Scripture Alone

[Fiosh]

hi guys,

i've been reading thru this thread and frankly it's a little disheartening to see what's been going on.

i wish i had the intellectual energy to jump in with fervor, but it's been a draining week at work, and my brain is mush.

so, i'd like to approach this topic from a slightly different angle...common sense

i respect many of you here, of all denominations. i believe you are sincere in your desire to understand and follow Jesus' teachings. i acknowledge that many of you are far higher on the IQ chart than i am. would you consider this?........

Jesus established a church, He called Apostles and disciples to carry on His teaching-----to bring to the world His message.

they wrote, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the teachings and deeds of Jesus. we all agree on that, i think.

but how did Jesus ensure that we here, 2000 years later, would understand how to apply those teachings to our lives? how are we expected to know if we are correctly interpreting what He taught?

obviously, that's a major problem. just as obviously, there must be a way to be sure.

i believe it was Leonard who commented that some of us were confusing the Catholic church with the catholic church---not really.

the catholic (small "c") church was given authority to interpret Scripture for the believers. the early Church Fathers learned directly from the Apostles, and those who learned directly from them, what Jesus MEANT by the things He taught.

in their writings we find clues as to how the Apostles interpreted what they were taught by the Master---how they lived it out.

it just makes sense that God would give us a way to be sure. i believe he did---the church.

you may disagree about what or where that church is today, i understand that. but how could you think it never existed? that is doesn't exist still today?

you can't. to do so, you deny the fact that God gave us a way to be able to interpret His truth with assurance.

i happen to believe that the Catholic church IS the catholic church. i believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. my church teaches that, "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation". (Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation)

NOTHING in Tradition contradicts what is in the Bible. yes, i've already admitted that some things may be "extra-biblical", which is hugely different from ANTI-biblical.

in summary, you might think of Tradition as the lens thru which we see Scripture more clearly. (not my original idea btw)

Scripture and Tradition are not in opposition at all----in fact, they complement one another.

final thought

i prayed to the Holy Spirit to lead me thru this post as I have no mental energy tonite. so, how do we decide which of us is guided by the Spirit????

In His Love,

Fiosh

[Smalcald]

Hi Fiosh,

Regarding doctrinal confusion today, certainly I have been thinking about that.

For me I keep in mind something from the Imitation of Christ, in the very first Chapter which says " What good does it do you to be able to give a learned discourse on the Trinity, while you are without humility and, thus are displeasing to the Trinity? Esoteric words neither make us holy nor righteous; only a virtuous life makes us beloved of God. I would rather experience repentance in my soul than know how to define it."

For me sometimes I must put down doctrine, I must put down disputing, and try to get at what the whole point of doctrine is, which is not doctrine for doctrine's sake.

Now, I think doctrine is important, and I would certainly fight heresy as I see it, when I see it, but there will be many heretics in heaven.

Peace.

[Fiosh]

Hi Fiosh,

Regarding doctrinal confusion today, certainly I have been thinking about that.

For me I keep in mind something from the Imitation of Christ, in the very first Chapter which says " What good does it do you to be able to give a learned discourse on the Trinity, while you are without humility and, thus are displeasing to the Trinity? Esoteric words neither make us holy nor righteous; only a virtuous life makes us beloved of God. I would rather experience repentance in my soul than know how to define it."

For me sometimes I must put down doctrine, I must put down disputing, and try to get at what the whole point of doctrine is, which is not doctrine for doctrine's sake.

Now, I think doctrine is important, and I would certainly fight heresy as I see it, when I see it, but there will be many heretics in heaven.

Peace.

hi smalcald, my brother:

i totally understand what you are saying. i have no doubt but that i could kneel beside you in fervent prayer, or stand beside you in jubilant worship, and know that our hearts are one in Christ.

yes, many times it is best to set aside the doctrinal debates and focus on the heart of the doctrine.

and yet, doctrine is vital to our faith. we must understand that Jesus is God, for example.

may as well expose my jugular---when i receive Holy Communion, i receive the living soul, body and divinity of Jesus Christ. you receive a symbol.....or His Spirit.....or His Body in the bread....or........................???

that's what i'm talking about. He must have given us a way to be sure.

Your sister,

Fiosh

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, that's what plagarism is. You did it in your post to EricH

after I had already called you out for it.

What quoting Scripture now is plagarism?

Plagiarism is not a lie per se:

To lie: To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

My intention is to communicate the teachings of the Church

without having to re-write every little detail on my own, of

which i may not be able to do as well as the person whose

writing i'm using. As i said, i usually do provide a link or URL

from where it came from.

Again, my intention is not to deceive, but to explain the

Catholic viewpoint and the info being shared is not false.

i am sorry you think i'm a liar, this was not my intention.

Plagiarism IS lying because it gives the impression that the words used are yours, when in fact, they are not. It is also stealing since it robs someone else of what is called in legal terms "intellectual property." We are not talking about quoting Scripture. I think you know what you posted, and what AK is talking about, so don't act like you don't know.

I might also add that plagiarism is a board violation. Continued behavior can cause your posting privileges to be suspended or revoked permenantly. George, the owner of these boards, is legally liable for everything posted here. He is responsible for everything that goes on here. Therefore, to protect the integrity of the boards and the well being of the owner, please cease from posting articles or excerpts without giving proper attribution to author. Thanks.

[chrismarc]

Instead of deflecting from the thread, with accusations and threats,

could someone please answer questions i've brought up:

1)If the Bible is the final authority, why are we even arguing?

Shouldn't it be clear? Why are there 35,000 denominations

all claiming to have it right? Why is there such confusion

amongst folks on this forum, if the Bible is the final arbiter?

