My Beefs With The Rcc

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:36 PM'] True, but these things are never things by which we ought to guide our lives or [i]on the basis of which[/i] we determine doctrine. The Scriptures are. [/quote]

Where do the Scriptures claim that they are the [i]only[/i] things by which we are to determine doctrine or guide our lives?



(sorry to jump in late in the discussion)

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jul 17 2004, 01:53 PM']
Where do the Scriptures claim that they are the [i]only[/i] things by which we are to determine doctrine or guide our lives?



(sorry to jump in late in the discussion) [/quote]
You are asking me for a statement of sufficency. As said before, 2 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency written all over it.

Equipped for [b]every[/b] good work = sufficent to enable those works to be done

Edited July 17, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 04:01 PM'] You are asking me for a statement of sufficency. As said before, 2 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency written all over it.

Equipped for [b]every[/b] good work = sufficent to enable those works to be done [/quote]
But the Scriptures do not contradict each other... you cannot presume to use ONE passage of Scripture while ignoring the rest. The Scriptures are best taken as a whole.

I don't think you can safely say that 2 Tim 3:16-17 means ONLY the Scriptures should be used to guide our lives and determine doctrine when there are other Scriptures that explicitly tell us to "hold fast to tradtions" that have been handed on to us (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6)... where do these fit in/what do we make of these?

[Apotheoun]

ICTHUS' error concerning 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is addressed and refuted in the article I posted earlier in the thread by James Akin. Here again is a link to that article:

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2tim316.htm"]2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Sola Scriptura[/url]

[point5]

I fail to see why it is hard to accept scripture and Tradition. By relying on scripture and tradition, you do not lessen the importance of scripture. You add the insight and traditions of those who have gone before us to it. It's like we hold and account for scripture as much as ICTHUS or any other sola fide person[color=red] [b]+ 1 [/b][/color]because we have tradition as well, which in no way contradicts or lessens the value of scripture, but rather suppliments it!

-Kiel

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='point5' date='Jul 17 2004, 04:23 PM'] I fail to see why it is hard to accept scripture and Tradition. By relying on scripture and tradition, you do not lessen the importance of scripture. You add the insight and traditions of those who have gone before us to it. It's like we hold and account for scripture as much as ICTHUS or any other sola fide person[color=red] [b]+ 1 [/b][/color]because we have tradition as well, which in no way contradicts or lessens the value of scripture, but rather suppliments it!

-Kiel [/quote]
But who ever said the Scriptures needed to be supplemented???

[Aloysius]

lol.. well who ever said they didn't need to be supplemented???

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 12:34 PM']But who ever said the Scriptures needed to be supplemented???[/quote]
St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said they did, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, [b][i]either[/i][/b] by word of mouth [b][i]or[/i][/b] by letter." [2 Thessalonians 2:15]

[Apotheoun]

In order for the 16th century [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] doctrine to be true, it is necessary for the canon of Scripture to be proved from Scripture alone, and this cannot be done, because Scripture does not enumerate the books to be included in the Bible, nor does it specify those books that should be excluded (i.e., the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelium of James, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Enoch, et al.). So, those who argue for the [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] doctrine must of necessity appeal to non-biblical sources (i.e., Tradition and the Church's Magisterium) in order to know the content and limits of the canon of Scripture, and in doing this they refute their own doctrinal position. They argue that the rule of faith is determined from Scripture alone, and yet they themselves are forced of necessity to appeal to Tradition and to the Church's Magisterium in order to determine the canon of Scripture. This proves that their doctrinal theory is in error, because Scripture is not self-sufficient, in that it does not provide the necessary information to establish the canon. Scripture requires a living witness, i.e., the Church, to bear witness to its veracity. Thus, Tradition, Scripture, and the Church's Magisterium, stand together; in other words, they form a single complexus, a single whole, and only when they are united do they have the ability to convey fully and without error, that truth which God has revealed to man in order that he may be saved. To claim that knowing the canon of Scripture is unimportant is not a valid argument, but is instead and evasion, because knowing which writings God has inspired is of primary importance in living the Christian life, and so this issue is not a minor quibble, but is an issue of supreme importance.

Eastern Catholic theology sees all of this from a different perspective, because in Eastern Christianity it is Tradition ([i]Paradosis[/i]), i.e., the living out of the Christian faith in the life of the Church, that is the supreme revelation of God. For Easterners Scripture itself is a component part of the Church's living Tradition. Thus, in Eastern Catholic theology Tradition is the whole of the [i]depositum fidei[/i] as it is lived by the Church; in other words, all that God has revealed is found within Tradition, and Scripture is a part of that Tradition. Finally, it is important to note that Protestantism always seems to divide those things (e.g., justification and sanctification, scripture and tradition, faith and works, etc.) which the Church throughout history has always held to be indivisible.

Edited July 18, 2004 by Apotheoun

[point5]

that why I fail to see things the way you do...you want just scripture...fine...I'll take everything you have...plus tradition and letters and writing of those who went before me, knew the aposltes, knew their teaching that werent recorded in scripture etc etc. Never does any of this debunk or lessen the importance of scripture. You are content on scripture alone when you could have that plus more...more...more!!!!!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='point5' date='Jul 18 2004, 03:25 PM'] that why I fail to see things the way you do...you want just scripture...fine...I'll take everything you have...plus tradition and letters and writing of those who went before me, knew the aposltes, knew their teaching that werent recorded in scripture etc etc. Never does any of this debunk or lessen the importance of scripture. You are content on scripture alone when you could have that plus more...more...more!!!!! [/quote]
Why would I want more, when I know that the only thing that comes 100% from God is Scripture?

[point5]

thats not the only thing that comes 100% from God, you are blind if you think that...I happy you are content with just scripture maybe we just disagree. Keep living your life after Chrit's footsteps.

-Kiel

ps I as well as others would be willing to formally debate you about the immaculate conception using scripture, since that all you feel has value when it comes to the early church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 07:56 PM'] Why would I want more, when I know that the only thing that comes 100% from God is Scripture? [/quote]
Where is the canon enumerated in Scripture?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2004, 08:16 PM'] Where is the canon enumerated in Scripture? [/quote]
It isn't, but there was a general consensus among the early Church as to what Scriptures, at least in the NT, were canonical.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 08:21 PM'] It isn't, but there was a general consensus among the early Church as to what Scriptures, at least in the NT, were canonical. [/quote]
Thank you. You have just admitted that the [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] doctrine is in error, because as you readily admit, you rely on things not found in Scripture in order to know the extent and limits of the inspired texts.

Thanks again for your total capitulation, and God bless you,
Todd

[point5]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 10:21 PM'] It isn't, but there was a general consensus among the early Church as to what Scriptures, at least in the NT, were canonical. [/quote]
Actually that isn't correct. You would find churches reading Pope Clements letter to the Corinthians just as often as you would find them reading Pauls letter to the Corinthians. The Churches also used the Didache as well.

[Winchester]

I remain unanswered...

[Luthien]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 07:56 PM'] Why would I want more, when I know that the only thing that comes 100% from God is Scripture? [/quote]
The Gospels were written by men were they not?

Who are you to say that the Church is any different from these MEN?

The Church is not perfect, there are still unknowns. But who says the Apostles knew everything?

I would also like you to find proof the Trinity in the Holy Scripture.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 07:56 PM'] Why would I want more, when I know that the only thing that comes 100% from God is Scripture? [/quote]
You act like scripture interprets itself but it doesn't. If it did, all Christians would not differ on faith and morals. Like St. Jerome said,

"The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the understanding:"

But what are we to do when we have a different understanding to get to the objective truth? Do you rely on your personal judgment? Is truth dependent on the relative individual? Is this in the Bible? I follow the Bible in that I take it to the one Church that Christ established (Matt 18:15-18) when I disagree with someone on doctrine. I stand on the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church (1 Tim 3:15). But it seems to me that Protestant standing on their relative private, judgment kind of like Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Num 16).