- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:34 pm to Foch
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:34 pm to Foch
I'm still waiting for Revelator to show me where scripture shows the "shift" from Scripture + Tradition to only the written Scripture as our ultimate authority.
He admitted that oral preaching (tradition) came first, followed by the written word, in a different thread.
If the paradigm of Tradition + Scripture supposedly shifted to Scripture Alone, Scripture would need to show this happening.
He admitted that oral preaching (tradition) came first, followed by the written word, in a different thread.
If the paradigm of Tradition + Scripture supposedly shifted to Scripture Alone, Scripture would need to show this happening.
2
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:54 pm to Stitches
quote:
I'm still waiting for Revelator to show me where scripture shows the "shift" from Scripture + Tradition to only the written Scripture as our ultimate authority.
Please tell me that you are not actually attempting to claim that Scripture alone is NOT sufficient, and that we must also adhere to your traditions. Also, does your Pope have the authority to add to, take away from or override scripture?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:02 pm to Stitches
quote:
I'm still waiting for Revelator to show me where scripture shows the "shift" from Scripture + Tradition to only the written Scripture as our ultimate authority.
Yes, and he tried to say that the letters written by Paul and others would have been widely available.
For this to be true, he would also have to admit that numerous other writing that were not admitted to Scripture would have been widely available.
His system does not work. How could Paul, an author of much of the NT, be himself "saved" without the Bible?
How could the illiterate member of a 64 A.D. house church? Everything that slave or free personheard would have been relayed to the them by another fallible being (his view that doesnt account for Magesterium or Tradition).
Bold prediction: he is so violently anti-catholic because it appeals to him and he knows that his odds of submitting to mother Church one day are great. I would honestly take his combative ignorance and error over the apathy of many other sola scriptura adherents. At least he has to struggle internally with his extra-biblical and illogical doctrine.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:13 pm to Foch
quote:
How could Paul, an author of much of the NT, be himself "saved" without the Bible?
You are joking, right? Are you forgetting about that whole road to Damascus thing?
Also, Peter has this to say in 2 Peter 3:
quote:
4 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Seems pretty clear to me. They had settled scripture back then which to follow.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:14 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Please tell me that you are not actually attempting to claim that Scripture alone is NOT sufficient, and that we must also adhere to your traditions.
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours..." - St. Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Also...had Scripture alone sufficed for the early Christians, the Council of Jerusalem never happens. Using Sola Scriptura, St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. James were absolutely incorrect to conclude that circumcision was not necessary to enter into the Church. They appealed to the Holy Spirit and their own preeminent authority over the Church to make that decision. Why? Because Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose doctrine.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:19 pm to Revelator
quote:
In some cases, yes
Which modern Bible translations are in error? Is it a binary thing? What safegaurds your preferred Bible from being full of mistruths and mistranslations?
If you believe that Scripture is the one and only source of Truth then I would imagine that you would have some pretty strong opinions about who translated right, who is wrong, and whether there are possible degrees of right and wrong (is this a binary situation).
The RCC actually takes Scripture quite seriously, since it is known that individuals acting on their own as individuals (not underneath the Magisterium or with Tradition) are at great risk to use Scripture as a tool to justify any number of things.
Check out the situation Germany after Luther translated and grafted his own opinions into the text. Muntzer is just the ideological offspring of Luther. Thomas Muntzer
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:27 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
You are joking, right? Are you forgetting about that whole road to Damascus thing?
Also, Peter has this to say in 2 Peter 3:
So, Truth only exists in the form of Scripture to you right? Did Paul have Luke's Gospel? After the road to Damascus, did Paul hide in a cave to only write letters or did he join in the Church and adopt the Traditions and continue the work towards Scripture?
quote:
Seems pretty clear to me. They had settled scripture back then which to follow.
How many letters or books had been written by the year 50 A.D.? How about 100 A.D.?
How likely was it that at a time of persecution, illiteracy, and poor information distribution, underground churches had access to all of the (unwritten) scriptures?
If you are going to tell me that the early church had a "sufficient" amount of scripture, I would then like to know what parts of the NT are essential and what parts are superfluous.
If you are going to tell me that written words are the only source of Truth and man is entirely fallible I would like you to tell me how the blind or illiterate early Christian could be divinely led by a book.
Surely he would have needed some divinely lead and protected structures (what we call the RCC) in place.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:31 pm to Foch
quote:
Which modern Bible translations are in error?
The Message. Horrible translation.
Either the ESV or the CSV are considered to be most accurate.
Question... Is the Catholic bible essentially the KJV with the additional books added? Or does it (probably obviously) predate the KJV? Are there multiple translations of the Catholic bible as there are the "Protestant" bible, and if so, do you have ones you know to stay away from like we the The Message, The Living Bible, The Good News Bible etc?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:34 pm to Foch
quote:
His system does not work. How could Paul, an author of much of the NT, be himself "saved" without the Bible?
Sometimes you guys say things that make me just shake my head.
Paul was saved by faith in Jesus, like every other person who has ever been saved or will be saved.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:36 pm to Revelator
quote:
Sometimes you guys say things that make me just shake my head.
Paul was saved by faith in Jesus, like every other person who has ever been saved or will be saved.
On this we agree, but you don't see any issue with Paul not having scripture to guide him? If your low view of Tradition and the Magisterium were correct, wouldn't Paul have been in need of some Scripture to go out and preach the word like your pastor on Sundays?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:39 pm to Foch
quote:
If you are going to tell me that the early church had a "sufficient" amount of scripture, I would then like to know what parts of the NT are essential and what parts are superfluous.
I never said they had ALL the scripture, just that they had at least some... and we know they had the full Old Testament already.
Look, I'm not saying that spoken word wasn't also important... I guess I was simply questioning the "Traditions" part of that earlier statement. What "Traditions" should be counted as having equal weight as Scripture... and whose statements (other than authors of the Bible, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit) should carry equal weight as Scripture. I'm not questioning the "power" of spoken word or things passed down by oral history... I'm questioning things ADDED to those things passed down by oral history that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:42 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
How was the wisdom given to him? Was it Tradition passed down or divine guidance to him as he acted as a member of the Magisterium? What safeguarded him from error since he was a human like you and me?
In your version of Christianity, nothing was there to protect him since you do not hold a view of a visible church established by Christ with a divine gaurantee against hell.
Where does sola scriptura start if an actual text didn't descend from heaven like the 10 Commandments?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:45 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
I'm questioning things ADDED to those things passed down by oral history that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
I think we would need to have a conversation about things omitted, right?
The NT is extremely clear about the Eucharist. In the Upper Room, Jesus was quite certain that "this is my body".
That carried through across the early church as evidenced by St. Ignatius of Antioch other early fathers.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])."
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:47 pm to Foch
quote:
How was the wisdom given to him?
Directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:47 pm to Foch
quote:
Where does sola scriptura start if an actual text didn't descend from heaven like the 10 Commandments?
This is what I find odd about sola scriptura. It becomes very much like a magic book (like the qur’an if we’re being honest).
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:51 pm to Foch
quote:
I think we would need to have a conversation about things omitted, right?
The NT is extremely clear about the Eucharist. In the Upper Room, Jesus was quite certain that "this is my body".
There are denominations that do NOT take the Lord's Supper? We took the Lord's Supper in church this morning.
Unless your Eucharist is somehow different from my communion or Lord's Supper...
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:52 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Prior to riding to Damascus, Saul was persecuting Christians, right?
How were those Christians living the faith and knowing what they were doing conformed with the "right" and eschewed the "wrong"?
Since Paul was the single largest means with which God transmitted the only "Truth" you recognize, it stands to reason that the early Church Saul persecuted must have been hopelessly lost.
How do you square this? Surely you wouldn't trust men to or tradition to teach the early Church the message/content that Saul was trying to stamp out?
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:54 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
I never said they had ALL the scripture, just that they had at least some... and we know they had the full Old Testament already.
Which spoke of the clear need for circumcision to enter into the Covenant with God. The issue of the need to be circumcised nevertheless became a big issue in the second decade of the Church's existence. It divided the early Christians so much that a council was called to discuss the matter in Jerusalem.
If Sola Scriptura had been a thing in those days, St. Paul wouldn't have stood a chance against the Judaizers at the Council. The latter could have easily have pointed to the Torah and said here it is, black and white, circumcision is necessary to be a Christian. Instead the council adhered to Peter's decision and James's articulation of that decision: circumcision was not required to be a Christian.
Why did they do this? Because they recognized Peter's authority over the Church as well as his authority to bind and loose doctrine, which Christ bestowed upon him in Matthew 16.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:56 pm to Foch
quote:
Paul not having scripture to guide him? If your low view of Tradition and the Magisterium were correct, wouldn't Paul have been in need of some Scripture to go out and preach the word like your pastor on Sundays?
Are you simply being obtuse. According to the Bible, God appeared to Paul and spoke to him. Later it says the Lord himself appeared to Paul and gave him revelation.
quote:
How was the wisdom given to him? Was it Tradition passed down or divine guidance
Galatians 1:11-12 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ
Then, the words Paul wrote down in letters makes up half of the New Testament. The churches had these letters and the correspondence from other disciples, and these letters were spread abroad throughout the churches. Why do you continue to act as if the early believers didn’t have the gospel? How else would they be saved?
I have a simple question for you. Do you believe that the modern Bible I use every day is truth and the word of God?
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 1:58 pm to Revelator
quote:
Why do you continue to act as if the early believers didn’t have the gospel?
Because they didn’t.
Page 6 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News