ECT A Review of the Five Solas

[jsanford108]

Yes. He is, in whatever authority I equate. Why didn't you go there and read his post? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? :idunno:

Well, yes, but not as an accusation: as an assessment. It is getting off track and simply becoming posturization. To me? Not really worth either of our time. Half my family is Catholic. We both moved opposite directions concerning our understanding of scripture. We 'can' go back to proving points about the 5 solas instead of giving commercials for our belief systems. Will your and my conversation end with you changing? :nono: Me changing? :nono: Our discussion started on Faith alone doctrine from the 5 solas. I gave you James and AMR's link specifically because ALL of us Reformed disagree with your understanding of it. Others relegate James to just a Jewish audience, and only having some universal thruths that would apply directly to gentiles. Either way, it means all Protestants are against the Catholic supposition that the book is talking about faith needing works specifically "in order to save anyone." Even a good many Catholics disagree with your interpretation of works salvation and what you surmise about James. All this, your attempt to debate Sola Fide. Even Nihilo here is saying he accepts/reconciles the 5 Solas. -Lon

Lon,
It is okay that we disagree. I knew that we would. No big deal. I didn't even come to argue, but to discuss. I don't think I am going to change any persons mind. I am trying to give people something to consider. Something that the Protestant faith wants no one to consider: that Catholics might be right (sshhh, it's a secret agenda!).

I am not trying to advertise for Catholicism. I do, naturally, by my claims and arguments; just as you do with yours. It is part of discussion and debate!

Also, it isn't works salvation that Catholics hold and teach. This is a common falsehood applied to Catholicism by ignorance and prejudices.

Finally, Nihilo can't be a practicing Catholic and accept the 5 Solas as true (especially since Sola Scriptura is anti-Catholic). Or Nihilo is ignorant of their faith. Or Nihilo is misleading for some other purpose. I do not know. I am one of the ones who thanked Nang for disagreeing with Nihilo, because Nang was right. I even mentioned it in a reply to Nang.

In closing, don't paint broad strokes of what people believe or hold to. In this case, it was grossly inaccurate. It doesn't aid you in any capacity, especially when the false application is being directed at someone who knows more about what they believe than you do. You should always strive for honestly and integrity in intellectual conversations such as these.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

Lon,
It is okay that we disagree. I knew that we would. No big deal. I didn't even come to argue, but to discuss. I don't think I am going to change any persons mind. I am trying to give people something to consider. Something that the Protestant faith wants no one to consider: that Catholics might be right (sshhh, it's a secret agenda!).

Well, as I said, I have come out of that. We are both opposite and I fully embrace the Reformation as needful and necessary, even today.

I am not trying to advertise for Catholicism. I do, naturally, by my claims and arguments; just as you do with yours. It is part of discussion and debate!

True. Nang is doing well with you in conversation over specifics. For the most part I'll leave you two to it.

Also, it isn't works salvation that Catholics hold and teach. This is a common falsehood applied to Catholicism by ignorance and prejudices.

My Great uncle was a Catholic Priest. You aren't telling me anything I don't know, but we were talking about the book of James.

Finally, Nihilo can't be a practicing Catholic and accept the 5 Solas as true (especially since Sola Scriptura is anti-Catholic). Or Nihilo is ignorant of their faith. Or Nihilo is misleading for some other purpose. I do not know. I am one of the ones who thanked Nang for disagreeing with Nihilo, because Nang was right. I even mentioned it in a reply to Nang.

We rather believe in an inverted order than the Catholic Church. The RC: Pope, Sacraments, Scripture, Tradition.
Protestants: Scripture, Holy Spirit (rather than the sacraments as broad category), Church.

We as Protestants believe at any juncture where human frailty can interrupt and or corrupt, it should be checked against what is infallible. The RC assumes all, the Protestant checks all. I'd suggest Nihilo believes in scripture alone as the only written source but you are correct, it isn't sola scriptura as we Protestants understand it.

In closing, don't paint broad strokes of what people believe or hold to. In this case, it was grossly inaccurate. It doesn't aid you in any capacity, especially when the false application is being directed at someone who knows more about what they believe than you do. You should always strive for honestly and integrity in intellectual conversations such as these.

Rather doubtful. I didn't pass through Catechism, but I've read through it enough to be familiar. You seem more arrogant that is warranted by our short contact with one another. I 'think' I have more degrees behind my name, one in theology (BA). Pride meets pride as it were. You should have listened and not been assuming after I said I've come out of the RC. Now look at▲ your ▲ last quote. You are posturing and did so the first time as well. I don't do discussion this way. I also am much too arrogant in my education for that as is the burden of education. I have to wrestle against it and don't do a great job of it, but I do work at it. . Any learned man carries that burden. We really want to see the other back up what they assert with appropriate prowess. You cannot 'one-up' me as a few of your posts seem to attempt. I'll leave you in Nang's capable hands. -Lon

 

[jsanford108]

Well, as I said, I have come out of that. We are both opposite and I fully embrace the Reformation as needful and necessary, even today.


