Geraldfff, thank you. I love this humility! It is a sign of Christ’s work in your life. God bless you! Please continue you in your evangelism. I am sure you have done a lot of good in your day. Just remember what the Scripture teaches. We must always preach the truth in love. I have no doubt you will do so. Talk to ya later Brother.
But why do they reject the groups I mentioned? Those groups base their doctrines on Scripture and reject Protestantism. Where do Protestants get the authority to say those groups are wrong and they are correct?
I can’t believe you need me to specify where the Jews of Jesus’ day went wrong. It was them that accused Him of blasphemy, it was the Jews that had Him crucified, it was the Jewish authorities that Jesus clashed with often and accused them of not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. You are right that there was a faithful remnant, but that doesn’t help your argument, because the OT church that was given the Scriptures and I would assume the “correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God” based on your argument above was wrong. How do you explain this?SolaScriptura:
Please specify where the Jews of Jesus’s day went wrong? Were there any Jews that held the true interpretation of Scripture? A faithful remnant?
Neither side thinks they are disagreeing with the Magisterium, but they disagree on what the Magisterium is teaching and they disagree over what Tradition teaches. But the key question is why is there so much disagreement and why has there always been such disagreement if things are as you say, that is the church was given this correct interpretation?
My point is these heretics started off in the church so why didn’t this interpretation guide prevent it? Also the refutation of the heresy didn’t come easily and simple in most cases but after much deliberation. In the case of Athanasius and the nature of Christ most of the church sided with the Arians. So once again if the church was given this interpretational guide that Sola Scriptura lacks how is this possible? Also you have those who clearly deny modern day Roman Catholic dogma. Did they not know about this interpretation? The Eastern Church disagrees with Rome on a number of significant issues are they ignoring this interpretation guide that was given?
First the ordinary teaching Magisterium is not so easy to define in practice. However, Catholics disagree on whether Vatican II is infallible. Some conservative Catholics in good standing(i.e. Adam Kolanski ) would arue no. Are the Scriptures infallible in every aspect? The late Fr. Raymond Brown who was twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission by two different pope and Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer who is considered one of Roman Catholicism’s greatest NT scholar would say no. Now these gentlemen are aware of the official teachings and were considered in good standing. You have Catholics that endorse evolution. There are different schools on predestination(i.e. Thomistic, Molinist, et als ), Catholics disagree on when Pope’s have spoken infallibly. The list goes on and on.
The ECF believed in apostolic succession, but not all believed in it as the modern day Catholics do. Some made the argument that the test for apostolic succession was based on being faithful to the teaching of the Apostles and not just in direct lineage of the Apostles. Remember the Jews of Jesus’ days made the same argument as Catholics about having a unbroken line going back to Abraham and Moses and in the end that didn’t mean much.
So a few questions. Are you saying the apostolic succession and prayers for the dead have no basis in Scripture, but came down through oral apostolic tradition? If so, then this goes against the material sufficiency of Scripture. Second, the issue is not that you can find support for some of Rome’s claim, but with Tradition being part of your rule of faith why can’t you find unanimous consent for all of them? For example, Papal Infallibility and Marian Dogmas (i.e. Bodily Assumption, Immaculate Conception)?
Yeah, and if you read carefully, especially in Ott he is making the point that there are different views in Catholicism. He mentions the Thomists, the Augustinians, the Scotists, and also the Molinists which is exactly my point. The material sufficiency and insufficiency of Scripture debate wages today amongst Catholics. So once again I pose the question why hasn’t the Magisterium resolved these issues?SolaScriptura:
.
Did you read the canons of the Council of Orange and the decrees of predestination in the Council of Trent? Also read the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. Regarding the Scripture, I think the Catechism and general teaching of the Catholic Church is clear. Its Scripture and Tradition, not Sola Scriptura.
Yes, but it doesn’t really matter if Elders were included as long as the inspired Apostles validated the ruling then it is infallible. Unless your church has inspired members then the appeal to that council doesn’t work. Also, it doesn’t help you that the Apostle Paul consulted with the other Apostles. You are once again trying to pull a bait and switch. You were supposed to be justifying for me how the Scriptures can only be interpreted correctly God -given context of Tradition and Magisterium( Roman Catholic teaching authority).
