Both. The graphic is a stupid non-sequitur fallacy made by the blind that appeals to stupid people.
Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The new doctrines of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" are found nowhere in the Bible. In fact, scripture explicitly says that there are authoritative sources of information about God that are not in the Bible, and clearly states that one is justified by works as well as by faith. No point in denying it. This is why Luther lobbied so hard to have James removed from the Bible. It explicitly rejects his new doctrine of "faith alone."
Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 2:12 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
The Five solas:
The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged from the Protestant Reformation intended to summarize the Reformers' basic theological principles
- Sola Fide, by faith alone.
- Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
- Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
- Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
- Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.
Sorry, the "five solas" didn't even exist before Luther, and as you see, the first and second solas are, according to the Bible, false.
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Last edited:
The very existence of the Bible proves Sola Scriptura.
The very existence of Christ proves Sola Fide.
The Bible says otherwise.
Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The Bible says otherwise:
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Rock and a hard place. If you accept the Bible is true, then you can't consistently believe in the modern doctrines of "sola fide" and "sola scriptura."
Last edited:
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
lol, ok, you might be right bol. But Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing, ok? And there are tests for it, if you are interested. Have a good day bro
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
i dont quite get why being a baptized Catholic is not sufficient? Why pretend to a religion whose Book you have to alter to follow, if i may ask? I guess i could put that better, pls overlook my shortcomings there if you would
@Yehren , same question, if you would, with the same caveat? Ill try to edit the q to remove my perspective after i'm awake
Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency
The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.
In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.
The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!
This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).
What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned.
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).
Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian.
Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.
One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency
The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.
In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.
The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!
This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).
What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned.
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).
Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian.
Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.
One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
is it? I detect that it might be slanted, from a pov, but really how is it a fallacy? could you pls poke some holes in it for me? Bc i sure cant see it. ty
sticking a cross on top of a phallus does not change much irl, imo
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes an obelisk is just an obelisk.
It's time for a history lesson.
The Obelisk in the Piazza di San Pietro
The obelisks of the Piazza San Pietro, Piazza dell’ Esuilino, and the Piazza del Quirinale are all uninscribed. Their dates, provenances, and the reasons they were left uninscribed are not known…Neither Flinders Petrie, nor any other excavator working in the ruins of Heliopolis, has ever found an obelisk, or even a small fragment of an obelisk, that was uninscribed. The sovereigns of ancient Egypt were ever eager to decorate monuments with their own names and with phrases proclaiming their own glory, no matter what the size of the monument. The only undecorated obelisks in Egypt were unfinished ones abandoned in their quarries, and in fact one of these decoration was already in progress. More probably, the uninscribed obelisks were quarried in Egypt by the Roman emperors expressly to be taken to Rome, although it is possible that they were left incomplete because of the untimely death of the pharaoh.
The Obelisk in the Piazza di San Pietro is important chiefly by its surroundings… It is made of red granite and stands 25.37 meters high. It was erected in the Julian Forum in Alexandria by order of Augustus and remained their until 37 A.D. when the Emperor Caligula ordered the forum demolished and the obelisk transferred to Rome. It was then erected in the Vatican Circus, and there it remained until its removal to the square before the Basilica of St. Peter (1586).In the Vatican Circus innumerable Christians, including St. Peter, were martyred in it's presence. That is the reason this obelisk was not later overturned as were all the others in Rome.
Pope Sixtus V appointed engineer Domenico Fontana to move the obelisk from the Vatican Circus…
April 28, 1586, Fontana and his men attended Mass at 2:AM, and later offered public prayers for the success of this feat….
Dedication ceremonies, Mass, and a procession with the entire papal court went to the obelisk. More prayers were offered and the obelisk was purified, and surmounted with a cross.
Source: By former Chief Inspector of Antiquities, an Egyptian archeologist who has published several books on Egyptology, as well as many articles in many journals.
Obelisks of the World, by Labib Habachi, Scribner’s Sons, 1974, page 74-75
*On the top of this Christianized pagan symbol, is a cross. Inside this cross, is a relic of the true cross. The obelisk at the Vatican stood in the presence of hundreds of the earliest Christian martyrs. The obelisk is a monument to them, not to the beliefs of its makers who killed them… To accuse Catholicism of paganism because of a monument to our roots is an insult to the deaths of the martyrs who refused to pay homage to Roman gods.
Sure, the obelisk at the Vatican has a lot to do with Roman paganism. It’s defeat by the blood of the martyrs and the spreading of God’s love.
Last edited:
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
yeh; and sometimes a principality beholden to no one x3 requires no other sussing, imo. we'll see what epostle can poke holes in, maybe...
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
oh jesus, lol
ok ty
yes, ok, and a rebel flag is a monument to anarchists everywhere, i guess. perspective is everything, huh.
i mean no offense, but this hardly addresses the central realities described in the meme imo; the RCC is in league with two others and makes a trinity, whether you acknowledge that or not. Not saying they are completely evil, i love the current pope myself, but the relationship is crystal clear imo, and most Catholics are simply in denial, as with the manip of Scripture wadr.
i might suggest a Catholic-only section here or something, being as how your Catholic forums are in such tatters, no offense.
narf, mouthful there eh.
how do you even look in a mirror, i have to wonder
sorry, i know this is unkind, but jesus already.
"open grave"
Last edited:
Pope Sixtus V was the fellow who moved it there. He also wanted to find all the other obelisks in Rome and make sure they were standing upright.
If we think that's a phallic symbol, what do we make of his ideas about sex? He was homophobic, but he also seemed afraid of women. He's the guy that forbid women singing so they introduced castrated boys to sing the high parts. I think maybe he was "conflicted" on the subject of sex.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
ok
i mean no disrespect here ok, but you say these things, they just roll off your tongue, like they are acceptable somehow? "masses" at 2am dont bother you any? "Christianized pagan symbol?"
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
i am surrounded by lapsed Catholics...seems a great Organization to be "from," if you get me...
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Your failure to grasp the conquering symbolism of the cross of Christ being placed atop a powerful symbol of paganism is par for the course here on this forum. You fail to understand MUCH of what is discussed here . . .
This symbol is akin to a conquering army placing their flag over the capitol of their enemy.
Christ’s victory over paganism.
NOT that difficult to understand, sparky . . .
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
i understand that that is the perspective of many on the inside, bol, and i can even respect that, as far as it goes. But wadr we deem this "stockholm syndrome" now, essentially; making excuses for the lions, iow. Evabody hates America, and evabody dying to get in, like that. Its hypocrisy bro. It is not Scriptural.
Similar threads