True. Nang is doing well with you in conversation over specifics. For the most part I'll leave you two to it.

My Great uncle was a Catholic Priest. You aren't telling me anything I don't know, but we were talking about the book of James.


We rather believe in an inverted order than the Catholic Church. The RC: Pope, Sacraments, Scripture, Tradition.
Protestants: Scripture, Holy Spirit (rather than the sacraments as broad category), Church.

We as Protestants believe at any juncture where human frailty can interrupt and or corrupt, it should be checked against what is infallible. The RC assumes all, the Protestant checks all. I'd suggest Nihilo believes in scripture alone as the only written source but you are correct, it isn't sola scriptura as we Protestants understand it.



Rather doubtful. I didn't pass through Catechism, but I've read through it enough to be familiar. You seem more arrogant that is warranted by our short contact with one another. I 'think' I have more degrees behind my name, one in theology (BA). Pride meets pride as it were. You should have listened and not been assuming after I said I've come out of the RC. Now look atâ–² your â–² last quote. You are posturing and did so the first time as well. I don't do discussion this way. I also am much too arrogant in my education for that as is the burden of education. I have to wrestle against it and don't do a great job of it, but I do work at it. . Any learned man carries that burden. We really want to see the other back up what they assert with appropriate prowess. You cannot 'one-up' me as a few of your posts seem to attempt. I'll leave you in Nang's capable hands. -Lon

No worries, Lon. I would honestly like to discuss more with you sometime. I was a devout Baptist. (Obviously adamant about the five Solas in that time). So I know both sides of the Reformation, as well. It was after I graduated college I converted to Catholicism. After having taken several theology classes, and read Systematic Theology (which I highly recommend). I took several discourses on theology. Granted, my degrees are in Biology and Chemistry (both BS degrees, a MS in Bio). I never doubt anyone's intellect or education. I always hope they are equal to my own, if not more educated than myself. I do think that some arguments, usually originating from bias or misunderstanding, are unintelligent or ignorant, by strictest definition. And whenever I label a claim or argument as such, I try to be clear in my denotation.

At times, I know I come across as arrogant, and for that I apologize. It is as you said, the burden of higher education and learning. But it is also impersonal communication, such as online conversations. Many times, I reread what I have said and think "that may have come across harshly." And for that (many times to many users) I express my apologies. If I have done so to you, I am sorry.

Best of wishes to you, Lon. And I hope to be able to converse with a fellow scholar again, if hopefully on a topic we agree.

God Bless.

 

[Lon]

At times, I know I come across as arrogant, and for that I apologize. It is as you said, the burden of higher education and learning. But it is also impersonal communication, such as online conversations. Many times, I reread what I have said and think "that may have come across harshly." And for that (many times to many users) I express my apologies. If I have done so to you, I am sorry.

Best of wishes to you, Lon. And I hope to be able to converse with a fellow scholar again, if hopefully on a topic we agree.

God Bless.

Thank you. I'm as frustrated at my own. Rather my frustration is toward the same in both of us. I am ever as arrogant. I normally give push for push but it is rarely necessary. We (I) just need to steer back to facts and discussion points. TOL doesn't foster that as well and so I have to keep trying to get back to it. Cults generally have me posturing. I never know how to 'silence' them as Paul calls us to do. As I look over my own posts, there is some of the same and so I apologize as well for the titt for tatt. We will have other times to discuss on TOL and I think we'll both be better for it. -Lon

 

[DAN P]

Hello Dan,

Here are my answers.

1) I am redeemed by Christ; and like the Apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear, trembling, and hopeful confidence (without a false assurance). John 3, James 2:24, 2 Cor 5:10, Rom 2:6, Rom 11:22.

2) I hope to go to Heaven. (There are a plethora of Bible verses on Heaven, even in Isaiah, Matthew, etc)

3) Greek for "Purgatory:" kathartirio.

4) There is "not one??" If this was an attempt at sarcasm, it seems to have failed.

5) "Pope" is Latin. The Greek is "papas."

Just because the Bible is written in Greek, and does not contain a word does not mean that word does not exist. Such logic would mean that "president" isn't found in Greek. Or even that George Washington was "president" (because of the excuse "it isn't in the Bible").

