Budge

[curtins]

[quote] Catholics believe things that are NOT at all even mentioned in the Bible like the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a priesthood (celibate no less), transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary and the promotions of Mary [/quote]

Hmmmm papal infallibility--> Christ gives Peter (the first Pope) the keys to the Kingdom, i.e. authority. Christ says the gates of hell shall not overcome the Church- so the church must have the ability to teach infallibly and be guided by the Holy Spirit because if the Church teaches error then Christ lied. Then Jesus isn't God and Christianity is the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.

Let me ask you something: Lets say I was going through some rough times and asked you to pray for me. Would you say NO NO NO ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE I CANT PRAY FOR YOU. Didn't think so. So if we can pray for each other here on earth why can't those in heaven who are infinitly closer to God than we are pray for us if we ask them?

Biblical evidence to Purgatory exists in Maccabees. One of them finds a dead Jewish soldier who had some sort of idol thing in his pocket and the guy prays for him. That would suggest the existance of a purgatory otherwise why would he pray for him? Simple common sense and logic.

The Rosary was given to St Dominic in 1214 by Mary. Thats long after the Bible was written. But the Hail Mary is in the Bible so (see Luke)

www.scripturecatholic.com


But ignore all that if you want. Just tell me this:

How do you know what books should be in the Bible? How do you know the books of the Bible are inspired? There is nothing in the Bible that Lists what books should be in the Bible.


Sola Scriptura is a falasy (sp?)

[DAF]

[quote]the boys in silk and gilded hockey sticks[/quote]
[img]http://www.dcpox.com/images/hockeypope.jpg[/img] Aint he just the bee's knees?

Eutychus, that moronic drivel was pleasant to read, but why don't you attack the substance of the Church, instad of attacking what you see as pride, arrogance, hubris, and pettyfoggery.

[pyranima]

Hello this is my thread i expect that if your going to Post here you post on topic and without Name calling (You know who im talking to). this is not Emotional this is logical.

Eutychus you have not addressed the topic of Sola Scriptora which is what this thread is about.

Would you Protestants agree that to rely on the early Christians interpurtation of Scripture while not inspired has its benifit as a ref. point to understand how Scripture should be read?

[Socrates]

[quote name='pyranima' post='1039311' date='Aug 7 2006, 05:03 PM']
Hello this is my thread i expect that if your going to Post here you post on topic and without Name calling (You know who im talking to). this is not Emotional this is logical.

Eutychus you have not addressed the topic of Sola Scriptora which is what this thread is about.

Would you Protestants agree that to rely on the early Christians interpurtation of Scripture while not inspired has its benifit as a ref. point to understand how Scripture should be read?
[/quote]
Yes, the rational logic and Christian charity of our protestant brethren on here is simply overflowing!

[curtins]

I'm confused. Whos getting yelled at here?

[DAF]

I think the yelling was prompted by my comment, which I admit, the tone was uncharitable and I do apologize, but I can't imagine that he's not upset at at least a few people here.

Btw, there hasn't been a Protestant post since Eutychus' constructive contribution there. (But, you know, excluding him, I think the argument is over, unless Budge has something else to say)

[pyranima]

We shall see if he does, i think he knows he cannot rightly argue soundness of Scritpure alone so i believe he might have abandonded this thread. a rather typical response to most protestants. if you cant answer... ignore.

[DAF]

Well his abandonment of this thread is understandable if that's what he did. It's very exhausting to be arguing on like 30 fronts the way we've expected him to.

[Eutychus]

[quote name='DAF' post='1039383' date='Aug 7 2006, 06:22 PM']
I think the yelling was prompted by my comment, which I admit, the tone was uncharitable and I do apologize, but I can't imagine that he's not upset at at least a few people here.

Btw, there hasn't been a Protestant post since Eutychus' constructive contribution there. (But, you know, excluding him, I think the argument is over, unless Budge has something else to say)
[/quote]

First of all, there was a REQUEST that YOU define what YOU THINK, "Sol*A* Scriptura" is, means, and how it is applied.

To date, I have yet to engage a Roman Catholic who did not confuse Sol*O* Scriptura with Sol*A* Scriptura.

So, how can one discuss something, when YOU have a completely different understanding of, and description for, a term than the other side. Rather like "grace" which means two diametrically opposed things to a dyed in the wool romanist than to a normal Christian.

