tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116854293892905698..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Holofamily valuesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168722679609352822007-01-13T16:11:00.000-05:002007-01-13T16:11:00.000-05:00Haven't you heard it? A very common Catholic/ Orth...Haven't you heard it? A very common Catholic/ Orthodox objection to <I>Sola Scriptura</I> is that it's self-refuting and un-Biblical. Self-refuting because RCs/EOs misunderstand it to mean that only doctrines explicitly stated in Scripture are binding; at no point does Scripture explicitly state that "only doctrines explicitly stated in Scripture are binding"; ergo it's self-contradictory. However, what Protestants actually believe is that doctrines that can be "deduced" or "proved" from Scripture are also binding, even if they're only implicit. <I>Sola Scriptura</I> certainly can be proved from Scripture in this manner, so it doesn't refute itself.<BR/><BR/>The "only if explicitly stated" red herring is as off-target as if someone tried to refute Papal Infallibility by pointing to personal flaws of individual Popes. Off-target, because Catholics themselves acknowledge those flaws but then go on to say that they don't invalidate an infallible <I>ex cathedra</I> pronouncement on faith and morals. (Actually, the way the RC doctrine of Papal Infallibility is stated, there's almost no way that any contrary evidence could falsify it: for example, if Pope Pius XX says "Condoms are intrinisically evil, because they block too many sperm from getting through" while Pope Pius XXV says "Condoms are intrinisically evil, because they do not block enough HIV virus cells from getting through", the pronouncement remains binding even if the reasons for it have undergone nearly a 180-degree shift. Heads they win, tails we lose.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168625669061982822007-01-12T13:14:00.000-05:002007-01-12T13:14:00.000-05:00Anonymous,I've never had a Catholic object that wa...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I've never had a Catholic object that way to me. Of course, that is a bare assertion and not an argument.<BR/><BR/>I have heard the "you're not united, therefore you must be wrong" argument repeatedly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168625630797299372007-01-12T13:13:00.000-05:002007-01-12T13:13:00.000-05:00Anonymous,I've never had a Catholic object that wa...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I've never had a Catholic object that way to me. Of course, that is a bare assertion and not an argument.<BR/><BR/>I have heard the "you're not united, therefore you must be wrong" argument repeatedly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168576465045748162007-01-11T23:34:00.000-05:002007-01-11T23:34:00.000-05:00The primary Catholic objection is that it's un-bib...The primary Catholic objection is that it's un-biblical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168549024940162592007-01-11T15:57:00.000-05:002007-01-11T15:57:00.000-05:00HH, the primary objection Catholics us is "that Pr...HH, the primary objection Catholics us is "that Protestants can't agree with other Protestants" not that Protestants disagree with Catholics.<BR/><BR/>You show by your objection to Steve's comments that you've never been in discussions between Protestants & Catholics before....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168544573875150322007-01-11T14:42:00.000-05:002007-01-11T14:42:00.000-05:00The opening lines of this blog made me laugh so ha...The opening lines of this blog made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair:<BR/><BR/><I>"The primary Catholic objection to the Protestant rule of faith (sola Scriptura) is that we can’t agree with each other.<BR/><BR/>"There are several problems with this objection, but let’s focus on two in particular."</I><BR/><BR/>It's like a conversation that goes like this:<BR/><BR/>Catholic: We object to the Protestant rule of faith because we can't agree with each other.<BR/><BR/>Steve: I disagree, and here's why...<BR/><BR/>It doesn't get any better than this!<BR/><BR/>HHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com