6) 2 Peter 3:16- It means that Paul writes the same message throughout his letters. Yet, people will alter the meanings, make false conclusions, or interpret them to their own likings. Due to ignorance or ill will. Thus leading to their own destruction. (It is kind of a straight forward verse).

Easy stuff here, Dan.

Hi and easy you say , SO explain how you were saved as Paul was the PATTERN in 1 Tim 1:16 or explain how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 !!

Then you are not saved IF you are hopping to get to Heaven Gal 3:28 is one proof as we ARE /SETE ( PRESENT TENSE , WHICH IS A CONTINUOUS ACTION ) in the dispensation of the MYSTERY !!

So show me a verse where PURGATORY and POPE is found in the bible ??

The Greek word TWIST means to TURN AWAY , TO TORTURE , PUT TO THE RACK , TO PERVERT and that is what people are doing today by DISMISSING MYSTERY in Rom 16:25 !!

dan p

 

[jsanford108]

Hi and easy you say , SO explain how you were saved as Paul was the PATTERN in 1 Tim 1:16 or explain how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 !!

Then you are not saved IF you are hopping to get to Heaven Gal 3:28 is one proof as we ARE /SETE ( PRESENT TENSE , WHICH IS A CONTINUOUS ACTION ) in the dispensation of the MYSTERY !!

So show me a verse where PURGATORY and POPE is found in the bible ??

The Greek word TWIST means to TURN AWAY , TO TORTURE , PUT TO THE RACK , TP PERVERT and that is what people are doing today by DISMISSING MYSTERY in Rom 16:25 !!

dan p

Hello Dan,

1 Tim 1:16 goes along with my statement. I am unsure what you are seeking from that point.

How does hope for heaven show a lack of anything? This also doesn't make sense. If you are making a argument in favor of "eternal assurance," then you overlook Paul himself saying he was not fit to judge even himself.

As for pope or purgatory being in the Bible, examine my first reply. If them not being in the Bible is "proof" they are made up, then George Washington is made up. He wasn't in the Bible. Also, this would be hypocritical, since Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura are also not in the Bible.

However, I will play along. "Pope" is Latin for "father." So the word "Father" appears multiple times, in the Bible. But you mean "Pope" in reference to the Head of the Church. In this case, I could only make a slight argument, but it would be proof for priests rather than the Pope. So I will concede on this point, while highlighting the hypocrisy.

Purgatory is found in the Bible. Granted, Luther removed it, because it went against his doctrines. It is found in 2 Maccabees 12:39-46. Purgatory also makes sense, when paired with the verses Matthew 5:24-25, 1 Peter 3:19, and 1 Corinthians 3: 11-15. Fire is used as means of purifying, according to Malachi 3:2-3, Matthew 3:11, and Mark 3:49. And what has been alluded to cannot be heaven, since sin must be consumed and burned up according to Revelation 21:27 and Hab 1:13. And it cannot be Hell due to souls being saved. So what is left?




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[DAN P]

Hello Dan,

1 Tim 1:16 goes along with my statement. I am unsure what you are seeking from that point.

How does hope for heaven show a lack of anything? This also doesn't make sense. If you are making a argument in favor of "eternal assurance," then you overlook Paul himself saying he was not fit to judge even himself.

As for pope or purgatory being in the Bible, examine my first reply. If them not being in the Bible is "proof" they are made up, then George Washington is made up. He wasn't in the Bible. Also, this would be hypocritical, since Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura are also not in the Bible.

However, I will play along. "Pope" is Latin for "father." So the word "Father" appears multiple times, in the Bible. But you mean "Pope" in reference to the Head of the Church. In this case, I could only make a slight argument, but it would be proof for priests rather than the Pope. So I will concede on this point, while highlighting the hypocrisy.

Purgatory is found in the Bible. Granted, Luther removed it, because it went against his doctrines. It is found in 2 Maccabees 12:39-46. Purgatory also makes sense, when paired with the verses Matthew 5:24-25, 1 Peter 3:19, and 1 Corinthians 3: 11-15. Fire is used as means of purifying, according to Malachi 3:2-3, Matthew 3:11, and Mark 3:49. And what has been alluded to cannot be heaven, since sin must be consumed and burned up according to Revelation 21:27 and Hab 1:13. And it cannot be Hell due to souls being saved. So what is left?




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hi and lets start with 1 Tim 1:16 and it reads , But for this reason I was given mercy , in order that in ME FIRST / PROTO Christ Jesus might show forth all longsuffering for A PATTERN of the ones coming TO BELIEVE on Him unto EVERLASTING LIFE !!

The Greek word for PATTERN / HYPOTYOSIS means PATTERN , FORM , OUTLINE , SUMMERY !!