So, what DOES Sol*A* Scriptura MEAN to you guys, just how would you define it?

[DAF]

To date I have yet to meet an evangelical who didn't confuse the two either.

What makes Sol*o* scriptura better than sol*a* scriptura? Solo is just a liberalized version of sola.

sola= scripture is sole infallible authority
solo= scripture is sole basis of authority (which is what Budge uses as sola)

solo scriptura is a relatively new invention by evangelicals in the scheme of things, appearing in the last 150 years or so, and it's just a reform of sol*a*

Edited August 8, 2006 by DAF

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039431' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:27 PM']
First of all, there was a REQUEST that YOU define what YOU THINK, "Sol*A* Scriptura" is, means, and how it is applied.

To date, I have yet to engage a Roman Catholic who did not confuse Sol*O* Scriptura with Sol*A* Scriptura.

So, how can one discuss something, when YOU have a completely different understanding of, and description for, a term than the other side. Rather like "grace" which means two diametrically opposed things to a dyed in the wool romanist than to a normal Christian.

So, what DOES Sol*A* Scriptura MEAN to you guys, just how would you define it?
[/quote]
this is what it means to us

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/646"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/646[/url]

have fun

[Justified Saint]

I am not sure where the actual term/idea of "sol[b]o[/b] scriptura" comes from, but in the apologetic world it is a red herring at best.

For the life of me I can't tell any meaningful different between:

1. The Bible is the only infallible authority (sola)
2. The Bible is the only authority (solo)

The former logically reduces to the latter. As far as I am concerned, sola scritptura simply can't resist being reduced to solo scriptura since for all its insistence on the "usefulness" of creeds and church councils, the Bible (conceived of as some kind of separate, ontological entity) trumps all. Thus the two positions are basically saying the same thing -- the Bible has the last word in all matters (of faith).

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[DAF]

JS, you misread the definitions.

Sola means that the Bible is the only authority. Period.
Solo means that the Bible is the only legitimate [i]basis[/i] for authority. Meaning that, as Budge put it, "all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible" leaving room for the implication that truth exists outside of the Bible, but the bible's really all that you need. The latter is a bastardized version of the former, and like I said, is an evangelical product of the last 150 years or so. This is what Budge defined as sol*a*

But you're right, at the end of the day, the two are really the same thing, which is why logical people use the terms interchangably.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='DAF' post='1039528' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:04 PM']
JS, you misread the definitions.

Sola means that the Bible is the only authority. Period.
Solo means that the Bible is the only legitimate [i]basis[/i] for authority. Meaning that, as Budge put it, "all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible" leaving room for the implication that truth exists outside of the Bible, but the bible's really all that you need. The latter is a bastardized version of the former, and like I said, is an evangelical product of the last 150 years or so. This is what Budge defined as sol*a*

But you're right, at the end of the day, the two are really the same thing, which is why logical people use the terms interchangably.
[/quote]

DAF,

I haven't read every post in this thread so I don't know if that is how the definitions are being used, but I have never heard the terms defined as such -- but in the reverse as you present them. Protestants always try to deflect the charge of solo scriptura because it is the more extreme of the two positions (i.e. that the Bible is the only authority) whereas the reformers upheld sola scriptura and thus are much less radical because they do not reject the authority of church councils, creeds etc. (or so we are told), but only reject their infallibility.

Oh well, we agree that they are basically the same thing so that is all that matters.

[Aloysius]

why not make it simple: we reject sola and solo scriptura.

and I seriously doubt there is any difference between the two, at least as far as they go in Latin... changing the gender of "scriptura" doesn't seem to mean much. I could be missing something, though

the point of this thread is simple: hundreds of christian writings emerged in the first three centuries, many with ties directly to the first century (as many ties as any one of the writings that were canonized). the Catholic Church held an ecumenical council called by the Emporor with the authority of the Pope convening all of the world's Catholic bishops. it was proclaimed there as doctrine that there were 27 books to be read in the assembly and 27 books that were inspired directly by God Almighty regarding Jesus Christ. to believe this is to believe in a doctrine of the Catholic Church that has no more backing or authority than any other doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. they are both built solely upon the logic that the Church has authority from God to teach such things.