Jump to content

Truthseeker

Banned Users
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Truthseeker

  • Rank
    Banned

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Denomination

  • Den
    Catholic
  1. 1. I still haven't gotten that passage from scripture from you. Maybe you don't have one. 2. I am ok with whatever you do to Catholics. This is your forum and you are in your right to do so. 3. You quote the Washington post? Hardly a reliable catholic source. I read the article. Zero mention of any dogmatic differences. But my point remains the same. Whatever differences, we will all look to Rome to settle the dispute. The number of disagreements do not diminish or take away from the fact that Rome has the last word. In Protestantism, no one has the last word and therefore there are no conclusive answers to anything. 4. Are you saying that Luther's soteriology is exactly the same as Calvin's? If so when then why the division? Why are Calvinists constantly debating Lutherans?
  2. How are we just as divided theologically? Do you ever see catholic apologists debate each other? Do you ever see us debate each other on infant baptism, predestination, free will, total depravity, double imputation? Show me some sources. But even if I were to concede this point, Rome still has the final word. There may be disagreements but the Catholics around the world can rest assured with Rome settling the matter. How do protestants settle their difference? They start a new church.
  3. My answer is in bold Scripture is its own interpreter. Really? Do you have any idea how incoherent this sounds? For the sake of argument let me concede you this point. That would mean there should be only one interpretation. If scripture interprets itself then there should only be one message. Is that really the case in protestant circles? Why would scripture give different testimonies of itself? What testimony is it? Luther's? Calvin's? James White? Pastor Anderson? RC Sprouls? Yourself? Do you agree that Scripture is the Word of God? You said, "If what you're going to argue and tell me is an interpretation that isn't infallible, then how can it hold water?" Are you suggesting that any objection to interpretation must be weighed in the balance of Scripture? What I'm saying is, why should anyone believe you if you don't claim to be infallible? The Church needs an infallible source and authority without which protestant denomination would happen. Because there are so many differing interpretations we need someone or something out there other than scripture that will tell us that this is heresy and this is orthodox. If we don't have that then we will get denominations. I mean what part of 20,000 denominations do you not get? I don't want to go through my christian life not even sure if what my pastor or church is saying is actually true or not. Is your interpretation opinion or is it infallible? Lemme ask you, if an infallible interpreter is needed to interpret Scripture, then what infallible interpreter do we need to interpreter the infallible interpreter, if not Scripture? Another words Scripture interprets Scripture. Infinite regress is not a valid argument. Jesus started with Peter and the apostles. The bishops in succession to the apostles continue the infallibility given to the apostles. This makes the most sense. How else are we to guard the purity of faith? Scripture of itself cannot do that. It is evident with the many protestant denominations that scripture can be dangerous if left to one's own whims and fancy. Infallible authority safeguards unity and purity of doctrine. It isn't there to introduce new things. The infallible authority needed to be there to determine what was and what wasn't scripture. It needed to be there to determine what belongs in the Canon and what doesn't. The bible just doesn't put itself together by some magical formula or hokus pokus. Take a bunch of apocrypha and inspired scripture, put them all a vaccuum. Will the bible make itself among all those books? That's very naive to think something like that just happens. To say that the bible miraculously put itself together is no different from what Mohammed said of the Quran. A rule of interpretation is that the implicit must be interpreted by the explicit. And not the explicit by the implicit. Take for example your claim that Calvinism is unscriptural. Lets look at a verse: John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Based on John 3:16 can you conclude that since the Bible teaches that anyone who believes shall be saved, and that it implies that anyone can, without the prior regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, exercise belief? Given your other replies you cannot deny that this is what you believe, and probably because of Catholic influence. But if we follow the basic principle laid down the same gospel writer has Jesus explaining to us three chapters later that no one can come to Jesus unless it is given to him of the Father John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” That is, our moral ability to come to Christ is explicitly and specifically taught to be lacking apart from the sovereign grace of God. Therefore, all of the implications that suggest otherwise must be subsumed under the explicit teaching, rather than forcing the explicit teaching into conformity to implications that we draw from the text. So are you a 5 point calvinist? What % of protestants are 5pt calvinists? Also where is that bible verse I asked for? The one that screams explicitly SS?
  4. I'm not trying to change the subject. That point was just a disclaimer before we went into the meat of our discussion. I thought it was a valid point to keep in mind. Not trying to deflect at all. If there are legitimate concerns before a debate it should be manifested. So are you ok with my definition of SS?
  5. The bigger question Bill is how can you even debate this? If what you're going to argue and tell me is an interpretation that isn't infallible, then how can it hold water? If you don't know for a fact and 100% certainty that your interpretation is authentic and true to Church history, why should anyone pay heed to your words? I don't want an opinion, I want certainty. You can't just tell me to look at scripture and see it. Scripture isn't self explanatory. If it was then how in the world did protestants splinter up into 1000s of denominations? Why are prominent protestant theologians debating themselves on core christian dogmas?
