Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 58 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:55 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4262
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
It's ridiculous that a thread about sola scriptura becomes a discussion of Nazi Germany. :nooo:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:45 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
Y'all are beginning to play tag team now. Changing the subject.
The OP is Sola. It seems to have shifted to somewhere between a bamboozle and a hornswaggle.

First shift ...was away from sola... to the character assassination of Luther. Character assassination becoming the overarching theme. Leading to the invoking of Godwin's Law . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

After my response illustrating that character flaws were not exclusive to Luther... The response was :The RCC is infallible no matter the actions of individuals...
Completely ignoring the fact that the question of infallibility as it relates to Sola is the subject.
Sola also asserts infallibility, irrespective of the individuals.

Bolstered by this early Church father:
...And it is perfectly described and modeled in one of the written instructions to the early Church, in detail by Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.
Posted above ....viewtopic.php?p=2729035#p2729035
Bishop Cyril's explanation dovetails perfectly with these definitions.
viewtopic.php?p=2728513#p2728513

All of that clarity was ignored in favor of doubling down on character assasination. Even the Pope was not left out. ... using the opportunity to chide the current Pope for yet another display of ignorance. viewtopic.php?p=2729396#p2729396

Same/same with...
"CONSTANTINE'S SWORD The Church and the Jews"

... Ignoring any factual discussion in favor of kicking it to the curb as the rants of an angry ex-Catholic.
...


So now, presented with historic evidence in a sequence of dates spanning centuries...illustrating the facts...


You again revert away from the topic of the O/P to the ... good character... of the people who were faced with the reality of what that history had produced.


All ..in a monumental effort to divert discussion of the source of character.


If Bishop Cyril's instructions had been adhered to ... The above obfuscation would not have been necessary.


Last edited by EtcumSpiri22-0 on Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:21 pm 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 74928
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:
After my response illustrating that character flaws were not exclusive to Luther



Honestly, the character flaws of Catholics do not matter in the sense that the character flaws of Luther and other Protestant leaders do for the following reason:

Catholics believe that the Church was founded by God and is guided by God, irrespective of whatever flaws or failings the human leadership might possess. Protestants do not believe the same about their own churches. Not even the most devoted or fanatical Lutheran is ever going to deny that the Lutheran church is a HUMAN institution founded by human beings. In fact, for individual Lutheran churches, one can even trace the precise moment when the denomination was founded.

The American Lutheran denominations are:

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) founded in 1847 in Chicago, Illinois.

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) founded 1850 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) founded in 1988 from the merger of 4 Lutheran denominations


No Lutheran is ever going to claim that, say, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is acknowledged and accepted that it is a merely human institution, which is why, when disagreements arise, Lutherans will feel no compunction about leaving their denomination behind and founding a new one. After all, a merely human institution does not really deserve any special loyalty, and leaving one human institution for another human institution is really no big deal.


Moreover, Luther himself FREQUENTLY appealed to his own PERSONAL authority to attempt to settle questions of doctrine. For example, there is his famous quote justifying his highly questionable translation of the New Testament where he added the word 'alone' to St Paul's statement that 'we are justified by faith' by saying 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he is a greater doctor than any other doctor.'

Now, if he is going to attempt to settle doctrinal questions by appealing to his own personal authority, then he had better have something to back it up, if he does not, (and he did not) then there is no reason for any Christian to follow his teaching.


Thus, it is legitimate to raise the question of whether or not Luther was holy enough in his personal life and doings to justify his own claims about himself. Popes do not appeal to THEMSELVES to settle theological questions, Papal authority is not PERSONAL in the sense that Luther's authority was.

Pope Francis might say "I, Pope Francis, settle this question by virtue of the office I hold, as the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Saint Peter', but he would NEVER say "I, Jorge Bergoglio, settle this question by virtue of the fact that I am better, smarter, holier, more righteous, and wiser than anyone else." However, Martin Luther did do EXACTLY THAT, and he did it on more than one occasion.

Therefore, raising the question of Luther's personal conduct is legitimate in a way that raising the question of the personal conduct of popes or bishops could never be.

