Replies

So if People like the JW's use what they think is Sola Scriptura to reach their conclusons, they're not really sola scriptura-ists and it's not the SS's fault.
You obviously haven't studied the JWs very much. First of all, they are not Sola Scriptura. They are Sola Watchtower Society. Their members get books to read which interpret Scripture for them. They do have their own "translation" of the Bible, which was particularly a bad one.

A while back, I wrote a book on non-Christian religions in a short radius around our church. It was mainly a what they believe kinda thing, but also a way of witnessing to them about Christ. This is what I wrote about JWs.

Dr. Julius Mantey, one of the most heralded Greek Scholars in the World said, “I have never read any Testament so badly translated as the New World Translation…it is a distortion of the New Testament.” Likewise, Dr. Anthony Hoekma, stated “…their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.”

Also, their founder wrote:
If the six volumes of Scripture studies [which he wrote] are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes THE BIBLE IN ARRANGED FORM. That is to say that they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself…Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them after he has read them for ten years-if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for years, our exposure shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of scripture! (Watchtower, September 1910, p.29)

So, the JWs are NOT Sola Scripturists, but are Sola Watchtowerists with handlers that keep the less initiated from getting too far into objections to their religion.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, do have Scripture before them which has not been translated as to distort Scripture to point to their particular view. I can take a Catholic Bible and get the same message out of it that I can a KJV or NASB or the like.

People on this thread have said the Holy Spirit is in the Bible. Thats okay? It wouldn't be pushing people to Bibliolatry? But when we push people to venerate, and some go too far and worship, that's our fault, not theirs?
It is your church's fault in the manner described, the Rosary being a chief aspect of Mariolatry which is pushed upon Catholics at confession by their esteemed leaders. If your view of Mary is not one of worship, but admiration as a blessed woman. Then good. That is the Scriptural view. Unfortunately, Mary is next to God in many Catholic eyes and every outward appearance is that she is worshipped by Roman Catholicism.

We have a closed loop disclaiming responsibility for perversions of our teaching, and that's wrong. Sole Scriptura-ists have a closed loop disclaiming perversions of their teaching and that's right.
Not sure what you are referring to here. If it is the Mary is God movement in the Philippines, the only thing that keeps me from saying - hey, that is heterodox to Catholicism - is a lack of anything official against the movement from Rome. I do not claim that most Catholics believe that the 3rd secret at Fatima was that Mary was the Soul of The Holy Spirit and is God.

How much do we know of the bosom of Abraham - serious question
Good question. If my memory banks are serving me correctly, it was a Jewish understanding of where people went. Unless you were a Saducee, you definately believed that death was not the end and that there would be a Resurrection. I believe that the Jews believed that this was the holding place (i.e., Paradise) for people to go to before they were Resurrected. Maybe someone else has done more research on it. I'm doing that much by memory and I know it isn't a lot of help.

Because you love him. Because you WANT to obey Him (not because you HAVE to). Because it is what we were saved for (Ephesians 2:10). Not in order to attain salvation.
Yeah. That's why we do penance. At least it's why I do penance.
So, there is nothing salvific in Penance? Nothing that helps one attain salvation?

While I admit the Bible doesn't say Mary was sinless, since I do not find the word usually translated "full of grace", the kind of proof which would stand up to an adversarial proceeding, my point was that strictly speaking that even what look like mathematically rigorous generlaizations, e.g.:"There is NONE that is righteous", cannot be taken so. And once that's established, hermeneutics and interpretation get exciting, with WAY more wiggle room than might first appear.
Coupled with her need for a Savior, Mary indeed was not sinless. This does not mean she was a wicked woman. No protestant believes that. We believe she was a faithful, blessed, honorable woman whom God graced to give birth to His Son. We do not believe invoking her name has any sort of power though.

About Co-redemptorix. If no formal doctrine has been declared, my objection stands, and you overstated the situation. We DON'T Teach it. Yeah I kow what JPII said. That's his opinion and I take it seriously.
If it were to become official dogma, pronounced ex cathedra. What would you then say?

The whole church was at the Council in Acts? Every Baptized Christian was there? The whole Church ratified the decision? What are you saying here? (And what do you have against pointy hats? We share polyester, yours in suits, ours in vestments. Can we not agree on that? Of course, you guys do the pouffy hair thing more than we do.)
Probably the church at Jerusalem was present, probably more than that as well. The point is that the laity were present and the congregation was in on the decision. I believe it was the church at Jerusalem that sent the missionaries out. It wasn't just the leadership.

Hey, my Pastor is a snappy dresser. His hair is kinda spiked right now. I think he's going through a mid-life crisis :)

The CLEAR witness of Scripture (I'm pretending here, I don't find most things easy or clear except the Love of God, and that's a unique kind of easy and clear) is that Church leaders made a decision about a contested question of Chruch praxis and teaching concerning the Gentiles. There is no witness that ALL the Baptized came to make the decision. So that point, I think, is not only un-Scriptural but runs contrary to Scripture. I disagree. The whole church was there. The leaders spoke. The church decided, not just the leaders.

Neener neener. There is a doctrine-forming Council in Acts, there have been doctrine-forming councils since.
This doctrine forming council was based upon special revelation to Christ's apostles (which also had some precedence in Scripture- see the Samaritan passages). Again, special revelation is not completely out of order for people past the apostles(Some people know clearly from God that they are to be missionaries, preachers, etc., so God does still speak to us). It just MUST MUST MUST conform to Scripture and certainly not contradict it.