Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law; MarkBsnr

I’m so tired of this game of “GOTCHA!” that they constantly play.

When Catholics post links, articles, etc explaining Catholic teachings, they are met with either a deafening silence or a clumsy attempt to pick apart an isolated word or phrase and twist its meaning completely, or infer conclusions that are not even there. Most of the time they are met with scorn and ridicule and the hurling of deeply uncharitable ephithets unworthy of a Christian.

There has not been one single post addressing the numerous and powerful points made in the Patrick Madrid article on 1 Cor 4:6, in which he demolishes the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura. The only reply was a muddled attempt to take issue with his use of two prepositions in one sentence of the article.


4,552 posted on 07/31/2010 12:21:05 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4550 | View Replies ]


To: Deo volente; MarkBsnr; Natural Law

I erred. They were conjunctions, not prepositions.


4,553 posted on 07/31/2010 12:24:00 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4552 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente
There has not been one single post addressing the numerous and powerful points made in the Patrick Madrid article on 1 Cor 4:6, in which he demolishes the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura. The only reply was a muddled attempt to take issue with his use of two prepositions in one sentence of the article.

Madrid does not appear to understand what Sola Scriptura is and is not and for such a well known name is kinda surprising. It could be he is just torching a straw man.

What Sola scriptura is not.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

4,564 posted on 07/31/2010 1:27:41 PM PDT by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4552 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente

Yes, when I answered the question regarding the Assumption of Mary, I used the word surmise in my explanation.

The only response and reaction was to pick out surmise and to try and ridicule me for it.

The points I made, the Scripture I gave all were ignored.


4,661 posted on 07/31/2010 5:27:19 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4552 | View Replies ]

To: Deo volente; Natural Law; MarkBsnr; Patrick Madrid
There has not been one single post addressing the numerous and powerful points made in the Patrick Madrid article on 1 Cor 4:6, in which he demolishes the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura. The only reply was a muddled attempt to take issue with his use of two prepositions in one sentence of the article.

Well here's one. Patrick Madrid is a professional Catholic Answers Apologist. There is not an objective bone in his body and he is an expert debater who knows all the tricks of "blowing smoke".

With you he is preaching to the choir. With me he is preaching to a skeptic who is aware that every single word he says must be parsed in order to find the truth.

4,723 posted on 07/31/2010 7:31:17 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4552 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson