Non-catholic Questions....

[Robyn]

All that is based on faith. You need faith before you will believe any of that.

[Joolye]

Law of physics...  Something CANNOT come from nothing.

I don't believe in physics.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

[jasJis]

Ah.

God gave us heart, soul, and mind.

We can come to know God by intellect and have that lead us to know Him in our heart as well. It seems absolutely wrong to say we can't love God with our intellect as well. (To know God is to Love Him.) That is one of the points of Arisotole. He was not Jewish and was before Christ, but by logic he was able to explain many aspects of the existence of God. In other words, we can be graced by God through our intellect as well.

[ironmonk]

All that is based on faith. You need faith before you will believe any of that.

No you don't.

i.e.

70,000 people witnessed the miracle of Fatima... Fatima happening is not a matter of faith at all... it really happened.

People became Catholic over it - protestant and atheist alike.

If you say it takes faith to believe that happened, then how do you believe that Columbus came to America in 1492? Is that fact or is that faith?

Is it fact or faith that the United States of America's first president was George Washington?

Is it fact or faith that you were born in a hosptial?

Is it fact or faith that the world rotates around the sun?

If something is real...it's a fact.

God is easily proven if you take the time to open your eyes, and know how to think.

It doesn't matter if people believe or not, it's still a fact.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 19, 2003 by ironmonk

[Robyn]

ok...when you've duplicated creation, let me know :)

Edited September 22, 2003 by Robyn

[ironmonk]

ok...when you've duplicated creation, let me know

Did you even read what I wrote?

You saying that is like me saying: "The grass is green." and you replying "I live in a house."

[cmotherofpirl]

All that is based on faith. You need faith before you will believe any of that.

Actually not.

You don't need faith to intellectually come to the conclusion that there is a God.

You need faith to believe it, but not to reason it out.

[God Conquers]

Why ignore the intellect that God has given us? Reason is a gift, a path, that we have to help us come to greater understanding of God and to reinforce our faith.

[Robyn]

Why ignore the intellect that God has given us? Reason is a gift, a path, that we have to help us come to greater understanding of God and to reinforce our faith.

yes...but FAITH is an essential part of our spiritual lives. If it were left up to our intellect, many people would not break down the walls that allow them to believe....

MANY scientists have devoted their lives to prove that God doesn't exist....only to die believers. Ok, so I guess this supports your statement, but that is only one type of person. We have different learning and thinking methods.

[jasJis]

Robyn,

Then faith and intellect are compatible if one has intellect.

Would you agree with that?

[Anna]

Why ignore the intellect that God has given us?

Excellent question!!!!!!!!!!

We must use Faith and Reason.

Man is called to use his God-given ability to reason! (which is precisely how God made us like Himself, unlike the rest of the creatures! We humans have the ability to reason.)

Anyone who refuses to use the gift of reason is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The void that is left is not called "Faith," it is called "ignorance." And Faith does not go hand in hand with ignorance. Faith goes hand in hand with reason.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited September 23, 2003 by Anna

[Robyn]

Robyn,

Then faith and intellect are compatible if one has intellect.

Would you agree with that?

Depends what point you are trying to make.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) This point is a little too complex to deal with before we get some of the broader, more vital, issues out of the way. However, Paul certainly does not exclude any new Scripture, as his quote of Luke shows that he does not believe in a close canon, and he simply says "all Scripture" generally, not "the Law and the Prophets," or something like that.

(dUSt) I never said Paul excluded any new scripture. We don't disagree here. I was simply pointing out that you misinterpreted this to mean complete scripture--and there's certainly no grounds for that.

(Me) I outlined such an argument below:

(Previous) If you want to know the basic outline of an argument I would make that he has in mind the completed canon: Paul is preparing Timothy for the post-apostolic age, and throughout these two epistles he seems to be looking at the time after the apostles and prophets had laid the foundation (Ephesians 2:20) -- meaning, founded the Church and stored up the deposit of truth once-for-all delivered to the saints in the Scripture. So, for instance, he doesn't intend to say that Philemon (alone) makes the man of God complete, equipped for every good work.

(dUSt) Okay, again, it doesn't mean the completed scripture like you implied. This is all speculation, based on extra-Biblical reasoning.

(Me) I don't see how an appeal to the Timothies and Ephesians is extra-Biblical

(Previous) I don't see how "complete" and "every good work" do not constitute sufficiency. If you are "complete" -- lacking nothing -- how can it be insufficient? If you are prepared for every good work, how can it be insufficient?

(dUSt) hahaha... There you go--back to that word complete again. I've already shown where you added this word for your own purposes. It's not implied in this scripture.

(Me) It's actually used. "Artios" is translated 'complete' here by a number of translations. Here are definitions from the Greek sources to which I have access:

artios

Liddell and Scott: complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted

Vine: fitted, complete

Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich: complete, capable, proficient

Strong: fitted, complete, perfect

UBS Greek NT: fully qualified

Oxford: whole, complete

(Previous) It is breathed out by God, and God cannot err.

