Posted on 03/29/2015 2:11:17 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Wow...I'm amazed at how little you seem to know about the rules around here. I pinged the Moderator because I both referenced him/her and copied & pasted his/her profile that explains what you seemed to have wrongly concluded about my post to you. That's not being a tattletale. Please try to be a little more mature, won't you?
Thank you for clarifying this point.
Prots get so upset when their own rude comments are pegged right at them.
Actually, I posted those definitions (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3273577/posts?page=241#241). You skipped right on past the straw man definition polemical sites like Catholic Answers put out - not surprising. Like I explained to you, there are truths revealed in Scripture that may or may not meet someone's demand for exact wording yet the principle still remains. I already said:
The principle of Sacred Scriptures being the SOLE Divinely-inspired resource we have been given from the hand of God proves that they are our primary authority for the rule of the Christian faith - the simple meaning of sola Scriptura. Whatever doctrines or dogmas church councils devise and make binding upon believers MUST be found in Scripture and proved by them. This has been the understanding of most of the earliest church fathers such as:
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
I think that "Your brain on Drugs" was someone projecting.
You can certainly think whatever you want. I can't remember you admitting to being wrong about anything especially where it concerns non-Catholic Freepers. You can even imply I was lying and DID mean you personally - like you did here - even though I have denied it several times. My conscience is clear before God and my fellow Freepers. Have a happy Easter.
Because I didn't want you or anyone else to say I was using a false definition. If any prot was going to have even the remotest chance of showing a definition then they would have to use a prot definition.
And yet given that you could use any definition you fail to provide a SINGLE scriptural reference showing ANY of those definitions.
Your very words prove you wrong: Whatever doctrines or dogmas church councils devise and make binding upon believers MUST be found in Scripture and proved by them.
You make the claim thatThe principle of Sacred Scriptures being the SOLE Divinely-inspired resource we have been given from the hand of God proves that they are our primary authority for the rule of the Christian faith
Yet the DEFINITION of SS is not found in scripture.
Go ahead lets see your best shot.
Remember you need to provide the DEFINITION of SS using Chapter and verse.
So, does this mean you reject Catholic Answer's definition of sola Scriptura and accept the actual one that is meant by the term? That's a great start!
And yet given that you could use any definition you fail to provide a SINGLE scriptural reference showing ANY of those definitions.
Once again I ask you to SPELL OUT what verbiage you will accept as a correct answer. You already should know that NOBODY has ever claimed the term "sola Scriptura" is in Scripture, right? Like many of the major and "always believed everywhere by all" tenets of the Christian faith such as the Divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and others that ARE spelled out in the creeds, if they can be proved BY Scripture, then they are to be believed by the faithful. At least this was how it began in Christianity.
From before Christ was incarnated, the authority of God's divinely-revealed word has been accepted and obeyed. There are certainly more than an adequate number of passages IN Scripture that spell that out and what man's responsibility is supposed to be WRT the Scriptures. You keep insisting on me providing "chapter and verse" that proves the concept behind the term sola Scriptura, and I think I have more than done that, as have many others in the past every time this subject comes up. You have been provided links to many articles and essays that back up the claim that this is true and WHY it is true. I can give them to you again if you need them or really are interested in learning. I certainly won't retype them for you or post long passages of them - you've stated before your dislike of reading long comments and copy&pastes.
I've even showed you the many early church fathers' comments that affirm the concept of the sufficiency of the Scriptures and how NOTHING should be made doctrine unless it has its basis and proof from God's word. It was because of this that the Reformers had a solid footing for disputing the novel doctrines instituted by the Roman Catholic church - the Eastern Orthodox reasoned the same five hundred years before the Reformation.
You can continue to claim I failed to prove my point or give you what you demanded, but you really don't have any basis for that. I think I have been more than generous with my time spent dialoguing with you on this. I honestly don't expect to have changed your mind since I know the conundrum you'd find yourself in should you agree with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. It's really too bad, though, because once someone finds they can trust the sacred word of God, that it will never fail, is true, is from the mind of God, it leads us to godliness, peace, in paths of righteousness and security in the faith we have, they will never doubt again.
Yes or no can YOU DEFINE SS using the Bible alone, if you can then please do so, if not then please admit it. All I am asking you to do is to show the definition of the term in the Bible.
I guess that you can’t either.
You have been given the answer, but have chosen to continue with your charade. You feel that the interpretation from the guys in funny hats is good enough for you and all else is "whatever"!
Keep thinking that if that allows you to sleep at night!
I take my rest in the hands of God...
Where, where exactly did boatbums, you or anyone else define the principle of SS using the Bible alone? Tell me the post number or re-post it here.
I intentionally did not use a definition by Catholics so that none of you could say I set an unreasonable bar.
I even said you could come up with your own definition as long as you could show that definition in the Bible citing chapter and verse.
They are certainly unified in the core belief that rejects the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord. All other "core beliefs" are open to interpretation.
Certain Rome exists as one church, but one in which one can believe all sorts of diverse things, and have a SSPV contending against a Ted Kennedy RC, and both being treated as members.
False claim. Catholics cannot "believe all sorts of diverse things" and remain Catholics in truth. The basis of Catholic unity is adherence to the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to His Church by our Divine Savior. "By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." - Denzinger, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", #1792.
3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html
Typical RC specious extrapolation, as the context does not change at all the fact that Peter was not addressing interpretation of Scripture, but that of how prophecy was written, "that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
So he used the term "prophecy of scripture" yet he was only referring to prophecy? That interpretation epitomizes "specious extrapolation".
