Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[Ginger2]

quote rig: “…explanations someone came up with 135 years ago?”

Gal 1:6

quote rig: “Please provide your scriptural reference for that one!”

John 14: 15-18

 

[rlg94086]

quote rig: “…explanations someone came up with 135 years ago?”

Gal 1:6

quote rig: “Please provide your scriptural reference for that one!”

John 14: 15-18

Both of those quotes are great in support of the Catholic Church. The “Advocate” indeed has guided the Church. And, the canonization of Scripture has indeed kept people from forsaking Christ for another Gospel.

The quote from John has absolutely nothing to do with your comment that “it all really boils down to free will.” We do have free will, but it is not the source of Truth.

 

[Ginger2]

You misunderstood. Iwas not saying free will detyermines truth.

I was saying we have free will as to whether or not we accept the truth.

I misunderstood. I thought you were asking for a Biblical reference to my saying: “Oh yes, Jesus did give us a way?”

 

[Bishopite]

[sandusky;2606357]On this thread, I am watching you systematically dismantle your post to me on that other thread concerning your “human reason,” and the “reasonableness of the Catholic position.”

Your thinking is so Westernized, that you cannot accept something unless it is been “officially” defined, and named.

The fact that the apostles, and the Lord referred to OT writings in the NT is irrefutable; add to that, the fact that the apostles, and the Lord clearly expected the Jews to recognize the writings to which they referred, and that the Jews did recognize the writings to which they were being referred, and one arrives at the conclusion that a collection of writings existed that all of them knew—that would be a canon, whether or not you know its specific name.

That’s common sense; common sense that, it seems to me, your “human reason” has smothered in you—you can’t see the forest for the trees.

That was your position concerning Athanasius’ list: it’s not a canon until it’s recognized by a council as being a canon. :whacky: —Westernized.

Again, Sandusky the Catholic church was ONE Church at the council of Rome which was in the fourth century and up to the eleventh century. Christianity was of one accord in that day more so than it is today even though today we have Byzantine rite Catholics who live in the EAST.

I know the list doesn’t exist.

Ha. If it did it wouldn’t be “ORAL” Tradition.

You have a 2,000 year old “infallible teaching magisterium” which claims the ability to infallibly interpret both scripture, and oral tradition, and which cannot supply its members with a comprehensive, up-to-date list of oral tradition; and that “infallible teacher” has infallibly defined, what, 8 verses of scripture in the past 2,000 years?

Not sure. Let’s see, I’m making a note on that, just a second…to instant message Bishop on the 8 verses too.

Thanks for the link, but you misrepresent its contents.

Hey, thanks for the charitable Christian example and encouragement!

Why is it you continually refer to ex-protestant pastors to explain your beliefs, instead of referring to the teachings of your “infallible teaching magisterium?”

Because they explain things in a little more simplistic fashion. I could quote from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, would that help?

It seems to me that ex-protestant pastors have a better understanding of your faith than either you, or your infallible teachers do.

Sure, attack the person. It’s called an adhominem arguement. I was a Protestant for 38 years, I know what it teaches.

 

[rlg94086]

No problem Ginger. I guess the way you worded your comment about free will was a little confusing. Of course, we can choose whether or not to accept the Truth. No one disagrees on that. The question is what are the consequences when you reject the truth.

Regarding the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The idea that Jesus was saying that each of us, individually will be guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting His teaching is a fairly new one. I understand that the traditional understanding is that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church as a whole. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Council of Jerusalem, for example. Paul and Peter would both have been right…as guided by the Holy Spirit.

You misunderstood. Iwas not saying free will detyermines truth.

I was saying we have free will as to whether or not we accept the truth.

I misunderstood. I thought you were asking for a Biblical reference to my saying: “Oh yes, Jesus did give us a way?”

 

[cazayoux]

cazayoux,

It still comes down to the fact that these things are revealed to us by God and only God. People who are spiritually blinded will not get it just because someone explains it.

How do you know if you are spiritually blinded?
Maybe you are, but don’t know it.
You have what you think is the correct interpretation of a verse, but how do you KNOW you have it right?
Two people will pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them, and still have two different understandings of the same verse.

When Jesus made this statement many turned away because they did not understand. That was Jesus speaking to them! Before anyone can understand, first God has to open their mind to understanding.

They understood … they turned away because it was a hard teaching.
If they had merely misunderstood, Jesus would have explained it to them.

