interpretation and that no lay person can correct her. Not only will this inevitably lead to abuse and perversion of God’s word (as it has), but it makes it difficult to reform that abuse due to the nature of the authority Rome thinks she has.
This is probably the fundamental difference between us.
quote:I believe the Catholic Church does contradict scripture on many points and does so because of sin and a misunderstanding of what authority the Church has in relation to God’s word.
3. I think the Catholic Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Bible’s intended meaning. But You think the Church does so because its reading of scripture is tainted by ?sin?.
quote:Sort of, yes. I explained further in my response above.
4. I think the Bible is an enigma that most people can’t hope to comprehend taken in a vacuum (part of why the Church and scripture must work together). You think people can derive truth from it in a vacuum absent sin.
quote:Pretty good overall. Merry Christmas
How’d I do? Feel free to amend.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News