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

[cazayoux]

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

Maybe this is a hint of how careful the Catholic Church is when it comes to interpreting scripture.
It’s a hint that many popes haven’t officially stated anything ‘infallibly’.
It’s a hint that the charism (gift from Jesus) of infallibility is not thrown around haphazardly, but is taken very seriously and with much council.

michel

 

[Calvinator]

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

Why don’t you provide an infallible list of the verses that have been infallibly interpreted by your church? Oh yeah…there is no such list.

Anyway, I would guess the eucharistic passages in John 6 as well as the passages in Matthew 16.

How Christian is it of you to pre-judge me. The hypocrisy of the catholics on this board never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Calvinator]

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

How is a pillar a protector?

In a structure a pillar upholds something does it not?

 

[Ginger2]

Mannyfit,

I’m not sure I get your point concerning the word Nazarene.

Are you saying no one could have figured this out without Tradition?

That’s not true since 1. it is written in the NT. 2. OT Hebrew nazyr or Nazarite can also refer a vine. You seldom, if ever, can take one verse and understand the meaning. That’s why it’s a good idea to read the entire Bible.

People often take verses out of context. Most of the time you can easily explain the true meaning by reading the the verses that come before and after - sometimes you have to read the whole chapter or refer back to another book to see what the writer was referring to.

BTW, Jesus quoted Scripture that is not in the OT, also.

Please explain what point you are trying to make.

 

[Bishopite]

Why don’t you provide an infallible list of the verses that have been infallibly interpreted by your church? Oh yeah…there is no such list.

Anyway, I would guess the eucharistic passages in John 6 as well as the passages in Matthew 16.

How Christian is it of you to pre-judge me. The hypocrisy of the catholics on this board never ceases to amaze me.

I’m not sure that a “list” exists per se, but I’ve heard the passages mentioned. I will try to get them if you would like?

What really is funny is you are condemning Catholicism for taking a stand on specific passages within scripture, yet it was John Calvin who thought he could (or should) have an interpretation of every verse in the Bible!

 

[Calvinator]

I’m not sure that a “list” exists per se, but I’ve heard the passages mentioned. I will try to get them if you would like?

What really is funny is you are condemning Catholicism for taking a stand on specific passages within scripture, yet it was John Calvin who thought he could (or should) have an interpretation of every verse in the Bible!

I think I may have come across to strong.

I don’t “condemn” your church…I simply disagree with some of your theology and don’t believe that it is infallible. I don’t think there is any point in looking as I don’t think the list exists either. Maybe a Catholic apologist will be able to offer something but it’s not quite the same thing as being an authoritive list by the magesterium.

None of the Reformers (as far as I know) thought they or anyone else were gifted with the charism of infallibility. It’s one thing to have an opinion on what a text means and quite another to claim an infallible interpretation.

 

[sandusky]

Montalban:

It’s not a ‘straw-man’

But it is; you are fighting against your definition of my position, IOW a position I do not hold, and you also seem to be insisting I must hold to your definition of my position; so it’s actually a strawman, and then some.

Montalban:

You think that’s foolish.

I think that’s foolish.

Montalban:

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.

Disagreeing with SS is one thing; telling me what I believe with respect to it is another thing.

There’s a book here that you can read on SS; and a collection of essays in a book here on SS.

Montalban:

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

Now, Montalban shifts from the strawman, and then some, to the red-herring.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

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.

The point of my post is not the unity, or disunity of the Church, but with the fact that the Jews had a canon at the time of Christ, whether it was specifically named or not.

Bishopite:

Hey, thanks for the charitable Christian example and encouragement!

The lack-of-charity card when there was no lack of charity—I must be making sense to you.

 

[sandusky]

Not at all. It was understood and handed down from the Apostles, who were with Christ. The only people who decided it was irrational came 1500 years later. It’s a revisionist view of our faith.

The apostles handed down this teaching in scripture? If so, where?

 

[Bishopite]

I think I may have come across to strong.

I don’t “condemn” your church…I simply disagree with some of your theology and don’t believe that it is infallible. I don’t think there is any point in looking as I don’t think the list exists either. Maybe a Catholic apologist will be able to offer something but it’s not quite the same thing as being an authoritive list by the magesterium.

None of the Reformers (as far as I know) thought they or anyone else were gifted with the charism of infallibility. It’s one thing to have an opinion on what a text means and quite another to claim an infallible interpretation.

Fair enough we disagree. And believe me I DO respect your position as you are a Calvinist and as I once was one too. Calvin did have the idea that he could have an interpretation of single Bible verse and I will agree with you that I have never heard of nor read any of the Reformers ever having claims to infallible interpretations. Actually, I’ve heard of around eight scripture passages but, again, I will have to ask a friend of mine who would know.

 

[rlg94086]

The apostles handed down this teaching in scripture? If so, where?

Who said they handed it down “in scripture?” It was handed down through the Church, through apostolic succession (e.g. Church Fathers) and our liturgy. It is supported by Scripture (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; John 6:32–71).