  6. Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
  7. I promise to keep it on subject. So what particular passage do you think EXPLICITLY screams SS? Got my popcorn. This should be good.
  8. Wow is this waving the white flag? Let's debate the passage, or are you not too confident about deducing sola scriptura from them? Shall we?
  9. My answers are in bold I disgaree. When I see James White debate other protestant pastors, it is not about tradition. It is about scripture. Ask yourself, do you ever see Catholics debate among themselves what is and what isn't dogma? But when you go on youtube and see a boatload of protestant pastors going at it on key dogmas and scripture, it is hardly plausible that a petty discussion on tradition is happening. I apologize for any offense that I may be about to give, I was taught the Gospel by lay Catholic Charismatics, but I read the bible and could not reconcile what I was being taught in the "Chatechism for Inquirers" with what I was reading in scripture. When I sat down with a priest to have it explained, "Church Tradition" was the only explanation given. Where the Bible is silent, I am prepared to entertain the teachings of a Church Father from a few hundred years later as at least plausible. However, I have a real problem when the Traditions contradict the words of the Apostles. I could not in good conscience join the Catholic Church. I did not believe what you believe because that is not what the Bible, the Catholic Bible from my mother's childhood complete with the Apocrapha, said in the Gospels. There was a lot I did not understand, but an awful lot of what the Bible says is crystal clear. "Jesus, your mother and brothers are here." and "James, the brother of Jesus" is clearly in conflict with the 'tradition' that Mary died a virgin and also ascended into heaven. For that matter, why is something as important as Mary, Queen of the Universe ... to whom we are told to pray ... not mentioned in the Bible? That seems like something pretty important to not even mention in passing. The bible was not around and canonized for centuries. The Church had to had function some way without it. They relied on what was orally preached and handed down from the apostles. There was no urgent need to put things in writing, until all these apocrypha writings started to caused confusion within the Church. An infallible authority was needed to sift through what was and wasn't inspired. It can't be done the other way around. Sola scriptura puts the carriage in front of the horse. I understand your qualms about Marian dogmas, prayers to saints, purgatory etc... but on the flipside sola scriptura has yielded far worse things: 1.Calvinism and the 5 points 2. Double imputation 3. Easy believism 4. 1000s of denominations, the unity of the Church torn asunder 5. Churches founded by men and not by God 6. Zero apostolic succession. 7. Sanctification as optional in the christian life. 8. Anyone and everyone is their own authority 9. Zero historicity How is any of that any better? Basically you are trading a headache for a migraine. How is denominational protestantism the answer? The early Church did not have a single protestant bone in their body. Other than the orthodox schism we still shared unanimous doctrinal unity for 1500 yrs. Luther came and undid all that. Luther unleashed anarchy. He himself persecuted and bashed anyone who so disagreed with him. There are thorough answers to everyone of those issues you mentioned. The biblical text is there to back them up. Sola Scriptura, the battle cry of the reformation, says that the tradition of selling forgiveness is wrong, the tradition of worshiping anything except God is wrong, all of the human traditions piled on the truth taught by Jesus and recorded by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles in the holy Bible must be swept away. It is a call to LISTEN to what God says and do what God says and trust that God's holy word is more than enough. And rightly so. The indulgences was a blatant abuse. Luther was right in calling the Church out for it. But abuses abound in every institution even in protestant circles. Abuse is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Abuse isn't heresy but it can be corrected. Sola scriptura is definitely not the solution to that problem. Sola scriptura causes more problems than it solves. From how I see it, protestants really don't care about unity. There are blatant divisions in protestant circles but for some reason they are overlooked. You quote from scripture, but you don't claim to be infallible, so why should I pay you any heed? Is not your interpretation a mere opinion?
  10. This is what SS does. It makes everyone else their own pope or church or authority.
  11. NONE of your quotes actually says "Sola scriptura". Where is the "alone"? Where is the rejection of tradition and the Magisterium. Furthermore you have cherry picked the writing of these CATHOLIC authors. Why not mention all their other catholic thoughts as well?
  12. The passages you provided me for sola scriptura is a stretch of the imagination. Where in the gospels did Jesus teach SS as you understand it? Are you happy that there are thousands of denominations? Did Jesus say he would build his Church upon this rock? or did he mean build his churches on thousands of denominations that don't agree on key doctrinal issues? We have 1500 yrs to back up what we believe in. What do you have? 15000 denominations? For 1500 yrs Christendom was one. Only after barely 300 years have SS splintered what Luther started in so many ways. How can any protestant be proud of this type of disunity? The harshest words Paul used in his epistles was against those who causes schisms. Was this what Jesus really wanted? Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Calvinists? Was this the unity he prayed for at the Last Supper?
  13. Truthseeker

