Anti-catholics Don't Really Believe In Scripture Alone

[dairygirl4u2c]

as a minor incidental point, ive noticed that the passages in the gospels read at catholic churches do not in fact include everything. for example, the 'spirit and truth' passage after the 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' verses of john 6, are not included, that ive ever seen. they just stop before it gets to there.

maybe it's justified, ie to not cause controversy amoungs the people who dont know anything or who would be too much influenced etc, but.
anyway that's what ive seen before, so.

Edited June 7, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1884463' date='Jun 5 2009, 07:47 PM']See, that's where Aquinas's fallibility becomes evident. [/quote]

Considering the fact that the Bible makes the distinction between mortal and venial sin, I don't see why this should even be a problem.

1 John 5:15-17.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Brother Vinny' post='1884749' date='Jun 6 2009, 02:22 AM']Perhaps Nathan would be so kind as to tell us where an infallible authority for determining canon might be found. I find it telling that no Christian sect claims the Table of Contents was written by a Prophet or Apostle. If the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice, but does not within its pages define that which is or is not canon, then its infallibility is compromised because it may include books that ought not to have been included, or may have omitted books that should have been left in.[/quote]

Sorry 'bout the late response here, Br. Vinny. Anyway...

The short answer is Providence. The Bible being God's Word to man (a very important thing), God saw to it that those books which are inspired would be recognized as such by His people. These people, not being infallible, certainly [i]could[/i] have erred (it was within their power to err) during the council in question, but God providentially saw to it that they [i]did not[/i] err. The matter is that of God's sovereignty, not our individual or collective 'infallibility'.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bishops and whatnot [i]did[/i] here rule on this very important matter infallibly. It does not follow from this that the Church [i]always[/i] rules infallibly on matters of faith and practice. (It could be that, because of the Scriptures being so very important for the faith, God gave the powers that be at [i]this[/i] council a little 'extra juice'.)

Listen: the reason behind the Protestant Reformation was that many Christians so strongly felt that the Church [i]had[/i] erred in its rulings on faith and practice on numerous occasions during the medieval period, and that as a result reforms -- to put an end to unscriptural teachings and practices of Rome -- were necessary. (And then things got heated, unfortunate events inspired by severe misunderstandings on both sides took place, it became very political, and the Church visible suffered a massive break...) Somewhere along the line, the Reformers were convinced, the Tradition of the Church went off the rails and compromised the Gospel. Had this not happened, there would have been no felt need for a Reformation -- or, for that matter, to question/protest against the Roman Church's claim to be an infallible authority.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Nathan

[Brother Vinny]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1886698' date='Jun 8 2009, 07:47 PM']Sorry 'bout the late response here, Br. Vinny. Anyway...[/quote]

Not at all, not at all. The Internet, like life, holds no guarantees, and I wouldn't have become concerned unless a couple weeks had passed without response.

[quote]The short answer is Providence. The Bible being God's Word to man (a very important thing), God saw to it that those books which are inspired would be recognized as such by His people. These people, not being infallible, certainly [i]could[/i] have erred (it was within their power to err) during the council in question, but God providentially saw to it that they [i]did not[/i] err. The matter is that of God's sovereignty, not our individual or collective 'infallibility'.[/quote]

So, you're taking it on [i]faith[/i] that God saw to it that the council that determined the canon did not err. Already, the first bit of Tradition on equal footing with Scripture falls into place (I mean, God never promises in Scripture to compile and bound all inspired writings into a single volume, does He?).

As an aside, I think it amazing that people who proclaim God's sovereign power in establishing and protecting the integrity of His written word think it impossible for Him to do so for the Oral Tradition he'd passed down through the apostles.

[quote]But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bishops and whatnot [i]did[/i] here rule on this very important matter infallibly. It does not follow from this that the Church [i]always[/i] rules infallibly on matters of faith and practice. (It could be that, because of the Scriptures being so very important for the faith, God gave the powers that be at [i]this[/i] council a little 'extra juice'.)[/quote]

The burden of proof, however, would be on the person who wished to prove that God had granted the 'extra juice' on this 'very important matter'. From the point of view of history, the councils that gave us the canon of Scripture look very much like the ones that gave us the creeds and defined Arianism and Nestorianism as heresies. (Whenever I reflect on these heresies, I am given to wonder if Protestants would even be able to come to consensus on these without standing on the giant Catholic shoulders of these councils--and I find myself shuddering to think!)

[quote]Listen: the reason behind the Protestant Reformation was that many Christians so strongly felt that the Church [i]had[/i] erred in its rulings on faith and practice on numerous occasions during the medieval period, and that as a result reforms -- to put an end to unscriptural teachings and practices of Rome -- were necessary. (And then things got heated, unfortunate events inspired by severe misunderstandings on both sides took place, it became very political, and the Church visible suffered a massive break...) Somewhere along the line, the Reformers were convinced, the Tradition of the Church went off the rails and compromised the Gospel. Had this not happened, there would have been no felt need for a Reformation -- or, for that matter, to question/protest against the Roman Church's claim to be an infallible authority.[/quote]

