I don't need to approach the Bible as the Word of God. You are making that presumption. I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ). With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church. I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church". No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources. That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
Regards
That's simply disingenuous. I don't start with the foundational presumption that the Bible is the Word of God as though I just looked at it one day and decided it was so. There are many academic and historical reasons why I believe it to be the Word of God.
I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ).
How instrumental was the Bible in convincing you that the Church is the Church set up by Christ? Did you come to believe the Roman Catholic Church was Christ's "Ont True Church" primarily because Scripture said it was or because you chose to believe others when they told you it was?
With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church.
As pointed out above, I have the same evidence.
I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church".
And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.
No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources.
Horsepucky. You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.
That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
It uses a self-reinforcing argument to support its claims. It points to Scripture as objective proof of its claim of infallibility while at the same time supporting its interpretation of Scripture with that same argument of infallibility.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
So Irenaeus has a problem with the example of the Bereans. Oh, wait...I'm sure the Church will come up with an explanation of it that allows them to maintain their claim of infallibility, and that explanation has to be accepted because, after all, the Church is infallible.
Round and round and round...
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them. If you look at the reactions of the Thessalonians and then the Bereans, the former disregard Paul despite his appeal to Scripture because they are jealous and cling to their tradition, while the latter examine his words in light of the Scriptures and believe him.
That type of mishandling of Scripture would certainly explain how you could be persuaded that Scripture support the notion of an infallible Roman Catholic Church.
As Fru has said, the only outside sources you offer are yourselves. For example, my friend says that all liberals are actually hatched from the eggs of lizard monsters on Mars. As objective and independent proof of that argument from an outside source, I offer my own agreement with him. Case closed and it is therefore true.