The Pattern is Acts 9:6 , 1 Cor 12:3 and Rom 10:9 and Acts 16:14 and as Danoh syas IT'S A PATTERN !!

These verse explain salvation in the Gospel of the Mystery , in Rom 16:25 !!

Mant people have co-opted Judaism as there are no PRIESTS in the BODY OF CHRIST as Israel is the only ones to become priests as written in Rev 1:6 and GENTILES will NEVER become PRIESTS , EVER !!

If PURGATORY in a Greek word in the bible , give me that Greek word and where it is found in the bible !!

A POPE is no where found in the bible !!

dan p

 

[john w]

Make that 7 Solo's:

View attachment 25618


View attachment 25617

 

[Nihilo]

...Purgatory also makes sense...

Purgatory is no big deal. The Apostle says that, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." He says this in an epistle written "unto the church," and he's including himself in "we must all appear." There's no escaping the purifying penalties for "the things done in [our] body." This is all that Purgatory is, and it's no big deal.

 

[Nihilo]

...Nihilo can't be a practicing Catholic and accept the 5 Solas as true (especially since Sola Scriptura is anti-Catholic). Or Nihilo is ignorant of their faith. Or Nihilo is misleading for some other purpose. I do not know. I am one of the ones who thanked Nang for disagreeing with Nihilo, because Nang was right. I even mentioned it in a reply to Nang.

The Five Solas are all Catholic. There's nothing against the Catholic faith nor the Catholic Church in there. Nang mentioned particularly Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura as points of irreconcilable dispute, so let me examine them.

I'll take the latter first, Sola Scriptura, as it's the simplest. The Scripture testifies to the Catholic Church. Period. We can disagree about that, but you as a Catholic ought to agree with me, and so your objection here is incongruent and dissonant. And if the Scripture testifies to the Catholic Church, then it is an intellectual funnel that propels an honest Bible-believer to believe also in her.

And now for Sola Fide. We apparently differ in our personal interpretation of the infallible and authoritative teaching of the Holy Catholic faith by the papacy and by the college of bishops, together the Church's magisterium, who are at all times all the bishops who are in communion with the popes, and the popes themselves.

I don't believe that Christians commit mortal sins. Mortal sins, or fatal sins, are by infallible definition grave moral offenses, which are precisely defined themselves by the Church, done fully freely and voluntarily, "with full knowledge and deliberate consent," such that their guilt is fully and justly eternally imputed to the offender. Committing a grave moral offense objectively makes one a grave moral offender, but this in and of itself is not enough to prove that it was done completely deliberately, and utterly uncoercedly voluntarily, and so whether or not a grave moral offense constitutes a mortal sin for the offender, is not knowable to anyone but God, Who alone sees our heart.

Here are some of the conditions that "diminish," "attenuate," or "nullify" all together, the guilt otherwise deserved by the commission of a grave moral offense, such as murder or adultery, according to the Catholic Church's infallible teaching of the Christian faith :

"...ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors..."

"...Unintentional ignorance..."

"...The promptings of feelings and passions..."

"...external pressures or pathological disorders..."

"...destitution, blackmail, or social pressure..."

The presence of any of these, or conditions like them, according to the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church, and so therefore infallibly, render, for the Christian, an otherwise mortal sin venial, because it makes the immoral choice without "full knowledge and deliberate consent."

I cannot honestly confess, that I've ever committed any grave moral offense, where none of these conditions were present. I suspect strongly that this is the exact experience of every other Christian, so I conclude that Christians cannot commit mortal sin.

This is a personal interpretation of the infallible and objective teaching of the One (Eph4:5KJV) Holy Catholic faith. You're free to disagree, and perhaps even Pope Francis and all the bishops would disagree with me also, which, if so, I would take under advisement, but I maintain today that I'm taking the infallible, ex cathedra teaching of the Office of the Chair of St. Peter, digesting its lessons, and reading between those sacred infallible lines to arrive at my conclusion.

And so therefore, Sola Fide is specifically Catholic, and Sola Scriptura is not as you say "anti-Catholic" in anyway, not from where I'm standing.

 

[jsanford108]

The Five Solas are all Catholic. There's nothing against the Catholic faith nor the Catholic Church in there. Nang mentioned particularly Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura as points of irreconcilable dispute, so let me examine them.

I'll take the latter first, Sola Scriptura, as it's the simplest. The Scripture testifies to the Catholic Church. Period. We can disagree about that, but you as a Catholic ought to agree with me, and so your objection here is incongruent and dissonant. And if the Scripture testifies to the Catholic Church, then it is an intellectual funnel that propels an honest Bible-believer to believe also in her.

