Posted on 02/09/2015 12:47:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
Ping
The epistles...weren’t they the wives of the apostles?
;)
“Many Catholic apologists have honed to near perfection the technique of blasting to smithereens the anti-creedal, anti-historical, anti-intellectual positions of “Bible-Only” fundamentalists.”
That’s quite claim. I’d like to see that, because I’ve seen nothing but sophism from the Protestant side trying to defend their own creeds.
First they divided the Christian faith, now they want to divide FReepers. Is this weird or what?
Thanx, Ma.
"He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart."
Uh, there's also the Short Catechism, which does not come across to me as Sophist; if you go more deeply into Luther's Catechism, he buttresses every statement of his by Scripture, showing that the Creed is a statement based on Scripture.
According to an old Negro preacher, a pistol was what St Paul pointed “toward de Fesians”!
“Many Catholic apologists have honed to near perfection the technique of blasting to smithereens the anti-creedal, anti-historical, anti-intellectual positions of “Bible-Only” fundamentalists.”
" That’s quite claim. I’d like to see that, because I’ve seen nothing but sophism from the Protestant side trying to defend their own creeds."
And in my opinion, your first reply is as sophist as you claim Protestants are
I'm non Catholic .. I protest nothing
Catholics need to refrain from using "Protestant" as a descripture and separate the Catholic from the non-Catholic.
I think the debate would be more intellectual and mature
What’s the purpose of a creed? If Scripture is the inspired word of God, then a creed either adds to it, takes away from it, or is redundant.
Creeds came about because councils and bureaucracies found them convenient to bind their particular organizations together. They are the fuel of religious division. http://www.bible.ca/r-creeds=fuel-division.htm
The creeds that have been adopted by various denominations simply violate Sola Scriptura and are nothing like the ancient declarations of faith they claim to follow: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-tradition-5-types-4-creeds.htm
Both Luther and Calvin violated the principle. http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-anti-refuted-luther-calvin-creeds.htm
Whew. He did not refute the Catholic claim at all. It was mere beggaring by disclaiming.
First, it tacitly assumes the very thing that it is supposed to be proving. Both Catholics and Protestants take the Scriptures as reliable sources of information about God even if any given individuals in either camp cannot produce external supports for it. Protestants at least admit that this is what they are doing. Catholics, on the other hand (particularly the apologists), propose to treat Scripture "only as a historical document", which they then use to build up the authority of their Church. But in so doing, they ignore the fact that they are assuming that they "know" what books constitute "Scripture"--the very thing they deny that can be done apart from their Church!
But the Catholic apologist is not, at this point, accepting the evidence in Scripture because it is Scripture. Rather, he is looking at each book in Scripture as purely an historical document. Before we ask the question "is this divinely inspired," we merely ask is this accurate? At this point we are only treating it as we would the letters of Pliny or Josephus' histories. From the viewpoint of an historian, what do they tell us of the church?
Even without accepting them as divinely inspired and thus infallible we can see a church established by Jesus with an authority given to the Apostles who latter associated other men in its leadership. We can also see that they preached that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead which they claimed to have witnessed. We also know that they gave their lives for their preaching. We can also compare what they proclaimed with what was written in the Old Testament. All this can be established before declaring that their writings are divinely inspired and thus infallible.
It is from this that we can accept the truthfulness of their testimony. Their testimony being truthful then they did indeed witness Jesus rising from the dead. From this we can have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. If he is the Son of God then the church has the divine authority that he gave to it. And then it is by this divine authority that we can accept what the church proclaims to be Sacred Scripture. Nothing in this is begging the question as the author claims.
Second, the claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings neglects to factor into its equation the fact that historical arguments are by their nature fallible, since they are constructed by fallible people who can never know all the facts and their inter-relationships with perfect clarity.
But no one has ever claimed that knowledge through historical documents is infallible, only that there is a high degree of certainty. This it true for all historical knowledge, including our knowledge that the present text of Scripture matches the originals. It is with this high degree of certainty that we can accept the present Catholic Church as that established by Jesus Christ.
Finally, the author does not address how, without an authoritative church, a Protestant can know what is the true canon of Scripture. His only response can be "I know it is true because I can feel it in my heart." Thus the Protestant's reliance on sola scriptura is reduced to sola opinione mea.
I wil take door #3: it clarifies Scripture.
Oh what a tangled web they weave. Denounce Sola Scriptura then use Sola Scriptura for the authority of their magisterium.
Where oh where have we heard that before?
And just why would redundant be bad?
There are others, will let you figure it out.
How ??
Where is Sola Scripture in Scripture? Please cite chapter and verse. If you can't, Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural, and just a man-made religion started 1,500 years after Christ established his Church..
Where in Scripture did Jesus say to write anything down?
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.