2)Why do most non-Catholics not believe in the Real Presence

of Jesus in Holy Communion (Eucharist), clearly taught by Jesus

and the Apostles in Scripture?

3)Who performed these methods and tests? How? (regarding Canon of Scripture)

4)How do you know it (gospel of Judas) contradicts the Bible?

Why was it not included in the Bible in the 1st place?

5) How do we have the Bible today?

Did it just fall out of the sky?

Who "put" it together as the Bible?

6) As Scripture tells us to venerate Mary (see Luke 1:26-49),

why don't Protestants?

7) Scripture proving sole-suffiency of Scripture?

Just a few unanswered questions and try to agree on your answers.

[apothanein kerdos]

Again, none of us wish to discuss such deep topics with people who are liars and misrepresent the facts. You haven't apologized for it, you haven't even come clean on it, so why debate with someone who lacks so much honor?

There is no point in responding, as you have proven, because you'll only plagarize another article that you can't adequately defend. So what is the point in responding when ultimately we won't get your response but instead will get the plagarized response of another?

[vox]

apothanein kerdos said,

Aall sola scriptura, as the reformers taught it, means

is that the Bible is the final authority on all things.

Very well - where does the Bible say this?

It's scriptural logic. Sola Scriptura does not teach that everything has to be "word for word" in the Bible. So long as the concept is taught or it can be drawn from with analysis, it is okay. The plagarized article that Vox provided us shows that the Catholic Church has utterly no idea what Sola Scriptura is. The word "trinity" is used to show that sola scriptura cannot possibly work. However, as I said, the concept is given.

As for scriptural analysis, either the Bible is the Word of God or it isn't. If it is the word of God then it is the absolute final authority on everything. Even the early Church Fathers taught this. Either Scripture is the final authority or tradition is; they cannot be equal because both stand at odds at times. Tradition, when supported by the Bible, is holy and should be followed. When the Bible is silent on such things, then tradition is up to the individual. When the Bible is against the concept, the Bible should be the final authority. If you deny that the Bible is the final authority then you must inherently deny its inspiration.

But before you do please read my post above.

No, I don't want a thing to do with you. You're a liar, you lack honor, and you have no business in this debate. You're a plagarizer.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

C'mon now, why should I even acknowledge you if you're going to do that?

Thank you for pointing out my error. All sources used are always acknowledged before and I regret that I forget on that particular post. It is an oversight and my apology to all. Part of the policy of this forum is that citing Catholic sources/link is not allowed. All Catholic links provided were usually deleted from my posts. Though sometimes these links were left unedited when provided by non Catholics to counter Catholics as in the case of Ovedya against catholic lady here Peter Kreeft and of course your exhibit A & B.

However my oversight above still does not negate the content of my post and the fact that Sola Scriptura is not scriptural and is a man made doctrine. Jesus did not write anything, the only time He did was to scribble something on the sand. He founded a Church and the scriptures

[vox]

Vox: You seem to confuse the 'Catholic Church' with the 'catholic Church.' Are you claiming the Roman Church is the one which authorized the 27 book canon of the New Testament?

From a purely historical perspective, we really don't have anything like a "Roman Catholic Church" until about 7th or 8th century. The Canon was certainly set well before that! Not that the Roman Bishops didn't have any influence on the matter, of course. These were truly 'ecumenical' councils, which we have not been able to have now for lo, these many centuries. But let's not just say 'Catholic Church' if we really mean 'catholic Church' or 'Roman Catholic Church.'

No I am not confused. It was the Catholic Church the universal Church which later termed Roman Catholic Church by the Protestant. It was the One Church - the Catholic [universal] Church establisheded by Jesus Christ.

[chrismarc]

apothanein kerdos said,

what is the point in responding...

Could it be no one can answer, hey, if you can't reply yourself,

go ahead and post someone else's response, i'll give you a break.

[apothanein kerdos]

Thank you for pointing out my error. All sources used are always acknowledged before and I regret that I forget on that particular post. It is an oversight and my apology to all. Part of the policy of this forum is that citing Catholic sources/link is not allowed. All Catholic links provided were usually deleted from my posts. Though sometimes these links were left unedited when provided by non Catholics to counter Catholics as in the case of Ovedya against catholic lady here Peter Kreeft and of course your exhibit A & B.

I was wondering when the, what I call, "papal victim card" would be played. For some reason, radical Catholics enjoy comming to what are predominately protestant boards, throw around Catholic dogma, and then yell and scream abuse and act like the victim when asked to stop. You are the biggest Christian denomination in the world, you belong to an organization that has killed millions in just two thousand years, and you have had leaders of such great evil that Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Bin Laden could only sit and stare at awe at what they [the ones just mentioned] could never fathom of accomplishing. I would therefore appreciate it if you would drop this whole victim mentality because you have had links removed. Furthermore, it was an oversight of your own not of anyone else. When moderators remove links, specifically quotations from links, they remove the quote as well. You are peeing on my shoes and attempting to tell me that it is raining and I don't appreciate that. If it was a quote, then put it in quotations. Fact is, that is not the only post you've done this on, it's simply the only one I chose to call you out on.

Now, I have no problem discussing issues related to the Catholic church and where we disagree, I have done so with priests and other forms of clergy, and it has been done in a respectful and intellectual manner. I will not, however, be manipulated, talked down to, or carry on a discussion with you if you cannot abide by forum rules. Capische?

However my oversight above still does not negate the content of my post and the fact that Sola Scriptura is not scriptural and is a man made doctrine. Jesus did not write anything, the only time He did was to scribble something on the sand. He founded a Church and the scriptures