 

[Calvinator]

Fair enough we disagree. And believe me I DO respect your position as you are a Calvinist and as I once was one too. Calvin did have the idea that he could have an interpretation of single Bible verse and I will agree with you that I have never heard of nor read any of the Reformers ever having claims to infallible interpretations. Actually, I’ve heard of around eight scripture passages but, again, I will have to ask a friend of mine who would know.

If you find a list, authorized by the church or not, please post it.

 

[sandusky]

rlg94086:

Who said they handed it down “in scripture?” It was handed down through the Church, through apostolic succession (e.g. Church Fathers) and our liturgy. It is supported by Scripture (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; John 6:32–71).

OK; one thing at a time.

Which one(s) of the apostles taught transubstantiation to which one(s) of the
Church Fathers, specifically?

 

[rlg94086]

OK; one thing at a time.

Which one(s) of the apostles taught transubstantiation to which one(s) of the
Church Fathers, specifically?

I don’t know which specific apostle told which specific Church Father, but as the quotes from Church Fathers show at this link (Catholic Answers), it was accepted understanding at an early point in the Church.
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Supporting this is the fact that the Churches that have Apostolic Succession have maintained that belief to this day. Do you have some quotes from Church Fathers or Apostles supporting a different view?

 

[cazayoux]

Why don’t you provide an infallible list of the verses that have been infallibly interpreted by your church? Oh yeah…there is no such list.

Anyway, I would guess the eucharistic passages in John 6 as well as the passages in Matthew 16.

How Christian is it of you to pre-judge me. The hypocrisy of the catholics on this board never ceases to amaze me.

My assumption was that you were pre-judging what the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted because you have decided that those interpretations are wrong without even knowing what those interpretations actually are.
In fact, you only provided guesses as to WHICH passages are in the list and not even what the Catholic Church has actually written about those verses.
You’ve proven my assumption.

Who knows … after reading them maybe you’ll even agree with one or two and we might have some common ground.

In the words of Quatto … “open your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind”

Here’s the list.
The attached is a text file with an excerpt from the book Questions People Ask About the Catholic Church by Fr. Leslie Rumble (Kensington, Australia: Chevalier, 1972), pp. 176-177, answer to Question #332: “What are all the biblical texts infallibly interpreted by the Catholic Church?” as summarized in an article by Mario Derksen.

 

[cazayoux]

How is a pillar a protector?

In a structure a pillar upholds something does it not?

Okay … let me rephrase …

pillar and foundation means upholder.
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?

How?
What is the mechanism by which His church upholds the truth?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Luther had the authority because he finally, after 1500 years of Tradition passed down finally came upon the correct interpretation of the Bible. And since the Bible says it is inspired that makes it inspired…(tongue and check).

Does that mean the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel until Luther showed up?

I mean, in the year 5 B.L. (Before Luther), where was the Holy Spirit?

michel

 

[Sixtus]

I think this underpins so much of the anti-Catholic sentiment from the past where clergy discouraged laity to read to the bible. The reasons being that text was not available to them and for those who had a basic understanding of text, complicated language such as Scripture meant that it was so easy to put the wrong interpretation of text.

 

[Calvinator]

My assumption was that you were pre-judging what the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted because you have decided that those interpretations are wrong without even knowing what those interpretations actually are.
In fact, you only provided guesses as to WHICH passages are in the list and not even what the Catholic Church has actually written about those verses.
You’ve proven my assumption.

Who knows … after reading them maybe you’ll even agree with one or two and we might have some common ground.

In the words of Quatto … “open your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind”

Here’s the list.
The attached is a text file with an excerpt from the book Questions People Ask About the Catholic Church by Fr. Leslie Rumble (Kensington, Australia: Chevalier, 1972), pp. 176-177, answer to Question #332: “What are all the biblical texts infallibly interpreted by the Catholic Church?” as summarized in an article by Mario Derksen.

Your list is somebody’s opinion of what is and what isn’t infallibly defined. Please try again.

 

[sandusky]

rlg94086:

I don’t know which specific apostle told which specific Church Father, but as the quotes from Church Fathers show at this link (Catholic Answers), it was accepted understanding at an early point in the Church.

Your link is dealing with Real Presence, your claim is that it was Transubstantiation that was “handed down” by the apostles.

Transubstantiation, and Real Presence, are two different things.

I stated:

What is irrational is the teaching of transubstantiation.

To which you replied:

rlg94086:

Not at all. It was understood and handed down from the Apostles, who were with Christ. The only people who decided it was irrational came 1500 years later. It’s a revisionist view of our faith.

That’s a bit of a bait-and-switch, isn’t it; make one claim, support a different claim?

I’ll wait for statements from ECFs who were taught transubstantiation; and, keep them early
in the church.

rlg94086:

Supporting this is the fact that the Churches that have Apostolic Succession have maintained that belief to this day.

That’s true of real presence, but they reject transubstantiation to this day, correct? And if they didn’t, Rome would reject their claims to transubstantiation, unless, of course, Rome approved of their priesthood as being valid; correct?

rlg94086:

Do you have some quotes from Church Fathers or Apostles supporting a different view?

My claim is that transubstantiation is irrational; none of the ECFs could support my position because none of the ECFs knew anything about transubstantiation, as you’ve claimed they have, but have yet to substantiate.