Now, my own personal opinion of Luther has changed and evolved over the years. There was a time when I greatly admired him, and there was a time when I despised him and thought he was one of the evilest people who ever lived. Today, my opinion is a little more ambivalent. One the one hand, I think he was incredibly arrogant and stubborn, was inclined to be highly emotional and irrational and probably suffered from psychological problems such as depression and/or bipolar disorder. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that Catholics who like to demonize Luther may tend to exaggerate his flaws and failings, and tend to jump to conclusions, being willing to believe the absolute worst about Luther.

A Lutheran can argue that Luther wasn't as bad as Catholics say, or a Lutheran can argue that he was flawed, but a generally good and virtuous man, but I don't think the option of arguing that his flaws aren't relevant is open to them, not when you have Luther himself arguing that he is a BETTER, SMARTER and holier man than any Catholic. Luther himself made those claims, and thus the question of his character is highly relevant and always will be.


Last edited by Doom on Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:26 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
Ive noticed the pattern that once the name Martin Luther is mentioned its like ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz3xzAJ_zVk
______________________

Sola Scriptura as defined here viewtopic.php?p=2729035#p2729035 and restated here viewtopic.php?p=2728513#p2728513

addresses those issues..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:21 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 829
Religion: Catholic
Excellent rebuttal to the nonsense from “EtcumSpiri22-0” by “Essential Sacrifice”, to the blundering reliance on the unreliable “Wikipedia”, and to the totally unreliable James Carroll.

Also see:
James Carroll’s Unholy Crusade: A Critique of the Film Constantine’s Sword
by William Doino Jr.
April 2008
https://www.firstthings.com/article/200 ... nes-swordi

“For a biting critique of Carroll’s clash with the Church, see “Vichy Catholic,” by C.J. Doyle, Catholic World Report, March 2000; also available online via the Catholicculture.org website.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=2873

It graphically confirms that many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices. It is high time to face reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:42 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
Thomist wrote:
Excellent rebuttal to the nonsense from “EtcumSpiri22-0” by “Essential Sacrifice”, to the blundering reliance on the unreliable “Wikipedia”, and to the totally unreliable James Carroll.

Also see:
James Carroll’s Unholy Crusade: A Critique of the Film Constantine’s Sword
by William Doino Jr.
April 2008
https://www.firstthings.com/article/200 ... nes-swordi

“For a biting critique of Carroll’s clash with the Church, see “Vichy Catholic,” by C.J. Doyle, Catholic World Report, March 2000; also available online via the Catholicculture.org website.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=2873

It graphically confirms that many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices. It is high time to face reality.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Its fairly clear that the above purveyor of excellence ;) ... really has no interest in discussing Sola ...no matter how many times it is reestablished as the topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:57 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 829
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
EtcumSpiri22-0
Its fairly clear that you really dont have any interest in discussing Sola no matter how many times it is reestablished as the topic.


Smiddy has got his answer – he has made no further query.
Here is the answer:
SOLA SCRIPTURA. In Scripture alone. One of the cardinal principles of Protestantism; it declares that all of divine revelation is contained exclusively in the Bible. It therefore denies that there is any revealed tradition.
See:Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
[SEE: Thomist Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:07 pm]

Faithful Catholics also seek to correct error – which has been done with your flights of fancy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:14 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
Thomist wrote:
Quote:
EtcumSpiri22-0
Its fairly clear that you really dont have any interest in discussing Sola no matter how many times it is reestablished as the topic.


Smiddy has got his answer – he has made no further query.
Here is the answer:
SOLA SCRIPTURA. In Scripture alone. One of the cardinal principles of Protestantism; it declares that all of divine revelation is contained exclusively in the Bible. It therefore denies that there is any revealed tradition.
See:Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
[SEE: Thomist Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:07 pm]

Faithful Catholics also seek to correct error – which has been done with your flights of fancy.


Your link is broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:47 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 201
Religion: Catholic
So, taken some real time and been reading a ton on SS including scborremo, Staples, Hensley, Swann, Slick, (many more) of course Luther Calvin and Zwingly .. and finding there is actually a fair amount of agreement piled in to the mostly distasteful rhetoric from both sides.

I have one question @Jack that needs answered to continue… in your world of faith, who has the final authority to interpret the scriptures and why ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:34 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
What you are asking for is spiritual discernment.

Psalm 119:66

The Psalmist prayed:
"Teach me good discernment."
_____________________________

Jesus is the final authority to interpret scripture...