It really doesn’t matter whether the Catholic church has an explanation for every single verse in the Bible - the JW’s have an explanation for every verse, too.

The JW’s having an explanation of every verse is of no consequence.
… and I don’t think there is an official explanation from the Catholic Church on every verse.

Jesus says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Catholic Church claims to be this very church, founded by Christ himself and led by the Holy Spirit until the end of time.
This ‘protector of the truth’ needed to be visible, so that those with issues could ‘take it to the church’. (Matt 18:17)

You and I have a difference in how we interpret a verse.
We need to take it to the church.
Which church do we go to?

michel

 

[Calvinator]

… and I don’t think there is an official explanation from the Catholic Church on every verse.

You and I have a difference in how we interpret a verse.
We need to take it to the church.
Which church do we go to?
michel

How many verses has your church given an authoritive definition/meaning of…a dozen?

How helpful will it be to go to your church for help in interpretation of a verse if only a dozen or so out of the entire canon are defined by your church?

 

[cazayoux]

How many verses has your church given an authoritive definition/meaning of…a dozen?

How helpful will it be to go to your church for help in interpretation of a verse if only a dozen or so out of the entire canon are defined by your church?

15 actually.

Are you suggesting that I should think, other than for those 15 sets of verses, all interpretations are correct?
Do you think this means that for any issue outside of those 15 bits of scripture, that the church is not the pillar and foundation of truth?

Many passages in the Bible are open to various interpretations. Though no Catholic may interpret the Bibile in any way he pleases, the Catholic Church has made definitive, irreformable, and infallible interpretations of only 15 passages of Sacred Scripture.

Let it be noted here that these infallible interpretations do not mean that no other, additional interpretation is possible. We know that some Bible passages can have more than one interpretation (e.g. the ‘woman’ in Apocalypse 12:1), bu the infallible interpretations made by the Church must be admitted to be true interpretations.

One example is the verse I mention earlier.
John 6:54-57 (“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood”) is infallibly interpreted to mean that you are not required to receive communion in both species (bread, wine).

Now doesn’t that infallible interpretation suppose quite a bit more about Christian life, such as the mass and the true presence.

 

[SeanTom]

There seems to be a problem with identifying Scripture/Traditions.

The word “Tradition” comes from the Latin word meaning “to hand on”. It can be used in two senses. First, it can be used to refer to the PROCESS by which religious faith and practice are handed on from one generation to another. Thus we speak of ORAL tradition and WRITTEN tradition. Second, it can be used to refer to the CONTENT of what is handed on. Thus we speak of ESSENTIAL tradition and NONESSENTIAL tradition.

God revealed Himself to the prophets and the apostles not just for their sake, but for the sake of all people - even people not yet born. From this arose the need to transmit God’s word to others. The handling down of God’s word to other people became known as “Tradition” or better phrased as “oral Tradition”. This “oral Tradition” was later recorded in writing. These writings became our Scriptures. Many people do not realize that large sections of the Bible began as oral traditions. These sections were handed down by word of mouth for years before they were actually written down.

Faith is something that can not be taught - it must be caught. Tradition is a total process that includes not just the Word, but also includes witness and worship. An excellent description of this “total” process is found in the Acts of the Apostles. Luke describes the activity of new converts to Christianity: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles (the Word), and to the communal life (witness), to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers (worship)”

As to Scripture, the Gospel passages itself suggests that the Word was passed on orally for a long time before it was recorded. For example: Matthew says that after Jesus rose from the dead, the guards at the tomb were paid to say that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body while they were asleep. Matthew then adds, “this is the report spread around by the Jews to this very day” (Matthew 28:15 {TEV}. The words “to this very day” indicate the lapse of a considerable period of time between the original event and Matthew’s recording of it. A similar reference occurs in Matthew 27:8 (“That is why the field even TODAY is called the Field of Blood.”).

Only a portion of oral Tradition was recorded in the bible. Take the Gospel again, John concludes his Gospel saying “There are many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25). Also, in John 20:30, it states: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (His) disciples that are not written in this book….”. This important to remember because it shows that oral Tradition about Jesus continued in the church AFTER the Gospel was recorded. (Many faiths still believe if it is not in the bible, it is not important and should not even be considered).

