An Unrealisitc Request about Jesus and Paul

[TriuneUnity]

The Catholic answer to that is simply, “Ask the church!” If that ‘someone’ is teaching a dogma based on tradition, ask the church whether the dogma is right. The church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth, knows the tradition better than anyone else!

“This car is a beauty! Trust me!” is not a basis I wish to cling to for the comfort of my soul on issues of doctrine.

 

[ralphinal]

“This car is a beauty! Trust me!” is not a basis I wish to cling to for the comfort of my soul on issues of doctrine.

Ah, but if the company that made the car certifies it, it is different.

 

[Radical]

Had Jesus not intended the Church to be eternal and the rule of Faith, he would have said so.

or, Had Jesus not intended the scriptures to be eternal and the rule of Faith, he would have said so.

How can you tell if it was there from the beginning? Look at the early writings for one. Look at the CHurches in union with Rome and the EO. Almost all of the Protestant points are there: prayer for the dead, praying to saints, Mary as intercessor, all seven sacrements…You go back far enough, and you see that they date from the Second and First Centuries.

I think you are too optimistic about these matters. For example, apart from her giving birth to Christ, I don’t see much about Mary in either the NT or the Apostolic Fathers, so why should I believe that Mariology was there from the beginning? Perhaps this is better dealt with in a different thread.

If these Churches have these, then logically they learned them from the same sourse.

both gnosticism and arianism were early and widespread. These qualities do not require a matter to be of apostolic origin.

The only conclusion that a resonable person can make is that they were part of the Apostolic Church.

Back to the example of Mariology, those beliefs are not found in the new testament (unless one reads volumes between the lines) and are not in the Apostolic Fathers, so wouldn’t that same reasonable person conclude that they developed after the apostles departed?

 

[Radical]

In which case any and all denominations not teaching the Real Presence are in trouble. Right?

No. (But thanks for asking). Personally, I agree with Agustine’s assessment of John 6 when he states:

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” (Book 3, Chap 16 of On Christian Doctrine)

Why would teaching error not be a victory for the devil?

Or why wouldn’t having a very sinful man who is unqualified to be an overseer appointed to be the bishop of Rome also not be a victory for the devil? In both cases it may be a battle lost for the church, but Jesus will ensure that we win the war.

I did not see the examples, please point them out to me. SOrry.

My last post yesterday, paragraphs 2 and 3.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ah, but if the company that made the car certifies it, it is different.

Unfortunately I don’t see anything about Jesus certifying any of the bishops at the Council of Trent unlike…you know, other things, like the writings of the prophets and apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Wait a minute.

What if Jesus was silent concerning the Solas but Paul did teach them? Then Jesus and Paul do not contradict.

St. Paul did not convert until after Christ’s ascension into Heaven. If he did not read it in the Bible (sola Scriptura) then this means that sola Scriptura is false.

Therefore, if the five Solas (or anything else taught by St. Paul) are not found in a book that St. Paul could have read during his own lifetime, then that’s one Sola down.

Jesus also most definitely never taught “faith alone” since everything in red letters is either “do this” or “don’t do that.” In fact, He specifically condemns lip-service (which is basically what “faith alone” amounts to), in many places.

 

[ralphinal]

Unfortunately I don’t see anything about Jesus certifying any of the bishops at the Council of Trent unlike…you know, other things, like the writings of the prophets and apostles.

Well, that is because he had alread delegated the Holy Spirit to do it.

On a lark, show me where the Bible says “Because Dr. Martin Luther would have it so” and we can talk.

 

[ralphinal]

St. Paul did not convert until after Christ’s ascension into Heaven. If he did not read it in the Bible (sola Scriptura) then this means that sola Scriptura is false.

Therefore, if the five Solas (or anything else taught by St. Paul) are not found in a book that St. Paul could have read during his own lifetime, then that’s one Sola down.

Jesus also most definitely never taught “faith alone” since everything in red letters is either “do this” or “don’t do that.” In fact, He specifically condemns lip-service (which is basically what “faith alone” amounts to), in many places.

I should have had you posted this first. This is my point.

 

[jmcrae]

Unfortunately I don’t see anything about Jesus certifying any of the bishops at the Council of Trent unlike…you know, other things, like the writings of the prophets and apostles.

The Bishops of Trent received their authority in the same way that the Prophets of old received theirs - by the laying on of hands and anointing with oil from someone who already had the authority that he was passing on to them.

The Apostles ordained the Early Fathers (the first Catholic Bishops). The Fathers in turn ordained others, who in turn ordained others, on down in an unbroken line all the way until now - this very moment. This chain of authority passes through (and includes) the Bishops of Trent. Therefore, they had lawful Apostolic authority - an authority that Martin Luther and his fellow Reformers gave up (or never had, to begin with, being, as they were, lay people) when they rebelled against the Church and started up their own independent religions.

 

[With_Questions]

St. Paul did not convert until after Christ’s ascension into Heaven. If he did not read it in the Bible (sola Scriptura) then this means that sola Scriptura is false.

Therefore, if the five Solas (or anything else taught by St. Paul) are not found in a book that St. Paul could have read during his own lifetime, then that’s one Sola down.

Jesus also most definitely never taught “faith alone” since everything in red letters is either “do this” or “don’t do that.” In fact, He specifically condemns lip-service (which is basically what “faith alone” amounts to), in many places.

Again, you are starting from the title and working backwards.

As I said, Galatians 1:12 indicates that everything Paul received, He received directly from the risen Christ.

Now unless your definition of Sola Scriptura negates the possibility of an apostle directly receiving his teaching from Jesus Christ, you are knocking down a strawman.

Same for Sola Fide. Unless your definition of Sola Fide allows for “lip service”, you are knocking down a strawman.

Hey, if you want to really knock down Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, I am all ears. Find something that actually explains these terms from a Protestant perspective and then knock these writings down. Have at it. I will be a fly on the wall in this debate.
Who knows, what you come up with might be something that not all Protestants believe and I may have some questions on it myself.

However, please don’t start with the title, come up with your invention on what these titles mean, and then knock them down.

That technique may convince the amen choir here, but for those of us who are outside of your choir, believe me we can see right through it.

Please, just debate intelligently here.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, you are starting from the title and working backwards.

As I said, Galatians 1:12 indicates that everything Paul received, He received directly from the risen Christ.

Granting that this is true, when did Sola Scriptura come into effect as a law of the Church, then, if it was not in effect during St. Paul’s lifetime?

By what mode of revelation was it made known?

Now unless your definition of Sola Scriptura negates the possibility of an apostle directly receiving his teaching from Jesus Christ, you are knocking down a strawman.

I’ll give you that an Apostle doesn’t have to follow Sola Scriptura - he can receive teaching directly from Christ in an oral format. Now, once he has done that, how does he transmit the information to the Church? Must it be in written form only, or may he preach and teach orally, as well?

When did the Oral Tradition stop, and Sola Scriptura come into effect? At what point was it no longer allowed, for the Apostles or their hearers to preach and speak on the subjects that Jesus taught them orally, and they had to read it out of the Bible, only?

I’ll deal with Sola Fide later. I happen to have a copy of King Henry VIII’s Defense of the Seven Sacraments which quotes indirectly from Martin Luther’s writings on Sola Fide.

I was actually quite surprised at what it actually means (that persons who have not been to Confession may receive the Eucharist at Mass if they are interiorly convinced that their sins, how ever bad they may be, are forgiven) - but I’m pretty sure that’s not what Protestants today mean by that phrase - this concept seems to have “evolved.”

 

[ralphinal]

Would this be an acceptable definition of sola scriptura?

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

If not, please let us know what would be. I know that there are other forms of it, including soli scriptura and variations there-in. This is the first and most crucial to the non-Catholic position.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, that is because he had alread delegated the Holy Spirit to do it.

On a lark, show me where the Bible says “Because Dr. Martin Luther would have it so” and we can talk.

It has nothing to do with Martin Luther LoL. You guys are more obsessed with him than we are

 

[TriuneUnity]

Would this be an acceptable definition of sola scriptura?

If not, please let us know what would be. I know that there are other forms of it, including soli scriptura and variations there-in. This is the first and most crucial to the non-Catholic position.

I think what you posted would be a fair description.

 

[ralphinal]

It has nothing to do with Martin Luther LoL. You guys are more obsessed with him than we are

I was joking on that one. Haven’t you seen that quote? It was part of his denfense against the “papists and donkeys, which are the same thing.”

It is something along the lines of “If a papist gives you much trouble about the use of the word sola, tell him Doctor Martin Luther would have it so.”

AS I said before, sola scriptura at its purest

 

[TriuneUnity]

I was joking on that one. Haven’t you seen that quote? It was part of his denfense against the “papists and donkeys, which are the same thing.”

It is something along the lines of “If a papist gives you much trouble about the use of the word sola, tell him Doctor Martin Luther would have it so.”

AS I said before, sola scriptura at its purest

No…that would be an example of Martin Luther making a smart donkey comment towards scholastics

 

[With_Questions]

Would this be an acceptable definition of sola scriptura?

If that is your working definition, I am not sure I believe in it.

At the minimum, I can come up with a number of questions that need answering.

 

[ralphinal]

If that is your working definition, I am not sure I believe in it.

At the minimum, I can come up with a number of questions that need answering.

Ok. What are they?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Why would the discussion be a threat to anyone? Surely, the Gosples record everything Jesus said and did. Sola Scriptura should be clearly taught by Jesus. Sola Fide and Gracia as well. This should be an easy chance for Protestants to show that the Catholic Church teaches the Gosple different than Christ.

Have you read the last line of John? The gospels do NOT record everything said or done by Jesus, according to John:

**John 21:25 **Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[jmcrae]

Have you read the last line of John? The gospels do NOT record everything said or done by Jesus, according to John:

**John 21:25 **Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So, what you are saying is that the Bible itself explicitly denies the concept of Sola Scriptura?