We need to start with what this thing you call a "blog" is anyway. For that matter we need to settle what "is" is. And what is "language" by the way?
So, Dave, how exactly would a Protestant go about "backing something up from the Bible"? You're going to paint us all as living at various points on a spectrum of ungrounded, autonomous private judgment and yourself as merely submitting to something that Jesus set up outside of the individual, so what's the point in us appealing to Scripture? See the dilemma?
One goes about it basically the same way, whether Catholic or Protestant: the way systematic theology and biblical commentary is done.
The difference is that we have a final appeal (infallible Church and infallible apostolic tradition), whereas you don't, because those things have been ruled out. You have denominational final appeal but no one can determine who is right and wrong on a denominational level, when sects contradict each other. Luther vs. Calvin. Luther vs. Zwingli. Gnesio-Lutherans vs. Melanchthonians. Arminians vs. Calvinists. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli vs. the Anabaptists. Innumerable internal Calvinist splits, that you yourself have decried in recent days. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The Catholic simply says, "the Church teaches thus-and-so, and always has. That settles it." Likewise, the fathers argued this way, after they did their scriptural arguments. We follow their method, whereas y'all have gone off on a new path, post 16th century, with the new rule of faith of sola Scriptura.
I wouldn't say it was a "dilemma" so much as it is incomplete and skeletal. You can arrive at a great deal of truth by sola Scriptura because the Bible is truth. But when you guys get something wrong, you have no way of correcting the error of even knowing that it is wrong, and have to adopt theological pluralism and tolerance of contradiction. This is not good. The devil is the father of lies. Where contradiction is, that is not the Spirit of Truth.
Evidence is a wonderful word. It places me, the reader, as the judge in a court of law. I get to evaluate the evidence as presented for the arguement. I may judge that the evidence is incontravertable and catholics must be right. I may judge the evidence to be weak or misinterpreted and catholics are wrong, but evidence it is. Dave is quoting the bible. If he were simply spouting his mouth based on what was in his head he would have to call the book, "My Opinions".
Well, that certainly clears it up.
Dave...good explanation.
It's not like Catholics sit around arguing about what Baptism means....it has already been decided.
How many heresies have come out of not accepting that which was passed down?
How many heresies have come out of not accepting that which was passed down?
Just about every one!
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
