| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/27/2008 8:09:53 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 12/31/2007 8:21:48 PM PST by Salvation
HE INCREASES AND SHE DECREASES By MARK P. SHEA
Do you follow the Bible in its entirety?
You would be more convincing if you quit calling the book of Revelation the book of “Revelations”
Sola Scripture is a strawman response or argument raised by Catholics who wish to divert attention away from studying Scripture.
I find it interesting that the phrase ‘sola scripture’ is always raised by Catholics in assumption that it is some kind of ‘check mate’ answer. You need to read my response in post #139. While I believe that the Bible is our primary source for Salvation and growth, it isn’t the only (sola) thing involved.
Just reading the story about the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), you see that the Scripture alone wasn’t enough. At the very least you needed a believer to teach (Philip) and the Holy Spirit to lead. What you don’t find though is Philip instructing the eunuch to take up unwritten traditions over the written word.
You also use another interesting phrase “can not be proven.” We come to God and learn of God through faith, not proof. You are right, I’m not going to ‘prove’ that the Scripture is the primary source of our doctrines, you have to come to that through faith and the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, I can produce quite abit of New Testament evidence that the written Word is of greater importance than tradition.
If you want to stay intrenched in traditions, no one can move you from that. My purpose is to stand for what I know to be true, what you do with the information is between you and God.
Well if that’s my biggest problem, then I’ve done a pretty good job.
And if that’s keeping anyone from looking into my postings then that’s a pretty weak excuse.
INDEED.
AMEN. AMEN!
Is there another similar verse that ends . . .
AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE.
???
Thank you, may you have a blessed New Year!
But, for some reason (pride?), you think that your selective adherence so perfectly mirrors His intentions that you are qualified to tell everyone else where their selective adherence is wrong.
Forgive my presumption. I thought "sola scriptura" was a pretty safe bet on someone making a prohibition out of the silence of scriptures. I quote:
That contradicts Scripture....Only Jesus is mentioned in Scripture as our Mediator.
Frankly, I still think it's a safe bet, as practice is rarely as consistent as principle.
I find it interesting that the phrase ‘sola scripture’ is always raised by Catholics in assumption that it is some kind of ‘check mate’ answer.
I should thing the reason fairly obvious. When one is challenged enough times by those with a specific erroneous presumption, one tends to be on the lookout for that presumption.
What? You've never heard of the boy who cried wolf?
You need to read my response in post #139
I will do that.
While I believe that the Bible is our primary source for Salvation and growth, it isn’t the only (sola) thing involved.
So the next question must be how to qualify the other sources...
You also use another interesting phrase “can not be proven.†We come to God and learn of God through faith, not proof. You are right, I’m not going to ‘prove’ that the Scripture is the primary source of our doctrines, you have to come to that through faith and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
And you speak to me of strawmen?
Is one supposed to be obedient to scripture understood by consensus? Good Luck!
However, I can produce quite abit of New Testament evidence that the written Word is of greater importance than tradition.
That is a very different proposition than claiming contradiction from silence; I'd like to see that evidence.
If you want to stay intrenched in traditions, no one can move you from that. My purpose is to stand for what I know to be true, what you do with the information is between you and God.
Stay? I just got here!
I spent twenty-five years as an evangelical, but it was only after "crossing the Tiber" that I gained the freedom Paul wrote of in Romans 8.
The inferencial scriptures you cite do not support your unqualified dictum.
Then, by your logic, Anne was the Grandmother of God.
>> Any truthful Christian will recognize that Revelations is a difficult book, and the passages about the ‘prayers of the saints’ can easily be seen as the prayers of those here on Earth. <<
I’m not talking about the “prayers of the saints.” I’m talking about the 24 elders offering the prayers of the saints as incense to God. Also, the firstfruits.
>> The ‘first death’ is where our physical body dies and is separated from our soul. If we are believers in Jesus, our soul goes directly to be with Jesus, and it is not dead. <<
Yes, and the between the times of the 1st death and the last people who die the 2nd death, they are depicted as alive and sentient.
>> I have read Revelations. I also recognize you are splitting hairs to attempt to make meanings of words support your beliefs. <<
The Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years. My beliefs are those of that church. But I’M the one splitting hairs to make meanings of words support my beliefs?
>>Any truthful Christian will recognize <<
Oh, I see. That’s the way it goes. Buh-bye.
I know retreating to a hypothetical percentage that can not possibly be quantified is a tactic used to avoid conceding what can't be proven.
I also know one who has need of so many decimal places does so to set the bar far higher than they believe anyone could possibly jump.
Finally, I know the percentage of your commentary devoted to denunciation over what amounts to a guess on your part constitutes intemperance.
135 There may be an important difference between "what the earliest Christians found most important to pass on," which is what you say in this post and "something the earliest Christians did". Your earlier statement was that if the earliest Christians did it it wold be recorded in the Bible. Now you re saying something else. These statements are not equivalent.
And, of course, my question then gets a new form which is: Does the Bible say anywhere that it passes on what the earliest Christians found most important to pass on?
136Of course I can't stop you from confusing what a mediator/intercessor/high priest means.