(dUSt) Again, this verse does not define what is/what isn't scripture, so it's impossible (using this verse) to determine what is/isn't infallible.

(Me) Using this verse alone, of course not! I don't see where I made such an argument. I said it demonstrates that all Scripture is infallible (that is, cannot err). Thus, if we find anything that is Scripture, according to this verse, it cannot err.

(Previous) Where is the evidence? I've seen lots of Catholics prove that the Church has authority. However, where is infallible authority? And, why does 1 Timothy 3:15 say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, rather than the Church is truth itself? Jesus said, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17), and the Scripture is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible places Scripture on an echelon of authority higher than the Church.

(dUSt) You must be able to prove that "Thy Word is Truth" is limited strictly to written scripture. It certainly is not. "Thy Word" is all the teachings of Christ: The Bible, Apostolic teaching, Sacred Tradition, The Church, etc.

(Me) I never said it was. Especially in the context of John 17:17, that would be a wholly naive statement for me to make!

(dUSt) If the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth, I still ask: what is truth? "The Word" is truth. Therefore, the Church is the foundation and pillar of "The Word". It's part of it--not separated from it. This is basic stuff.

(Me) I don't understand what you're arguing. Are you saying that all the teaching of the magisterium is included in "Thy Word" or "truth"? The former will require some sort of argument. I've already demonstrated that the latter does not stand; for, the magisterium is here explicitly required to be distinct from the truth. The Roman Catholic Church would teach us that the magisterium's word is truth, and all Scripture is wholly subject to the magisterium. This verse, on the other hand, teaches that the Church has real authority, but its authority is simply to guard the deposit of truth -- that is, it is to be subject to that truth. Roman Catholic epistemology, on the other hand, places the magisterium in the location of ultimacy, saying that the meaning of Scripture and Tradition is infallibly defined by the Church!

(Previous) That is, Scripture according to the Roman Catholic interpretation. However, if the Church controls the meaning of Scripture (as she does by claiming infallible interpretive authority), how can the Church's teachings and traditions be subordinate to Scripture? They cannot. Rather, the Scripture is subordinate to the Church.

(dUSt) Neither is subordinate to other, as they work together to form the Word of God.

(Me) 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the magisterium guards truth, presupposing that this truth that is guard is distinct from the magisterium itself. Therefore, the magisterium is the guard of this truth, but does not form this truth.

(Previous) Correct, although I hope you understand that what you just said ("the Church was infallibly led") is not equivalent to the Roman Catholic position. I've explained this in more detail in the relevant thread.

(dUSt) I don't recognize the difference of the Church being infallibly led then, and now.

(Me) I'm not claiming that there was any infallible pronunciation by any council, as would the Roman Catholic Church. I'm claiming that the Spirit guards and guides the Church. Nowhere am I saying that the Church has the power, for instance, to make infallible Ex Cathedra pronouncements.

(Previous) This proves that all Scripture is inspired; the NT books are Scripture; therefore, they are inspired.

(dUSt) True enough--but it doesn't define what and what is not scripture. For that, we rely on the Church. Again--this shows how Scripture and Tradition are not separatable.

(Me) There are really three things going on here: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have all three as an ultimate authority. Yet, consider Scripture. The Magisterium infallibly defines its canon, infallibly defines its interpretation, and infallibly defines its meaning. Consider Tradition. The Magisterium will not give us a consistent definition of exactly what Tradition is, and definitely won't give us any kind of definite corpus of Tradition; rather, again, the Magisterium infallibly defines its meaning. Therefore, in the Roman Catholic epistemology, Sola Scriptura has been replaced for Sola Ecclesia! This is also called Tradition III.

Tradition I, the position of the Reformers, my position, the position labeled Sola Scriptura, teaches that the content of Tradition and Scripture is identical. It teaches that the apostolic teaching still needed for the training of the man of God has been deposited for us in the Scripture. It teaches that this objective deposit is our ultimate standard. It teaches that the magisterium holds real authority. That is the reason we are subject to the ecumenical creeds, subordinate confessions of faith, and Church discipline, whether at the local level or further up in the hierarchy.

Tradition 0, the position of the heretical Anabaptists, holds that the individual is his own standard. He interprets Scripture in a vacuum. Rather than there being order and authority, there is only subjectivism and individualism -- idolatry. He fails to recognize that we understand the meaning of Scripture, even the canon of Scripture, on the basis of the rest of the Church.

In other words, it looks like you're tearing down Tradition 0, a.k.a. Solo Scriptura. I hate that view. I would love to tear it down with you. But, I just don't see how rejecting Solo Scriptura forces us to reject Sola Scriptura. Do we have fallible means of getting to the infallible truth stored up in the Scripture? Yes, absolutely. But, the fact that we have subsidiary authorities does not mean that the Scripture is not our ultimate authority, to which we are fully subordinate.