There maybe some, but the majority is against. This is easily proven that few automatically submitted to Rome as modern day Catholics do. As a matter of fact the entire East is the 2,000 pound elephant sitting in the room that speaks out against Papal Infallibility being an apostolic tradition. Finally, the greatest father from the West, St Augustine, clearly denies this doctrine. So in the end you claim about sola Scriptura needing the interpretational context given doesn’t seem to make the case when we look at history.
I can give you three reasons:
And you don’t see the [SIGN]glaring double standard[/SIGN] here?SolaScriptura:
I can give you three reasons:
You can tell your kids not to smoke or do drugs or to have sex before marriage, but in the end, they will do whatever their free will and consciences allow them to do.
- Sin
- Satan
- The World
And regarding “Athanasius contra mundi”, we know who won in the end, don’t we?
When there is disagreement in Protestantism it is because of sola Scriptura, but when the same kinds of disagreements are pointed out using your rule of faith it is because 1. Sin, 2. Stan, and 3. the world. As if Protestants don’t have those same problems. I guess if we are consistent we must say the Catholic rule of faith is untenable and unworkable as all the heresies, denominations, and different beliefs grew out from it. 
Elsewhere, your misunderstanding of “unanimous consent” has been addressed. Once you have read the material presented, I think we will have heard the end of this favorite straw man.
Maybe you have me confused with someone else. First of all, I haven’t presented my understanding of “unanimous consent”, but instead I only used the phrase. It usage was to be interpreted based on your understanding of it. You might be surprised by my understanding of the phrase.
Actually if there are biblical basis for them then that doesn’t help your position, because that would fit with sola Scriptura. We were discussing the interpreational guide outside of the Scriptures that we poor Protestants need. Also picking a few fathers that agree with you don’t prove the points, because there are fathers that disagree with you also and that doesn’t prove anything.
OK, explain it easy to me and also explain to me why so many of the ECF didn’t accept it? Oh, I get it, the grace of God was not giving to them, but it was saved for 1,000 of wannabe Catholic internet apologists.
And you can boldly and confidently assert such things until the cows come home, but lacking an argument don’t expect to sway any rational thinking person.
There is no double standard. The Protestant Reformers were affected by these three things and fell into rebellion against the True Church. This still happens even today - both in Catholics who leave the Church and in those that stick around but deny Church teaching. We call them “Cafeteria Catholics” because they pick and choose what they want to believe from the Catechism.And you don’t see the [sign]glaring double standard[/sign] here?
Funny that you say that. Because I’ve scanned my Bible feverishly and I can’t find the Assumption of Mary or purgatory anywhere. I can’t find a “blessed heart” anywhere either.
Guess I need those seven extra “books”? 
Most rational thinking persons who also claim Christ as their role-model and friend refrain from taking such shots as you.
Of course there is. The splits and heresies that sprung forth from the church before the Reformation has nothing to do with the rule of faith, but the splits and heresies in Protestantism means the the rule of faith is unworkable and untenable. If you can’t see the double standard in that argument then I don’t know what else to say
Not true. It is not more fully developed to go from the Pope is not infallible to the Pope is infallible. It is not more fully developed to go from Mary committed sin to Mary never committed sin. All you are doing is barking the Catholic talking points.
And what does this have to do with the discussion? So my response is, “so what?”
Part of the problem is that you are comparing numerous denomonations( i.e. all Protestants ) against one(i.e. Catholicism). In other words you are stack the deck in your favor. However, if we take everyone before the Reformation and put them in your camp we quickly see the variegated teaching there also. Oh, in case you didn’t know, Augustine is more inline with the Reformation view of real presence than the Catholic view. But of course he is just “not quite right” again
This again is the classic double standard that is lodged in your eye, but you can’t see it. If there is a deviation from the Catholic position after the Reformation it is because of sola Scriptura. Therefore, one must also wonder since you all claim sola Scriptura did not exist before the Reformation what caused all the deviations? Oh, I remember 1) Sin, 2) Devil, and the 3) World.
Actually based on all the stuff I read on this board by wannabe internet apologists using their own private interpretations then I would say the jokes on you.
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. I read your usage of this phrase in multiple threads.
John 6…is the bread and wine actually the body and blood of Jesus or not? The Bread of Life discourse provides the basis for the Church’s understanding of the sacrament. Most Protestants deny the Real Presence. Thus, the same verses provide them little more than the command to perform a quaint memorial service a few times a year. I could write all day on examples like this. Thus, an “interpretational guide” outside of scripture is VITAL. And the fact that a few fathers did not “get it” on each and every doctrine does not invalidate the Church’s final position on a matter. Debate is a reasonable part of the discernment process until the matter is decided by Rome. Disagreement after that is heresy, schism or apostasy. Pick your poison.