    Why do protestants have a beef with Mary?

    If God has made her our mother as well then ofcourse God allows her to hear all of our prayers. Your approach is black and white. I can inference my own prayers and devotion to Mary through scripture. You however want a verbatim verse where it says what I have inferenced. There isn't one single verse in the bible that supports sola scriptura as you understand it. So all this clamoring for bible verses from me is unfounded. The bible isn't my only source of authority.
  14. Truthseeker

    Why do protestants have a beef with Mary?

    Calling on the Saints is not like calling the help desk for your internt provider, where they say "due to unusually high call volume there may be a wait time of 10 minutes, you are 8th in queue." Heaven doesn't work that way. It is outside of earth time. Catholics don't think people have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent in order to be in heaven. Scripture tells us there are many levels of authority in heaven (archangels, angels, cherubim, seraphim, etc.) I think Evangelicals believe angels know what is happening in different parts of the earth at the same time, yet they are not omnipresent. Mary doesn't need all knowledge or be present everywhere to hear more than one request for intercession at once. Talking to Heaven is not like calling a "help desk," where you sit in the queue waiting for them to answer while you listen to bad music on the phone. The universe is a big place. The term "omnipresence" implies being everywhere in the universe and beyond. We think objecting to Mary' intercession because it implies omnipresence is as short-sighted as medieval people thinking the universe revolved around the earth. Mary's ability to hear a bunch of prayers at once doesn't mean she is omnipresent. It just means she is outside of time like everyone else in Heaven. When I was a baby, God trusted my earthly mother to care for me. That did not make my mom omnipresent, although I thought so when I was a kid. God trusted Mary to care for her Son when He was a child. At the foot of the cross Jesus trusted her with the care of John. Catholics think in this gesture Jesus gave Mary as a mother to all humanity.
  15. Truthseeker

    Why do protestants have a beef with Mary?

    If God gave the power to forgive sins and perform miracles, things of which belong only to God, would we call the apostles Gods? Giving someone that power that belongs only to God does not tantamount to making that person God. You keep demanding passages that prove my point. I have given them. But I don't agree with your demands since Scripture for me isn't the sole and final authority on matters like these.
×
Articles - News - Registration Terms