In the Catholic Church, tradition is broken down into two categories: “Essential and Non-Essential” traditions. For instance, the tradition that Catholic priests can not marry is an example of a nonessential tradition. It can be changed if the Pope so desires. On the other hand, the Tradition concerning our stand against abortion is an example of an essential Tradition. It can never be changed. Ultimately, it is the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit that decides if a tradition is essential or nonessential. Non-essential traditions are usually established by the church for various reasons - THESE NON-ESSENTIAL TRADITIONS CAN BE CHANGED. ESSENTIAL Traditions are considered to come from those beliefs which were passed down to us by the Apostles, or other reputable witnesses, but not necessarily contained in the bible. For the most part, these APOSTOILIC TRADITIONS are not otherwise contained in Scripture, but nevertheless, very important to our Catholic faith…

It is a fact that many other faiths condemn Catholics for including traditions in our faith instead of using the Bible ONLY as our reference in matters of faith. Perhaps if they understood the difference between essential and non-essential traditions, they would better see where we are coming from. I doubt if any of these criticizers have any idea of what the Catholic Church lists as essential and non-essential traditions - but they are quick to condemn us for even mentioning traditions in matters of faith.

Now please know that I am not finding fault of those who do not understand where we are coming from, but am only stating that we probably should do more in opening up our communications with others. so that they will have a better understanding of why we, as Catholics, respect the Traditions of the Apostles and those handed down to us by our church leaders.

 

[Calvinator]

The Gospel of Matthew which states, 3 And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene. is no where found in any Old Testament Books.

Manny,
Matthew 2:23:

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

According to Jerome and your good Bishop Sheen, you are wrong. They seem to think that the prophecy is found in Isaiah.
Jerome’s “The 150 Letters of St. Jerome Letter LVII":

Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”(8) Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah.(1) For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,”(2) in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.

Also…
Jerome's “Apology Against the Books of Rufinus":

I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. ii. 15): ’ For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John xix. 37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John vii. 38): and 'Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him ’ (1. Cor. ii. 9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain.(1)

So, Jerome disagrees with you Manny.

Your Bishop Sheen goes the same way as Jerome and identifies the prophecy as coming from Isaiah (The Life of Christ, pp 46-47)

Even if we disregard the fact that Sheen and Jerome disagree with your assesment and believe that the prophecy comes from Isaiah, we have the fact that you wouldn’t have a clue about this prophecy had it not been inscripturated, explicitly in the Gospel of Matthew.

In other words, you only know about it, even if you couldn’t find it anywhere else because you find it in the Gospel of Matthew.

So, what say you Manny?

 

[Calvinator]

15 actually.

Are you suggesting that I should think, other than for those 15 sets of verses, all interpretations are correct?

I don’t think they even got all 15 verses correct.

Do you think this means that for any issue outside of those 15 bits of scripture, that the church is not the pillar and foundation of truth?

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but what does that mean? I don’t think it means that any church has the charism of infallibility.

Many passages in the Bible are open to various interpretations. Though no Catholic may interpret the Bibile in any way he pleases, the Catholic Church has made definitive, irreformable, and infallible interpretations of only 15 passages of Sacred Scripture.

If only 15 verses are defined, how accurate are they going to be on settling issues on the hundreds of other verses?

 

[Montalban]

Again you proudly parade before us your ignorance of Sola Scriptura; the insistence on the 5 solas did not occur in a vacuum; do the work, and you’ll find that out.

Until then, all you are doing is what every other Catholic on this forum does with respect to SS—erect a strawman, and then beat it into the ground.

Flail away foolish Montalban; flail away.

It’s not a ‘straw-man’ if you guys say you believe in Scripture as opposed to tradition, and then let slip in your own extra-biblical authority; Luther.

You think that’s foolish. You’re entitled to believe what you want. But if you want to put forward a rule and then make up exceptions as you go along, then you’re simply advertising the very real of substance in that rule.

No wonder there’s 100,000’s of different Protestant churches!

 

[Montalban]

What is irrational is the teaching of transubstantiation.

If you say so. I don’t believe in it, but I guess your say so will now be cited as a reason.

 

[Calvinator]

It’s not a ‘straw-man’ if you guys say you believe in Scripture as opposed to tradition, and then let slip in your own extra-biblical authority; Luther.

You think that’s foolish. You’re entitled to believe what you want. But if you want to put forward a rule and then make up exceptions as you go along, then you’re simply advertising the very real of substance in that rule.

No wonder there’s 100,000’s of different Protestant churches!

Sandusky is 100% correct. You have created a straw man.

