Replies

Very pleased to see you have returned to post again on this thread.

Er... some of us DO have jobs, you know. My access to FR is a bit spotty, especially on weekends.

If I comprehend correctly your hint above, two things stand out: 1. You are used to controlling the conversation by giving personal edicts regarding the rules that apply. 2. You've never had a meaningful conversation with a true Navajo.

(!) Wow. As gently as I can, let me try a reply:

1) You do not comprehend my "hint" correctly. I meant that comment to be taken at face-value, and as a logical fact. Rhetorical questions do not have any logical weight, and they're used as *substitutes* for logic (and often used to sway audience members emotionally), and if anyone wants to pursue actual truth (as opposed to merely scoring rhetorical points), he or she would be well advised to replace them with actual declarative statements.

2) Your comment #1 is both self-serving and ironic (in that you give the appearance of trying do the very thing you seek to decry in me--i.e. rebuking me for "trying to control the conversation"; by telling me not to do that, is that not an attempt to control the conversation?); I'd also add that it's akin to what the board sometimes calls "mind-reading"... though non-Catholics on this board don't seem to be called on the carpet for that, very often.

3) Whyever would your bloodline be in any way relevant? Would it be at all meaningful to you if I were to suggest that you've never had a meaningful conversation with an Irish Roman Catholic of Jewish heritage? I don't mean to dismiss any personal pride you have in your heritage; I'm just not certain of its relevance. Can you unpack that, a bit?

Re: "sola Scriptura", part of my frustration has been the plethora of "shades" of definition of the term itself. Some on the board feel that the 66-book Protestant Bible *alone* contains all that is necessary for Salvation, and that no authoritative interpreter (aside from personal view, ostensibly "guided by the Holy Spirit") is needed. Others are more cagey about what the term means. I would suggest that the complete (73-book) Bible *does* contain (materially speaking) all necessary spiritual truth (which is Catholic teaching, by the way), but that it is not FORMALLY sufficient for that task (i.e. "unlocking" and interpreting and applying that content cannot be done with "the Bible alone"), especially since it never claims to be. There's more on that topic, certainly... but at this point, I want to be sure that you (and/or others) are open to LISTENING to anything further, before I make the effort to lay it out. There's not much point in trying to explain something if it's only going to be the equivalent of "shouted down" (I think of the Sanhedrin screaming and stopping their ears, as they rushed upon St. Stephen to kill him).

As for the word "alone", yes there is more to it that the Holy Bible "alone". The leading (non-revocable indwelling) of God Himself is necessary to unlock and reveal the Truth to each individual believer, namely in Who Jesus of Nazareth actually is and in everything else that flows from that Fountain of Truth.

I don't disagree with that, in general; but I gently suggest that you have no sure way of knowing whether that "leading of the individual believer" has actually been SUCCESSFUL, apart from mere personal feelings and opinion. There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

I've found at least three responses to "sola Scriptura" adherents, re: the fragmentation of non-Catholic Christianity:

1) "The differences don't matter; we all agree on essentials!" (This is patently false, since issues which THEY claim are matters of salvation or damnation are among the issues on which they disagree vehemently; Seventh Day Adventists believe that you and I are in the road to hell for worshipping on Sunday, rather than on Saturday [the Sabbath], since they think we violate the commandment to "keep holy the Sabbath"; Unitarian Pentecostalists believe that we are not saved unless we speak in tongues, since tongues are [to them] the sign of the "saving indwelling of the holyghost (sic)"; Lutherans believe that salvation is not possible without water Baptism--which I suspect you don't believe... and the list goes on.) It becomes rather difficult to take seriously the idea that "we all believe the same essentials", when one group of Non-Catholic Christians (NCC's) is actively calling another NCC group "damned". Do you see my problem, there?

2) "We're all saved, regardless of even our severe differences, since only [insert favorite single requirement for salvation, here--and there are many contrary ones] saves us, and we all do that!" This has the same problems as (1), and more.

3) "You have the same problems, since no individual Catholic can be sure he understands Church teaching sufficiently!" This is called the "tu quoque" fallacy ("you do it, too, so it must be okay for me!"), and even if it were accurate (it's not), it wouldn't help their case.

As I read what you post, it seems that you rely foremost on your learning about Lord Jesus Christ whereas some other non-RCC Christians here on FR rely most on their one-to-one relationship with Him.