Oh, but at least you could cite some authority for your definition or some argument supporting your opinion that my definition is wrong, couldn't you?
An issue between Catholics and Protestants is that we Catholics are quite candid that we have a different notions from those held by many Protestants of the role of Holy Scripture in establishing doctrine. And this is an example. You seem to be arguing that when Paul advises making prayers and supplications and giving thanks for all men that is not intercession because the actual word is not used in scripture in or near that verse. To me that seems silly. It's what intercession is, as far as I can see. We are told to go (cession) between (inter) "all men" and God and make representations of various kinds for "all men" to God.
... why should I take your word that it's true?
Who's asking you to take MY word? A post was made about something some of us believe. You argued with it. I questioned your arguments. It seems to me it's some of you Protestants who just can't let us be but rather exhibit a need to attack and mock (with or without colorful fonts), and who insist, despite our repeated statement that we approach the relationship between Scripture and doctrine in a way different from yours, on trying to force the round peg of our approach into the square hole of sola scriptura.
Are you serious?
Yes, I am. Live by sola scriptura, fall by it.
139
I know where your question originates and where it is trying to lead so I'll be thorough.
But this is followed by a series of statements which neither cite Scripture nor provide scriptural support for the proposition I questioned.
Also there seems to be a homophony or equivocation about the phrase "Word of God". If it means Jesus Christ, then clearly He is necessary for Salvation. If it means the Holy Scriptures, then we clearly have a problem because of the time period when there wasn't a New Testament (and there's the disagreement about what's in the Old Testament, the books which Jesus and Paul probably read, or the shorter list used by Protestants.)
But I don't need a series of excerpts to show the whole "plan of salvation". What I was asking for was Scriptural support for the contention which you describe as knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, that "if a doctrine isn't supported by Scripture it isn't what God wants of [you]." And of course my implied suggestion is that only a tradition of a particular sort of Scriptural interpretation will find support for that "knowledge" in Scripture.
143
This wasn't addressed to me but it is so outrageous that I will indulge myself and respond anyway:
Sola Scripture is a strawman response or argument raised by Catholics who wish to divert attention away from studying Scripture.
Where in Scripture do you find the notion that some of the saints, namely you, will be able to read minds and discern intentions and that it will be okay to divert the argument from the matter under examination to personal characterizations? You wanna stick to the topic and to defend your arguments or do you want to make unsubstantiatable attributions of motive to the people who are questioning not you or your motives but your contentions.
We say repeatedly, it is obvious, AND we think we have Scriptural support AND ancient precedent for reading Scripture differently from the way in which you read it. And then you duck discussing what seems to be the linchpin of your argument by making sweeping generalizations about our motives. You'll not persuade many that way, I shouldn't think.
What you don’t find though is Philip instructing the eunuch to take up unwritten traditions over the written word.
But that's a false opposition, a straw man. You won't find Catholics opposing tradition to Scripture as you do and putting tradition above Scripture. Scripture IS a tradition, we think, the chief tradition (or "thing handed down") and we are saying other traditions in combination with Scripture (as saint Paul suggests), and you are ramping up an argument against tradition over Scripture. That may be a good bullet, but it won't hit us because it's not coming in our direction.
If you want to stay intrenched (sic) in traditions, no one can move you from that. My purpose is to stand for what I know to be true, what you do with the information is between you and God.
Of course you believe your point of view. Why else would you contend for it so devotedly? But of what use are these repeated professions of faith in the rightness of your position? Does it all amount to saying, "I, ScubieNuc, will attempt to use argument and reason against the notions of those with whom I disagree, but I will not subject my own views to argumentative examination." Does it all come down to, Salvation posted a thread; Scubie argued against it; We did NOT say, "If you want to believe what you believe , no one can move your from that; but we will stand for what we know to be true and so forth ...," rather we made attempts at reason, but then YOU retreated to,"I know what I know and the best of luck to those who disagree"?
If that's how it should go, then let's just let a Catholic put up a thread, a Protestant post, "Is NOT!", and a Catholic or two post, "Is TOO!" and then we can all move on. Why even bother to pretend to make an argument? You say in one place:
You are right, I’m not going to ‘prove’ that the Scripture is the primary source of our doctrines, you have to come to that through faith and the leading of the Holy Spirit.and follow immediately with
However, I can produce quite a bit of New Testament evidence that the written Word is of greater importance than tradition.which, of course, amounts to a declaration that you could prove it if you wanted to. I suppose that if one declares that one is going to be unreasonable I should expect him to be inconsistent in his inconsistency, to be unreasonably unreasonable. And this would explain the persistent arguing(?) against a contention we do not make.
OH! In fact, I see in some subsequent posts that the chanting of "is NOT!" is almost exactly what happens! "Amen" is sometimes written instead of "Is NOT!", but it amounts to the same thing.
Clearly we are engaged in two different enterprises: you in proclamation, we in the reasonable explication of our faith. Now if that didn't prima facie preclude discussion, it would be an interesting topic of discussion. But repetitions of "Is NOT!" sort of drown out thought.
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.