Posted on 06/29/2015 7:52:55 AM PDT by Mercat
Ha ha, that's rich. How about the Catholic's fallible collection of infallible teaching?
Or better yet, please explain the nobility and manly act of suicide as described in Second Maccabees.
Besides, that statement is a straw man. When determining canon, there was a set of criteria. The books in the collection passed the criteria. We have the witness of Christians since the beginning to testify to the validity of canon and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit as our helper. The promises were made to Christians, not to the Catholic Church.
About the various points... They have been answered many times.
Scriptural sense? Please. The speakers at the time had authority. After they died, their writing had authority.
Historical sense? Read the early church fathers. They always quote scripture. Tradition is useful, but it is subjugated to scripture.
Practical sense? It is the rule of the Christian faith. People don't get to make stuff up. Either it can be backed up by scripture, or it can't. And even when it can be backed up with scripture, that defense has to be sound with the rest of scripture. That some twist scripture to their own ends is scriptural. But the solution given in scripture is not to look towards Rome, but to look towards scripture.
Logical sense? Have you ever heard of the telephone game? Information written down is always more reliable that passed from person to person. Why is it more believable to say that the Holy Spirit will preserve the teaching of the Catholic Church than to say that the Holy Spirit was with the group of Christians that used a rigorous set of criteria to determine canon and that canon has been repeatedly confirmed throughout history.
Logical sense? The scriptures are always true. The teaching of the Catholic Church is always true when it's infallible, but there is no infallible guide to know when it's infallible. My favorite is with the current Pope, if he teaches something as infallible that clearly isn't, all you have to do is question his validity as Pope.
Thanks!
“Yet another ex-Protestant who never understood the meaning of “Sola Scriptura” and now argues against it.”
Define it for us then and please do so from some source with authority such as scripture itself (actually, no such definition exists but feel free to try) or some sort of confessional document from a body of Protestant Christians. Thanks in advance.
Who established the criteria? When you say “the beginning” do you mean Luther or Peter? Is it your position that Roman Catholics are not Christians?
Do your own homework, there is this great invention called “google” now that means you don’t even have to go to the library!
Your post is WHY I’M CATHOLIC: SOLA SCRIPTURA ISN’T LOGICAL...
Yet Jesus ministry was solo scriptural...
and he was branded a heretical and a blasphemer by the “Church” of.his day...just like you try to brand Protestants the don’t follow the Catholic Church ....its was the Sanhedrin that put Jesus on trial....
bookmark
“Do your own homework, there is this great invention called “google” now that means you don’t even have to go to the library!”
But that’s exactly the point: I have done my homework and all the various confessional type statements about sola scriptura (i.e. those that are the most commonly taught by denominations over time) all fail as workable tools. When Catholics at FR bring up sola scriptura - according to how it is actually stated, defined and used in the Protestant world we are often told that we don’t understand sola scriptura. It seems Protestants here use “sola scriptura” in such a way that it isn’t whatever the Catholic just said it was even when the Catholic is using a Protestant source for the definition.
I missed the part where Jesus told the Apostles to go out and write a book. He did read from scripture and was obviously well versed in the scripture but he didn’t write the New Testament.
This is from Catholic Answers:
In John 10:22, Jesus celebrated the Jewish feast of the Dedication of the Temple, also known as Hannukah. But the command to celebrate this feast is found only in 1 Maccabees 4:56–59 and 2 Maccabees 10:5-8. That’s a Deuterocanonical book.
Jesus took this occasion to teach that He also had been specially dedicated by God (in John 10:34-36). If the Feast of Dedication was not a biblical feast, then this passage is not consistent with the rest of the Gospel of John, which thematically portrays Jesus teaching the Jews about Himself at the major biblical feasts that the Jews kept (see John 5:1-47, John 6:4-51, John 7:2-38, John 10:22-39, John 11:56—12:33).
Another place where Jesus cites a Deuterocanonical book is in Luke 21:20-24, where He says, “When Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, then you will know that its desolation is near... For this is the time of punishment that fulfills all that has been written... Many shall fall by the edge of the sword.”
This is an allusion to Sirach 28:14-18: “Slander has shaken many, and scattered them from nation to nation, and destroyed strong cities, and overturned the houses of great men. ... Many have fallen by the edge of the sword.”