And now for Sola Fide. We apparently differ in our personal interpretation of the infallible and authoritative teaching of the Holy Catholic faith by the papacy and by the college of bishops, together the Church's magisterium, who are at all times all the bishops who are in communion with the popes, and the popes themselves.

I don't believe that Christians commit mortal sins. Mortal sins, or fatal sins, are by infallible definition grave moral offenses, which are precisely defined themselves by the Church, done fully freely and voluntarily, "with full knowledge and deliberate consent," such that their guilt is fully and justly eternally imputed to the offender. Committing a grave moral offense objectively makes one a grave moral offender, but this in and of itself is not enough to prove that it was done completely deliberately, and utterly uncoercedly voluntarily, and so whether or not a grave moral offense constitutes a mortal sin for the offender, is not knowable to anyone but God, Who sees our heart.


This is a personal interpretation of the infallible and objective teaching of the One (Eph4:5KJV) Holy Catholic faith. You're free to disagree, and perhaps even Pope Francis and all the bishops would disagree with me also, which, if so, I would take under advisement, but I maintain today that I'm taking the infallible, ex cathedra teaching of the Office of the Chair of St. Peter, digesting its lessons, and reading between those sacred infallible lines to arrive at my conclusion.

And so therefore, Sola Fide is specifically Catholic, and Sola Scriptura is not as you say "anti-Catholic" in anyway, not from where I'm standing.

Hello Nihilo,
You point out several things, so I highlighted those I will discuss.

The issue with Sola Scriptura is actually your understanding of what it entails. Protestants will agree with me here. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the highest authority on earth. This goes against the Catholic claim of Holy Mother Church having authority. Naturally, the Catholic can see that the authority claimed by the Church is found in Scriptures, but the Protestant says that there is no authority other than the Bible. Sola Scriptura is anti-catholic by declaration that the Church has no authority (which is hypocritical in itself, not denying that).

Now for Sola Fide. Sola Fide means "faith alone." This is in direct contradiction of the Scriptures (that actually happens a lot for those who hold to Sola Scriptura). The Scriptures point to faith+works. At no point does the bible say "faith alone saves." Or "salvation by faith alone." It does say "You see that man is justified by his works and not by faith alone." So to hold to Sola Fide is to hold to an idea that is contrary to Scripture.

Now for your point of "I don't believe that Christians commit mortal sins." This is simply wrong. As you defined mortal sins, you note that a person must have "full knowledge and deliberate consent." Is masturbation not a fully knowledgeable and deliberate act? Is it not sinful, on a mortal level? If you "know" it is, then it is a mortal sin. The same for adultery, murder, etc. Now, you can rush to the excuse of "the rush of feelings and passions," yet that is an excuse, is it not? You know it is sin, yet you turn to it. The prompting of feelings and passions does not abstain one from mortal sin, in the knowledge of the sin.

If you truly think that you have not committed any of these grave offenses, then ask a priest. Specifically, one who is conservative and devout. Examine the teachings of the Early Fathers, Saints, the Catechism, various papal articles, etc. You will see that you are incorrect on many of your assessments. I am not trying to scold you in any capacity, however I do think that you should research the issues a little more.

 

[Nihilo]

Hello Nihilo,
You point out several things, so I highlighted those I will discuss.

The issue with Sola Scriptura is actually your understanding of what it entails. Protestants will agree with me here. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the highest authority on earth. This goes against the Catholic claim of Holy Mother Church having authority. Naturally, the Catholic can see that the authority claimed by the Church is found in Scriptures, but the Protestant says that there is no authority other than the Bible. Sola Scriptura is anti-catholic by declaration that the Church has no authority (which is hypocritical in itself, not denying that).

You and many Protestants are simply incorrect that Sola Scriptura rules out the Office of St. Peter, the supreme pastorship of the Church. Scripture rather testifies to Peter and to his successors, as the true, Christ-chosen leader of His Church, His vicar. So properly understood, Sola Scriptura supports the authority of the Holy Catholic Church to teach infallibly in the matters of faith and morals. It is fully Catholic to earnestly search the scriptures, to invest completely in discerning what they teach, and to integrate both our lives and our confession, according to what we find in the Bible, and what we find in the Bible is Pope Francis.

Now for Sola Fide. Sola Fide means "faith alone." This is in direct contradiction of the Scriptures (that actually happens a lot for those who hold to Sola Scriptura). The Scriptures point to faith+works. At no point does the bible say "faith alone saves." Or "salvation by faith alone." It does say "You see that man is justified by his works and not by faith alone." So to hold to Sola Fide is to hold to an idea that is contrary to Scripture.

