I'm not a Catholic, but I hear many Christians say Catholics (most, not all, depending on their specific beliefs) are not really Christian, and that they go to hell. I really don't have a big opinion on the matter though.
Any opinions on this?
yeah... no more polemical screeds coming from off the top of my head...
In the spirit of dialogue... not debate... :)
Just so long as you:
1. Post links "explaining the difference between Bible-based Christianity" and the Catechism (by whatever name) for all other organized Christian faiths whose dogma is not specifically cited in the Bible.
2. Specify which particular edition of the Bible is cited. I ask simply because I have three differnt versions of the Bible, and I know there are others.
How about I start a new discussion for each of the other organized Christian faiths whose dogma is not specifically cited in the Bible... since this thread is about Catholicism...?
That might be interesting, but since that will mean *most* of them. You should also start a thread on why bible only is specifically valid, as well..
Good point... good place to begin would be a Sola Scriptura discussion...
If someone out there wants to create a new discussion on that... I'd be game...
I am there.
The reasons that Catholics reject the notion of sola scriptura can be summarized into four main categories. Sola scriptura is (A) circular reasoning, (B) unhistorical, (C) unbiblical (ironically!), and (D) unworkable. All of these can be explored in great depth.
Woul you care to elaborate on how sola scrptura is unbilical (without, please, merely referring to man-made dogma from the church
Also, how is it circular reasoning? Holding the inspired Word of God as the last word on doctrinal matters can hardly be 'circular'. Essentially, if doctrine or dogma can be shown from Scripture to be un-biblical is that not where the circle ends?
And I suppose I must ask how it is unworkable. I have found relying on Scripture to be very practical including in terms of modern day issues, so how is it 'unworkable'?
I believe the reason that most Catholics do not exhibit faith in the Scriptural authority is because they have been taught from their youth up to rely solely on the judgments of a human Pope and the doctrines, tradtions and dogma of the church. As a case in point, I remember having a discussion with a Catholic woman when the change was made to say the Mass in English rather than in Latin. She was quite upset because, as she told me: When the priest used to say the Mass in Latin I did not understand what he was talking about but I didn't expect to. Now that it is said in English I still have no idea what it is all about.
This reminds me of the Pharisees to whom Jesus said: You make the word of God invalid because of your traditions. And again, as was mentioned above, the Lord said: Sanctify them by means of truth; your word is truth.
Circular because without tradition, you only have the bible telling you it is the inspired word of god...
What's in the bible is correct. Why? Because it is the inspired Word of God. How do you know? Because the bible says so. And how do you know what the bible says is correct? Because the bible is the inspired word of god...etc.
A document (or collection of documents collected and edited over time) cannot verify itself. Not without sacrificing some strength of the argument.
The Holy Scriptures are the only document we have answering the questions Who God is, what are his ways, why has he allowed wickedness to continue, what hope there is for mankind's future and where are the dead. The Bible's standards of conduct and morality are lofty and have stood the test of centuries, whereas the watering down by worldly philosophers and secular humanists have left men without guidance, confused and without hope. The Bible contains numerous prophecies, unlike those of fallible men, that have been fulfilled, some ongoing in our own day. It remains one consistent, reliable authority without contradiction. It is often meticulously detailed in its recorded accounts and, where it touches on historical or scientific matters has always proven to be true.
The addition of other fallible human witnesses, often with conflicting philosophies, has done nothing to add to Biblical authority. Unlike other, so-called 'inspired' writings it has withstood the test of time when examined honestly and with an open mind. It's answers to the questions of who man is and what the future holds and how it all got this way are noble and satisfying today, as in days past, without other so-called scholars and church 'fathers' attempting to provides answers other than or in contradiction with what the inspired world declares. No recorded word has ever has the world-changing effects that the Bible accounts have provided, even in this world of watered down gospels of convenience. It stand up to critical examination because it works in everyday life as well as in its historical context.
It remains one consistent, reliable authority without contradiction.
You take exception at that? Would you care to offer an example to show otherwise?