Sirach 28:14-18 is not usually thought of as a prophecy. It is discussing the dangers of the tongue, including slander. But Jesus used a phrase from its text to describe the sack of Jerusalem that would happen about 40 years later, and he specifically says that it is written somewhere that this would happen. It seems He is talking about Sirach (for the source of that phrase) and some other more clear prophesy (I think there’s one in Daniel about the sack of Jerusalem happening soon after the Messiah appears, so maybe it’s that one). Anyway, this shows us that Jesus wasn’t afraid to use a phrase from Sirach as a prophetic text regarding the sack of Jerusalem, and it indicates that He thought Sirach was inspired. (It also may not be coincidental that the Sirach context says that slander has “destroyed strong cities and overturned the houses of great men.” That may be a vague prophesy, and Jesus may be saying that it applies to Jerusalem.)
__________________
“When Catholics at FR bring up sola scriptura - according to how it is actually stated, defined and used in the Protestant world we are often told that we don’t understand sola scriptura. It seems Protestants here use “sola scriptura” in such a way that it isn’t whatever the Catholic just said it was even when the Catholic is using a Protestant source for the definition.”
I’ve never seen a Catholic around here use an actual valid Protestant source for their definitions. They either pull a definition out of their own nether regions, or they find a poor, misinformed ex-Protestant like the author, and get them to cite a mangled remembrance of the principle.
I’m not trying to “brand” anyone.
“But then I read the writings of the early Church and found the Fathers of Christianity quite simply speaking a different language. They spoke of the authority of Scripture. But then they also spoke of the apostolic teaching as something preserved in the Church through apostolic succession and that functioned as a lens through which the light of Scripture comes into focus and is correctly understood.”
There you have it. Buy into that and you are now unmoored from the God-breathed Word. The “Fathers of Christianity”? I know not what it means. I’ve heard of THE Father.
“They spoke of the authority of Scripture. But then...”
This man is NOT going to Scripture. He’s been lured away from it. Tradition is the lens through which SCRIPTURE is properly interpreted? No sale. You can obsess over terms such as “Protestant” and “sola scriptura” all day, but what is the Truth? How does one know definitively, so as to not be found in a lie?
I hold every teacher’s words up to Scripture, period.
“I’ve never seen a Catholic around here use an actual valid Protestant source for their definitions.”
Well, I know I’ve done it in the past. I used the definition from CARM for instance not too long ago and that is not the only one I have used: http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/
And the discussion usually ends up like this: http://209.157.64.200/focus/religion/3283268/replies?c=69
or this:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/religion/3250227/replies?c=109
or this:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/religion/3216634/replies?c=106
“They either pull a definition out of their own nether regions, or they find a poor, misinformed ex-Protestant like the author, and get them to cite a mangled remembrance of the principle.”
Well, what you just said there doesn’t apply to anything I’ve ever done so what will you say now?
All the replies you post there show you don’t understand the doctrine. It doesn’t really matter what source you’ve posted a definition from if you just go and run with your own personal conception of what it is anyway.
Let keep it simple......was Jesus’ ministry solo scriptural or not?..
I guess I don’t know what that means?
Did you not post an article titled
WHY I'M CATHOLIC: SOLA SCRIPTURA ISN'T LOGICAL, PART III
Yet you now say you DO NOT KNOW what SOLA SCRIPTURA means????!!!!
I apologize if my reply seemed terse
“Let keep it simple......was Jesus’ ministry solo scriptural or not?..” OK, it’s this sentence that I don’t understand. I don’t know what you’re asking. Are you asking whether Jesus was a Lutheran?
I do know he celebrated the dedication of the temple which was a Maccabee observance. He read from Isaiah. He made a lot of other references to scripture and at times said, “It is written but I tell you _______________.”
He obviously said a lot of things which were not in the “scriptures” which were available for Jesus to read at the time.
He quoted psalms from the cross. So I guess I’m missing your point. I really am not trying to be obtuse.
The article states Sola Scripture is not logical... And uses that to defendant that the Catholic Church is the only true church because they do not believe in Sola Scripture ....so what is it?.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.