Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question for Catholics on the Scriptures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post

    I think the clause on tradition is not strictly necessary. You've removed the problematic assertions about the exclusivity of scriptural authority, so there's no real need to counterbalance them with an awkward (and the phrasing does strike me as awkward) concession to Catholics and Orthodox.
    The Scriptures
    The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, comprises the one and only Holy Scriptures. These Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are authoritative sources for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. They reveal the will of God concerning us in things necessary to our salvation.



    So, you'd be comfortable with this? How about you Cath? And you OBP? And Sparko, Raph, and Mossy?
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      The Scriptures
      The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, comprises the one and only Holy Scriptures. These Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are authoritative sources for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. They reveal the will of God concerning us in things necessary to our salvation.



      So, you'd be comfortable with this? How about you Cath? And you OBP? And Sparko, Raph, and Mossy?
      sounds good to me.







      ...But what about the maps?


      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        The Scriptures
        The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, comprises the one and only Holy Scriptures. These Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are authoritative sources for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. They reveal the will of God concerning us in things necessary to our salvation.



        So, you'd be comfortable with this? How about you Cath? And you OBP? And Sparko, Raph, and Mossy?
        That'll do.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          I
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          The Scriptures
          The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, comprises the one and only Holy Scriptures. These Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are authoritative sources for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. They reveal the will of God concerning us in things necessary to our salvation.



          So, you'd be comfortable with this? How about you Cath? And you OBP? And Sparko, Raph, and Mossy?
          I would like it better if it had "the only" between "are" and "authoritative", but I guess that limits it to much for Catholics and others.

          So, yeah, whatever.

          And scripture also instructs us in how we should be living, unless that is implied somehow in what you have here.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #35
            Looks great.
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #36
              BTW as a Catholic attending a Baptist church, I see that scripture is the final authority, though the Pope and tradition help interpret dogmas and are not contradictory to the word of God. I see no issue in the wording of the idea of orthodox.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #37
                Here is a question for Catholics. If there were a clear contradiction between what the Pope decreed and what the bible clearly says, which one wins?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Here is a question for Catholics. If there were a clear contradiction between what the Pope decreed and what the bible clearly says, which one wins?
                  If there's a clear contradiction between an infallible teaching of the Pope and infallible teaching of the Bible, then 1 + 1 = 3. It would be an unresolvable contradiction for Catholics, and we'd slap our heads collectively, groan and admit that the Eastern Orthodoxy was right.

                  As of the year 2015? Despite a long history of awful and corrupt popes? No such contradiction exists.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    If there's a clear contradiction between an infallible teaching of the Pope and infallible teaching of the Bible, then 1 + 1 = 3. It would be an unresolvable contradiction for Catholics, and we'd slap our heads collectively, groan and admit that the Eastern Orthodoxy was right.

                    As of the year 2015? Despite a long history of awful and corrupt popes? No such contradiction exists.

                    It's probably a lot more complicated, but it makes my head spin to even think how your paragraph doesn't lead to such contradictions.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      It's probably a lot more complicated, but it makes my head spin to even think how your paragraph doesn't lead to such contradictions.
                      Catholics don't consider all teachings of the Pope infallible; just those spoken ex cathedra (which are relatively rare).
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Here is a question for Catholics. If there were a clear contradiction between what the Pope decreed and what the bible clearly says, which one wins?
                        Both of those categories (clear Scriptural teaching and infallibly defined Papal teaching) are fairly narrow, so you have a small data set in the first place. That makes finding a contradiction theoretically easy but practically very difficult. If there were a contradiction, then you could present this as a factual dilemma rather than a theoretical one.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          Both of those categories (clear Scriptural teaching and infallibly defined Papal teaching) are fairly narrow, so you have a small data set in the first place. That makes finding a contradiction theoretically easy but practically very difficult. If there were a contradiction, then you could present this as a factual dilemma rather than a theoretical one.
                          I was just curious which would hold more power: The Pope or the Bible? If it were clear that the bible said one thing and the Pope said ex cathedra something else.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            I was just curious which would hold more power: The Pope or the Bible? If it were clear that the bible said one thing and the Pope said ex cathedra something else.
                            Your question doesn't compute

                            In any circumstance I can imagine, it would come down to either having to regard the Scripture passage as ambiguous (you know as well as anyone how easy that is) or the Pope as having gone entirely insane.
                            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              Your question doesn't compute

                              In any circumstance I can imagine, it would come down to either having to regard the Scripture passage as ambiguous (you know as well as anyone how easy that is) or the Pope as having gone entirely insane.
                              There have been renegade popes in the past.

                              Its ok, It was just a hypothetical I thought of.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Here is a question for Catholics. If there were a clear contradiction between what the Pope decreed and what the bible clearly says, which one wins?
                                I think this is something I sat and contemplated, contemplated, read about the history of these times when Papal speech or behavior has truly been contradictory, as well as the idea that the Pope is infallible ex cathedra or on Faith and Morals. While I have not and may not formally leave the Catholic Church it has certainly caused me to step aside until I come to the conviction that this is true. However it is suspect since it was declared by a Pope led council. First historically when there was a false doctrine or direct scriptural contradiction A pope was declared to be an anti-pope and a new pope was put in office. Second, there have been many times when popes have used such an authority to call war, heresy or sentencing (which is both good and bad, but more later on that) Thirdly, ESPECIALLY LATELY: Pope Francis while definately a man of the people, has changed the morals of divorce, homosexuality, environmentalism, birth control and even abortion and birth control in away that the Church has long held Traditional interpretations of scripture. The Church has fired and replaced conservative but loving ministers in place of liberal ones. I am bothered by this. Its culturally friendly but not Church friendly. While it is necessary for the Church to evangelize to the public, it does not mean it needs to change reasonable interpretations to compromise its values. While these ideas reflect other protestant traditions and are not directly Contradictory, it does reflect that if the PCUSA can allow gay ministers and homosexual weddings, the RCC pope is not preserved from making such a claim which is directly controversial. I guess you could say Scripture wins, the Pope isn't really infallible. The Church failed big time. If the Pope really made such a claim, he'd be voted an anti-pope and thrown out, declared fallible. And Moss sorry, Marian Traditions are off the table
                                A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                                George Bernard Shaw

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X