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.
John 5:39
________________
Jesus said:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life!”
John 14:6
________________
If you want spiritual discernment:
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Matt 7:7
________________
Because...
Jesus has promised through James...
If ... ANY... of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to... ALL... without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But he must ask in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
James 1:6

________________
Here is the same thing that Jesus says through the above Scriptures...

From: The Spiritual Combat by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli

"We must accustom ourselves not to desire or execute anything unless it is through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, combined with a pure intention of honoring Him Who desires to be not only the first Principle, but also the last End of our every word and action, through the observance of the following method.
As soon as an opportunity presents itself to perform such a good action, we must prevent our heart from seizing on it before we have considered God. This will enable us to know whether it coincides with His will, and whether we desire it solely because it is pleasing to Him.
When our will is controlled and directed in this way by the will of God, it is motivated only with the desire to conform entirely to Him, and to further His glory."
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/combat/spirit.shtml
_____________

Another source that will accomplish the goal of developing the relationship with Christ that leads to discernment is "The Practice of the Presence of God"
by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection.

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/fr ... f-god.html


Last edited by EtcumSpiri22-0 on Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:26 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:46 pm
Posts: 441
Location: Midwest
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus
I found good stuff on SS and y we don't believe it on http://www.catholic.com

As I thought, SS denies the teaching authority of the Church.
The major problem is that those who wrote the NT did not write down ALL of their teachings, as even in those writings Christians are told to hold fast to what was preached.

As with Jesus, not everything was written down. The Apostles taught much more than they could possibly write. Therefore, the handing down of oral teachings from them, through their successors must be included, not ONLY Scripture.

Do you, whomever you may be reading this, find my summation agreeable?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:10 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 829
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
EtcumSpiri22-0:
Jesus is the final authority to interpret scripture.

As there was no New Testament of 27 Books at the time of Jesus – those written by His apostles and disciples give us His teaching. We have this teaching only because the only Catholic Church, which He established, collected and gave us His teaching. Only She is created and guaranteed by Jesus, the Christ, to teach us.

So nothing, and no one else, is equal to His Church built on St Peter.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter
All four promises to Peter alone:

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)
"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and "the whole assembly fell silent" (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:20 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4262
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Essential Sacrifice wrote:
So, taken some real time and been reading a ton on SS including scborremo, Staples, Hensley, Swann, Slick, (many more) of course Luther Calvin and Zwingly .. and finding there is actually a fair amount of agreement piled in to the mostly distasteful rhetoric from both sides.

I have one question @Jack that needs answered to continue… in your world of faith, who has the final authority to interpret the scriptures and why ?

Without trying to be coy or not answer the question, I'd honestly tell you that what you're asking is pretty meaningless. Look at it this way. Suppose I asked you, "Who has the final authority to interpret 2+2 and why?"

In my view, the interpretation of Scripture isn't the subject of any authority, because it's meaning is not declared or decreed. It's simply an objective part of reality, much like the words in this post. If you asked me who or what is the final authority in the interpretation of this post, what should I say? Suppose I say that I, as the author, am the final authority. But that hardly helps you because even if you ask me what I mean, I have to tell you using more words.

No, the fact of the matter is that words have meaning, and on the assumption that my words match the meaning I intended to invest them with, then the words on this screen pass on to you my own meaning. "Interpretation" isn't a matter of authority at all but rather accurately "decoding" the idea I, as the author, embedded into the signs we call words. And if people disagree on the meaning of some words, then they can have an argument--and note that word, for arguments presume premises and so reasons--as to why their understanding most likely represents the correct "interpretation."

So what this really gets to, for me, is the perspicuity of Scripture. I believe very much in it. Your church tends not to, and that's hardly surprising, as a great deal of what your church holds to be true can only be held by ignoring the plain, lexical meaning of the text. You have to rely on an outside authority to declare new meanings that cannot be warranted by the text itself, and therefore you have to have an "authority." I just think the entire enterprise is a giant category error.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:33 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:46 pm
Posts: 441
Location: Midwest
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus
Quote:
So what this really gets to, for me, is the perspicuity of Scripture. I believe very much in it. Your church tends not to, and that's hardly surprising, as a great deal of what your church holds to be true can only be held by ignoring the plain, lexical meaning of the text. You have to rely on an outside authority to declare new meanings that cannot be warranted by the text itself, and therefore you have to have an "authority." I just think the entire enterprise is a giant category error.
TheJack

Ya know I really should've looked at the religion box under your nickname!
You're not Catholic! Now I totally understand y your line of logic didn't make sense to me.