Coming from a Protestant background myself, I must be careful to not give Protestant arguments any unjust weight, and adhere to Sola Scriptura, so arguments for faith alone cannot be made explicitly from what the papacy teaches (though they are many), and so I am limited to the space provided, mercifully, between her infallible lines written by the Church in her infallible teaching on the matter.

Every single mass, the Church celebrates 1st Corinthians 15:3 (KJV), in remembrance of the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us (1Co15:3KJV). The Church reads from Paul every mass, and we hear what Paul has said, and we reason as Protestants do, that if one is crucified with Christ, one cannot become uncrucified. One cannot become un-baptized, these things are not possible, not if what Paul says is true, and it must be, since the Church reads him every mass. So, we Catholics search not the scriptures to learn deeply about a challenging topic, but the Catechism, to see if these things are true, and we learn that, between the lines, what the Protestants teach (and Paul) is true, and how the Catholic Church presents that same truth ("the lines"), is the infallible way in which the Lord Jesus Christ would have us learn this truth.

Now for your point of "I don't believe that Christians commit mortal sins." This is simply wrong. As you defined mortal sins, you note that a person must have "full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Correct. Not about me being wrong, but I did quote the Catechism in writing that, yes.

Is masturbation not a fully knowledgeable and deliberate act? Is it not sinful, on a mortal level? If you "know" it is, then it is a mortal sin. The same for adultery, murder, etc. Now, you can rush to the excuse of "the rush of feelings and passions," yet that is an excuse, is it not? You know it is sin, yet you turn to it. The prompting of feelings and passions does not abstain one from mortal sin, in the knowledge of the sin.

Your argument is with the Church. You're right to point out masturbation as a grave moral offense against God's law, but I maintain that I have never committed a grave moral offense without the presence of the things on that list, that I also quoted from the Catechism, so you're wrong to typify those things as "an excuse," unless you're accusing the Church of providing Christians with excuses to sin, which I do not believe that she does.

If you truly think that you have not committed any of these grave offenses, then ask a priest. Specifically, one who is conservative and devout. Examine the teachings of the Early Fathers, Saints, the Catechism, various papal articles, etc. You will see that you are incorrect on many of your assessments. I am not trying to scold you in any capacity, however I do think that you should research the issues a little more.

I have never denied committing grave moral offenses, never. I do, I have, and I expect I will continue to commit grave moral offenses, though through prayer and penance I also expect them to diminish, although that is not part of my Christian faith, not in this old body, but heaven surely is, and in heaven none of us will commit grave or light moral offenses of any kind, and I believe that's part of why Purgatory is necessary, because we will change ourselves, and we will be given the time we need to do that completely, so that we can fully enjoy heaven, and so that heaven radiates the full glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with His Church.

 

[jsanford108]

You and many Protestants are simply incorrect that Sola Scriptura rules out the Office of St. Peter, the supreme pastorship of the Church. Scripture rather testifies to Peter and to his successors, as the true, Christ-chosen leader of His Church, His vicar. So properly understood, Sola Scriptura supports the authority of the Holy Catholic Church to teach infallibly in the matters of faith and morals. It is fully Catholic to earnestly search the scriptures, to invest completely in discerning what they teach, and to integrate both our lives and our confession, according to what we find in the Bible, and what we find in the Bible is Pope Francis.
Coming from a Protestant background myself, I must be careful to not give Protestant arguments any unjust weight, and adhere to Sola Scriptura, so arguments for faith alone cannot be made explicitly from what the papacy teaches (though they are many), and so I am limited to the space provided, mercifully, between her infallible lines written by the Church in her infallible teaching on the matter.

Every single mass, the Church celebrates 1st Corinthians 15:3 (KJV), in remembrance of the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us (1Co15:3KJV). The Church reads from Paul every mass, and we hear what Paul has said, and we reason as Protestants do, that if one is crucified with Christ, one cannot become uncrucified. One cannot become un-baptized, these things are not possible, not if what Paul says is true, and it must be, since the Church reads him every mass. So, we Catholics search not the scriptures to learn deeply about a challenging topic, but the Catechism, to see if these things are true, and we learn that, between the lines, what the Protestants teach (and Paul) is true, and how the Catholic Church presents that same truth ("the lines"), is the infallible way in which the Lord Jesus Christ would have us learn this truth.
Correct. Not about me being wrong, but I did quote the Catechism in writing that, yes.
Your argument is with the Church. You're right to point out masturbation as a grave moral offense against God's law, but I maintain that I have never committed a grave moral offense without the presence of the things on that list, that I also quoted from the Catechism, so you're wrong to typify those things as "an excuse," unless you're accusing the Church of providing Christians with excuses to sin, which I do not believe that she does.
I have never denied committing grave moral offenses, never. I do, I have, and I expect I will continue to commit grave moral offenses, though through prayer and penance I also expect them to diminish, although that is not part of my Christian faith, not in this old body, but heaven surely is, and in heaven none of us will commit grave or light moral offenses of any kind, and I believe that's part of why Purgatory is necessary, because we will change ourselves, and we will be given the time we need to do that completely, so that we can fully enjoy heaven, and so that heaven radiates the full glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with His Church.