Listen: the reason behind the Protestant [i]De[/i]formation was that a few Christians, some of whom had legitimate complaints, overstepped their bounds as defined by Scripture and decided to divorce the interpretation of Scripture from 1500 years of Church history and Tradition and the authority of the Magisterium. These Christians were able to take advantage of the political clime and find those who would fund their heresies (politics was involved very early on, I'm afraid), and each of these Protestants, ostensibly led by the Holy Spirit made the patently unbiblical choice of hiving away from the Church that Christ built and, in most cases, from one another as well. (To say that then things got heated, that unfortunate events inspired by severe misunderstandings on both sides took place, that it became very political, and that the Church visible suffered a massive break, is all sort of putting the cart before the horse, innit?) Somewhere along the line, the Reformers were convinced that they would make for better interpreters than any that had come before in Christendom, and that they would become popes unto themselves, some of them going so far as to remake their Bibles into their own doctrinal images. Had this not happened, there would have been no [i]De[/i]formation, the Church would have reformed under normal pressures from within, and we wouldn't have the hundreds of Protestant sects (again, all claiming the lead of the Holy Spirit, but all disagreeing on some fundamental or other, or even on what constitutes a fundamental) that plague our society with bad doctrine and worse architecture today.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1884463' date='Jun 5 2009, 07:47 PM']See, that's where Aquinas's fallibility becomes evident. [/quote]

I have not specifically studied Aquinas on this matter but we have to remember that language changes over time. The word sacrament at that time was much broader and included sacramentals with our current sacraments under the term. So this may not be an issue of Aquinas's fallibility but rather just a changing of the language is what I suspect.

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' post='1885518' date='Jun 7 2009, 09:52 AM']Considering the fact that the Bible makes the distinction between mortal and venial sin, I don't see why this should even be a problem.

1 John 5:15-17.[/quote]


[color="#000080"]Actually, that would be 1 John 5:16-17... but you just wanted us to read verse 15, didn't you --very good move, excellent.

God bless,
Jon[/color]

Edited June 12, 2009 by Jon

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='Jon' post='1888945' date='Jun 12 2009, 08:23 AM'][color="#000080"]Actually, that would be 1 John 5:16-17... but you just wanted us to read verse 15, didn't you --very good move, excellent.

God bless,
Jon[/color][/quote]


Yes, I did that deliberately.

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' post='1888949' date='Jun 12 2009, 07:55 AM']Yes, I did that deliberately.[/quote]


[color="#483D8B"]Good man. Let us not exclude verse 14 though, ahh, sweet.

God bless,
Jon


(1 John 5:13-15 ---one of my favs)[/color]

[Guest KevinSymonds]

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time divining whether or not you are being facetious.

[Guest Jon]

Oh, sorry, no I just love 1 John 5:13-15 --- at first, yes, I was joking around, but also being serious ---no wonder you're confused!

Jon

[Didacus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1882533' date='Jun 3 2009, 08:59 PM']I would add that since "Scripture Alone" is not in the Bible that the doctrine of Scripture Alone is itself outside the Bible.[/quote]

LOL, that's a good one. But does it hold? I mean, is there really no passage in the bible that is referred to in support of Sola Scriptura?

[Guest Jon]

[color="#483D8B"]Well, gosh, it says all over ---things like meditate on my words or abide in me and my words or It is written bla bla... all thoughout they referrence the OT -so it seems that to live by the words in Scripture is THE thing to do.

My take,
Jon[/color]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jon' post='1889096' date='Jun 12 2009, 11:55 AM'][color="#483D8B"]Well, gosh, it says all over ---things like meditate on my words or abide in me and my words or It is written bla bla... all thoughout they referrence the OT -so it seems that to live by the words in Scripture is THE thing to do.

My take,
Jon[/color][/quote]
I didn't realize He said "medidate on my words...... and never listen to anybody else. Ever."
I guess our Catholic Bibles *are* whack.


Haha, I'm sorry. I'm feeling the need to be slightly mean tonight.

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1889465' date='Jun 12 2009, 11:27 PM']I didn't realize He said "medidate on my words...... and never listen to anybody else. Ever."
I guess our Catholic Bibles *are* whack.
:mellow:

Haha, I'm sorry. I'm feeling the need to be slightly mean tonight. :wacko:[/quote]

[color="#000080"]Ha! That's why I didn't use "" marks !!

I just typed you out 2 verses and then it disappeared as if I had not signed in -which I did - so guess what, here are the verses you 'll have to look up darn it bec now I have to run...
Joshua 1:8 but go on to read 9! :) Great stuff, highlighted in my Bible even.

Alot in the Psalms... I like 77.

(While we are at it - could you explain to me what the books are that were taken out of the Catholic Bible - or anything else you'd like to expound on that subject.)[/color]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jon' post='1889690' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:40 AM'][color="#000080"]Ha! That's why I didn't use "" marks !!

I just typed you out 2 verses and then it disappeared as if I had not signed in -which I did - so guess what, here are the verses you 'll have to look up darn it bec now I have to run...
Joshua 1:8 but go on to read 9! Great stuff, highlighted in my Bible even.

Alot in the Psalms... I like 77.
[/color][/quote]
Normally I'd be looking that up right now, but the computer I'm on makes searches a huge drag, and I don't have my Bible handy. Next time I see this thread I'll look up those chapters.
[quote name='Jon' post='1889690' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:40 AM'][color="#000080"]
(While we are at it - could you explain to me what the books are that were taken out of the Catholic Bible - or anything else you'd like to expound on that subject.)[/color][/quote]

There are far smarter people than me to talk about the deuterocanon.