Wrong, as it easily evidenced that Evangelicals have been foremost defenders of the Scriptural core Truths we both concur on, against cults that deny them. One example is the best seller "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin, which was not written by a Catholic.
But your recourse is like so many other RCs who simply deny what is evidenced as they blindly defend Rome.
False claim. Catholics cannot "believe all sorts of diverse things" and remain Catholics in truth.
Wrong again, unless you excommunicate the liberal majority of RCs whom Rome counts as members.
The basis of Catholic unity is adherence to the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to His Church by our Divine Savior.
Yet both the premise that this unity requires adherence to the Deposit of Faith as well as what that all entails is manifestly subject to interpretation, which Rome provides by what she does in affirming her liberal multitudes as members. And as i showed you, it is what one does and effects that constitutes the evidence of what one believes. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
Which is a lie, as at not time was all that Rome holds as the DoF believed everywhere, always and by all. Even the “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers is not literally “unanimous."
So he used the term "prophecy of scripture" yet he was only referring to prophecy? That interpretation epitomizes "specious extrapolation".
Rather, is it your vain charge that is specious, as the context was prophets (see "false prophets" in 2Pt. 1:1, and "the holy prophets" in 3:2), and works such as Ecclesiastes or Romans do not fit the description Peter elsewhere gave , "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11)
As your NAB commentary says on 2Pt. 1:21, "The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings..." (http://usccb.org/bible/2peter/1#69001020-1)
Yet even if Peter most directly is referring to the prophecy, by extension it applies to all of Scripture, and refers to how Scripture was written, that being under full Divine inspiration, and is not speaking of understanding and teaching it. Which as said, if it was then to be consistent it would require Divine inspiration to understand and express it, which Divine inspiration even Rome's "infallible" teachings cannot claim.
Thus it still refutes the RC "specious extrapolation" of this text, and testifies against her being the assuredly trust worthy interpreter, if she has indeed indisputably defined this text. If not, that is simply a fallible interpretation for RCs, and which they defend to their own detriment.
Yes! Done and done. Just what do you think I've been doing? I can't help it if you refuse to read or accept the proof provided to you countless times. The ball's in your court. I'm not playing your game.
I am not playing a game either. Prots are constantly telling Catholics that any of our doctrines must be explicitly spelled out to be valid, we ll I don't see the "doctrine of SS spelled out / defined in any verse you cited
I won't copy&paste the entire essay, but it spells out what you keep denying has OR can be done. Here's an excerpt (you will see much that has already been given to you):
What Sola Scriptura Does Teach
It teaches that:
1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.
2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.
3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe.
The following citations demonstrate that the foregoing points are thoroughly scriptural in nature.
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30-31
John states that not everything Christ did was recorded, and yet what has been recorded is sufficient to obtain eternal life. If Scriptures are sufficient to lead a person to eternal life, then nothing else is needed.
Peter claims that the Holy Scriptures were produced as a result of God’s Holy Spirit moving men of God to write. Hence, the Scriptures are both divine and human in origin. In other words, the Bible is God’s Word which is communicated through human vessels, using human language.
Paul teaches that:
A. The Scriptures make one wise for salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus.
The word translated here as “able” conveys the idea that Scriptures have an inherent ability, an inherent sufficiency to accomplish its purpose. Again, if the Scriptures are capable of leading one to salvation, what need is there for anything else?
B. The Scriptures are God-breathed or breathed out by God. In other words, the Scriptures originate from God and not from man, although God used men to write it.
C. The Scriptures thoroughly, completely furnish or equip the man of God not just for some or many good works, but also for EVERY good work that is necessary for the Christian life.
Exertismenos is the participial form of exartizo. Thayer’s Lexicon defines it as “to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly.” Louw & Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Volume 1, p. 680, write:
Thayer defines artios as “complete, perfect.”
Bauer&Gingrich&Danker’s A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christianity Literature, second edition, defines it as “complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands.”
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940, states:
This last point is extremely important and crucial in demonstrating the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures are able to make the man of God complete or perfect, as well as thoroughly adequate or sufficient for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else does he need apart from the God-breathed revelation?
In fact, can those who deny Sola Scriptura produce a good work that is necessary for either salvation or sanctification that are not found in the Scriptures? Obviously not, since if they could they would be falsifying Paul’s claim here and attributing error to the inspired Scriptures.
4. The Holy Bible teaches that what God says the Bible says and what it says God says. In other words God’s words and the words of Scripture are one and the same.
A. What God says the Bible says
Example 1
“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” Galatians 3:8 RSV
Example 2
“For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Romans 9:17 RSV
B. What the Bible says God says
Example 1
“He answered, ‘Have you not read that HE who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” Matthew 19:4-5 RSV
Example 2
“And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things?”’” Acts 4:24-25 RSV
Example 3
“And as for the fact that HE raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, HE spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’” Acts 13:34-35 RSV
I am not asking what it teaches I am asking WHERE is it DEFINED
Do you understand what it means to define? Seriously Do you understand that word.
verb (used with object), defined, defining.
1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”.
2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.
3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly: to define one's responsibilities.
Synonyms: state, name, describe, detail, enumerate.
4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.
5. to make clear the outline or form of: The roof was boldly defined against the sky.
verb (used without object), defined, defining.
6. to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.; construct a definition.
How is anything you have posted a definition?
It has never presented a cogent refutation to anything, yet continues to drone on and on about NOTHING!
Too dusty here...
Fixed it for you. Verga is 100% UDSA approved male
Second BB has not presented an definition. I asked you where the definition had had been presented and you never replied.
Here is your (second) chance tell me where she defined SS using the Bible, you can either tell me the post or reprint it here, which is exactly what I asked you before.
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.