Posted on 02/19/2012 7:10:38 PM PST by RnMomof7
Ping
ps: I'm partial to the Humpty-Dumpty one myself.
Yes, I truly think it's THAT BAD.
I'd also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400's. Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?
Whats more, sola scriptura is not in the bible. Its taking a doctrine that is not in the bible that states everything not in the bible is invalid. Wouldn't that make sola scriptura invalid?
This is Humpty-Dumpty verbage at its finest. You will not find this anywhere in the bible, but the Katholics spout it like it's gospel.
Well, boo-hoo. Is the Bible Gods Word or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
And I reiterate, sola scriptura is not in the bible. That makes sola scriptura a self-contradiction.
The truth of the modern world:
Catholics throw out Sola Scriptura in an accusation against Protestants. Protestants throw out Sola Ecclisa against the Catholics.
A much more accurate view would be Prima (Primarily ...) Scriptura and Prima Ecclisa.
I liken it to any in-group seeking to protect its turf via jargon and complexity. Any IT department in a large corporation, defense contractors, lawyers, Congressmen. They all seek to baffle the people they ostensibly serve to some degree, in order to maintain control and to benefit themselves.
Does the network still work? Yes, but it’s needlessly complex and difficult to use. Do the jets and tanks still defend us? Yes, but they’re hideously complex and expensive, to the detriment of the people. Does the law still function? Yes, but it becomes more and more opaque, to the point that bad law is difficult to distinguish from good law, and lawyers themselves become ever more arrogant.
And then, we get to Congressmen, which is really the most apt comparison to the priesthood under this example. Corruption seeps in, self-serving vainglory comes to the fore, and it becomes increasingly difficult to ever root it out. At least Congressmen are putatively subject to losing an election, but in practice an incumbent is difficult to unseat.
That’s what I see, an intentionally elaborate set of interpretations that invariably benefit and empower the hierarchy, whenever such interpretations depart from Scripture. Are individual Catholics good Christians despite all this? No doubt many are, I know several personally. I just do not care for their priesthood, at all.
He gave the Hebrew's 10 simple commandments, and look what they turned that into!
Worthy IS the Lamb!
Both (a)”Sola Scriptura” and (b)”Sola Esslesia”... try to make the Holy Spirit a DOOFUS..
I reject the Catholic jurisdiction over my faith. So, no thank you to Prima Ecclisa. Or any other compromise. Just like no one can go to the bathroom for me, no man can be accountable for me in front of Gods Judgement Throne. I am accountable. I confess to God not a priest.
My post was not to imply any authority. I was mearly stating that both sides have the other’s positions over simplified. Most Protestants are accused of being Sola Scriptura by the Catholics. However, when I speak with Protestants, they will tell you that yes, they have traditions and yes they allow the holy spirit to move in their lives and yes, what they pastors or deacons say to them is important.
But
Most protestants also tell me that they will weigh what inspiration they receive, regardless of the source against scripture. So Scripture is not the only (sola) source of inspiration but it does have primacy over all others (prima). So my point is that if Catholics want to use proper labels, they should say Prima Scriptura.
Likewise, the opposite is true for the Catholic faith. They should be called Prima Ecclisa as they check all inspiration against what the priesthood has to say.
As to the discussion made in the posts regarding Catholic reverence for Scripture, I simply offer the following excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
Indeed. 2 Pt 1:20-21: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Thes 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Pt 3:16 speaks of uninstructed/unstable people twisting Paul's written word.
Jesus says in Mt 10:40 that whoever receives one of the apostles receives him and the one who sent him. He makes a similar statement regarding those he appointed in Lk 10:16. The Lord even told us in Mt 23:2-3 that he honored the Jewish magisterium's authority but criticized their hypocrisy.
Scripture is very clear that Jesus established a Church with binding authority and that it's heirarchical in nature. Nowhere does it state that the apostles were to put together a how-to manual for future generations. I understand the need of some folks to debate which is the true Church Christ established. But to claim that he didn't establish a Church with authority is simply not scriptural. And Paul tells Timothy (1 Tm 3:15) that the Church (not scripture alone) is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth."
As a former sola scriptura Christian, I understand the game. It's easy to debunk Catholicism when you claim freedom to interpret the Bible in any fashion you choose. Especially when you misrepresent what the Church really teaches. And you give yourself ample room to overlook verses you aren't willing to apply to your own congregation (teaching on divorce, for example).
I'm more than happy to converse on this topic with those of open mind and good will. But articles, such as the one referenced by the OP, that don't even refer to Catholics as Christian, don't pass the good will test in my book.
Peace, NakedRampage :) I appreciated your comment.
I’ve seen the light... Jesus did inspire Obama’s policies.
Because if any one can interpret the bible... ANYONE can interpret the bible.
Sola scriptura is the only logical answer if there is no authority on Earth that comes from God to dictate what each line means. The Catholic Church claims this authority, of course, but it obviously has not well used this authority through the centuries. What we see is a gradual decay from stage one, up to King Popes paying money for their Papal seats, and culminating today with impotent Popes who can barely even rule their own Papal Kingdom, let alone able to influence the socialist countries wherein they claim dominance. This Catholic Church has not shown itself infallible, and it has merely added on to the Bible constant doctrines that have led to the point that we now have Mary and a billion Saints who must mediate the way between us and God. They’ve been reduced to a bunch of pomp, funny hats, nice gold, but absolutely no power, but yet they expect us to worship in their churches and deify their Popes?
I am not a Catholic. However, I must say that compared to the literalist claptrap of most modern protestant “interpretations” the Catholic interpretation is great nourishment.
“Indeed. 2 Pt 1:20-21: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Thes 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Pt 3:16 speaks of uninstructed/unstable people twisting Paul’s written word.”
And yet, we have their letters, their speeches, their wisdom, all in the Bible.
If anyone had authority, it was those men who worked miracles wherever they walked. The Pope has no such power.
“Jesus says in Mt 10:40 that whoever receives one of the apostles receives him and the one who sent him. He makes a similar statement regarding those he appointed in Lk 10:16. The Lord even told us in Mt 23:2-3 that he honored the Jewish magisterium’s authority but criticized their hypocrisy.”
Is that what you would like us to do? Honor the Catholic Church’s self appointed authority but criticize their hypocrisy? But yet we also have Jesus debating with the Pharisees and demonstrating how they were wrong in their interpretation of scripture. In fact, He did not point to the authority of some Jewish rabbi in a Rabbanical decree printed 300 years prior in a Jewish Catechism. He pointed to the scripture itself to back up each and every point. Therefore, if Jesus did not appeal to some Jewish Rabbi to explain the scripture, why would you have us appeal to Catholic tradition to explain the scripture? The scripture should defend the scripture, and there are no examples of your Popish ways in the Bible.
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.