Okay brother,
I apologize if I misread that you said you had not committed a mortal sin, forgive me, the fault was my own.

As for the rest....

Would you mind supplying the references found in the catechism regarding mortal sins? I do believe you are inaccurate on the teachings of the Church on circumstances that mitigate a sin being mortal. I have searched it and cannot find the mitigating factors you mentioned.

I have stated that the Church is easily found and supported by Scripture. That is not my arguing point. I am in agreement with you on that. A true seeker of knowledge will find this. However, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself, while also contradicting the teachings of the Church.

Also, if you think I, and even Protestants, are wrong about our views on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, in particular being at odds with Catholicism, I would suggest looking up debates between James White and Father Mitch Pacwa on those subjects.

Peace be with you, brother.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nihilo]

Okay brother,
I apologize if I misread that you said you had not committed a mortal sin, forgive me, the fault was my own.

This is why I said, "Catholics search not the scriptures to learn deeply about a challenging topic, but the Catechism, to see if these things are true, and we learn that, between the lines, what the Protestants teach (and Paul) is true, and how the Catholic Church presents that same truth ("the lines"), is the infallible way in which the Lord Jesus Christ would have us learn this truth." My way is not infallible, and in this case I've been unable to clarify the distinction between a mortal sin, and grave moral error. The former requires the commission of the latter, but the latter can be committed, without it being the former.

BTW in saying "Catholics," I'm not excluding Protestants, but mean to include everybody who holds to the Catholic faith in a way that makes them rightly called Christians, those who "have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church," not just those Catholics in full communion with Rome, just for clarity. In this sense I mean all those who are baptized and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You yourself, by your admission as a devout Baptist, before you were received into the Church, were Catholic already, in this sense that I am meaning.

As for the rest....

Would you mind supplying the references found in the catechism regarding mortal sins? I do believe you are inaccurate on the teachings of the Church on circumstances that mitigate a sin being mortal. I have searched it and cannot find the mitigating factors you mentioned.

"Mitigating factors" are not words that the Church uses, specifically the words are "diminished," "attentuated," and "nullified," with regard to culpability and imputability of guilt, just for clarity and precision.

Any of those quotes I mentioned, if you search for the text strings, a search engine will produce the Catechism text that it comes from.

I have stated that the Church is easily found and supported by Scripture. That is not my arguing point. I am in agreement with you on that. A true seeker of knowledge will find this. However, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself, while also contradicting the teachings of the Church.

Like for instance Protestants would wish nothing more than that the Lord in Matthew 16:18 (KJV) said, "upon the Bible I will build My Church," or that the Scripture is "the pillar and ground of the truth," instead of, in both cases, the Church.*

(* I wrote this part wrong**; the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth 1Ti3:15KJV, not the Scripture, and the Lord built the Church upon Peter Mt16:18KJV, not the Scripture.

(** I again wrote it incorrectly; here is what I meant: Protestants who are not Catholic, in the sense in which I explained above in this post, believe such that they do practically agree with that Matthew 16:18 KJV reads "You are Peter [which because of this interpretation, becomes an incidental and unimportant and insignificant statement, because it's incoherent], and upon Sacred Scripture I will build My Church," and that 1st Timothy 3:15 KJV reads "Sacred Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth," because they chop at the tree's root as well as its trunk. And the tree welcomes us all, even in spite of this.))

I do agree, and have argued before, that Sola Scriptura leads to a contradiction, since the bottom line of the Scripture is the Church, and all that she entails, which is not what Protestants argue is meant by Sola Scriptura. The Scripture authorizes the Church's self-advertised teaching authority (1Ti3:15KJV), so in my mind, Sola Scriptura vouches for all the Catholic Church's teachings in the matters of faith and morals.

So if we believe Sola Scriptura, that the Scripture alone is the one valid teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, and the Scripture teaches that the Church is built upon Peter, and is herself the pillar and ground of truth, then Sola Scriptura is Catholic. And I believe in Sola Scriptura.

Also, if you think I, and even Protestants, are wrong about our views on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, in particular being at odds with Catholicism, I would suggest looking up debates between James White and Father Mitch Pacwa on those subjects.

Peace be with you, brother.