If you wish to prove me wrong demonstrate it by pointing to any of the credal statements on sola scriptura (Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, Belgic Confession, etc.) that agree with your assesment of what sola scriptura is? I don’t think you can.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

According to Jerome and your good Bishop Sheen, you are wrong. They seem to think that the prophecy is found in Isaiah.

Also…

So, Jerome disagrees with you Manny.

Your Bishop Sheen goes the same way as Jerome and identifies the prophecy as coming from Isaiah (The Life of Christ, pp 46-47)

Even if we disregard the fact that Sheen and Jerome disagree with your assesment and believe that the prophecy comes from Isaiah, we have the fact that you wouldn’t have a clue about this prophecy had it not been inscripturated, explicitly in the Gospel of Matthew.

In other words, you only know about it, even if you couldn’t find it anywhere else because you find it in the Gospel of Matthew.

So, what say you Manny?

Tell me Cal, can you cite the passage in Issiah that mention. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

 

[murphdog261]

I think the point that Montalban is trying to make isn’t just proving that most (if not all) Protestant groups follow the rule of sola scriptura.

Maybe you don’t just use the Bible as the sole authority of your faith. Maybe some of your beliefs or practices come from Luther, or Calvin, or you local church, or your own rationality. For example, your take on Communion, or intercessory prayer, or the status of Mary as the Mother of God.

The point that most of the posters here are trying to make (I think) is that even if you use other sources than the Bible, and even if those sources (i.e. your pastor, or a reformer) seem to stay within the authority of the Bible, those are still traditions that you follow.

Now there is nothing wrong with using tradition along with Sacred Scripture. But I feel that if you were going to use any tradition alongside the Bible, it would be the Tradition that the Early Church spoke of with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, Communion is seen in Sacred Scripture. There is a nice piece in John chapter 6, in the Gospels, and in Corinthians. It is also apparent, however, that different church groups have interpreted these verses on Communion, coming up with different answers from each other. So every church has traditions and interpretations of Sacred Scripture that they use.

It is also apparent that a guiding and instructing church is necessary, seeing how different interpretations can be found on different Biblical verses, showing that the Bible is not completely self evident.

But I can only think of one Church that has been around since Jesus gave that Church its authority to bind and loose, preach and spread the Word of God, and has been teaching Holy Tradition alongside Sacred Scripture for the past 2000 years.

If we were to follow any traditions or teachings at all alongside the Bible, wouldn’t you want to follow the Church that has been teaching since Apostolic times?

I hope I’ve made things clear,

In Christ always,

Murph

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

According to Jerome and your good Bishop Sheen, you are wrong. They seem to think that the prophecy is found in Isaiah.

Also…

So, Jerome disagrees with you Manny.

Your Bishop Sheen goes the same way as Jerome and identifies the prophecy as coming from Isaiah (The Life of Christ, pp 46-47)

Even if we disregard the fact that Sheen and Jerome disagree with your assesment and believe that the prophecy comes from Isaiah, we have the fact that you wouldn’t have a clue about this prophecy had it not been inscripturated, explicitly in the Gospel of Matthew.

In other words, you only know about it, even if you couldn’t find it anywhere else because you find it in the Gospel of Matthew.

So, what say you Manny?

I also like to add your commentary from Sheen and Jerome lack one thing. What passage in Issiah does it clearly that was cited in Matthew 2:23. What you wrote indeed are commentary but it fails to point the passage in Issiah.

 

[Calvinator]

Jerome's “Apology Against the Books of Rufinus":

I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. ii. 15): ’ For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John xix. 37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John vii. 38): and 'Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him ’ (1. Cor. ii. 9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), ***the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), ***the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain.(1)

Manny,

The prophecy comes from Is 11.

Even if we couldn’t find where in the OT the prophecy came from, we only know if it because it is now found in scripture.

 

[cazayoux]

I don’t think they even got all 15 verses correct.

Seems like a pre-judging of what the church says of those sets of verses.
Do you actually know which verses … and what the Catholic Church’s interpretation of them are?

If not, I can only assume that you are blindly prejudiced against the church.
How Christian is that?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but what does that mean? I don’t think it means that any church has the charism of infallibility.

pillar and foundation means protector.
How is it that Jesus’ church is *called *the pillar and foundation of truth and he did not give that church the ability to *be *the pillar and foundation of truth.
I’m curious to know what you think ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ means… and specifically, ***how ***this is so?

michel