May I please recommend a read about SS?
It really helped clarify for me the teaching of the RCC on the topic, and it replies well to our OP here

-->. http://www.catholic.com/blog/kenneth-hensley/why-i%E2%80%99m-catholic-sola-scriptura-isn%E2%80%99t-scriptural-part-i

Take care n have a good one!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:47 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 829
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Smiddy:
As with Jesus, not everything was written down. The Apostles taught much more than they could possibly write. Therefore, the handing down of oral teachings from them, through their successors must be included, not ONLY Scripture.

Do you, whomever you may be reading this, find my summation agreeable?

There is no further Revelation after Christ, so we have all of His teaching in His Catholic Church. What comes thereafter is the development of His teaching such as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The relation of the teaching authority established by the Christ through and in St Peter (the Magisterium), with Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition is clearly taught as:
“10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

"It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." [My bold].
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM
POPE PAUL VI, NOVEMBER 18, 1965

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... um_en.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:01 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4262
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Smiddy wrote:
Quote:
So what this really gets to, for me, is the perspicuity of Scripture. I believe very much in it. Your church tends not to, and that's hardly surprising, as a great deal of what your church holds to be true can only be held by ignoring the plain, lexical meaning of the text. You have to rely on an outside authority to declare new meanings that cannot be warranted by the text itself, and therefore you have to have an "authority." I just think the entire enterprise is a giant category error.
TheJack

Ya know I really should've looked at the religion box under your nickname!
You're not Catholic! Now I totally understand y your line of logic didn't make sense to me.

May I please recommend a read about SS?
It really helped clarify for me the teaching of the RCC on the topic, and it replies well to our OP here

-->. http://www.catholic.com/blog/kenneth-hensley/why-i%E2%80%99m-catholic-sola-scriptura-isn%E2%80%99t-scriptural-part-i

Take care n have a good one!

I've read those arguments before and generally find them unconvincing and fallacious insofar as they are question begging. I do know the RCC's take on the subject and their reasoning. But thank you for the link regardless, and thank you for the well wishes. Same to you. :wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:09 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 5844
Religion: Christian
Thomist wrote:
Quote:
EtcumSpiri22-0:
Jesus is the final authority to interpret scripture.

As there was no New Testament of 27 Books at the time of Jesus – those written by His apostles and disciples give us His teaching. We have this teaching only because the only Catholic Church, which He established, collected and gave us His teaching. Only She is created and guaranteed by Jesus, the Christ, to teach us.

So nothing, and no one else, is equal to His Church built on St Peter.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter
All four promises to Peter alone:

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)
"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and "the whole assembly fell silent" (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).


No disrespect to you or your beliefs intended on any level ...
Without going into a long discourse, bottom line, I would never in my wildest imagination ever accept as fruitful or necessary the ability, or even the possibility, of approaching / accessing God in any way, other than going directly to him. Heb 4:16. I have seen the fruit of that approach with great satisfaction over a span of 40 yrs. That which Jesus taught about approaching God works amazingly well. I could not possibly believe anyone that taught any other way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: a neophyte's view on sola scriptura
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:49 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 829
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
EtcumSpiri22-0
I would never in my wildest imagination ever accept as fruitful or necessary the ability, or even the possibility, of approaching / accessing God in any way, other than going directly to him. Heb 4:16. I have seen the fruit of that approach with great satisfaction over a span of 40 yrs. That which Jesus taught about approaching God works amazingly well. I could not possibly believe anyone that taught any other way.

That fallacy is precisely why there are so many thousands of sects all claiming to represent and teach what Christ demands, but all different.

The same fallacy is precisely why so many do not have priests able to bring Jesus as food for the soul at His command through the Holy Eucharist -- “Do this in memory of Me”. [Lk 22:19-20]. Thus they lack most of the seven sacraments, and lack the certainty of His teaching on abortion, contraception, euthanasia, IVF and much more.

It is precisely the error and conceit of choosing to neglect Christ’s teaching, so readily made available through His Catholic Church that has left the world in such a mess of confusion and disbelief.

So, the reality is that the multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes -- miracles -- all have to be doubted, and discarded, in the mad rush to evade the reality of Christ’s one and only Catholic Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 58 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: