F
Farsight001
Guest
You’re diverting from the issue which is that either bible alone is false, or all those people who lived before there was a bible were condemned. Those are the only two logical options.
- Status
L
Luvtosew
Guest
No there are some very good Bible alone Churches, and its not false as long as the teachings adhere to the bible , and before the bible was made available it was the original apostles and decendants that taught the writings from the original apostles to new Christians, so unless the Church was not teaching appropriately then I imagine some were lost.
S
stewstew03
Guest
And what about infants, or the illiterate, or the mentally infirm? Those happen to be phenomena not limited to the 3rd or 15th centuries. Are they also subject to “Bible alone” doctrine? Or can they rely upon a church to teach them?
How do you judge a “very good bible alone church?” Are JW churches good? What about Seventh Day Adventist churches? How do I choose? If they teach the trinity - one God in three persons - how do I know they’re right? See the problem here…?
D
Darran
Guest
All 44,000+ protestant sects atm believe they are adhering to the Bible. There is quite a variance between all of them.
Which Church truely teaches in adherence with the Bible without any human faliability? As well as that, what can we gauge their infaliability on?
I’ll need to press you on this so that you see it. I have to remind, you can’t reply “we gauge their infaliability on the Bible” without a fallacy of circular reasoning. Likewise, you cannot appeal to an individualistic Christianity for the same reasons. I think its fair to remind you also on behalf of all of us that we aren’t claiming the Church or the Scriptures to be higher than one or the other. We aren’t tipping your scale in the other direction, we’re leveling it.
D
Darran
Guest
A couple of quotes related to the thread but not particularly to these questions:
1 Corinthians 11:2:
1 Corinthians 11:2:
2 Thessalonians 2:15:
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
- Can you please define and differentiate between most and least Christians that depended and not depended on the Church?
- It was the Churches fault?
So it was St. John’s fault for not writing more about the things that Jesus did?
It was Paul’s fault transmitting oral tradition instead of putting everything in writing?
Because, the last time I checked they help found Christ’s Church.
Can you please give me an example of some very good Bible alone churches and what canon of scripture they use and how they got it?
And please what does very good mean?
How can you determine that what these very good Bible alone Churches teach is not false?
Before what we know as the bible, Jesus and the Apostles mostly used a Greek translation of the Old Testament (Plus 3 books if you have the RCC Bible and 10 books if you have the non RCC bible - as I understand the Orthodox use the entire Septuagint - correction appreciated) known as the Septuagint.
Last but not least, how do you know that if a church does not teach appropriately then some of their pupils are lost? Lost like in hell?
I’m sorry but I have the hardest time trying to understand what you are expressing.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Oh this is endless, I believe I answered StewStew question to the best of my ability.
Issiah I do believe I answerd those questions. I also have a hard time to understand what you want from me. Lets try something else,
what does the RCC teach besides what is in the Bible??
Issiah I do believe I answerd those questions. I also have a hard time to understand what you want from me. Lets try something else,
what does the RCC teach besides what is in the Bible??
S
stewstew03
Guest
Except, respectfully Luvtosew, you didn’t respond to my questions about how to choose one Sola Scriptura church over the other, and how illiterates/infants/mentally infirm can be saved if they can’t read/understand the bible.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Only clarity sewing lover.
I believe, no I am sure, that I am not competent enough to discern what the RCC teaches that is not found on the bible. Of course I have to ask which Bible?
However, I know that the RCC has protected the Word of God longer and better than I ever can. Since the RCC is the foundation and pillar of truth, whatever it teaches must be taken as truth. It is my responsibility to be obedient and make informed opinions outside of what I may or may not prefer.
I also understand that there should be no separation from the RCC and the Bible. I also understand that our Lord is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Merciful beyond my comprehension and while I am not to question who He chooses to save, I am not to make assumptions, more so when I am called to truth and obedience.
In Him.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that all revelation (not private) stopped with the death of the last apostle. But (much) clarification has come sense then; e.g., trinity, bible, eucharist etc. Nothing is new since the death of the last apostle. See the first 100 paragraphs of the Catechism. I do not know exactly where it is …but I know it is in the beginnning… see “revelation”…
D
Darran
Guest
An objective teaching authority of what the Bible actually teaches is still presupposed behind that question.
These might be a couple though.
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/Protstnt.htm
It doesn’t matter if someone answeres a question Luvtosew, it’s what they answere that matters. Truth isn’t contradictory.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Thanks for the link, we know the very early Church Fathers, and then even Augustine wrote Retractations in his 80’s to discuss some things in his beliefs that had changed, I haven’t read it yet, except one excert. The Lord would of made his words known one way or another, What does the early years have to do with today?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Actually I read a lot of Protestant writing where they quote a ECF, but of course there are different veiws concerning the Lords Supper, and a few other issues.
So what do you mean by all revelation stopped, but not private?
I do agree nothing should be taught that is not in the Bible.
D
Darran
Guest
Did you click on the right link? What has that to do with what we are talking about?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Well that has become scarey in the last 50 years I know. I don’t belong to any or have I belonged to any Protestant Church as I’m a cradle Catholic, but the last few years have done much reading of some Protestant material and listened to some sermons from select Protestant preachers. the ones I listen to have no problem with most the ECF’s teachings, so I one needs to stick with the main Churches that teach the Trinity in the right manner, and then follow the bible. I do have to tell you I thank listening to some Protestant preachers since the 80’s that have brought me closer to understanding of many things, and my views on things have changed some over the last view years, enough to make me want to veer out and joing a Protestant Church, no not at this time in my life. But I have huge respect for some Protestants, and since I know some very wonderful Protestant people , they don’t seem to be lacking for their love of Christ, knowing who Christ is and what he did for us. I also know many Catholics who have no idea about who Christ really is. So saying that, I’m now a little of both I guess.
How do illiterate and mentally challenged learn in the Catholic Church, no different really.
D
Darran
Guest
Luvtosew why is it that you just aren’t getting this?
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Here is an example of private revelation:
A man living after the death of the last apostle is told by God to be a priest.
Mary appears to me and tell me …
these events may be santioned by the Chruch but are not a requirment of a Catholic to believe.
What is ECF?
I used to be a Baptist. I reluctantly read history. There is no getting around it the Catholic church is the one founded by Christ. My friend, get the courage to read the history of the early church and if God gives you the grace you will be a Catholic - We who are Catholics are by grace… good luck my friend.
S
stewstew03
Guest
I think that’s great; I love and respect Protestants as well. I encourage you to continue exploring. It sounds like you have had more than a few bad experiences with Catholics, and if so, I think that’s tragic. You are absolutely right, there are Catholics who are ignorant of Christ. But you realize, I hope, that Protestants are not immune to ignorance.
I thought you were suggesting that one must study the Bible alone in order to be saved…?
P
pgreen
Guest
I quote again from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the person James the Lesser aka James the Just. Some Catholic interpreters say he was an apostle and therefore present at the first Pentecost following the ascension of Jesus. It cannot be proven of course no matter how many early Christian writings are quoted.
“The identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD, where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favour of the Apostleship of St. James the brother of the Lord, is to be found).”
Having read Galatians 1:19 myself my personal opinion is Paul certainly considered “James the brother of the Lord” an apostle. However the commentary in the New American Bible (Catholic Translation) states this James “was not one of the twelve…he played an important role in the Jerusalem Church, the leadership of which he took over from Peter (Acts 12, 17).”
So the founding of the “Catholic” church was at Pentecost. Catholic meaning universal. The Church of Jerusalem with its subsequent line of bishops did pre-date the Church in Rome.
“The identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD, where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favour of the Apostleship of St. James the brother of the Lord, is to be found).”
Having read Galatians 1:19 myself my personal opinion is Paul certainly considered “James the brother of the Lord” an apostle. However the commentary in the New American Bible (Catholic Translation) states this James “was not one of the twelve…he played an important role in the Jerusalem Church, the leadership of which he took over from Peter (Acts 12, 17).”
So the founding of the “Catholic” church was at Pentecost. Catholic meaning universal. The Church of Jerusalem with its subsequent line of bishops did pre-date the Church in Rome.
N
Newsy
Guest
OK. But you still haven’t addressed my question. Whether the Church existed in Jerusalem before Rome, has no bearing on this conversation. The question is, “If the Catholic Church did not start at Pentacost, when did it start?”. I believe that the Catholic Church started at Pentacost, I believe through the early centuries the Catholic Church fought many heresies. I believe that the Church was one before the Great Schism. You implied on an earlier post, that the Catholic Church did not start in 33ad, please back up this claim.
- Status