Your question implies that some did. Your misunderstanding of the “development of understanding” seems to be the missing link for you. You view the Bible as a book of systematic theology or Catechism. It is not that. As for those of us who are “Internet Apologists” well, to quote Pascal, “If [we] have see farther than others, it is because [we are] standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Oh, well, like I should be swayed by your vastly superior arguments over and above those of the Church and the Bishops who are heirs to the Apostles themselves and to whom Jesus said, “he who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16)?
I’m assuming when you say the “Church wrote the Scriptures” you mean the Apostles and their acquaintances. Why would I rationalize this way? I embrace and defend it.SolaScriptura:
Actually, no, it does not fit with sola Scriptura at all. The Church wrote the Scriptures. You seem to either overlook this, or rationalize it away, as you do in your very last statement below.
You know I like that quote very much and so did the Reformers, which is why they challenge the institutions of their times even though everyone was doing it. We can always be sure that God is right and therefore His word is to be followed before all else. Hopefully, you will pay heed to that above the teaching of fallible men.SolaScriptura:
Again, you are a bit off track. St. Augustine is greatly revered not only as a Saint and a Doctor of the Church, but as one of the greater intellects of the Church. And he got a few things, let’s just say ‘not quite right.’ Predestination, anyone? One of my favorite quotes of his: “Right is right, even if noone is doing it. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.” Pay heed. I do not always succeed.
I’m sorry, but I’m not following you here.SolaScriptura:
You can hardly include yourself in your last statement below with this last statement, can you?
Proverbs 26:5SolaScriptura:
Most rational thinking persons who also claim Christ as their role-model and friend refrain from taking such shots as you.
Let me try a different approach. We have a Pope and we have a body of teaching that has developed over 2,000 years. Some people agree that the Pope is the head of the Church and they agree with all of the Church’s teaching. Some may not necessarily agree or understand, but they still recognize that the Pope is the head of the Church and they submit while continuing to pray for understanding.Of course there is. The splits and heresies that sprung forth from the church before the Reformation has nothing to do with the rule of faith, but the splits and heresies in Protestantism means the the rule of faith is unworkable and untenable. If you can’t see the double standard in that argument then I don’t know what else to say
Rubbish. The objective fact that the Pope is infallible was TRULY there all along even if it took awhile for everyone or even anyone to see it. There may be a baby in your wife’s womb, but you may not see it or know it at first.
Well, if the doctrines weren’t INVENTED by men, then they must have been contained within the Deposit of Faith from the beginning and thus they are from God.
No, the incoherence of Protestantism stacks the deck against you and gives me the advantage. That and the fact that my “Catholic Talking Points” are rock solid truth.
Amusing. Perhaps the problem really is that there is no double-standard, but you claim to see one where none exists. :tsktsk:This again is the classic double standard that is lodged in your eye, but you can’t see it. If there is a deviation from the Catholic position after the Reformation it is because of sola Scriptura. Therefore, one must also wonder since you all claim sola Scriptura did not exist before the Reformation what caused all the deviations? Oh, I remember 1) Sin, 2) Devil, and the 3) World.
Wait a second, I thought all we were doing is reiterating “Catholic Talking Points”…now you say we’re all using our own private interpretations. Which is it, Sola? :dancing:
touche
Another charitable response by someone who has run out of real answers.
Of course the problem is the early church did not accept your flawed premise that everyone had to submit to the Pope. They didn’t accept Papal Infallibility so everything else you said is doesn’t follow.
LOL!!! This is the kind of stuff that you guys think is convincing. “Papal Infallibility was TRULY there all along even if it took awhile for everyone or even anyone to see it.” Papal Infallibility was clearly always the teaching of the church even though no one seen it for many many years. And even though some still do not see it, it is there. Can’t refute that kind of nonsensical argument.
My point was not that they were not invented, but instead they were not invented OVERNIGHT as you put forward. However, if they were contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning show me in each century where someone mentioned or used Papal Inallibility, especially in the case of disagreement. You Catholics talk a good game, but when one asks facts things suddenly change. Anyone reading will see you do the same thing now that I have asked for real evidence.
Oh brother, nothing one can say against this kind of argument by assertion, except where is the argument?
Another devastating argument by assertion, with no argument. You are tough
Both. You use talking points, but when you have to defend them then you resort to private interpretations. Try to keep up.