Sola Scripture?

I dont see what the difference is between that and you who continually make your "drive by shooting" remarks about Ellen White every chance you get. I think you just dont like it the other way around.

Claudia

 

Sorry, if you find some Anti-catholicism here. Remember the Inquisition? They have not changed their core beliefs on that issue (They continue to sanction similar activity in latin countries today). They are trying to send my grandparents and friends down a false path. They do a funeral only if you pay them, and then don't give the gospel to the poor family left behind. They claim authority over the Bible. Their priesthood ranks are rich with pedaphiles which they do not condemn in any way (at least publicly). They claim exclusive priesthood (as if I can't speak to my own Father). The priests serve beer to the communities during fesivals.

Oops! And thanks for the complement.

 

True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.).

 

True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]That's a surprise. You used to defend these doctrines if I remember correctly (as every good Catholic should--if they are faithful to their Church). The reason to discard them is found in sola scriptura.
DHK

 

True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]That's a surprise. You used to defend these doctrines if I remember correctly (as every good Catholic should--if they are faithful to their Church). The reason to discard them is found in sola scriptura.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You remember incorrectly as I've never defended them since I am not (nor have ever been) a Roman Catholic.

 

True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]DT: Not to put you on the spot, but I know you don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura, as neither do I any more, but how do you determine the correct interpretation. Feel free to PM me if you like…

For instance regarding the RCC, when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, he is speaking with Divine assistance regarding faith and morals, but that’s only because in my understanding is that all the Bishops or Cardinals have searched the scriptures to ensure that what the Pope speaks of is soundly grounded in scripture and backed by Tradition.

 

Kind of...technically the 'Bishops in Communion with the Bishop of Rome' constitute the Catholic Magisterium and only when there is lack of clarity among the Bishops does the Pope have to step in.

But then again I regard the Catholic Bishops as part of the Episcopate only...

So I don't think Nate, DT or I are talking about Roman Catholic doctrine and practices here, including the Inquisition. So why do people keep on salivating about the Pope and the Inquisition and other Catholic red herrings every time we question sola Scriptura?

[ETA - otherwise every thread degenerates into a Monty Python sketch: "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition"...which is what I'm sorely tempted to say next time someone brings up that strawman on this thread...]

 

A very large amount of anti-Catholic on here. I know that the RCC is off base, but i have never seen so much blaimed on the RCC before. Its like...if you want to lable something bad on this board..link it to the RCC and that should do it. Again, I'm not standing for the RCC, I just see that most problems are deeper then that which is blaimed on the RCC. One is SIN....and then you have mankind. If we deal with those too things 1st, we can take on the RCC.

 

If Laodicea means "the people rule", then what is the alternative? Nicolaitanism (Nikos- priest + "laity"; i.e the hierarchical system)?

Still, it is a great double standard here, as "all the hundreds of denominations with conflicting interpretations" are constantly cited, but then we are expected to believe this one particular body out of all of them got it right. They are men too. If you claim "but they were the one true Church that goes all the way back', then others say the same thing. And anything that can't be founbd in scripture is just attributed to "oral tradition". But this is no better than the Baptists/landmarkers, or JW's, sabbathkeepers, Church of Christ, etc. methods of tracing their group back. The reason why there are all of these different groups is because they all insist on clinging to theur traditions and reading them into the scriptures somehow or supplementing it if that doesn't work, rather than because it is only one of them that had the truth )which they all claim, so you are still apart of "all those groups"). We're all men, all have gone astray, and we need to stop expending so much energy trying to best other men with these argumentational devices (Eph.4:14), and then we may be humble enough to see what the truth is.

I had recently been thinking about the different "traditions" by which sola scriptura is supplemented (violated through reading it in light of these things) or outright set aside, and yet projected back to the Bible.

</font>

• Rabbinical Judaism: "mosaic" oral tradition through Rabbis (1 century BC-11th century?)</font>
• Catholists: "apostolic" oral tradition through "Fathers" (2nd Century to 1054 when East no longer accepted Rome's continuing additions)</font>
• Reformed: Creeds and Reformed confessions (16th/17th century</font>
• Fundamentalists: "the faith of our fathers" (18th century to 1950's America)</font>
• Sects and Cults: leaders' "restoration" of the truth by their own reinterpretions.</font>
• More radical cults and movements: esoteric revelation or additional writings.</font>

I think the independant Church movement is the closest to the truth. Unfortunately, they often get this way by neglecting doctrine, usually in favor of experentialism, mainly through "charismatic" type revelations, and hyped "testimonials". And many suffer the "megachurch" mentality, and other awspcects of what I call "pop-evangelicalism". But once again, there is no perfect Church, yet it seems that these groups do have more of a unity, when all of those methods listed above are let go of. (the Anabaptists and also had a similar faith, though some were aberrant, and the modern Mennonites sound like a good biblical group). They don't even come here and argue their position. They just live for Christ, and try to carry forth His message to the lost. That's what it's all about. (1 Tim.6:3-5)

 

Nate

You know nothing at all about the role of Ellen White frankly (except maybe in your own imagination) and so you'd be better off keeping silent about that subject.

Claudia

 

Its a little unrealistic to start a topic on Sola Scriptura and then expect that nobody is going to bring up the subject of the Roman Catholic Church.


Claudia