If you assumed that, then you'd be incorrect. My knowledge and confidence in God comes from first-hand experience with Him (akin to yours, I gather); it's only when I'm called upon to DISCUSS and/or PROVE some aspect of the Faith that I resort to theology and logic... since I can't guarantee that anyone else will even *believe*, much less agree with and be convinced by, my personal experiences with Our Lord. And I wouldn't expect them to be; I can honor and respect the "personal experiences" of a sincere Hindu or Muslim, but I do not thereby think that their conclusions are correct.

This really is a big difference in how we approach this subject of rightly discerning Scripture and will affect how and where a believer will want to worship God and be in fellowship with other Christians of like minds.

It is... though again, be aware that my own personal relationship with God does not rest primarily, or even very much, on logic (though God is the God of Sacred Order, and all valid logic points to Him), any more than my relationship with my beloved wife rests on some abstract "proof" of her existence; in both cases, I know and love them from personal encounters/experience.

It transcends logic and has to be experienced to be known.

Yes, that's true... but when two people (such as we) try to have a DISCUSSION about theology (i.e. the study of God, and Who He Is, what He wants, what He's done, etc.), and when those two people come to the discussion table with fundamentally different starting assumptions, it's not feasible (and usually very unwise) to rely on sentiments and emotions--since there's really nothing to discuss, there. At best, it'd be an exchange of emotional experiences to which the other won't be able to relate sufficiently; at worst, it can devolve into a quarrel, or even an outright war. Truth is not found by such means, I think.

Little children, who He never turns away, and those without Paul's great learning can know Him by sincerely coming to Him in faith.

Right; I don't disagree with that, at all. But words MEAN things; and especially in cases where people have SOME heritage in common (e.g. Catholic Christians and Non-Catholic Christians), two groups of people can use the same words to mean rather different things... which gets confusing (and can cause all sorts of mischief, if the participants don't compensate for it). Case in point: to a Pentecostal, "faith" may be inseparable from speaking in tongues, enacting "signs and wonders", and the like; to an Evangelical, "faith" can sometimes be inseparable from a loathing of any reliance on good works when speaking about salvation; to a Catholic, true "faith" is inseparable from growth in virtue and holiness (which implies good works, done out of a love of God and neighbor, done steadily enough to become habit (i.e. "virtue") and to root out vice (i.e. morally bad habits). So when someone offers the word "faith" in a discussion, and expects its meaning and implications to be self-evident, he'll probably be unpleasantly surprised.

There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

That has been refuted numerous times.

Nor does the existence of numerous denominations mean that they by default, think that everyone else is wrong.

Some of what is considered denominations simply focus on different ministries. Like the Salvation Army, Navigators, Wycliff Bible Translators, simply some local congregations who wish to govern themselves.

Differences in governance or focus and ministry outreach, does not automatically translate into doctrinal differences.

Nor does it mean that they are not saved. There are Pentecostals who practice the gifts and Baptists who don't. Big deal.

Nowhere in Scripture does God ever demand lockstep adherence to the same teachings of the Bible.

The fact that some come to different interpretations on some verses does not disqualify the concept that Scripture contains all we need to know to attain salvation and to grow and mature in Christ. It's not a problem with the Scripture, nor the doctrine.

Sometimes the reason is simply that not everyone is as mature in Christ as others.

God allows for that in what the Holy Spirit refers to as *disputable matters* in Romans 14.

Scripture is inherently authoritative by virtue of the fact that it is the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God. It is all we need to grow in the knowledge of Him, as Scripture itself states.

Every criticism against sola Scriptura can be used against the CCC and the RCC magisterium.

Catholics do not all agree on every aspect of Catholicism, and yet they continue to claim they have a superior system by adding tradition and human leadership to the mix.

If Scripture isn't adequate, being from the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infallible, eternal, God Himself, then nothing fallible, mortal, sinful, blinded man adds to it is going to improve it in any way.

Thank you for laying out a point-by-point rebuttal of my post to you. I thought you had been r-u-n-n-o-f-t and am pleased you weren’t.

The only response I can make is I hope you are aware of the devices you use when lecturing and that they are not all necessarily honest methods of persuasion. Proven techniques of putting down someone who is in disagreement do not truthful and frank discussions make; just discussions.

Another way of stating this is...I’m unconvinced you are convinced of the veracity of all you are posting. But you have been excellent at presenting yourself as one who does.

Tell-tale signs. Little ones. Controlling ones. Prayer should reveal these to you. You’ll know.

I hope you are not too heavily invested in Roman Catholicism to see the Truth of this matter. Are you?

BTW, I was wrong to think you would understand my Navajo reference. There’s more Cherokee in me than any other native American.

...people can use the same words to mean rather different things...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

...people can use the same words to mean rather different things...

We all know how the Left wants to control the language; constantly shifting word usage to muddy the waters.