The Catholic Church has gone to great lengths (loosing, with "the keys" cf. Mt16:19KJV) to substantiate Protestant believers in Christ as true Christians, and members, however imperfectly united, of the One Body of Christ, who believes the One Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV). There's only so many logically possible ways for this to be so.

 

[Nihilo]

Understood properly, Holy Catholicism and the Five Solas are in agreement with each other. :idunno: Having held to both.

I am pleased you are familiar with the subject, but cannot see where the RCC and the Reformed hold the same views of the five beliefs.

How do you reconcile the differences . . especially the truths of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

...Nihilo here is saying he accepts/reconciles the 5 Solas. -Lon

Nang and Lon, I have addressed you in my recent postings to Jsanford, FYI.

 

[Nang]

Interesting discussion . . .

:carryon:

 

[Nihilo]

I'd suggest Nihilo believes in scripture alone as the only written source but you are correct, it isn't sola scriptura as we Protestants understand it.

Are you sure?

 

[Truster]

This is why I said, "Catholics search not the scriptures to learn deeply about a challenging topic, but the Catechism, to see if these things are true, and we learn that, between the lines, what the Protestants teach (and Paul) is true, and how the Catholic Church presents that same truth ("the lines"), is the infallible way in which the Lord Jesus Christ would have us learn this truth." My way is not infallible, and in this case I've been unable to clarify the distinction between a mortal sin, and grave moral error. The former requires the commission of the latter, but the latter can be committed, without it being the former.

BTW in saying "Catholics," I'm not excluding Protestants, but mean to include everybody who holds to the Catholic faith in a way that makes them rightly called Christians, those who "have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church," not just those Catholics in full communion with Rome, just for clarity. In this sense I mean all those who are baptized and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You yourself, by your admission as a devout Baptist, before you were received into the Church, were Catholic already, in this sense that I am meaning.
"Mitigating factors" are not words that the Church uses, specifically the words are "diminished," "attentuated," and "nullified," with regard to culpability and imputability of guilt, just for clarity and precision.

Any of those quotes I mentioned, if you search for the text strings, a search engine will produce the Catechism text that it comes from.
Like for instance Protestants would wish nothing more than that the Lord in Matthew 16:18 (KJV) said, "upon the Bible I will build My Church," or that the Scripture is "the pillar and ground of the truth," instead of, in both cases, the Church.*

(* I wrote this part wrong**; the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth 1Ti3:15KJV, not the Scripture, and the Lord built the Church upon Peter Mt16:18KJV, not the Scripture.

(** I again wrote it incorrectly; here is what I meant: Protestants who are not Catholic, in the sense in which I explained above in this post, believe such that they do practically agree with that Matthew 16:18 KJV reads "You are Peter [which because of this interpretation, becomes an incidental and unimportant and insignificant statement, because it's incoherent], and upon Sacred Scripture I will build My Church," and that 1st Timothy 3:15 KJV reads "Sacred Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth," because they chop at the tree's root as well as its trunk. And the tree welcomes us all, even in spite of this.))

I do agree, and have argued before, that Sola Scriptura leads to a contradiction, since the bottom line of the Scripture is the Church, and all that she entails, which is not what Protestants argue is meant by Sola Scriptura. The Scripture authorizes the Church's self-advertised teaching authority (1Ti3:15KJV), so in my mind, Sola Scriptura vouches for all the Catholic Church's teachings in the matters of faith and morals.

So if we believe Sola Scriptura, that the Scripture alone is the one valid teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, and the Scripture teaches that the Church is built upon Peter, and is herself the pillar and ground of truth, then Sola Scriptura is Catholic. And I believe in Sola Scriptura.
The Catholic Church has gone to great lengths (loosing, with "the keys" cf. Mt16:19KJV) to substantiate Protestant believers in Christ as true Christians, and members, however imperfectly united, of the One Body of Christ, who believes the One Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV). There's only so many logically possible ways for this to be so.

When you say "Catholics" do you mean Roman Catholics? If so please make it known. Catholic means universal and that refers to the redeemed.

 

[Nihilo]

When you say "Catholics" do you mean Roman Catholics? If so please make it known. Catholic means universal and that refers to the redeemed.

In this particular post I mean the following:

. . . in saying "Catholics," I'm not excluding Protestants, but mean to include everybody who holds to the Catholic faith in a way that makes them rightly called Christians, those who "have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church," not just those Catholics in full communion with Rome, just for clarity. In this sense I mean all those who are baptized and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You yourself, by your admission as a devout Baptist, before you were received into the Church, were Catholic already, in this sense that I am meaning.

The only thing I'd add to that, is that believing in the Lord Jesus begins with believing in His resurrection.