Replies

Well, that is a way of describing Sola Scriptura that I haven't heard before. I was under the impression that it means that one's theology must come from the bible alone. Thus, there is no room for "implicit theology" or speculations. I have heard people say with disgust that Catholics make the sign of the cross BECAUSE such a movement is not seen in the Bible! I have also heard some Protestants attack other Protestants because of the altar call was "extra-biblical" according to them.

The theology must be rooted in the Bible, so I don't want to sugarcoat that, however, I don't think SS is offended by the telling of a modern day parable that can be backed up. I think we also have plenty of speculations, especially when the Biblical evidence is just not rock solid and absolute. Examples for me are that you won't hear me saying that the end times SHALL BE LIKE THIS, or God's creation DID occur within 6 24-hour periods. I speculate, but I don't think that necessarily offends Sola Scriptura, although it certainly "could". Others may use Sola Scriptura to defend more definite positions, and I believe that is "allowable". SS just means that for any certain claim I do make, that I must be able to back it up.

I've never had any problem with the motion of making the sign of the cross. I consider that, by itself, to be irrelevant to Sola Scriptura, or it could be said that it is in support of SS because the Bible teaches that we are to give reverence to God and honor Him. If it stood for something in direct contradiction to scripture, then that would be another matter, but it doesn't to my knowledge. I'm sorry you had that experience with some Protestants. I hope they weren't Reformers. :)

Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they?

Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.

Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!"

I don't know for sure one way or the other what they said on this. I would assume they would want to deny it, but I don't know how they would have gone about explaining the Eucharist to non-believers, especially when it is so difficult to do so today to OTHER believers. :)

I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...

I have never thought of myself as infallible in my reading of the scriptures. You saw proof of that yourself on the other thread when I was happy to switch a position upon being showed a superior scriptural argument. I mean, I'm good, but not that good. :) It will not shock me at all if it happens again. That's sanctification.

I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that.

Well, we ARE taught that written beats oral:

Luke 1:3-4 : 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

However, I do not have any problems with oral teachings as long as they are consistent with, or at least do not contradict the Bible or in that direction. I have to add the caveat that if a teaching by itself is "Bible-neutral" but that teaching is used to support any position that is anti-Biblical, then I'm going to be against it for that reason. For example, the IC is used to support the case for Mary's sinlessness.

Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures.

I fully agree.

FK: "The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible."

That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible.

LOL! OK, OK. Based on the direction this conversation has taken, you're right that my words are not the best. :) I wasn't thinking along the same lines you were. I was only thinking of "Biblical" theology that was taught until the first NT scriptures appeared. I didn't consider at all that the sign of the cross could be an oral teaching. But I suppose it can. :)

FK: "Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation."

Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic.

I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :) I expect to be further sanctified in the future, so I expect that SOME of my views will evolve. What's wrong with that? The core will never change.

In addition, the Spirit teaches me things today that He would not now approach a newcomer with because he doesn't have the background to get it. It all builds upon itself. So all of us are at different places, AND not all of us will reach the same end by the end of life. The core is what we need to be saved, and the Spirit has different plans for each of us.

The theology must be rooted in the Bible, so I don't want to sugarcoat that, however, I don't think SS is offended by the telling of a modern day parable that can be backed up.

Well, see, that's the problem. ALL people make the same claim for their own theologies. Mormons. JV's. Baptists. Calvinists. Catholics. Who do you know that is Christian that make the claim that their theology is NOT from the Christian bible or based upon it? We discount some of the above statements based upon our own opinions on what the Bible says, but clearly, THEY think it does by their own reading of it. That is the reason why SS MUST fail in the end. There is no authoritative interpretation of it. Quite frankly, people can make the Bible to say practically anything they want.

Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.

How would the Romans know what Jesus said unless they heard it from other Christians? Quite obviously, the Romans learned that the Christians took the eating of flesh quite literally. There are a number of other religions that have symbolic meanings for doing particular rites that the Romans were aware of and KNEW they were symbolic. Not the Christians. They knew that they seriously believed what they practiced. This is seen not only in the writings of the Fathers, but also, in the replies made by hostile witnesses, such as Celsus to Origen.

I think the early Christians would have as much of a difficult time convincing others what they meant by "communion" and "eucharist" as Christians do today who are trying to point the meaning out to other CHRISTIANS who NOW no longer believe it... The question to ask is "why do I not believe it anymore, when my ancestors in the faith did"?

That's a problem I have already pointed out before. Sanctification is not based on Bible knowledge and knowing how your theology fits together. I know LOTS about the Catholic faith, but that doesn't mean I put into practice as much as I am called to do. Sanctification is about becoming HOLY, like Christ, NOT to become smarter about the Bible!

I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :)

Ah, you just said that you have been wrong before. And then, you said the same thing!!! "I am led by the Spirit, I am right... Oh, well, I will recant and now the Spirit is leading me in the oppositie direction?"

That's special pleading. I can say the exact same thing and really believe it. However, as I have asked you before 3 times now and have yet to receive a reply, "where does the Bible talk about the Spirit leading the individual to interpret successfully the Bible"? I do not see it, and as a matter of fact, I can tell you that there are verses that tell us that He does NOT do this, but leads either the authoritative body or the Church as an entire body. This is what the Church teaches. You teach that you can come to what the Bible means by yourself - but the Bible doesn't teach that, nor does our common experience.

It is futile to resist!

Regards