Circular Reasoning

A new day said:
And since God is supreme over all, don't you think what He tells us in Scripture outweighs all others? God intended for ALL peoples to understand what He has written, and if we are truly interested in knowing Him, and what Scripture says and means, He will gladly make His meaning and will known to us.
Click to expand...
And that is why the world system inserts itself between God and people, proclaiming that people are incapable of understanding God; that people need the professional religionists to take care of them.

And once this pagan falsehood is accepted, the world system can say whatever it likes about God. If anyone questions the declarations, they get the response of, "O, you just don't understand, little sheepie!" or, "Who are you to question the professionals?"

Finally, the system will resort to violence to quiet the questioning voices - violence ranging from bad-mouthing the questioners to outright murder of them.

And like the monkey of the story, the system's adherents see no evil.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
Stella1000 said:
The justification of sola scriptura is the circular reasoning. The Canon was the product of the inspired Church. Without the Church it would not be. The Canon didn't just appear like the 10 Commandments out of heaven with Gods voice. There was no suggestion that its creation set it apart from the living Church that it came through.
Click to expand...
Even if we limited the canon to the o.t., it existed apart from the church. So ya, its creation is of God therefore it would have been given to us regardless. Your church, the rcc had nothing to do with its writing.
 
A new day said:
Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments, meaning the 66 books of the accepted and closed canon; are the final authority in all that they address and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura fails it's first test. Where in the Scriptures does it say that those 66 books are the only biblical books authorized by God, that they are complete and are to be accepted and the matter closed?
 
Misfit said:
Sola Scriptura fails it's first test. Where in the Scriptures does it say that those 66 books are the only biblical books authorized by God, that they are complete and are to be accepted and the matter closed?
Click to expand...

No, no, no...... you do not get to grill nonRc's. This forum is for Rc's to explain and defend their positions regarding Rc doctrine and belief's.
 
Misfit said:
Sola Scriptura fails it's first test. Where in the Scriptures does it say that those 66 books are the only biblical books authorized by God, that they are complete and are to be accepted and the matter closed?
Click to expand...
Youre still asking the wrong questions. You accept the 27 books of the n.t. just like we do. They are inspired and authoritative. The 39 books of the o.t. are also authoritative and inspired. So the only books we disagree with are your 7 that were elevated at trent. What we both agree are inspired and authoritative are superior to tradition. And all other books and tradition and doctrine is measured and tested against scripture.
 
A new day said:
No, no, no...... you do not get to grill nonRc's. This forum is for Rc's to explain and defend their positions regarding Rc doctrine and belief's.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, the opposing belief does not need to be explained? Sorry, but knowing the position of others is the basis of conversation. It is imperative that you folks explain where you are coming from, what Christian faith you are a member of so that everything is above board and in the clear in addition to us posting the Catholic position on things.

But as regards your post #49 and the quote of mine you used, we can see that your claim of Sola Scriptura (your post #41) is indefensible, so it's no wonder you want to keep the conversation in a one -sided manner and tightly scripted manner.
 
Nondenom40 said:
Youre still asking the wrong questions. You accept the 27 books of the n.t. just like we do. They are inspired and authoritative. The 39 books of the o.t. are also authoritative and inspired. So the only books we disagree with are your 7 that were elevated at trent. What we both agree are inspired and authoritative are superior to tradition. And all other books and tradition and doctrine is measured and tested against scripture.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge. Now just admit it, the scriptures say nothing as to the amount of books that should be contained in the canon, and the Church in an authorized Council had the authority to act. The Council of Trent was only reaffirming what the leaders of the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church did in the 4th century as to the approved Canon of the Scriptures, once again in a authorized council of the Church. (this time at Carthage) You 66 book aficionados were nowhere to be found at that point in time. Sola Scriptura was and will always remain a falsehood.
 
Nondenom40 said:
Even if we limited the canon to the o.t., it existed apart from the church. So ya, its creation is of God therefore it would have been given to us regardless. Your church, the rcc had nothing to do with its writing.
Click to expand...
Yes the OT, the NT is quite a different matter. (See my previous post)
 
Misfit said:
Nice dodge. Now just admit it, the scriptures say nothing as to the amount of books that should be contained in the canon, and the Church in an authorized Council had the authority to act. The Council of Trent was only reaffirming what the leaders of the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church did in the 4th century as to the approved Canon of the Scriptures, once again in a authorized council of the Church. (this time at Carthage) You 66 book aficionados were nowhere to be found at that point in time. Sola Scriptura was and will always remain a falsehood.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges as far as this particular discussion is concerned. We are talking about circular reasoning and is it circular to appeal to the bible. No its not. And no, no 4th century council made a final declaration of the canon for the rcc. That was done at trent over a thousand years later. They attached an anathema to its canon making it dogma for the first time. The other 4th century councils were all local and not binding on the church.
 
Stella1000 said:
the Scriptures were never set apart from the living tradition of the Jews.
Click to expand...
That was exactly what happened!!! Jesus came to point out that the meticulous observance of their traditions were in fact, stone cold dead acts that would only lead them to eternal damnation.

Christ points out that they're tithing mint and cummin to establish their righteousness which is about one of the most hilarious images one can imagine. They do this at the expense of the weightier matters of the law such as mercy, justice, love etc. etc.
 
balshan said:
Really I find RCs will always refer to the authority of their institution. No evidence of it having any authority outside what it gives itself. I mean the RC is the final authority, why because the magisterium says so.
Click to expand...
I agree and I find too that the arguments used in a debate results in the Roman Catholics always focusing on side issues, the cause of truth then is not served.
 
A new day said:
What you can't seem to get, is that Scripture itself has the supreme and final say in all matter's. Your own Rc catechism says...

"In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man" and "The inspired books teach the truth".

Also from the Rc catechism,

Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth "


2 Timothy 3:16 says
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments, meaning the 66 books of the accepted and closed canon; are the final authority in all that they address and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.

Everything we see, hear, or read is to be measured by what Scripture says about what we just saw, heard, or seen. Why? Because Scripture is God speaking to us through His written on all spiritual and behavioral matters. God, Himself is our Creator, in Him, we have life.

And since God is supreme over all, don't you think what He tells us in Scripture outweighs all others? God intended for ALL peoples to understand what He has written, and if we are truly interested in knowing Him, and what Scripture says and means, He will gladly make His meaning and will known to us.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, what you don't seem to get is that in citing the Churchs teaching on the Scriptures, you are citing a living authority ordained with discernment,by Chris, . So when you read in Scripture a verse that represents diverging views ie Luthers problem with the book of James...

Jas 2 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is worthless?

... a living authority, a Council of Jerusalem, rules for the sake of unity. That's the Scripture way.
 
Misfit said:
To have a discussion, both sides need to be upfront about their respective claims. As happens many times, only one claim from one side about the other side is put forward, and it is usually without merit, with said "claim" actually being nothing more than something that was made up with no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The topic of this discussion forum is "Roman Catholicism".
It's for defending Roman Catholicism, and challenging Roman Catholicism.

Whether the challenges come from Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, JW's, or atheists, is irrelevant. It's just a lame excuse to derail discussion AWAY from RC'ism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top